Daily Archives: 4 Jan 2019
‘The Help‘ is the greatest movie I have ever seen. It is – unquestionably – my favorite movie ever.
Florida woman attacked parents for not taking her to Outback Steakhouse, authorities say…
Kids these days… Florida kids anyway…
If you are angry that a teenage girl was caught on tape dancing, fully clothed, without even the slightest hint of indeceny; but you are silent about the President’s wife posing nude. Posing. Nude…. Your hypocrisy is Level Satanic and you need to check yourself into a repentance clinic.
Allow me to be uncharacteristically blunt: the dirtbags in Congress and in the Whitehouse will get pay raises tomorrow. During a government shutdown. Because they don’t care about 800,000 Americans but they do care about themselves. These vermin are scum. STOP SENDING THE SAME PEOPLE BACK TO WASHINGTON.
There are those at the present day who simply place their imaginary notions about Christology—the Kenotic theory for example—under the protection of the ancient dogma, i.e., who really rule out the latter, but nevertheless play the part of vindices dogmatis. The position of things is not essentially different as regards the doctrine of the Trinity.
A speculation is evolved from one’s inner consciousness, which has in common with the old dogma the contradiction between one and three, but is otherwise different from it toto cœlo, and then one describes himself as orthodox, his opponents as heretical. As if it were not an easy thing for each of these heretics to garnish his criticism of the old dogma with similar fancies!
If they could produce real satisfaction in this way, they would certainly be under obligation to do so. But these adornings have supplanted one another with astonishing rapidity—for a number of years they have almost ceased to be attempted; no one of them really gave satisfaction, each one served at the best to delay the crisis. No further notice is taken to-day as to how one comes to terms with the old dogma, indeed one shrugs his shoulders beforehand in contemplating his attempt. But that one does come to terms, even although it be by the fides implicita tenuissima, which means that one has no wish to disturb what the Church believes—that, is enough.
Thus from the days of Schleiermacher there is a living within the positive theology so to speak from hand to mouth. But even with that we should have to reconcile ourselves—our knowledge being in part—were it not that the old dogma has a fettering, burdening, and confusing influence on the faith of the nineteenth century. Because that is undoubtedly the case, what must be done is to contend one’s self against the whole world for the simple gospel.
The strongest argument urged from the other side is in these terms: “Observe that it is only where the old dogma is that there is to be found at the present time in Protestantism deep knowledge of sin, true repentance, and vigorous ecclesiastical activity.” To this objection the following reply must be given:
- First, that this self-estimation has a pharisaic and evil ring about it, and that the judgment as to knowledge of sin and repentance falls, not to the ecclesiastical press, but to God the Lord; second, that “vigorous ecclesiastical activity” affords no guarantee for unadulterated evangelical faith;
- were that alone decisive, Luther was wrong when he brought a revolution upon the old Church, for a long time elapsed before the Lutheran Churches were on a level in respect of vigorous activity with the Post-Tridentine Catholic Church;
- third, that it is no wonder that the others are in a leading position, who take control of the power of tradition and of all means of rule in the most conservative corporation that exists—in the Church. For the rest, the Christian must find out the good and holy, whatever be the quarter in which it may present itself.
Do not, therefore, cast away your consolation, for that it hath pleased the Lord to abase you for a season, seeing that this is no more than what the Scripture forewarns you must come to pass, even that he exalts the humble and the despised, and lifteth them out of the dust, the needy he raises up from the dunghill; that to those who are in weeping and in tears he gives a crown of joy; that he gives light to those who sit in darkness, and raises up to newness of life those who have dwelt in the valley of the shadow of death. Hope, therefore, that this gracious God will open such a deliverance that you shall have good cause to magnify and also to glorify his clemency. — John Calvin
If ever there were evidence that the State has no business dictating to the Church its behavior it is this event of 4 January, 1538-
Although the civil rulers of Geneva at first co-operated to the best of their ability with Calvin, opposition soon arose. Crypto-Catholics, some of them belonging to prominent families, and the so-called Libertines, as well as partisans of Farel like Ami Porral and others, opposed the strict discipline which Calvin sought to impose upon their city.
When on January 4, 1538, the Council of Two Hundred voted “that the Supper be refused to no one,” thus offering a direct affront to Calvin and Farel who had vehemently insisted upon the exclusive right of the church and its clergy to determine admission to or exclusion from the Lord’s Supper, the opposition took on serious character. A few months later, on April 22, 1538, the Council ordered Calvin and Farel to leave the city of Geneva within three days. Thus ended Calvin’s first attempt to put into practice his high church ideal.*
The State has as much business dictating the terms of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as it does dictating the terms of Church membership. But when you give the State an inch, it’s happy to take a thousand miles.
*W. Mueller, Church and state in Luther and Calvin: A Comparative Study (p. 109).