And grieve not. As the Holy Spirit dwells in us, to him every part of our soul and of our body ought to be devoted. But if we give ourselves up to aught that is impure, we may be said to drive him away from making his abode with us; and, to express this still more familiarly, human affections, such as joy and grief, are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Endeavour that the Holy Spirit may dwell cheerfully with you, as in a pleasant and joyful dwelling, and give him no occasion for grief. Some take a different view of it, that we grieve the Holy Spirit in others, when we offend by filthy language, or, in any other way, godly brethren, who are led by the Spirit of God. (Romans 8:14.) Whatever is contrary to godliness is not only disrelished by godly ears, but is no sooner heard than it produces in them deep grief and pain. But that Paul's meaning was different appears from what follows.
By whom ye are sealed. As God has sealed us by his Spirit, we grieve him when we do not follow his guidance, but pollute ourselves by wicked passions. No language can adequately express this solemn truth, that the Holy Spirit rejoices and is glad on our account, when we are obedient to him in all things, and neither think nor speak anything, but what is pure and holy; and, on the other hand, is grieved, when we admit anything into our minds that is unworthy of our calling. Now, let any man reflect what shocking wickedness there must be in grieving the Holy Spirit to such a degree as to compel him to withdraw from us. The same mode of speaking is used by the prophet Isaiah, but in a different sense; for he merely says, that they "vexed his Holy Spirit," (Isaiah 63:10.) in the same sense in which we are accustomed to speak of vexing the mind of a man. By whom ye are sealed. The Spirit of God is the seal, by which we are distinguished from the wicked, and which is impressed on our hearts as a sure evidence of adoption.
Monday, May 10, 2021
John Calvin Commentary Regarding Ephesians 4:30
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Am I wrong to interpret this as being less than compatible with Calvinistic monergism? i.e. in the Calvinistic system it's God (including the holy spirit) who causes effects on creation, not the other way around? Would this also contradict impassibility, which I believe Calvin held to?
My understanding is that Calvin held to impassibility like Augustine of Hippo did: Auggie deeply influenced both Calvin and Luther. IMO, Calvin tries to give a reading of Ephesians 4:30 that harmonizes with impassibility. Notice that in the last part of his comments, we read:
"The same mode of speaking is used by the prophet Isaiah, but in a different sense; for he merely says, that they 'vexed his Holy Spirit,' (Isaiah 63:10.) in the same sense in which we are accustomed to speak of vexing the mind of a man."
Calvin thought that the Bible using speech we can understand. God "babbles" to us like a parent speaking to an infant. When read in a wider context, I think you'll find that Calvin adheres to impassibility even though the surface structure of his discourse may indicate otherwise.
In the whole classical/personalist theist debate among theologians I heard one on the personalist side say something to the tune of "they always say that God wrote about himself in personalist terms to stoop down to the human level, so that those people could understand thing, yet these classical theist theologans perfectly seem to be capable of understanding the classical God, so why didn't God just lay it out."
I understand the classical theist position though, that the bible is written from the viewpoint of humans experiencing God, not God in himself.
Thanks for the response, although I don't like Clavin (at all), he was, if nothing else, systematic, so it wouldn't suprise me to find out that in context he's consistant, (I haven't read much of Calvin himself, just secondary literature).
I'll try to post some other sources, but see https://normangeisler.com/category/doctrine-of-god/
John Sanders also discusses Calvin in The God Who Risks. I can't remember if you've read that book before.
I haven't read that one, but it's on my list :) ... do you recommend it?
I would recommend Sanders: I've posted some about him from time to time here. His book is far from perfect, but it's a thoughtful work and one of the best open theism works out there. Terence Fretheim is another good writer on God's openness and he's a good Tanakh scholar.
Post a Comment