Author Archives: mark

The Kingdom of Christ, the House and Family of God, is not a “merely external” contrivance

Leave a reply

According to the Westminster Divines:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church

I keep being amazed at how gleefully the accusers of Peter Leithart condemn the Reformed Faith of “heresy.” The visible church we are told is “merely external.”

The Westminster Confession never says it is merely external. Do the above statements make the “visible church” sound so inconsequential? Perhaps human life and faith is more “external” than people realize. (And, by the way, it is simply question begging and silly to import everything you want to believe about some kind of external/internal dichotomy on Paul’s metaphor in Romans 2.28-29).

Another sneaky move is to contrast “the Church” and “the Visible Church.” No. That is not what the Westminster Standards say at all:

CHAPTER 25
Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Notice, the whole chapter is describing “the Church.” Nowhere does it say that this is only the invisible Church and the visible church is something else. It simply describes the Church first as invisible and then as visible.

And why is the “invisible Church” unseen? Because it is still in the future! It is the all of those together ” that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.” And what is it the future of? It is the future of the visible Church! It will be made up of those who will sincerely come into her and remain with her by a true and living faith–“out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (For more, see my essay, Of The Church)

So denigrating the Visible or Institutional Church, entered by baptism, in order to frame false charges on so-called “Federal Visionists” is outrageous on several levels.

 

Jean Balard of Geneva

Leave a reply

In Calvin’s Geneva, E. William Monter gives Balard’s dates as circa 1488 to 1555. He lived in the Lower City of Geneva near the Eastern gate. (Note here are what look like confirming documents for Monter, but I don’t read French.)

Balard was a merchant specializing in ironware, according to Monter, but he was also part of the city government for several years.

He had been active in civic councils since 1515, participating in 40 of 149 sessions over the next decade. He was suddenly raised to prominence in 1525 as one of Geneva’s four Syndics or chief magistrates,; the portion of his diary that has survived begins in that year (pp. 9-10)

According to D’Aubigne, during an early military crisis, Balard was against Reform.

Balard proposed another remedy: ‘Let mass be publicly celebrated once more,’ he said; ‘the mass is an expiation that will render God propitious to us.’ — ‘The mass is not worth a straw,’ exclaimed a huguenot. — ‘If it is so,’ retorted a catholic, ‘the death and passion of Jesus Christ are good for nothing.’ At these words the assembly became greatly excited. ‘Blasphemy!’ exclaimed some. ‘Balard has spoken blasphemy! He is a heretic. All who maintain the sacrifice of the host nullify the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.’ The council put an end to the discussion by resolving ‘that the priests should prove that the preachers spoke falsely, or else that they should go to the sermons and convince themselves that the ministers spoke the truth.’

According to Philip Schaff, Calvin “was appointed, together with the Syndics Roset, Porral, and Balard, to draw up a new code of laws, as early as Nov. 1, 1541.”

Schaff elaborates:

We have seen that in his first interview with the Syndics and Council after his return, Sept. 13, 1541, he insisted on the introduction of an ecclesiastical constitution and discipline in accordance with the Word of God and the primitive Church.685 The Council complied with his wishes, and intrusted the work to the five pastors (Calvin, Viret, Jacques Bernard, Henry de la Mare, and Aym‚ Champereau) and six councillors (decided Guillermins), to whom was added Jean Balard as advisory member. The document was prepared under his directing influence, submitted to the Councils, slightly altered, and solemnly ratified by a general assembly of citizens (the Conseil g‚n‚ral), Jan. 2, 1542, as the fundamental church law of the Republic of Geneva.686 Its essential features have passed into the constitution and discipline of most of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches of Europe and America. The official text of the “Ordinances “is preserved in the Registers of the Venerable Company, and opens with the following introduction: – “In the name of God Almighty, we, the Syndics, Small and Great Councils with our people assembled at the sound of the trumpet and the great clock, according to our ancient customs, have considered that the matter above all others worthy of recommendation is to preserve the doctrine of the holy gospel of our Lord in its purity, to protect the Christian Church, to instruct faithfully the youth, and to provide a hospital for the proper support of the poor,-all of which cannot be done without a definite order and rule of life, from which every estate may learn the duty of its office. For this reason we have deemed it wise to reduce the spiritual government, such as our Lord has shown us and instituted by his Word, to a good form to be introduced and observed among us. Therefore we have ordered and established to follow and to guard in our city and territory the following ecclesiastical polity, taken from the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (boldface added)

And some more from D’Aubigne:

They wanted Balard to go to sermon, but he did not; they wanted him to leave the city, but he remained; they wanted him to close his warehouse (he was a large ironmonger), and it was no sooner shut than he reopened it. fo163 He continued to be a member of the Council and discharged all its functions. Girardet de la Rive took his child a league from the city to have it christened by a priest; and yet he was re-elected syndic in 1539 and 1543, and in Calvin’s time, in 1547, was appointed one of the six commissioners for drawing up the ordinances of justice.

While Balard was better off than the average Genevan, he only owned one house and a bit of pasture and vineyard outside the Genevan walls. He could hardly be claimed to have influence with his peers due to his wealth when many of them owned six of more homes in various places in and out of the city.

He both seem to have eventually succumbed to some degree to the Reformation in the city. After being put on the Small Council for the second time in 1539, he received more scrutiny. Monter writes:

However, at Christmas 1539, he was once again interrogated about his religious beliefs by the Republic’s prosecuting attorney, Thomas Genod (formerly parish priest at St. Gervais, now married to the only Genevan nun who had accepted the Reformation). Balard responded that he was “entirely ready to believe all the articles of faith that the whole city believes, and that he wishes his body to be united with the body of the city, as a loyal citizen should do,” but his interrogators were unsatisfied. A second interrogation on Christmas Eve ended when Balard answered that, “he couldn’t judge things which he didn’t know or understand; but since it pleases the government that he say the Mass is evil, he will say that the Mass is evil.” He added that “no one could judge of a man’s heart, and the Gospel says that those who are godly shall live and these who are ungodly will perish.” “Afterwards he confessed the Mass to be evil,” calmly remarks the official register, and no doubt Balard took communion that Christmas.

But he left the Small Council at that point, never to return to it.

Balard served Geneva in others ways as well including giving from his own finances to help the city. He was one of the many people who worked for Genevan independence from the House of Savoy even though he wasn’t a big fan of the Swiss Alliance.

Reading Calvin’s Geneva has been a frustrating experience in many ways. I feel like the way I have thought of Reformation Church history has been really anachronistic and artificially teaching-centered. John Calvin is this pastor who writes theology that we learn from him. But what do we really learn about a man from a book he writes? What do we learn about his real life?

Calvin taught, we are told, that lesser magistrates could resist “higher” magistrates. We act as if we owe this to Calvin. What nonsense. Geneva was doing this long before they had ever heard of Calvin. The only reason there was ever a place for Calvin in Geneva was due to Geneva’s struggle for independence against the House of Savoy.

(The House of Savoy… several times a phrase in the history I’m reading now makes me think back to… reading Frank Herbert’s Dune! The Medieval world is so strange to us. No wonder we simplify it.)

Calvin may, at most, be credited with passing on to us the consensus of many in the medieval world. But his transmission should not be used to steal credit from the source.

And what about “the spirituality of the Church”? What a joke! As a born and raised American pluralist/secularist, I can say the thought of a city prosecutor badgering a man to confess that Mass is evil is somewhat painful to contemplate. But “the Spirituality of Geneva” is something that would give Thornwell nightmares. John Calvin has more in common with Constantine the Great than he does with any contemporary Calvinist. Mere agreement with the teaching in the Institutes simply does not cover that much of Calvin’s life and mission.

I’ll keep the post title, even though I’m now not sure what this post is about or why I’m writing it…

So what will the good ol’ boys be drinking the day the internet dies?

Leave a reply

We already know that today’s SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are totally stacked in favor of the bill. But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what’s about to be said. Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it — it’s all embedded below. However, here’s a taste of what’s going to be said… with some additional commentary (of course).

First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office). She should be here to defend the public and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn’t happen. But, that’s not how the Copyright Office rolls. Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce’s key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who’s in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently worked at the US Copyright Office). If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you’re not going to get it from Pallante.

via A Look At The Testimony Given At Today’s SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings… With A Surprise From MasterCard | Techdirt.

Please go read it and check out all the other material at Techdirt. They are all over this.

IP is a concept that permits the establishment to nullify any real benefit of the First Amendment. If Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are shut down, how many news stories will ever go viral? Who will report on Congress?

And if they are not shut down, it will be because they make the Establishment happy. This tool can and will be used ideologically, like the Kennedy Administration used “the Fairness Doctrine,” to neutralize opposition.

It is wrong on so many levels and it looks like it is going to happen.

 

Witsius on Final Justification

Leave a reply

I thought this was really helpful (boldface mine):

LXIV. Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge being delegated to that office by the Father (Acts x. 42. Acts xvii. 32) will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st, That they are truly pious, righteous, and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former: for by that the ungodly is justified (Rom. iv. 5). Whereas here God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, “gather my saints together” (Psal. l. 5) if, as many suppose, these words refer to the last judgment. See Mat. xiii. 40, 41, 43, 49. 2dly, That they have a right to eternal life (Mat. xx. 35).

LXV. The ground of the former declaration is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom. For on no other account can any person be declared pious and holy, but because he is endowed with habitual holiness, and gives himself to the practice of godliness, Mat. xii. 37: “by thy words thou shalt be justified,” that is, be declared just or righteous, because words are indications of the mind, and signs either of the good or bad treasure of the heart; “when the the Lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God,” 1 Cor. iv. 5.

LXVI. The foundation of the latter, can be no other than the righteousness of Christ the Lord, communicated to them according to the free decree of election, which is succeeded by adoption, which gives them a right to take possession of the inheritance. The very sentence of the judge himself leads us to this: come, ye blessed of my Father, whom, on my account, he freely loved (for, in Christ alh the nations of the earth are blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. Eph. i. 3.) Inherit, possess by hereditary right, as the adopted sons of God, who, because ye are sons, are also heirs (Rom. viii. 17) “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation bf the world;” ordained for you from eternity, whose palace was fitted up in the beginning for that purpose; by the hands of God the Creator.

LXVII. Mean while, in this respect too, there will be room for mentioning good works, for they shall be produced. 1st, As proofs of faith, of the union of believers with Christ, of their adoption, and of that holiness, without which none can see God, and of friendship with God, and brotherhood with Christ. 2dly, As signs of that sacred hunger and thirst, with which they desired happiness, and of that strenuous endeavour, by which, not regarding the advantages of this life, and despising carnal pleasures, they had sought the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness; and it is inconsistent with, the perfection of the infinitely holy God, to disappoint this hunger and thirst, and seeking after his kingdom. 3dly, As effects of divine grace, to which, the communication of divine glory will answer, in the most wise proportion, when it shall come to crown his own gifts. For the more abundant measure of sanctification any one has obtained in this life, and the more he has gained by the talent entrusted to him, it is also credible, that the portion of glory will be the more exuberant; which the divine bounty hath appointed for him. And in this sense; we imagine it is so often said in scripture, that every one shall be recompensed according to his works, not that these works are, on any account, the cause of any right they will have, to claim the reward; but as they are evidences of our adoption and of our seeking the chief good, and as they shew that proportion of grace, according to which the proportion of future glory will be dispensed.

Notice how well this agrees with Francis Turretin:

16TH TOPIC

EIGHTH QUESTION
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

[excerpt follows]

III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justification properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are requited as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

IV. The question does not concern justification a posteriori and declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial–whether faith alone without works concurs to it (for we confess that works come in here with faith; yea, that works only are properly regarded because it is concerned with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs). Rather the question concerns justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial, which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law and acquire for us a right to life–whether works come into consideration here with faith (as the Romanists hold) or whether faith alone (as we maintain).

And Benedict Pictet:

We have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner; we must now speak of his justification as a righteous man, i.e. that by which he proves that he is justified and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this justification is by works, even in the sight of God , as well as of men; and of this James speaks when he declares that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). To illustrate this, we must remark that there is a twofold accusation against man. First, he is accused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this accusation is met and done away by the justification of which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who has been justified may be accused of hypocrisy, false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears himself from this accusation and justifies his faith by his works-this is the second justification; it differs from the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, in the second a godly man is distinguished from an ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the gift of holiness bestowed upon us ; both these justifications the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that “by works he is justified and not by faith only.”

From these remarks it is plain that James is easily reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul had to do with judiciaries, who sought to be justified by the law, i.e. by their own works, but James had to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and efficacious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, James of that justification, by which a man as it were justifies his faith and proves himself to be justified . For it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Christian man to glory in the remission of sins, which is unquestionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, but that he must endeavor to make it manifest by his works that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regenerate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abraham is properly said to have been justified, when he offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hypocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this sense that passage is explained: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev 22), i.e. let him show by his works that he is justified…

 

Bearing the image of God and the name of Christ

Leave a reply

5. “Is our representation of Christ not part of the mission?” This final question aptly summarizes the biggest criticism we’ve seen to our book (we”ll say more about this concern tomorrow). Trevin probably speaks for others when he says, “DeYoung and Gilbert believe we must represent Christ, but it seems like they connect this representation so tightly to verbal proclamation of the gospel that little room is left for representing Christ through love and good deeds.” Later he concludes, “Christ-likeness is a part of the mission, and we cannot and should not separate proclamation of Christ from the representation of Christ we offer through our acts of service.” Let us reiterate: we believe with all our hearts and preach it from our pulpits with passion that Christians must live lives of love and good deeds. Holiness (in all its public and private expressions) is irrefutably, indispensably, and irreducibly part of being a follower of Jesus Christ. It’s one of the reasons God chose us and saved us (Eph. 1:4).

But what does it mean to say our good deeds “represent” Christ? We aren’t sure if Trevin is saying: we demonstrate what it means to have Christ in us, or that we re-present Christ in the world, or both. We agree with the first option, but don’t see in the New Testament that we are supposed to be incarnations of Christ’s presence in the world (again, we aren’t sure that’s what Trevin is suggesting). More to the point, we wonder what it means that “Christ-likeness is a part of the [church’s] mission.” If this means our good works adorn the gospel and win a hearing for the gospel then we totally agree. But we do not think Jesus sends the church as church into the world to adopt schools, remedy unemployment, make a contribution to the arts, or plant trees (which is not what Trevin says here, but what we have heard others say and are arguing against in our book). We have many good things to do as Christians and many good things we could do, but everything good does not equal the mission of the church.

via Some Answers to Some Nagging Questions | 9Marks.

I’m completely sympathetic to asking the question “what does it mean to say our good deeds ‘represent’ Christ?”–but there is no question that an answer must be sought because the Bible unambiguously supports Trevin’s position.

First, lets point out that representation is tightly related to being an image-bearer. That puts us back at creation: humanity is created in the image of God and humanity’s progressive dominion is representative of God himself.

Second, that image-bearing is restored in Christ who is the image and representative of the Father.

Third, we thus have the Church as the light doing her mission simply by being light:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

“Awake, O sleeper,

and arise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

The exposure here is not any kind of mission to reveal what evil is (Paul rules that out as “shameful”) but rather simply a life that transforms the world because it represents God and is used by Christ to end darkness.

I think asking “what kind of works” should be done or encouraged in the Church is a worthwhile discussion. Maybe some strategies are problematic. But the simple claim that our good works represent Christ and are part of the Church’s kingdom-building mission should not be controversial.

Note: as much as I appreciate Ed Stetzer’s link, my last post was not a review of any book but an interaction with blog posts. Same here.

The Omni/Prayer Pardox — a practical problem

Leave a reply

And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

via Luke 18 – ESVBible.org.

It really struck me, listening to sermon yesterday, that I need to pray more often and more passionately. So I’ve decided to do so.

But this parable was mentioned in a way that really brought home why, 1) some Christians find it difficult to pray often, and 2) when they do pray tend not to express their feelings about the issues in their lives that they are praying about.

The issue is simply this: the same belief that God is omnipotent and can do what we ask leads us to find it impossible to imagine that God can be “worn down” by our prayers. Why ask more than once? If God says “No” the first time, what could possibly change?

We infer from omnipotence that God is impervious.

We don’t pray as much as we should and when we do pray no one would ever guess it is to the same God who inspired the Psalms of David.

And I really don’t have much of an answer for how to handle this.

But two thoughts come to mind and I’ll throw them out for what they might be worth.

ONE: God seems more interested that we grow to trust in his empathy for us than in our belief that he is omnipotent.

I don’t mean that “omnipotence” is less important. I mean that it is actually the easier claim to believe. The other belief is a much more difficult one for us to hold to in sincerity. Notice that the challenge of the parable is to ask the disciples not whether or not God is able to deliver but whether or not he is willing.

TWO: We learn to pray from examples and practice, not from premisses by which we deduce how we should behave.

A bare belief in God’s omnipotence simply does not automatically deliver the prayer life of David or anyone else int he Bible. And teaching the proposition is not going to lead to right worship or prayer. You have to look at what God upholds as a healthy prayer life and you have to emulate it. You have to show it to your children and/or anyone else you are discipling. Just telling people God can do anything and that we have access to ask him for what we want will not be enough.

“What is that to you?” is a profound biblical principle. “Each servant answers to his own master” is another expression of the same principle. Meddling in the affairs of others without scriptural warrant is not just wrong on the face of it, but it also is the reason why many Christians fail to meddle in their own affairs. When we take up something we shouldn’t, it is often because we want to be occupied so that we don’t have to take up something we should.

Objections crowd into our minds. Shouldn’t we be loving each other? Yes, of course, the way the Bible says to. As C.S. Lewis once memorably put it, don’t let your loved ones be recognizable by their hunted expression. So here is the Pauline principle again—tend to your own knitting. (via Tend To Your Own Knitting.)

Calvin knew that money wasn’t “sterile”

Leave a reply

Over time, however, Christians grew more careful in defining usury. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) defined usury as “nothing else than gain or profit drawn from the use of a thing that is by its nature sterile, a profit acquired without labor, costs, or risk.” This meant that if the lender lent money with labor, cost, or risk to himself he could charge interest without being guilty of usury. Likewise, Calvin talked about acceptable and unacceptable kinds of usury. Making money off the poor is one thing, but “if we have to do with the rich, that usury is freely permitted.” Surely, he argues, “usury ought to be paid to the creditor in addition to the principal, to compensate his loss.” In short, “reason does not suffer us to admit that all usury is to be condemned without exception” (Commentary on Exodus).

via Is It Wrong to Charge Interest on a Loan? – Kevin DeYoung.

This is an excellent summary by Pastor Kevin DeYoung. But I want to point out that Calvin was a more revolutionary thinker on the issue. Here is what an economist (one hostile to Calvinism and to Calvin especially) had to say about Calvin’s economic reasoning about interest:

Calvin’s main contribution to the usury question was in having the courage to dump the prohibition altogether. This son of an important town official had only contempt for the Aristotelian argument that money is sterile. A child, he pointed out, knows that money is only sterile when locked away somewhere; but who in their right mind borrows to keep money idle? Merchants borrow in order to make profits on their purchases, and hence money is then fruitful. As for the Bible, Luke’s famous injunction only orders generosity towards the poor, while Hebraic law in the Old Testament is not binding in modern society. To Calvin, then, usury is perfectly licit, provided that it is not charged in loans to the poor, who would be hurt by such payment. Also, any legal maximum of course must be obeyed. And finally, Cal vin maintained that no one should function as a professional money-lender.

So Calvin was much better than the Lateran Council, which looks rather superstitious when compared to him. And, if Calvin could be improved upon, then other Calvinists did so.

The honour of putting the final boot to the usury prohibition belongs to the seventeenth century classicist and Dutch Calvinist, Claude Saumaise (latinized name, Claudius Salmasius) (1588-1653). In several works published in Leyden, beginning with De usuris tiber in 1630 and continuing to 1645, Salmasius finished off this embarrassing remnant of the mountainous errors of the past. His forte was not so much in coining new theoretical arguments as in finally willing to be consistent. In short, Salmasius trenchantly pointed out that money-lending was a business like any other, and like other businesses was entitled to charge a market price. He did make the important theoretical point, however, that, as in any other part of the market, if the number of usurers multiplies, the price of money or interest will be driven down by the competition. So that if one doesn’t like high interest rates, the more usurers the better!

Salmasius also had the courage to point out that there were no valid arguments against usury, either by divine or natural law. The Jews only prohibited usury against other Jews, and this was a political and tribal act rather than an expression of a moral theory about an economic transaction. As for Jesus, he taught nothing at all about civil polity or economic transactions. This leaves the only ecclesiastical law against usury that of the pope, and why should a Calvinist obey the pope? Salmasius also took some deserved whacks at the evasions permeating the various scholastic justifications, or ‘extrinsic titles’, justifying interest. Let’s face it, Salmasius in effect asserted: what the canonists and scholastics ‘took away with one hand, they restored with the other’. The census is really usury, foreign exchange is really usury, lucrum cessans is really usury. Usury all, and let them all be licit. Furthermore, usury is always charged as compensation for something, in essence the lack of use of money and the risk of loss in a loan.

Salmasius also had the courage to take the hardest case: professional money-lending to the poor, and to justify that. Selling the use of money is a business like any other. If it is licit to make money with things bought with money, why not from money itself? As Noonan paraphrases Salmasius, ‘The seller of bread is not required to ask if he sells it to a poor man or a rich man. Why should the moneylender have to make a distinction?’ And: ‘there is no fraud or theft in charging the highest market price for other goods; why is it wrong for the usurer to charge the heaviest usuries he can collect?’

Empirically, Salmasius also analysed the case of public usurers in Amsterdam (the great commercial and financial centre of the seventeenth century, replacing Antwerp of the previous century), showing that the usual 16 per cent charge on small loans to the poor is accounted for by: the costs of the usurers borrowing their own money, of holding some money idle, of renting a large house, of absorbing some losses on loans, of paying licence fees, hiring employees, and paying an auctioneer. Deducting all these expenses, the average net interest rate of the money-lenders is only 8 per cent, barely enough to keep them in business.

Of course, I hate the way this stuff is misused to justify consumer debt, but it is still quite right and it shows that Calvinists have nothing to be embarrassed about when they refuse to condemn the practice of lending money at interest.

Compound entropy of the mind.

Leave a reply

The problem with being poor is that you can’t afford to fix things and you can’t afford to buy things that don’t need fixing.

In this environment, every “entropic event”–the car/refrigerator/furnace breakdown, is a multiplying event in the mind. Any thing that goes wrong is a representation of a myriad of potential and imagined possibilities of like kind.

Each thing that goes requires repair brings into view all the other things that might or could conceivably go wrong. Each says to you, “Our name is Legion for we are many.” You wish you could ask for terms of surrender but the war never ends.

“Merely external” comments on 1 Corinthians 12

Leave a reply

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ [Note: Paul must have originally written “the Church” and the transcribers accidentally blasphemed]. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit [if we are among the truly regenerate].

For the body does not consist of one member but of many [though there are “visible” members that really don’t belong to the body even though they seem attached]. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body [unless he is not elect in which case he actually is right to say he is not part of the body]. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” [but if he doubts whether the hand really belongs to the body, that’s just fine] nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” [but if he doubts the feet are truly feet, that’s just fine] On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable [he meant to say, “unregenerate”], and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor [he meant to write, “condemnation”], and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another [once they have assured themselves that the others are really regenerate]. If one member suffers, all suffer together [“the others can find fault”]; if one member is honored, all rejoice together [“the others search for the heresy he is preaching”].

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it [except for those of you who don’t belong].