Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Six)

In a Roman Catholic book critiquing John Calvin come the following quotations from John Calvin:

Quote #1
Moreover, the worst of all is, that when once religion begins to be composed of such vain fictions, the perversion is immediately succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our Lord upbraids the Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their traditions (Mt. 15:3) [IV, 10:10].

Quote #2
What is meant by making the word of God void by tradition, if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God only frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously urge strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of piety was contained in them; [IV, 10:10].

These quotes from Calvin are said to be "Denigration of Tradition" (p.18).

Background Context
Earlier in IV, 8, Calvin describes Biblical authority by describing the rule of the church, Moses, Old Testament priests, prophets, and the apostles. He concludes in IV, 8:9 that not even the apostles were free to go beyond the Word, nor are their successors in creating laws necessary for salvation. The main point to grasp is that the Bible does indeed describe authority. It simply doesn't describe the Roman authority that plagued the church of Calvin's day. The papal church claimed an infallible authority, an authority Ford Lewis Battles describes with the heading "in which the pope, with his supporters, has exercised upon souls the most savage tyranny and butchery" by creating extra-Biblical laws necessary for salvation.

Immediate Context
In Chapter 10 of the Institutes Calvin launches into a discussion of Papal laws that were bound upon the church. Calvin declares that the papal laws have gone beyond the Word and enslave consciences. In IV, 10:6 Calvin argues the church has no right to do this. The papacy has no right to command anything apart from God's Word. In IV, 10: 9-18 Calvin argues "Ecclesiastical constitutions authorizing ceremonies in worship are tyrannous, frivolous, and contrary to Scripture" (heading title from Ford Lewis Battles). Specifically in IV, 10: 10 Calvin explains:

Moreover, this evil thing is added, that when religion once begins to be defined in such vain fictions, such perversity is always followed by another hateful depravity, for which Christ rebuked the Pharisees. It is that they nullify God’s commandment for the sake of the traditions of men.

Calvin then goes on to describe these "traditions", these extra-Biblical laws that have been placed on the souls of men:

I do not wish to fight with words of my own against our present lawmakers; let them win, I say, if they can in any way cleanse themselves of Christ’s accusation. But how could they excuse themselves, since among them it is far more wicked to have skipped auricular confession at the turn of the year than to have led an utterly wicked life the whole year through? to have infected their tongue with a slight taste of meat on Friday than to have fouled the whole body with fornication every day? to have moved the hand to honest work on a day consecrated to some saintlet or other than religiously to have exercised all the bodily members in the worst crimes? for a priest to be bound in one lawful marriage than to be entangled in a thousand adulteries? to have left unperformed an avowed pilgrimage than to have broken faith in all promises? not to have squandered something on monstrous, but no less superfluous and unprofitable, pomp of churches than to have failed the poor in their extremity? to have passed by an idol without honoring it than to have treated the whole race of mankind abusively? not to have murmured long senseless words at certain hours than never to have framed a lawful prayer in the mind? What is it to set at nought God’s precept for the sake of their own traditions if it be not this? While commending the observance of God’s commandments only coldly and perfunctorily, they nonetheless zealously and busily urge an exact obedience to their own, as if these contained in themselves the whole force of piety? While requiring that only light amends be made for the transgression of the divine law, they punish even the slightest infraction of their decree with no lighter penalty than prison, exile, fire, or sword.

Calvin then continues this same type of argumentation applying it to ceremonies, observances, and constitutions that have been lawfully enacted by the Roman church. He argues in IV, 10:18 that the Roman constitutions do not go all the way back to the apostles or to "apostolic tradition":

But to trace the origin of these traditions (with which the church has hitherto been oppressed) back to the apostles is pure deceit. For the whole doctrine of the apostles has this intent: not to burden consciences with new observances, or contaminate the worship of God with our own inventions. Again, if there is anything credible in the histories and ancient records, the apostles not only were ignorant of what the Romanists attribute to them but never even heard of it. And let them not prate that most of the apostles’ decrees which were not committed to writing had been received in use and customary practice. The reference is to those things which, while Christ was still alive, they could not understand but after his ascension learned by the revelation of his Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Interpretation of John Calvin

Here is how the Roman Catholic book interpreted and interacts with IV, 10:10:

Quote #1
That has to be analyzed more closely, because Jesus also observed Pharisaical traditions (the true ones), and Paul called himself a Pharisee (in Scripture) three times (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5). There are true and false traditions. Protestants too often condemn all "traditions," as if they have none, and as if there are no true traditions described and sanctioned in Holy Scripture.

Quote 2
To the extent that promulgation of Church laws and divine laws were done in this legalistic, loveless fashion, sin occurred, just as Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their similar hypocrisy and rigid legalism and misplaced emphases (in Matthew 23). But Jesus also upheld the fundamental authority of the Pharisees in the early part of the chapter, just before he condemned their hypocrisy in practice.

Therefore, the presence of hypocrisy (excessive rigidity, legalism, lack of love, etc.), does not in and of itself prove that the laws themselves are invalid, or that the authorities who proclaim them are no authorities at all. Jesus taught this (not just Catholics, later on). We are not at liberty to disagree with Him. Many are prone to the legalistic sins of Pharisaism in its worst sense. That is not by any means confined to Catholics; nor does it disprove any Catholic belief.

Response
As to quote #1, only those traditions that are Biblically sanctioned are to be followed, so it is not true that Protestants condemn all traditions. The Roman church though claims the authority to determine Tradition, and has added extra-Biblical Traditions to the deposit of revelation given by God. It is agreed that the Bible does indeed describe false traditions. In only three instances though is tradition referred to positively (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thes. 2:15, 3:6). This positive apostolic tradition was identifiable. It was not an acorn of obscurity awaiting development or determination by Romanist authority. These apostolic traditions were known by the early church and did not differ in content from what was eventually inscripturated. Commenting on 2 Thes. 2:15 Calvin states:

15. Hold fast the institutions. Some restrict this to precepts of external polity; but this does not please me, for he points out the manner of standing firm. Now, to be furnished with invincible strength is a much higher thing than external discipline. Hence, in my opinion, he includes all doctrine under this term, as though he had said that they have ground on which they may stand firm, provided they persevere in sound doctrine, according as they had been instructed by him. I do not deny that the term paradosis is fitly applied to the ordinances which are appointed by the Churches, with a view to the promoting of peace and the maintaining of order, and I admit that it is taken in this sense when human traditions are treated of,(Matthew 15:6.). Paul, however, will be found in the next chapter making use of the term tradition, as meaning the rule that he had laid down, and the very signification of the term is general. The context, however, as I have said, requires that it be taken here to mean the whole of that doctrine in which they had been instructed. For the matter treated of is the most important of all—that their faith may remain secure in the midst of a dreadful agitation of the Church.

As to quote #2, the Roman Catholic author probably didn't read IV, 10:27. Calvin states that simply because the papacy has abused her people with laws and traditions, this doesn't mean that all laws by which the church is shaped should be erased. Calvin argues that laws are necessary for order, but "They are not to be considered necessary for salvation and thus bind consciences by scruples; nor are they to be associated with the worship of God, and piety thus be lodged in them."

So are the Calvin quotes cited a "denigration of Tradition"? No, they are the denigration of an authority that claims to be infallible that has added to God's revealed truth with false Traditions.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Five)

In a Roman Catholic Calvin book comes the following quotation from John Calvin:

But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils, and that without challenge. For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of Scripture to everything which is determined in councils. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, and auricular confession, and the like, not one syllable can be found in Scripture. But as all these have been sanctioned by the authority of the Church, or, to speak more correctly, have been received by opinion and practice, every one of them is to be held as an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so, but whatever a council has determined against Scripture is to have the name of an interpretation. (IV, 9:14)

Background Context
This snippet of the Institutes above is from the last section of Calvin's fourteen part examination on councils and their authority. Calvin has previously argued that church councils do indeed have value. This does not mean they are infallible or without shortcomings (see IV 8-11). In IV, 9:13, Calvin argues that Councils can indeed be of use in interpreting scripture:

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened,where the doctrine at issue may be examined. Such a definition, upon which the pastors of the church in common, invoking Christ’s Spirit, agree, will have much more weight than if each one, having conceived it separately at home, should teach it to the people, or if a few private individuals should compose it. Then, when the bishops are assembled,they can more conveniently deliberate in common what they ought to teach and in what form, lest diversity breed offense.

Again though, this does not necessarily mean that a council is infallible: "But I deny it to be always the case that an interpretation of Scripture adopted by vote of a council is true and certain." Calvin notes the shortcomings of the Second Synod of Ephesus for example.

Immediate Context
Contrary to this positive evaluation of church councils, In IV, 9:14 Calvin evaluates the Roman ideals and goals of conciliar decisions. He argues the Romanists of his day ascribed a power to a conciliar decision in which councils strayed from interpreting scripture, but rather read doctrines into the scriptures. He cites purgatory, the intercession of saints, and auricular confessions as doctrines which were wrongly said to be the result of interpretations of scripture. Then he shows examples of things plain in scripture that have been interpreted by a council to mean other than what the text plainly says. He then concludes by noting that a council is not over scripture. That is, councils don't infallibly decide what scripture is or isn't. Councils are to be subject to scripture, not over it. The entire Romanist paradigm of absolute power over scripture, interpreting it contrary to the plain meaning, or reading doctrines into the scripture, is an abuse of a Godly council.

The Roman Catholic Interpretation of John Calvin

Here is how the Roman Catholic book interprets IV, 9:14:

Individuals can far more easily (wrongly) declare that their view is the "biblical" one. Calvin does this all the time. I do it myself (most people who do any theology at all, do it), but the difference is that we Catholics submit our judgments to that of the Church, and where we differ from the Church, we submit to her, even if we may not always fully understand.


Response
Anyone reading IV:9 of the Institutes has to wonder exactly how this interpretation serves as a response or addresses Calvin's lengthy arguments. Calvin has just noted the value of and cautions needed when the church meets in council. He addresses the meaning of true church authority (IV, 9:1-2). He addresses how it is that "truth" can exist even when it is downtrodden by the church (IV, 9:3-5). He addresses how truth can stand even if a council rejects it (IV, 9:6-7). He argues that councils still have value (IV, 9:8). He shows that councils sometimes go against councils, that they are still prone to human failure, and that they should not be followed blindly (IV, 9:9-12). Despite such problems, he argues for the value of councils (IV, 9:13). Calvin's entire argument takes multiple pages, each laid out with extensive Scripture references. Yet the Roman Catholic author passes over Calvin's entire argument.

Note as well the response does not give a "Biblical Catholic answer." No appeal is made to a Romanist interpreted Bible verse in response to Calvin. What's given is a personal opinion or explanation of Romanism. Contrarily, the paradigm in explaining councils Calvin uses is Biblically based. In the Old Testament, God chose a people for himself. These people had an authoritative religion by which to lead and speak for God. Did that mean they were infallible? No. The Biblical record shows time after time, God would raise up individuals to proclaim the truth against the very leadership in the religion He established (see Institutes IV, 2:3; IV, 9:6-11). This same paradigm applies to the New Testament church. This doesn't mean the organized church is valueless because it can be corrupted by tradition and sin. It means that the church must continually conform itself to the word of God.

Though Calvin doesn't address this, it's important to remember that Rome, meeting in Council, has infallibly interpreted very few Bible verses. Some Roman Catholic scholars admit no Bible verses have been infallibly interpreted. so when a Roman Catholic says they submit to conciliar interpretations of Bible verses, the fact of the matter is they're not submitting to anything at worst, or very little at best.

The response given by the Roman Catholic author sees only two groups: those who submit to the Papacy and those who oppose it as out in the woods alone interpreting the Bible. Calvin though was a magisterial Reformer. He was not an Anabaptist. The Reformed tradition has an extensive history as an organized body, producing conciliar statements. Does this mean that the statements are of no value because those who made them were not infallible? Hardly. The statements are only as valuable as how well they conform to the infallible scriptures.

A defender of Rome may counter argue: "but each person has to decide if that conciliar statement is Biblical." That is indeed the case. I admit that freely. It is the responsibility of each person to do whatever it takes to digest and comprehend God's truth. Each person is responsible for how they handle God's revealed truth. But the key is this: the Roman argument is a double standard, because each Roman Catholic still has to decide to trust Rome. There is simply no way around removing the personal choice of each person. One either uses their brainpower and decides to trust Rome, or one uses their brainpower to study the Bible. The Bible commands us to "Do our best to present ourselves to God as approved, a workmen who do not need to be ashamed and who correctly handle the word of truth."

When a defender of Rome says, "...the difference is that we Catholics submit our judgments to that of the Church, and where we differ from the Church, we submit to her, even if we may not always fully understand." The defender of Rome isn't saying anything that a person picking up a Bible honestly would say. Further, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have to be interpreted and digested by each particular Roman Catholic, and they do disagree at times as to what Rome teaches.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Four)

In a self-published Roman Catholic book comes the following quotation from John Calvin:

At present I only reply in one word, that our Saviour’s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name. How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18). . . . Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God. (IV, 9:2)

The author uses this Calvin quote under the heading, "The Catholic Church vs. the Bible?" He concludes Calvin here is saying Rome's doctrine is unscriptural because... Calvin says it is. The author contends "It is simply not the case that Catholics ignore Scripture in setting forth their theological views" (p.17).

What is Calvin actually saying? The section from the Institutes begins Calvin's look at Councils and their authority (one wouldn't figure this out from the author's citation). Calvin begins in IV- 9.1 noting his esteem for ancient church councils. In IV-9.2 Calvin uses the criterion that a Council gathers in Christ's name when its goal is not to add or subtract from God's word. Calvin says that it's meaningless for his opponents to cite councils in response to him if they haven't first established that those councils really were gathered in Christ's name. Calvin says,

Ungodly and evil bishops can just as much conspire against Christ as good and honest ones can come together in his name. We have clear proof of this fact in a great many decrees that have come forth from such councils. But this will appear later.

Calvin does cover this later (in IV-9.8-9). Calvin isn't making a blanket statement that all Roman Catholics "ignore Scripture in setting forth their theological views." He may make statements like this, but he certainly isn't making it here. He's arguing that when his opponents cite a Council to him, they need to first establish that council is not adding or subtracting to God's word. Calvin says,

It will benefit our adversaries but little to mention councils of bishops a thousand times over; nor will they persuade us to believe what they contend—that councils are governed by the Holy Spirit — before they convince us that these have been gathered in Christ’s name.

This is a great example of how the author reads a text. He argues about a point Calvin isn't even making at the moment. If the author really wanted to respond to Calvin, he should at least respond to the argument being made. Why not argue against Calvin about who decides if a Council is meeting in Christ's name? Why not argue who determines if someone is adding or subtracting to God's word? What criteria serves as a guideline to determine an addition or subtraction? If I were a Roman Catholic reading this section of the Institutes, that's what I would ask.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Two)

I debated as to who to follow in my review of a recent Roman Catholic book on John Calvin. Calvin's order or that put forth by a Roman Catholic author. Common sense tells me to follow the order of argumentation set forth by Calvin, but since this review is on the analysis put forth by a Roman Catholic author, I'm going to journey through his book via his order. Unfortunately, this is like cooking pasta in a big bowl, then trying to organize each strand into a picture of the Mona Lisa. For instance, the very first snippet of analysis put forth by the author is directed toward the thirteenth point of a sixteen point extended argument from Calvin.

I'll begin where this Roman Catholic author begins. I'll note the title of his section, and provide the reference to The Institutes. To follow along, simply read the section of Calvin's Institutes noted. I'll be using both the Battles and Beveridge translations. For anyone time challenged, consult Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (New Jersey: P and R Publishing, 1980). This text outlines Calvin's actual argument in each section.

1. The Catholic Church vs. the Bible?
This particular  Roman Catholic author begins with an edit of IV, 8:13 and one sentence from IV, 17:48 ". . . the ministers of Satan, whose usual practice is to hold the Scriptures in derision, . . ."). He comments:

The Catholic Church doesn't create dogmas with utter disregard for Scripture (quite the contrary). Calvin fails to document what he charges. We make no such dichotomy. Calvin does because he thinks in "either/or" terms: for him, if there is true Church authority, this must somehow inexorably be opposed to Scripture in some essential fashion. It's simply not true.

From his reading, the author sees Calvin positing the Roman church doesn't rely on Scripture when it creates dogma. Perhaps he has these key sentences from Calvin in view:

Their statement that the church cannot err bears on this point, and this is how they interpret it—inasmuch as the church is governed by the Spirit of God, it can proceed safely without the Word; no matter where it may go, it can think or speak only what is true; accordingly, if it should ordain anything beyond or apart from God’s Word, this must be taken as nothing but a sure oracle of God.

And:

Now it is easy to conclude how wrongly our opponents act when they boast of the Holy Spirit solely to commend with his name strange doctrines foreign to God’s Word—while the Spirit wills to be conjoined with God’s Word by an indissoluble bond, and Christ professes this concerning him when he promises the Spirit to his church.

Calvin's Argument
In IV, 8:13 Calvin argues against the claim that the church cannot err because it's governed by God's Spirit. Rome also claims the ability to ordain doctrine beyond what was set down in Scripture. Footnote #15 of the Battles translation documents this by appealing to Cochlaeus, De authoritate ecclesiae (1524) I. v, fo. C 1b; I. 6, fo. C 3b; De Castro, Adversus haereses I (1543, fo. 8 B-10 G). In the very next section (IV, 8:14) Calvin goes on to expand this by saying:

Here again they mutter that the church needed to add some things to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves afterward properly supplied through a living voice what they had not clearly enough taught. For, of course, Christ said to the apostles, “I have many things to say to you which you cannot bear now” [John 16:12]. These, they explain, are decrees which, apart from Scripture, have been accepted only by use and custom.

Again, this is substantiated by footnote #17- Cochlaeus, op. cit., I. 4, fo. B 4a; I. 8, fo. E 2a; Eck, Enchiridion (1535), fo. 21ab. In Eck's Enchiridion we find the following statement:

Not only are those things expressly stated in the Scriptures or proved from them to be believed and kept (something the Lutherans are willing to do), but also it is necessary to believe and keep those things Holy Mother Church believes and observes. For not everything has been clearly handed down in the Sacred Scriptures, but very many have been left to the Church to determine (which is illumined and governed by the Holy Spirit, and on this account cannot wander from the path of truth). Hence the Savior said to his disciples [Jn 16:12f ]: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." Therefore the Church observes in its rites and ceremonies many things, from the intimate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the tradition of the Apostles, and of the holy fathers, which even if not expressly stated in the Scriptures, yet it is wicked to depart from them or take exception to them. Indeed these things are most confirmed to them, and on that account are to be enforced and observed by all true evangelical and Pauline Christians (such do the Lutherans falsely boast themselves to be). "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" [2 Thess 2;14]. [Enchiridion of Commonplaces (Michigan: Baker Books, 1979), p.46].

One finds this very issue (the contents of Scripture and Tradition) debated at the Council of Trent. Rome declared that the truth of God is found both in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the church. James Boice points out,

A technical point of historical research concerning Trent sheds some interesting light on the matter. In the original draft of the fourth session of Trent the decree read that “the truths … are contained partly [partim] in Scripture and partly [partim] in the unwritten traditions.” But at a decisive point in the Council’s deliberations two priests, Nacchianti and Bonnucio rose in protest against the partim … partim formula. These men protested on the grounds that this view would destroy the uniqueness and sufficiency of Scripture. All we know from that point on is that the words partly … partly were removed from the text and replaced by the word and (et). Did this mean that the Council responded to the protest and perhaps left the relationship between Scripture and Tradition purposely ambiguous? Was the change stylistic, meaning that the Council still maintained two distinct sources of revelation? These questions are the focus of the current debate among Roman theologians. [“Sola Scriptura: Crucial to Evangelicalism.” The Foundations of Biblical Authority. James M. Boice, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980].

It is a simple historical fact that those Roman theologians contemporary with the Reformers viewed God's truth also elsewhere than solely in Scripture. David Bagchi notes,

Luther's characteristic position was that no doctrine not found in Scripture can be enjoined as generally necessary for salvation. This view was universally condemned by Catholics, principally on two grounds that were themselves drawn from Scripture. First, Christ said much to his apostles that is not recorded in Scripture (John 21:25). This apostolic tradition was reputed to include such practices as praying toward the east and observing Sunday as the Christian sabbath, and such doctrines as the generation of the Son from the Father. Second, Christ told his apostles that they could not yet bear the whole truth and promised them the Holy Spirit, which would lead them into all truth (John 16:12-13).70 This was taken as a guarantee of the trustworthiness of established custom, consuetudo ecclesiae. [David Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minnieapolis: fortress Press, 1991), p. 163]

And also:

The early canons of Gratian, especially Ecclesiasticarum, In his rebus, and Catholica, are clear that Scripture, apostolic tradition, and local and universal customs (provided that they contravene neither positive law nor the law of reason) have equal force. Apostolic tradition was, of course, a fixed body of instructions, the contents of which were well known from references to it made by the fathers. What local and universal customs embraced was, however, not so evident. Clearly they were less ancient than the apostolic traditions, but how ancient did a custom have to be for it to be traditional? The fact that many of the beliefs and practices the Romanists defended as traditional or customary were of recent date caused them little embarrassment. This must not surprise us, for their appeal was ultimately not to antiquity, nor to catholicity, but to the fact that the doctrine or discipline at issue belonged to that church to which Christ had promised the Spirit of truth. The process of being led into all truth was one that nullified all considerations of antiquity and universality, "for the Spirit blows not only where it will, but also when it will" [Ibid., p.166].

Conclusion
Here we have clear truth that the Roman theologians of Calvin's day argued for a second vehicle of God's revealed truth outside of Scripture. This content was different than that contained in the Scripture. This is in fact how Rome's sixteenth century apologists argued against the Reformers, and this is the argument Calvin is responding to. Is the contemporary Roman author's analysis of Calvin accurate? No, he completely misses Calvin's argument, and the historical context in which the argument was made. Indeed, the Roman church today attempts to dress everything up with Scripture, but back then, Rome's apologists had no trouble stating God's truth was also outside of the Bible (ironically, even many of Rome's modern defenders say this). This is a perfect example of what Steve Hays stated:

[Calvin's Institutes] was written at a very different time and place. To correctly interpret Calvin, you’d need to know about his intellectual influences, the socioeconomic and political conditions of the day, the historical antecedents to his theological terminology, the identity of his theological opponents, and century. What may be common knowledge for someone living in the 16th Century is hardly common knowledge for someone living in the 21st Century.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part Three)

In a Roman Catholic book on John Calvin comes the following quotation from John Calvin:

Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them. (IV, 8:14)

Roman Catholic Analysis

Catholics do not do this. Scripture often points to traditions outside of itself that are true. Therefore, to hold such a view is not to hold to a "mutilated and incomplete" Bible. It is to hold to all that the Bible itself asserts. The one who denies that there is such a thing as a tradition described and fully accepted in Scripture, is selectively disbelieving part of that same Scripture. It isn’t being accepted in its totality.

Context
Calvin is discussing the claim that extra apostolic God-breathed material exists beyond the Bible. He argues in response that when the apostles committed their doctrine to writing, they weren't so incompetent to leave important things out which needed to be given to the church via a "living voice." Quoting Augustine, Calvin says, "When the Lord said nothing, who of us may say,'These things are or those things are’? Or if one dare say so, what proof does he provide”?

Response
Here would have been a perfect spot for the author to actually supply a Biblical Catholic answer. Which God breathed Traditions does the Bible say exist outside of its pages? Well, of course the Bible can't tell you what they are, that's why they're Traditions! Who can tell you? Why, the Roman Catholic Church... but can they really? They've yet to declare whether the partim-partim or material view is that described in Trent. Those Calvin faced were clearly of the partim-partim camp.

Catholic Partim-Partim Sufficiency claims part of God’s special revelation is contained in the Scripture, and part is contained in Tradition. In this view, the Bible is “materially insufficient.” The New Catholic Encyclopedia states of those who hold this view, “Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” [Source: New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p.228].

The other is the Roman Catholic Material Sufficiency view. It holds the Scriptures are “materially sufficient” meaning the entire content of revelation is in the Scriptures, or that divine revelation is contained entirely in Scripture. That is, all the doctrines Christians are to believe are found in the Bible. Along with affirming totum in Scriptura, Catholics who maintain material sufficiency also hold “Tradition” likewise contains the entire content of revelation: “totum in traditione”. Thus, two vehicles carry God’s special revelation in total: Scripture and Tradition. Both are infallible in the Catholic view.

A search of the author's blog for the term "Partim Partim" provided two hits, and neither were his words. He does though appear to be holding to the material view:

We believe Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient without the Church as a Guide. We believe that Scripture and Tradition are "twin fonts of the same divine wellspring," as Vatican II states.

 Calvin was well within his right to criticize the view of his contemporaries. They indeed held that the Bible was not complete and needed to have things added.

Are There Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin? (Part One)

A Roman Catholic recently blogged a large amount of material on John Calvin. I held out reading any of it and waited to see what he'd put forth in a published book ( I eventually recently received his self-published book on this Calvin material). Material on a blog can be edited or deleted as if by magic. A published work though sets one's opinion and research concretely. I plan on at least working through some of it to see if Patrick Madrid's claim that this author's work ably refutes Calvinism is correct. It may indeed be the case it accurately presented the argumentation of Calvin's Institutes and contrasted those differences succinctly with his particular flavor of modern day Roman Catholicism. If that turn out to be so, I'd be pleasantly surprised. 

Given the author's work on Luther, I do have significant doubts that he accurately presented a correct analysis of Calvin. The author has claimed to present "Biblical Catholic answers." As I work through the material, I'll keep a sharp lookout for these Biblical Catholic answers. This is actually the first quizzical statement from the author. Will the author be presenting Biblical answers which are those interpretations of Biblical texts most commonly used by current non scholarly defenders of Rome? Since there are so few (or perhaps any) actual infallibly defined verses for Roman Catholics to utilize, will this treatment be this Roman Catholic author's particular interpretations of the Bible that serve as a response? Or, will those answers be his particular Biblical interpretation along with his particular interpretation of statements from Papal encyclicals, councils and Tradition, etc.?

Dedication
The author dedicates the book "To my Reformed Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, for whom I have a great deal of respect. May we rejoice in the common ground that we have, and be cordially open and honest with each other, as fellow Christians, when we disagree." Let me be cordially open and honest. More often than not, seriously Reformed five-point Calvinists do not consider Roman Catholics "brothers and sisters in Christ." Recent argumentation put forth by Doug Wilson and his group (as well as some atypical reasoning from Charles Hodge) are exceptions, not the rule. We can be grateful for the author's graciousness towards separated brethren, but the author should not be surprised that Reformed people deny the hand of fellowship in return for this dedication. Those like the author that knowingly and actively promote Rome's false gospel do not stand on common ground with the Reformed on issues most vital to the Christian faith.

Translation of Calvin's Institutes
The author relied on the older Henry Beveridge translation of Calvin's Institutes (1845) "to easily cut and paste everything in it, without a great deal of extra typing being necessary". This is unfortunate, because a far superior translation by Ford Lewis Battles now is the norm for English readers. A cyber-version of this translation can be obtained for a meager $15 (savvy searchers could probably find it for free). Of the Beveridge translation John T. McNeill notes the Beveridge translation is of "uneven quality" and it's "rather less accurate than either of his predecessors, and is chargeable with numerous minor omissions and a few clearly erroneous renderings" (The Library of Christian Classics edition of Calvin's Institutes, volumes 20 of Westminster's series, p. xlvii). McNeill says though that Beveridge did an admirable job on many sections of the text. One wonders why the author, for a mere $15 wouldn't seek out the best translation? The Battles translation is also more than just a modernized rendering. The in-depth historical and bibliographic notes are of great value to anyone engaging the Institutes. If an English reader really wanted to understand the Institutes and all it entails, the Battles edition is the best choice. To go along with this, any layman serious about engaging the Institutes would greatly benefit from the compendium book by Battles, Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (New Jersey:P and R Publishing, 1980). Battles provides an outline form for each chapter of the Institutes. I point all this tedium out to note that the necessary tools to understand Calvin in context are readily available for any serious study and interaction with the text.

Methodology
The author wrote he chose to use his "Socratic manner" to interact with the Institutes. What this usually means is that a section of text is posted and then commentary from the author follows. The positive aspect of using such an approach is that one can claim to have interacted line by line with a complete text. The negative aspect is that complex argumentation sometimes must be viewed as a whole in order to be best understood and appreciated. If a text is scrutinized line by line without the whole in view, the argument can be missed, caricatured, or mishandled. Also the "Socratic manner" often employed by the author tends to scream out, "I need an editor." Sometimes what could be said in a paragraph of analysis spans multiple paragraphs of tedium and rabbit trails. In this volume, the author appears to argue against Calvin by reorganizing the Institutes into his own system. For instance, Calvin begins Book IV (the focus of the Roman Catholic author's book) addressing The Holy Catholic Church, our mother. The author approaches this subject on page 323 of his critique. The author begins his book with Institutes IV, 8:13 and IV, 17:48 discussing The Catholic Church vs. the Bible. Calvin though discusses the authority of Scripture throughout the Institutes, but in particular in Book I.

The Focus of This Roman Catholic Book on John Calvin
The author says his focus is on Book IV of the Institutes: Of the Holy Catholic Church. He claims that Calvinism and Roman Catholicism are far closer on soteriology,whereas the real differences between the two systems are on ecclesiology. With this I have an immediate rejection, as would John Calvin most likely. Perhaps the author means only to suggest that current Roman Catholicism is closer in soteriology to Calvin, whereas, Calvin wrote with his contemporary "Papists" in view. In either case, the differences between imputation and infusion are still two different soteriologies staring at each other across an immense chasm never to be bridged. The author says Calvin didn't even realize how close he was to being in harmony with Roman Catholic soteriology. I would say quite the opposite is the case (see Institutes Book III, 13-20).

The Author vs. the Goliath of Calvin
The author compares his credentials to those of Calvin, noting Calvin's "formal education, rhetorical and literary ability" and "remarkable encyclopedic knowledge". The author though is "just a lay Catholic apologist with a degree in sociology, and no formal theological education (but with lots of informal theological education for over thirty years)". I have to wholeheartedly agree with the author that Calvin is far his superior. Calvin with his limited library (and all those issues which plagued his life) is still the greater intellect compared to the author living in the United States with a computer. The author says that since Calvin's been dead a long time and can't counter respond, Calvin's education makes this a fair fight. That is, it's not unfair to write a refutation of someone that's long gone if they have a pedigree of intellectual accomplishment. The "unfairness" as I see it is in this sense: Calvin wrote against the particular Roman church of his day. The author writes from his modern Roman perspective. As long as the author takes this into consideration, a fair response to Calvin is an approachable endeavor.

The author says "I'm confident that [Calvin] has been, throughout my replies, very often plainly shown to be in error. I've often noted that one may be the greatest genius of all time, but if the facts and the truth are not on one’s side, even an infant who knows the truth can 'get the better of them' in discussion." I can appreciate the fact that the author argues for the perspicuity of truth without infallible help. It's refreshing to find a defender of Rome so willing to admit that words and information on a printed page can obviously be clear enough to be true or false, and that a person without formal theological training can arrive at truth. This is refreshingly Protestant of the author.

Get The Anti-Catholics Before They Get You
The author notes that even before his book was published, certain Reformed nefarious anti-Catholics were already attacking his Calvin project. After searching around a bit, it appears those being refered to actually made their comments on this blog. The author suggests these minions actually fear such a book on Calvin coming out. Contrarily, those in my immediate apologetic circle that doubt the author's abilities to put forth a coherent response to Calvin by no means "fear" his intellectual prowess. Rather, my response to the project is more like someone watching a car wreck about to happen: Someone get the keys before the car pulls away.

On the other hand, the author makes a point which at first appears valid in his defense: "The second defense I made was to appeal to Calvin’s own claims for his work, and its intended audience. It was not supposed to be for scholars and theologians only, but rather, primarily for students and laymen." Steve Hays though has pointed out,"The definitive 1559 edition of the Institutes was written in Latin. It’s not as if the average baker, blacksmith, midwife, or cobbler could read Latin. Indeed, universal literacy in the 16th Century was nonexistent." Hays goes on to say:

Even more to the point, it’s obviously anachronistic to say that because 16th Century work was pitched at a popular level, therefore a 21st Century blogger can write a commentary on that work without any specialized background knowledge. Even if it was written for popular consumption in the 16th Century, to a 16th Century audience, that doesn’t mean it’s equally accessible to a modern audience. It was written at a very different time and place. To correctly interpret Calvin, you’d need to know about his intellectual influences, the socioeconomic and political conditions of the day, the historical antecedents to his theological terminology, the identity of his theological opponents, &century. What may be common knowledge for someone living in the 16th Century is hardly common knowledge for someone living in the 21st Century.

On this blog some months ago, this very subject of the author's Calvin material came up as well. The author says of his Calvin work: "Catholics who encounter Calvinist friends might like to consult this for reference purposes." Hays responds,

So Catholics who are incompetent to evaluate Calvin should consult a Catholic epologist who is equally incompetent to evaluate Calvin. Richard Muller might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. Roger Nicole might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. Paul Helm might be qualified to write a commentary on the Institutes. There are probably some Catholic scholars who would be qualified to do so as well. You are not. Your commentary on the Institutes is an exercise in self-conceited charlatanry.

The words "self-conceited charlatanry" made it to the published edition of the book. The other person apparently singled out in the book is Tim Enloe, who stated the following on this blog:

I thought it was bad some years back when [the author] claimed he didn't even need to know the alpha from the omega in order to "refute" an argument advanced by a man who had been teaching Greek on the college level for many years. I thought it was bad when a few years back he claimed that an entire critical portion of my thesis on conciliarism, discussing the centuries of Medieval canon law debates about the limits of papal power, was "too boring" for him to read through and try to figure out, but he was going to go ahead and "refute" my "dumb" statements about the orthodoxy of conciliarism anyway. The notion that [the author] is writing a "commentary" on Calvin's Institutes, however, tops it all off. The man simply has no concept of his limitations, and despises the correction of others who do. This is one part of the biblical definition of a fool, and since [the author] apparently considers himself a Modern day Socrates, it is worth noting that Socrates would have called him a fool, too - not to mention a Sophist.

The words “no concept” and “limitations” made it to the book. Enloe went on to say:

The question being raised about qualifications to, say, write a "commentary" on Calvin's Institutes is very interesting and touches precisely on why I am so hard on Internet apologists. It's one thing to blog in a spirit of "faith seeking understanding" inquiry where one recognizes one's intellectual horizons and is seeking to grow in his or her understanding. It's quite something else to set oneself up as a master of some subject matter for the purpose of "defending the Faith" and acting like the command to "give an answer" means that any old time you run into something you don't understand, a few nights with encyclopedias and popular-level works will suffice to write a definitive "refutation" of someone's "errors."

-snip-

It is still an interesting question - the limits that laymen should observe when putting their thoughts out in public. I scrolled through the papal document on lay apostolates last night, and while I would not be able to say that I have a great grasp of its guidelines, I did find it interesting that it said some things about laymen needing to have specific mandates from the hierarchy and obtaining "serious" training for the purpose of being competent to do those mandated tasks. It does make an outsider wonder about much of what goes on in the Catholic apologetics world, especially the common enough phenomenon of Joe Blow, who just converted 6 months ago after reading 25 pages of the Church Fathers, 100 pages of Catholic convert stories, and a 2 page summary of Newman setting himself up as an "apologist."

The author says of Enloe and Hays:

This is how the academic snob views most popular analyses, written for the masses and the proverbial “common man,” rather than merely to academics and pointy-headed “intellectuals.” Neither of these men, however (ironically), are actually academics themselves. One is a teaching assistant and the other is still trying, in his late thirties, to obtain a graduate degree. Both have been very active on the Internet for years (a “popular” medium if there ever was one), since that has been the only way they could be read at all (neither having had a book published by reputable publishers, as I have, six times now). They seem to believe that the only people who can think and analyze and critique are scholars and professors. Yet they write such analyses all the time, and are scarcely more qualified than I am (if not less) to do so.

One can see that both Hays and Enloe raised serious questions as to the author's work on Calvin, yet it is enough to attack these men personally as a response, in print. One wonders if any publisher or editor would have kept such comments in a published book. He ignores their constructive criticism and says,"No law or rule can be found that would forbid me from doing this, or entail that this endeavor ought to be defined as having 'no concept' of my 'limitations,' as one of my critics put it, or, 'an exercise in self-conceited charlatanry,' as another delightfully opined." Even if there was a law or rule, one doubts the author would follow it anyway.

Final Remarks
The author says his book is a "gift to John Calvin". Poor Calvin, all his opponents want to give him refutations of the Institutes. Servetus sent Calvin his Christianismi Restitutio, an attack on the Institutes. Normally, gifts aren't meant to tear a person down. I do find it interesting that a man deemed a heretic by Romanists and Protestants likewise wanted Calvin to have such a present.

The author finishes his introduction by stating, "May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth." I haven't done any searches on this sentence, but it is rather curious for a Roman Catholic espousing free will to ask God to "grant us the will." Perhaps a little Calvin actually did rub off on the author.