Catholic Protestantism
Fundamentalists Linked to Reformers?

I read an article on Nominalism & Voluntarism recently. The article argued in favour of what it called "Catholic Protestantism."
Sound like an oxymoron? It did to me too, although the author attempted to make it sound plausible. This is basically what was argued (I won't say who did the arguing):
'The original postulates of the Reformation have severed the link of Faith & Reason where man & God are concerned. This is why Evangelicals today deny any Intellectual Discernment & push only the will, only Spirit-leading, or some other spiritualized intution rather than the capacity to rationally discern.'

I am revolted. Let me rant for a moment and then I'll calm down and stop breaking things.

Here is the problem with this thought: they are attempting to link the Reformation to the universal concept (intentio secunda).
However, the Universal Concept has as its object internal representations...which means that the role of the universals is to serve, merely as a label; i.e., to hold the place in the mind of a multitude of things to which it can be attributed.

So, while - resultantly - I agree that Evangelicals (what I might call hyper-fundamentalists) probably ignorantly derive their contempt of Biblical Scholarship or Intellectual Discernment from some deviation of the Reformation (the urge that each individual know God personally), I would also say that Occam's Conceptualism applied here becomes very subjective.

Why? Because, when the abstract concepts reach the individual thing itself (as it exists in nature) the Universal no longer applies.
Ergo; voluntarism MAY be a RESULT of the Protestant Reformation, but the fundamental postulates could not have been what they may have inadvertently produced.

So, while I agree that Nominalism and Voluntarism are not the same thing (as the author tries to prove), and that Thomism was encouraged directly by several Reformers, as well as indirectly by others (Martin Luther once said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason..."). I think that the ultimate conclusion falls short of the truth. The principles guiding the Reformation did not themselves (on the whole) encourage Voluntarism.

John Calvin, for instance, has been accused of total denial of philosophy. While it is true, that this reputation is rather well-earned, in another way, Calvin's consideration, knowledge, and use of philosophy in his own work refutes an obscurantist representation left by a surface-level reading.
A closer reading of Calvin's magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, along with his commentaries and treatises demonstrates that instead of denying the importance of philosophy, Calvin generally seeks to set philosophy in what he regards as its proper place.

In this sense, there is no need to "re-visit" Catholic Protestantism (or visit it in the first place), since the Reformers weren't attempting to pull away from Thomism. They had strong affinity with Aquinas, and in many respects, with Aristotle himself. However, I wholeheartedly agree that Fundamentalist Evangelicals need to re-evaluate their approach to Biblical Scholarship/intellectual discernment.

Galileo once said something to the effect of: 'I do not believe that the Creator who endowed us with the faculties of reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.'

Regulative: To worship Him, or self
The Puritan Dilemma

Here is an excerpt from "The Regulative Principle of Reformed Worship in the Puritan Writers and Its Application to the Element of Sung Praise in Worship."
(The less cumbrous title is "The Puritan Principle of Worship.")

“The Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the Reformed creeds. The reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures..."

Calvin refined the regulative principle with a clarity he alone posessed, and applied it with great consistency to the Reformation in Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and undefiled religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear - fear which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law." (Inst, 1,11,3. Beveridge Trans.).

In his 1559 Latin edition, the text reads "et secum trahit legitimum cultum qualis in Lege praescribitur." (Still very clear on the legitimacy or gravity of the situation, as well as that which is already dictated.)

The French text of 1560, "et tire avec soy un service tel qu'il appartient, et tel que Dieu mesmes i'ordonne en sa Loy." (This text accentuates the Divine origin of acceptable worship.)

Calvin argued that the Regulative principle dispelled all superstion: "In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no specter or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks or even undisguisedty rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits...It remains therefore to conclude with Lactantius (Instil. Div. lib. 1,2,6) 'No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth.'"(I,IV,3).

How prescient is this thought which Calvin supplies us with: If we desire to hold to our own traditions because we are superstitious, following the Regulative principle is not to our liking.

However, if we follow this principle, namely, doing that in worship which is explicitly commanded; we have no room for our own heresies and inventions, but must give way to His commands.

How venerable are all thoughts gleaned from the Word, and from the mind of God.

Wanted For Murder: Calvin.....or not

It has long been purported that John Calvin "murdered a man," especially by opponents of Calvin. However, History & - it would seem - the Law, are in favour of John Calvin, not a man named Servetus.

Servetus was a Catholic rhetorician, controversialist and diplomat. He belonged to that suave and cultured type of Catholic that wins to the Church princes and people to education and wealth (or kills them off if anyone disagrees with them). He has been likened by John Morley to Cardinal Newman; although Protestant History & Catholic law finds him a founder of Heresy.

Servetus, opposed the Protestant faith in Geneva (a crime punishable by death at the time), was arrested and thrown into prison. The charge was heresy, and was a legitimate one punishable in any Protestant city (or burgh, as the German Protestant states were called).

The trial lasted from August until September. At first, we find from documents supplied by those who knew Calvin, he would not supply any proof against Servetus, desiring his own testimony of Heresy to find him guilty, although he was at last persuaded to supply proof of guilt by bringing forward the many letters written him by Servetus. The prisoner did not deny the proof, but instead sought to
defend his position, once more - a crime punishable by death, running contrary to Protestant law. Calvin replied at length, and thus did the long - postponed debate take place.

The judges could not revoke the law, although Calvin tried to get a lighter sentence for Servetus.

The next day Servetus was burned alive in the public square.

"I interceded for him," said John Calvin; "I interceded for him - I
wanted him beheaded, not burned."

Was Calvin guilty of MURDER?
If he was, so were the Council of Judges who ruled in favour of Servetus' execution, so were the townspeople who stood by, not only endorsing the Protestant laws in place concerning Heresy, but supporting them by their very citizenship in Geneva, & so were the original lawmakers themselves.

However, most people will never take this into consideration. Calvin pleaded for a lighter sentence on a legally condemned man. F. Lewis Battles once said, “I can usually tell, when people speak of Calvin, whether they know him only by hearsay, have read a few pages, or sampled him anthologically. They have no clue to the wonderful interconnectedness of Calvin’s thought. They ask questions which a fuller reading of the Institutes could have answered.”

Maybe we should think about it a while...

Calvin's sons! Calvin's sons, seize your spiritual guns,
Ammunition you never can need,
Your hearts are the stuff will be powder enough,
And your skulls are a storehouse o' lead,
Calvin's sons! Your skulls are a storehouse o' lead.

Rumble John! rumble John, mount the steps with a groan,
Cry the book is with heresy cramm'd;
Then out wi' your ladle, deal brimstone like aidle,
And roar ev'ry note of the damn'd.
Rumble John! And roar ev'ry note of the damn'd.

Orthodox! orthodox, who believe in John Knox,
Let me sound an alarm to your conscience:
A heretic blast has been blown in the West,
"That what is no sense must be nonsense,"
Orthodox! That what is no sense must be nonsense.

- Robert Burns

Witch Hunting
A Rant On Why The White Badger Avoids Scandals & Stories

Ever picked up a Christian Magazine or Newsletter with lines pasted across the cover-page reading: Secrets Shopping Malls Aren't Telling You! ?
Like an edition of The Enquirer, yet smeared with a veneer of religion, these heresy-hunting magazines do nothing but spread emulation and divide the brethren.
Let me pause here and note two things:
First, we at the White Badger Inn are strongly in favour of standing on one's doctrinal convictions. We hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and do not waiver in the face of those who differ from us. This does not mean, however, that we condemn others who vary on minor issues, or issues of liberty.
Second, an article of this sort is rare, since we would be defeating the purpose of standing against heresy-hunters, if we constantly bashed them. We'd end up become the same thing ourselves.
All this being said:
We understand the need to warn. We understand the need to critically examine; however, we also understand the need to be gracious.
...Not tolerant; gracious.
But I must point out the grave difference between this sort of action (slandering men and woman, many of whom are truly children of God), and the actions of - say, John Calvin (who was known to be stern and sober) is primarily this: Calvin approached those whom he had an issue with, and dealt with the problem Biblically.
Is it not Scriptural to approach a brother if you have ought against him?
Then why oh why do the Heresy-hunting folks who produce so many of the fundamentalist-style papers slander and libel others who differ from them, without truly addressing the perceived problem?
However, while this is a great Biblical issue which gets me heated...the real issue that irritates me the most is just getting sick and tired of how they complain about everything. Everything is - to them - a sin. Everything is wrong. The world is coming to an end. Bush is the Antichrist. The U.S. is the new Rome. Bill O'Reilly is Satan.
I have sworn off these Witch-hunting papers. I will not pick one up. And though the cover of one may tempt me to peek within the pages and ridicule the author, I will not. I have stopped keeping them on the back of the commode (yes, I really did), and I think I am going to take up something more calming.
Perhaps Rhinoceros hunting, or fishing. Maybe a trip to Salem...
Or not.

Is Calvin Dead?
The Relevancy & Implications of John Calvin's Teachings

No one can deny the awesome extent of John Calvin's teachings (1509-1564). It is difficult to lay a finger on the beginning or end of his influence, since much of it overlaps the influence of the gospel, as well as protestantism and the ideologies of the Rennaisance.
However, it is just this point which makes Calvin's teachings so relevant.
The Rennaisance owes much of its "discoveries" to the proper humanities of the Reformation. For this reason, Luther, the German Reformer, was called a Humanist...not in the sense that we now think of, but because he understood that every man (and woman) has a personal obligation to God, which cannot be fulfilled by an earthly mediator (aka: a priest).
If volume and widespread translation mean anything (they don't always), Calvin is certainly relevant, since he wrote over three massive volumes of sermons, a treatise on The Christian Life, one entitled On Prayer - A Perpetual Exercise of Faith. The Daily Benefits Derived From It, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of the Christian Religion), four volumes on the Harmony of the Law, commentaries on forty books of the Bible, and sundry other volumes which have reaffirmed the Orthodox views of the Scripture, and the foundations for much of Christendom today.
However, it is something else entirely, which makes Calvin so relevant for Christendom today...
The spirit of Zwinglianism reached its fullest development in the theological principles, political theories, and ecclesiastic thought of John Calvin. Perhaps even more so than Martin Luther, Calvin envisioned and wrought the framework that would come to dominate Western culture, even into the twenty-first century. Our own culture, staggeringly so, is decidedly Calvinistic in some form or another; thus, at the centre of the way we think and act, you will find the indominable spirit of this fiery reformer.
And, while the controversy rages over Calvin's teachings, even among those of like denominations, the key to understanding his importance lies in the Scriptures. At the heart of all that he taught, was the premis Sola Scriptura; The Scriptures Alone, or The Scriptures Alone Suffice.
With this premise, the structure for society, the church, and political authority could be properly understood and applied, Calvin maintained, though fiercely opposed by those (like Luther) who argued that all which was not expressly forbidden in Scripture was to be allowed.
Was this, perhaps the reason that Calvin's influence is still felt today...or was it the fact that he bowled on the Sabbath?
(See: Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? By Chris Coldwell)