Calvin vs. Conventional Wisdom

[Jon_]

"In like manner, while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am still referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds all bounds." (Calvin, Institutes, I.v.11).​

​

Soli Deo Gloria​

​

Jon​

 

[PapaLandShark]

"Common sense ain't so common."
--Will Rogers

 

[nb_christseeker]

bla bla bla. hehe sorry... what was the question?

 

[Jon_]

bla bla bla. hehe sorry... what was the question?

What was the point of that?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The more I read Calvin, the more I like him and am impressed with his, wisdom, godliness and humility before God. Yes he too has feet of clay (like all of us), but God truly made him to be a great man (a giant) for the Kingdom of Christ.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Jon_]

The more I read Calvin, the more I like him and am impressed with his, wisdom, godliness and humility before God. Yes he too has feet of clay (like all of us), but God truly made him to be a great man (a giant) for the Kingdom of Christ.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

What blows me away is how philosophical he was without intending (or knowing?) to be. The whole of Book One is like an extended argument on Christian epistemology. I'm reading it again as a resource for my epistemology series on my blog. It's been a long time since I've read Calvin and I'm amazed at how modern and applicable he is on the biblical theory of knowlege. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. After all, the Lord's truth is timeless, and he has faithfully preserved it in the hearts of his children.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

What blows me away is how philosophical he was without intending (or knowing?) to be. The whole of Book One is like an extended argument on Christian epistemology. I'm reading it again as a resource for my epistemology series on my blog. It's been a long time since I've read Calvin and I'm amazed at how modern and applicable he is on the biblical theory of knowlege. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. After all, the Lord's truth is timeless, and he has faithfully preserved it in the hearts of his children.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

The Institutes are just Awesome. His Commentaries to are of great benefit to us today. I've been reading his letters and his works on the sacraments and I am continually blown away by what he has to say. I love his personal letters because it is there that you can see the man as a friend and a companion as well.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[nb_christseeker]

> What was the point of that?

eh? oh i guess i was just being facetious. sorry. typically i just get annoyed when people focus on calvin or luther or whomever other than Christ himself. sorry to bu-tt in.

 

[Jon_]

> What was the point of that?

eh? oh i guess i was just being facetious. sorry. typically i just get annoyed when people focus on calvin or luther or whomever other than Christ himself. sorry to bu-tt in.

That's pretty lame.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[edie19]

What blows me away is how philosophical he was without intending (or knowing?) to be. The whole of Book One is like an extended argument on Christian epistemology. I'm reading it again as a resource for my epistemology series on my blog. It's been a long time since I've read Calvin and I'm amazed at how modern and applicable he is on the biblical theory of knowlege. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, though. After all, the Lord's truth is timeless, and he has faithfully preserved it in the hearts of his children.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Once upon a time a bunch of us were in Bible study - as usual we had a "question of the week." This particular week the question was, "If you could save one particular item from a house fire (other than family photos) what would it be?" My pastor's answer, the Institutes.

edie

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

What was the point of that?

eh? oh i guess i was just being facetious. sorry. typically i just get annoyed when people focus on calvin or luther or whomever other than Christ himself. sorry to bu-tt in.

That's pretty lame.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I agree with Jon. Jesus alone is Lord, but he did not mind speaking well of saints who had come before and neither should we.

nb_christseeker thanks for the "sorry." I do have a question. Is there a theological reason for using the English spelling of Jesus' Hebrew name or is it just because you prefer it that way?

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Hi guys - I am going through Calvin's Commentary myself - and Kennith is so right - so much of it there is so relevant to today - its incredible it was written 400 some years ago. I came across the following quote a couple of days ago which is particularly relevant to me personally - in fact I want to get framed and put on my desk at work or hung up on the wall there: "...all posts to command are sacred to God, so that whosoever are called to them should reverently and diligently serve God, and ever reflect that His is the dominion whereof they are the ministers." I

 

[Jon_]

I agree with Jon. Jesus alone is Lord, but he did not mind speaking well of saints who had come before and neither should we.

nb_christseeker thanks for the "sorry." I do have a question. Is there a theological reason for using the English spelling of Jesus' Hebrew name or is it just because you prefer it that way?

In Christ,
Kenith

Well said, Kenith. Are not some appointed teachers to instruct the visible church? Are not some made pastors to shepherd the flock? Has not God placed these men in positions of instruction and leadership for the greater good of the body? Granted, men, fallible men they are, but it does not follow that we should deign instruction from any man but the God-man. If we take the words of our friend at face-value, then it follows that we should throw out the rest of the Bible that does not include the words of Christ. Perhaps we could be a little more conservative and only throw out the parts where he is not explicitly mentioned. How much of the Word are we left with, then? I think he had the right idea, but the wrong approach, as most people with the "No creed but Christ" mentality do.

In any case, we do not believe the words of Calvin or Luther on their own merit. We believe their words because they conform to the Word. The value of the writings of saints and theologians is found in their exposition of the Bible. They bring to light inferences and comparisons that we might have never come upon on our own. We then measure these teachings against the Word, and if we find them to conform to the inspired Scriptures, then we believe that they have done the church a service in expounding the Scriptures correctly. That is the value of doctrine.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[nb_christseeker]

well none of the apostles called him Jesus. that's my main reason. it just isn't his name. I use Iesous or Yeshua when I pray, though sometimes I still slip and say Jesus, though I know I know, God knows who we're talking about.

 

[Jon_]

well none of the apostles called him Jesus. that's my main reason. it just isn't his name. I use Iesous or Yeshua when I pray, though sometimes I still slip and say Jesus, though I know I know, God knows who we're talking about.

Why? I mean, that's simply ridiculous. "Jesus" is just much Iesu as it is Yeshua as that is Joshua. It's the same name, just a different pronounciation due to transliteration. It's not more holy or more reverent.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[nb_christseeker]

calling someone by their real name isnt ridiculous. why would you say that?

 

[Jon_]

calling someone by their real name isnt ridiculous. why would you say that?

That begs the question. How is "Jesus" not our Lord's "real name"? Simply because it was the original aliteration of it? Is that what makes a "real name"? If so, what's your basis for that assertion? Where in the Bible does it forbid transliteration? In fact, Christ himself used Greek and Aramaic words to refer to God. Why do you insist that we use Jesus's Greek name when Jesus himself used the Greek term for "god" to refer to God instead of the Hebrew?

I mean, it's just silly to prefer "Yeshua" over "Jesus," especially when one is common usage and the other less well known.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[nb_christseeker]

simply because his mother never called him that, and the apostles never called him that. so no one who knew him back then ever called him that. then there's the issue of the angel that said exactly what his name should be, and he didnt say Jesus.

Well I dont consider it silly and neither do a lot of jews. also, it is in common usage, just search the internet for Yeshua.

Also, people often say "Jesus Christ" as an expression of anger, but typically no one curses saying "Yeshua Christ".

And lastly, there is the foreshadowing in Deuteronomy:

Deu 31:23-24 And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee. (24) And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

After Moses came Joshua (Yeshua), yet another shadow of the coming new covanent in Christ's blood.

The name Yeshua is all over the old testament, but not Jesus.

 

[nb_christseeker]

[size=-1]Results 1 - 10 of about 695,000 for yeshua.
http://www.google.com/search?q=yeshua&btnG=Search&hl=en

not too shabby.
[/size]

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

well none of the apostles called him Jesus. that's my main reason. it just isn't his name. I use Iesous or Yeshua when I pray, though sometimes I still slip and say Jesus, though I know I know, God knows who we're talking about.

I am with Jon on this one.

Yeshua was Jesus' name, but the writers of the New Testament had no qualms about translating the Hebrew name into Greek. Jesus' name was not Greek but it comes to us in Greek form because that is the language the mostly Aramaic (Hebrew was no longer the language of common Jews in Christ's day) speaking disciples of Christ saw no reason why they should not translate the name of the Lord into a foreign language (Greek) which was the international language of that day.

There is nothing wrong with using Yeshua or Joshua (if you want to come straight to English instead of going through Greek first). But I too think it is kinda silly.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Coram Deo,
Kenith