Calvin's sensitivity to the different circumstances in which people live lead him to flip-flop, or at least to be somewhat ambivalent in his attitude to the magistrate. Citing the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27), Scripture requires obedience to bad kings, and even to pray for the well being of the country of exile (Jer.29). No doubt Calvin has his own city of exile, Geneva, in mind. But should not rulers, who also have responsibilities, be kept on track? Yes, but not by ourselves, but by Almighty God. This leads to discussion of the vexed question of civil disobedience.
No doubt having the Anabaptists in mind, and having already defended the right to litigate, Calvin proceeds to defend the entire judicial process. He discourages using the law for the taking of revenge, but upholds the use of due process, 'through which God may work for our good'. (It is interesting that in his teaching Calvin primarily seems to have mind not Geneva, which by this time in his career he believed was governed along right lines, but countries where the law may remain hostile to evangelical Christianity).
A few years ago, at the start of a new school year, I announced to the kids that we would be memorizing the book of James.
“The whole book?” one son asked, eyes wide with surprise.
“That’s the goal,” I responded.
“Impossible!” he declared.
Up to that point, my children had memorized single verses and short passages of Scripture. I thought it was time to take on something bigger.
Memorizing God’s Word
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” (Matt. 1:23, NASB, 1977)
These are the words of Matthew immediately after he wrote, “Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying” (Matt. 1:22). The “prophet” here refers to Isaiah. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew references aspects of Isaiah 7:14, 8:10, and 9:6. Those texts read as follows:
This is the final post in a series related to my new book on the theology of William Strong (ca. 1611–1654).
Every organisation needs a worthy objective to thrive, and—as we saw previously—the Puritans were biblical in their approach to family life. This meant that the Puritan family took its cue from God’s word and zealously sought it. This goal directed everything they did and every decision they made.
So what was their objective?
The glory of God! They believed 1 Corinthians 10:31 with all their heart: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
It was a real pleasure to see Barry York’s very kind interaction with my recent DenDulk Lecture. The lecture itself was, as I confessed, long on analysis of the manifold temptations to corruption and incompetence to which religious institutions are prone and rather shorter on solutions. Barry’s response beautifully fills that
In our ongoing discussion of the doctrine of God, it is worth reflecting on the fact that a church needs two things to be confessionally healthy: a sound form of words (a creed or confession); and a form of government by which the content of this can be preserved from generation to generation. Positively, that means an eldership which promotes sound preaching and teaching; negatively, an eldership which disciplines those who deviate from the same.
Johannes Bugenhagen – Sharing the Gospel and Caring for the Poor
A Wittenberg Man
The Familiar Case of Benjamin Dutton
Basic information – four ideas
Pastors and Polemics