Calvin and U-N-I-T-Y

Okay, back to the regular stuff. Some remarks on unity by Calvin:

"Always, both by word and deed, have I protested how eager I was for unity.  Mine, however, was a unity of the Church, which should begin with thee and end in thee....nor did I think that I dissented from thy Church, because I was at war with those leaders; for thou hast forewarned me, both by thy Son and by the apostles, that that place would be occupied by persons to whom I ought by no means to consent...and the apostles declared that there would be no enemies of thy Church more pestilential than those from within, who should conceal themselves under the title of pastors.  Why should I have hesitated to separate myself from persons whom they forewarned me to hold as enemies?  I had before my eyes the examples of thy prophets, who I saw had a similar contest with the priests and prophets of their day, though these were undoubtedly the rulers of the Church among the Israelitish people.  But thy prophets are not regarded as schismatics...They still remained in the unity of the Church" (Reply to Cardinal Sadolet).

Calvin seems to believe that despite the reformation movement unity is nevertheless perserved, and hence that invisible unity (and visible dispersion) of the Church is adequate.  Moreover, he thinks that such a state of affairs is preferable than the visible unity of a Church hankered with "strange doctrines" and "superstitions" (such as transubstantiation, confession and penance, revering saints and icons, papal rule, indulgences, etc.).

For awhile now, I've been hoping that invisible unity would be sufficient to preserve the kind of love and harmony that Christ and Paul had exhorted for the disciples.  These days, I'm less sure of that.  For what would be the (invisible) relation that holds the disciples of Christ together?  The most obvious answer would be a set of beliefs and practices, perhaps the ones laid out in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  However, I don't think that these "fundamentals" are either sufficient or even necessary to count one as a Christian of any denominational stripe (I'll say more on this at some point).

Another answer could be, as Calvin seems to say, Christ Himself (or in another way, God "Himself"--supposing that 'God' refers to a self).  But this answer is either trivially true such that it is uninformative as how we ought to actually live out in unity, or it says too little and so again is not clear as to how we ought to actually bring unity about.

RC has an easy answer to this, which is the fellowship that is grounded in doctrine, the sacraments, and the magisterium.  Regarding the first, there is no problem as the one that besets protestant unity (I'll say more on this... but this should be obvious given the recent up-in-arms from evangelical protestants [especially the reformed variety] against Rob Bell).  The second is something I'll say more about later as well.  As to the third, it is grounded by Christ's establishment of Peter's role, and the ecumenical bond that is preserved through apostolic succession--the membership in a lineage that begins with Christ and the apostles and moves all the way up to the present with the Roman See (of course EO can make a similar claim too).  Thus, Benedict XVI is a symbol of a unity that is both synchronic (all the faithful throughout the world) and diachronic (all the faithful past and present); and this unity is clearly visible.

Another way of putting it is that RC finds unity in Christ Himself.  However, unlike the protestant claim, there is much more substantive content to what that means--it has more meat for me to sink my teeth into.

I'm still somewhat hopeful for the possibility of protestants discovering a means to maintain unity (and of course, it will have to be grounded in Christ Himself).  But unless we evangelical protestants can say more, I take this to be a knock against our side.

(and if anyone has reasons for believing unity [whether visible or invisible] is not required, I'd like to hear it... though I currently take it as a non-starter given Matthew 17)

The J-word...

Again, I take the central issue of the division between RC and Protestantism to be over the proper understanding of justification.  Calvin, like Luther, claimed that the Roman church's negligence (if not altogether elimination) of the doctrine of justification by faith to have vitiated the Church:

"[you, Cardinal Sadolet] touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us...Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown.  That doctrine...we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men...and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill founded" (Reply to Cardinal Sadolet).

Again, I'll have more to say about this issue (viz., justification by faith).  I should say that Calvin, along with Luther, seems to be mostly familiar with and seems to mainly target the Ockhamistic line of Roman theology (this is not to say they were unaware of the theology of St. Thomas, but much of their criticisms on this matter would not affect his views).

Calvin goes on to write:

"If you would attend to the true meaning of the term 'justifying' in Scripture, you would have no difficulty.  For it does not refer to a man's own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which, contrary to the sinner's deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness...Hence [Paul's] familiar inference--if by faith, then not by works.  On the other hand--if by works, then not by faith...We constantly maintain, that man is not only justified freely once for all, without any merit of works, but that on this gratuitous justification the salvation of man perpetually depends.  Nor is it possible that any work of man can be accepted by God unless it be gratuitously approved" (ibid.).

But a few years later when the Council of Trent takes place, I get the sense that these two parties are talking past each other (not in all matters, but at least partially).  Calvin has much to say in response to the Council of Trent, and I'll take up that matter soon.

Calvin also thinks that justification by faith does not exclude the room for works in the Christian life, though he does not think that they "are worth one single straw" when it comes to justification.

"We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous.  For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and... Christ never is where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration...for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification" (ibid.).

More needs to be said later, but it is union with Christ that results in both justification and regeneration.

One thing I want to mention regarding the anti-works of some contemporary Calvinists.  I once heard a sermon by a Reformed pastor who said that the only thing we need to do is "Just believe!", and that resting (which he gave sleeping as an example) is one of the best things we can do in this life. Again, some more disconnect between modern Calvinists and Calvin (recall that even Luther does not want to repudiate the importance of works).

Thus, Calvin considers faith and works inseparable because of the activity of Christ and the Spirit in the life of the Christian.

"Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom he justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by his Spirit into obedience to his will" (ibid.).

Amen, brother, amen.  However, St. Thomas would say 'Amen' as well.  Hmm...   I think Calvin is exactly right on this point, but I see no significant difference here with what RC teaches.  This is not to say that there are no important differences, but at least with respect to this important aspect of Christ's activity in our lives, there is much overlap.

(sorry that this post is a bit scattered... super busy with traveling and such...  but heck, this is a blog, so deal with it!)