A COMPARISON OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS OF JOHN CALVIN AND THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

        The Reformation’s effect on society was in more areas than merely theological issues. It had a major influence on the political, economic, and theological areas of life. John Calvin, one of the major reformers, is noted for addressing these matters and many other topics of interest in his day. Moreover, John Cavlin’s economic views were very different that those of the sixteen century Roman Catholic Church. He was attempting to reflect faithfully the teaching of the whole Bible (the 66 books of the Protestant Cannon) on how to operate justly in a fallen world with depraved humans in control.

             Some historians believe that John Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France.[1] Others affirm a different date, but not one of a significant difference. In his early twenties, he had to flee from France to Switzerland because he unintentionally became an outspoken Protestant in a country aligned with the Roman Catholic Church. During this time in Europe, the church and the state roles were co-mingled. It was in Switzerland that he wrote and completed his expanding work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. The persecution in France after his departure was a dark providence that had directed him to become a self-supporting missionary to Switzerland.

             Geneva was the city where he lived most of the remaining years of his life after departing from France. He was convinced of God’s call for him to this city, but because of the difficult conditions there, he would have preferred to move on at providence’s first bidding for at least the first twenty-five years of residency there. He resisted, mocked, and threatened. Yet, Calvin’s influence can be seen in both Geneva and in the Calvinistic traditions that followed, even though neither totally represented his views. Nevertheless, his position on economics was used to bring about drastic change in the world of his day.

             During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on economics had dominated both the State and the Church’s teaching and the national laws of Europe. One of Rome’s long held teachings was that lending money for interest was wrong and should be illegal.[2] However, in the 16^th Century the Roman Church was not very consistent on this matter! “As a matter of fact, usury, though prohibited in the whole Roman Empire . . . was actually practiced through a series of evasions.”[3] However, the lower classes were not involved in these evasions, which were only used by the well-to-do close friends of the Roman Church. “The Church could not dispense with commercial wickedness in high places. It was too convenient.”[4]

[Usury laws were] rarely applied to large-scale transactions of kings, feudal magnates, bishops and abbots . . . . Popes regularly employed the international banking houses of the day, with a singular indifference . . . . to the morality of their business methods . . . . and sometimes enforced the payments of debts by the threat of excommunication.[5]

 

Thus, this chief economic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church seemed to Calvin to not only lack scriptural support based on a careful exegesis of the applicable texts, but it was also troubling to him that the Roman Church excluded herself from keeping her own laws based on their doctrinal understanding and yet set different mandate for others.

Similarly, one of the chief teachings of the 16^th Century Roman Church was concerned with the sin of avarice (greed). Several historians assert that one procedure they used in helping to remove the temptation of greed from their constituents was for the church to acquire their money by various religious activities. Accordingly, some Roman Catholics leaders spoke out against the evil of mammon (money) of this world, while through the example of their top leaders, they encouraged luxury and showmanship.[6] They boldly called middlemen in business ‘parasites’ and they called the for-interest money lenders ‘thieves;’ while enjoying the abundance of wealth themselves during the same time that they chastised others for acquiring wealth.[7] Granted, some monks who took vows of poverty kept these vows even in this century. However, even though Roman Catholic economic principles denounced greed and wealth verbally; yet some bishops and cardinals taught by example the advantages and benefits of having significant wealth and living a lifestyle reserved for the royalty. They missed the red flag that widespread hypocrisy is often a result when a teaching is out of balance and is legalistic by adding man-made rules to the Word of God. It is difficult to justify biblically a view that would leave no room in the kingdom of God for wealthy people like Job, Abraham, Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia, and some members of the church at Corinth without ignoring certain texts and solely concentrating on others. This denies by practice the hermeneutical principle of interpreting Scripture by the Scriptures and relating each part to the whole.

In the sixteenth century, the Roman Church outwardly condemned the banking trade and sought to enforce its position in both the Roman Church and the governments it influenced, which led to the creation of usury laws. From their perspective, every godly person was one who repudiated all wealth, and often begged for a living, and certainly one who remained poor in this world. They believed money was barren. Yet, monopolies could exist, in their view, if their profits were minimal. Moreover, the Roman church itself was a major financial center during this century. These funds were controlled by men who had access to this wealth on the Roman Church’s ledgers, even though it was not in their individual names.

             On the other hand, the Reformers evaluated economics differently. They were concerned with the purification of the church and society.[8] Both Calvin and Luther rejected the monastic lifestyle and emphasized the importance of work rather than begging. Calvin especially emphasized the need to be diligent in the vocation to which God had called each one to serve.[9] Laziness was a sin that was not tolerated by the Reformers. All believers were to provide for their families, working heartily to the honor and glory of God. Thus, the Calvinistic work ethic and its view of man’s chief end to glorify God (Soli Deo Gloria) radically departed from the 16^th Century Roman Catholic dogma.[10]

             Calvin further departed from the Roman system in his views on wealth and interest. Wealth, he taught, was not necessarily evil. A person’s motives in acquiring and using this wealth were what was subject to scrutiny. If God blessed one as he labored hard at his vocation, he should use that blessing to provide for his own family, support the local ministry, assist the poor, and improve the community, However, greed, selfishness, abuses of wealth, along with loving money or making it an idol, were always condemned. A Reformed Christian was to be economical and modest, but not necessarily poor. Calvin taught that the 16^th Century Roman Catholic view that money was evil in and of itself was simply not the teaching of Scripture; and it was his understanding of the meaning of the Scriptures that restricted and guided John Calvin.[11]

             The most radical departure from the Roman system, however, was Calvin’s views on charging interest for loans. According to Calvin, the key to charging interest correctly was for the loan to bring proportional profit to both the borrower and the lender. Accordingly, the interest rates must always be equal to or under that which is set by the government and the conscience of the lender as fair and reasonable rates.[12] Thus, the banking trade was just as respectable occupation and industry as that of a land leaseholder.[13] However, he also believed that there were several exceptions for an individual on which it was improper to charge interest when making loans. Calvin argued:

1.        One must take no interest when lending to the poor.

2.      One must not neglect charity in order to have money to lend.

3.      Nothing should occur which is not in accord with the Golden Rule.

4.      The borrower should make at least as much on the money as the lender.

5.      We must not measure our practices by what is licit par l’iniquité du monde, but by the Word of God.

6.      What is good for the public takes precedence over our private benefit.

7.      What is legal may be unchristian and prohibited to the Christian.[14]

 

This radical departure from the 16^th Century Roman Church’s position on the charging of interest on loans was a positive boost to Western society. Yet, more significantly, a return to accurately interpreting the Bible gave Christian business owners the right to join in many different honorable callings. Interest is both the just compensation for the time value of money and the risk that the lender assumes when investing in another person’s business. Therefore, it is historically significant that Calvin recognized “the necessity of capital, credit, and banking,” and “large-scale commerce and finance.”[15]

Furthermore, Calvin had specific expectations of governmental responsibilities in economics. He was opposed to any welfare-type systems established for the benefit of individuals who were unwilling to work. As the New Testament taught, those who refuse to work should not be able to eat either,[16] which is a major motivation to work. Likewise, the Consistory, which was a church council make up of teaching elders (pastors) and ruling elders in Geneva, pushed for more governmental regulation to punish greed and selfishness in business dealings. They also put church censures on “harsh creditors,” and they punished “usurers,[17] engrossers, and monopolists” as well as all others who took more than their lawful share from others.[18] Thus, Calvin taught that the government had been given the responsibility to protect the poor and maintain necessary economic laws for the public’s benefit.

      Calvin was an influential reformer who understood that God governed humans through two forms of governments. The first sphere is the spiritual government or the church, and the second form is the civil government.[19]

According to Calvin, each of these “rooms” (spheres) in our “earthly house” (society) has its own identity, right or existence, reason for existence, its own God-given sovereignty, which is inviolable, but limited—limited in one way by the overall supreme sovereignty of God, which must always be upheld, and in another way by the co-existing and pro-existing coordinate sovereignties of other spheres of life-activity. Therefore, neither church nor state may trespass the limits of its proper authority. If one or the other oversteps its bound, people suffer either spiritual harassment or political tyranny.[20]

 

The civil government worked through the civil law and enforced it with the sword. On the other hand, the church worked through its discipline of the unruly, resulting in the excommunication of the unrepentant.

Moreover, the application of this principle [of church discipline] carried Cavin very far, and, indeed, in its outworking gave the world through him the principle of a free Church in a free State. It is ultimately to him, therefore, that the Church owes its emancipation from the State, and to him goes back that great battle-cry which has since fired the hearts of many saints in many crises in many lands: “The Crown Rights of King Jesus in His Church.”[21]

 

Thus, with Calvin’s radical teachings on the separation of state and church, both could assume their individual responsibilities in the area of economics. The state exercised its jurisdiction by laws and punishments, while the church maintained her prophetic voice against immoral or unjust practices in society in each individual culture and disciplined professing Christians who violated these principles.

             Calvin’s perspective was that a church was not to play the role of the state in dealing with offenders. As a pioneer in encouraging the separation of church and state, he stressed that the church’s role and sphere was primarily spiritual. However, in Calvin’s writings, the interdependence between the church and the state was much greater than that which exists today. Moreover, he never conceived of a secular state that would divorce itself from all wisdom available from God’s special revelation in the Bible. Consequently, Calvin taught that the state

[had the responsibilities] to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the Church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.[22]

 

At the same time, Calvin believed that the election of ministers and the excommunication of the delinquent should never be under the jurisdiction of the state. These were solely spiritual ministries to be rendered by the church of Christ under His Lordship alone. Much of his struggle in Geneva was because of his firm convictions concerning the church’s independent sphere of sovereignty under the Lord Christ in these areas. Thus, during the Reformation, different state governments and cultures shifted their stance on economics away from the Roman Church’s stated position. Instead, they embraced the position of the Reformed Church, which allowed the church to keep its prophetic voice and required all its officers to practice the church’s official economic position consistently.

             Calvin’s understanding of the Bible’s teachings that encouraged capitalism brought landmark results to the modern world. Other pastors and theologians in the Calvinistic tradition have seen the validity of capitalism and wealth based on the divine calling for some people to be prosperous as those positive examples in Bible were like Job, Abraham, Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia, and some members of the church at Corinth. The key factors for these good examples were their motivation and method of acquiring wealth and their godly compassionate use of those divine blessings as well. The Reformers carefully interpreted the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy when he wrote, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim 6:10 NKJV). They believed that money itself is amoral, but loving it leads to numerous violations of God’s law. Adoring or worshiping money and especially loving money more than God or one’s neighbor is a violation of the moral law. Likewise, Calvinistic capitalism rewarded those who diligently worked in their occupations established by their divine calling. However, those who were idle or lazy had to bear the consequences of their sins. Those able body persons who refused to work were not to be supplied with food, since their hunger would motivate them to work (2 Thes 3:10). Nevertheless, the Reformers also strongly emphasized that the church and individual Christian should provide care and nurture for the poor and those who could not work (1 Tim 5:9). Calvin believed this was clearly the church’s responsibility. In addition, he taught that the Reformed Christian gave part of his/her testimony by the way in which he/she worked. The Bible called these believers to work heartily to the honor and glory of God (Col 3:23-24). In return, God’s blessing on the diligent laborer was also a testimony to the world. Thus, the capitalism spawned by Calvin brought many benefits to Christianity and to society. Calvinistic capitalism had biblical safeguards that was not present in the capitalism generated by the Renaissance which was centered on humanism.[23]

             There was a stark contrast in economics in Calvin’s day with the Reformers on one side, and the Roman Church on the other. The Reformers noted that some of the Roman Catholic polices encouraged hypocrisy and asceticism, which they believed from careful study of the Bible, that neither of these were condoned by the Scriptures. Nevertheless, those who study history often rightly recognize that the poor were often protected under the Roman Church’s official policies. However, at the same time, the middle class was held in abeyance and stagnancy by policies that went beyond the teachings of the Bible. Therefore, many believed that for the improvement of society, the adjusting of 16^th Century Roman Catholic economic policies were in order. The new phenomenon in this century of the Bible being translated into the heart languages of the middle class, who were not trained in Latin, may have supported the Reformer’s challenges of policies that went beyond the teachings of Scripture. Since these polices appeared to have human origins, even though they may have had good intentions, they could be easily updated to polices that were a closer match to divine special revelation found in the Bible.

             During all the changes in the 16^th century from numerous sources, Calvin’s economic system had a greater influence on Western culture than the Roman Church’s system. People recognized the differences were in the understanding and interpreting of the Bible and that those differences had a radical practical application for the Protestant work ethic and the prosperity of the middle class. Likewise, over the years, Calvinistic thinkers have moved the line of the separation of church and state from where Calvin’s beginning reforms had placed it. For instance, the revised separation has argued against allowing the state to use capital punishment to deter heretics and to protect the faithful from soul-destroying error. This new understanding has prevented the use of capital punishment for heretics, yet the American understanding of the separate roles of the church, the family, and the state also has it weaknesses. Separation has now developed into a concept where the state is free from the prophetic voice of the church in apply the Bible to the present-day culture. This is not how God intended it. Each of the divinely created and sanctioned institutions: the state, the family, and the church, have roles, duties, boundaries, and work best for society when they work together under God.[24] Unfortunately, the state is more than willing to punish the church when the changing ideas of culture clash with the Bible’s teachings on morality and economics. Sanctioning doctrine for a church, even on morality, or the order of worship is not a role given to the state since Christ alone is Lord of the church and not Caesar.

             It is sad to see that Calvin’s principles of the compassionate use of wealth and the necessity of loans to be equally beneficial to both parties (lender and borrower) are no longer practiced by most in today’s Western society. There still should be places and people from where those who are poor can acquire loans without interest. May God grant us a new Reformation that aligns us more with the Scriptures in all areas of life, including economics.

            

 ===================================================================

APPENDIX I: JOHN CALVIN’S LETTER TO SACHINUS IN 1545

 

             The following letter by John Calvin was originally published in Calvini Opera Selecta which was edited by Barth and Niesel in 1952. The English translation as follows is taken from W. F. Graham’s The Constructive Revolutionary.

   While I have had no experience myself, I have learned from the example of others how dangerous it is to give an answer to the question on which you ask my advice. For if we wholly condemn usury [les usures], we impose tighter fetters on the conscience than God himself. Yet if we permit it in the least, many under this pretext will take an unbridled liberty which can then be held in bounds by no restriction. . . .

 

   In the first place, by no testimony of the Scriptures is usury wholly condemned. For the meaning of the saying of Christ, commonly thought to be very clear, e.g., “Lend, hoping for nothing again” (Luke 6:35), has been perverted [faulsement destournee enc e sens]. As elsewhere in speaking of the sumptuous feasts and ambitious social rivalry of the rich, he commands rather that they invite in the blind, the lame, and the poor from the streets who cannot make a like return, so here, wishing to curb abuses in lending, he directs us to loan chiefly to those from whom there is no hope of receiving anything. . . . The words of Christ mean that he commends serving the poor rather than the rich. Thus, we do not find all [receiving interest] usury forbidden.

 

   The law of Moses (Deut 23:19) was political and should not influence us beyond what justice and philanthropy will bear. It could be wished that all usury, and even the name, were banished from the earth. But since this is impossible, it is necessary to concede to the common good. . . .

 

   Now it is said that today, too, usury should be forbidden on the same grounds as among the Jews, since there is a bond of brotherhood among us. To this I reply, that in the civil state there is some difference; for the situation in which the Lord had placed the Jews, and many other circumstances, made it easy for them to engage in business among themselves without usury. Our relationship is not at all the same. Therefore, I do not consider that usury is wholly forbidden among us, except when it is repugnant to justice and love.

 

   The reasoning of Saint Ambrose and of Chrysostom, that money does not give birth to money, is, in my judgement, too superficial. What does the sea give birth to? What does the land give birth to? I receive income from the rental of a house. Is it because the money grows there? The earth produces things from which money is made, and the use of a house can be bought with money. And is not money more fruitful in trade than in any other form of possession one can mention? Is it lawful to lease a farm, requiring payment in return, and unlawful to receive any profit [fruict] from the use of money? . . .

 

   How do merchants derive their profits? [Lit., “increase their goods.”] By their industry, you will say. Certainly, if money is shut up in a strong-box, it will be barren—a child can see that. But whoever requests a loan from me does not intend to keep this money idle and gain nothing. The profit is not in the money itself, but in the return that comes from its use. It is necessary then to draw the conclusion that while such subtle distinctions appear on the surface to have some weight, they vanish on closer scrutiny, because they have no substance. I, therefore, conclude that [receiving interest] usury must be judged, not by any particular passage of Scripture, but simply by the rules of equity.[25]

 

 

============================================================== 

APPENDIX II: AN EXAMPLE OF EQUITY BETWEEN A LENDER AND MERCHANT

 

 

A baker receives an order for one-hundred loaves of bread for a wedding feast the following week. It is a signed contract that is contingent on the baker acquiring financing for the ingredients of the bread. The price of each loaf is 5 cents, so the contract is for $50. The baker just completed an order that used all his ingredients for bread, for which he will not receive payment until next week. Government contracts are always slow to repay. The baker gets an estimate of the costs of ingredients (flour, yeast, etc.) and the coal needed to produce the bread. He takes the contract for the bread to the moneylender, which includes the payment date along with his current supply inventory and a written estimate of $30 for everything needed. He and his family will provide all the sweat equity and work several 14-hour days to fill the order. The money lender cannot use the money lent for any other productive purpose during the lending period and he assumes the risks that the baker will not pay him back or pay him back on time. Interest represents the time value of money, so late payments involve a loss of income. The profit from this transaction will be $20. Thus, if the baker makes $10-$12 from the transaction and the money lender makes $8-$10, then there is an equitable relationship in this partnership. Because the greater labor is on the baker’s part, the interest for a short-term note for a few days could be $6 and still be equitable for both. However, if the money lender demands $17 in interest, and the baker’s earnings for all the hours of labor are only $3, this is not an equitable situation. It is even less equitable if he put up his mule as collateral so that the loan was secured, and the risk to the moneylender was low.

 

This equity principle would not apply to a loan for a vacation or to purchase a Clydesdale horse when a mule can pull the baker’s cart just fine. Loans to aid someone to live beyond their means are high-risk loans and the funds do not reproduce themselves. The principle of equity would not apply in these situations, as these are not loans for joint business ventures.

========================================================================= 

APPENDIX III: CALVIN’S TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS ON SAVING FAITH

 

Calvin shares part of his testimony in his Author’s Preface (July 22, 1557) to the Psalms to show how he both related to and benefited from David’s example and struggles included in these songs.

My condition, no doubt, is much inferior to David’s, and it is unnecessary for me to take the time to show this. But as he was taken from the sheepfold and elevated to the rank of supreme authority; so, God, having taken me from my originally obscure and humble condition, has reckoned me worthy of being invested with the honorable office of a preacher and minister of the gospel. When I was as yet a very little boy, my father had destined me for the study of theology. But afterwards, when he considered the legal profession commonly raised those who followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his purpose. Thus, it came to pass that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father, but God, by the secret guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course. And first, I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of the Roman Church to be easily extricated from such a deep abyss of mire. But God, by a sudden conversion, subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was more hardened to such matters than might have been expected from one at my age at this early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress in understanding the truth, that although I did not stop all other studies, I pursued them with less intensity. I was quite surprised to find that before a year had passed by, all who had any desire for purer doctrine were continually coming to me to learn, although I was still only a novice and a beginner. Being of a disposition that was unpolished and shy, which led me always to love the shade and solitude, I then sought some isolated place where I could be out of the public view; but so far from being able to accomplish this object of my desire, all my retreats became like public schools. In short, while my one great goal was to live in seclusion without being known, God so led me about through different directions and changes, that He never permitted me to rest in any place, until despite my natural disposition, he brought me forth to public notice. Leaving my native country, France, I moved to Germany [now Switzerland], for the very purpose of being able there to enjoy some obscure location and the private life I had always desired, and which had been so long denied me since my conversion. But it was not to be so. While I was hiding in Basle and only know by a very few people there, many faithful and holy persons were burnt alive in France for their faith. The report of these martyrs reached other nations. These reports brought about a very strong negative emotional reaction by the German people. They became very indignant against the people who committed such tyranny. In order to mislead other nations about the murder of these true believers, pamphlets were distributed, accusing them of sedition against both the church and the state. The court had designed these to not only cover the innocent blood already shed, but to prevent foreign sympathy for continuing the murdering of these poor French saints. It appeared to me, that unless I opposed these pamphlets to the utmost of my ability, my silence would be clearly cowardice and betrayal. This is what motivated me to write and publish my book, Institute of the Christian Religion . . .

Every place I have traveled since, I was careful to conceal that I was the author of this book. I had resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity until I met William Farel in Geneva. He convinced me to stay in Geneva, not by advice or a gentle admonition, but by a dreadful warning, which I believed to be as if God had from heaven laid His mighty hand on me to hold me at this place . . . Farel had declared that God would curse my seclusion and my studies if I left Geneva and refused to give the new church there assistance when their need to be taught the truth was so urgent.[26]

 

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith” (Rom 1:17 NASB). John Calvin writes about this text:

But instead of the expression he used before, ‘to everyone who believes,’ he says now, from faith; for righteousness is offered by the gospel and is received by faith. And he adds to faith. For as faith makes progress, and as it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time, and the possession of it in a manner confirmed. When we first taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling countenance turned towards us, but at a distance. The more knowledge of true religion grows in us, by coming as it were nearer, we behold God’s grace more clearly and with more familiarity . . . Faith alone is that which secures everlasting life, it leads us to God and makes our lives dependent on Him . . . We are justified by faith through the mercy of God alone . . . The righteousness that is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the mercy of God.[27]

=============================================================== 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteen Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University, 1988.

 

Cadier, Jean. The Man God Mastered. London: InterVarsity Fellowship. 1964.

 

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 16. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

 

________. Letters of John Calvin. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1980.

 

________. Commentary on The Book of Joshua and the Book of Psalms 1-35, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

 

________. Commentary on The Acts of Apostles 14-28 and The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans 1-16, vol. 19. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

 

Farley, Benjamin W., ed. John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

 

Graham, W. Fred. The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact. Richmond: John Knox, 1971.

 

Green, Robert W. Protestantism and Capitalism. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1959.

 

Hughes, Phillip E., ed. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.

 

Holwerda, David E., ed. Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.

 

Johnson, E. M. The Man of Geneva. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977.

 

McNeil, John T., ed. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

 

Parker, T. H. L. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.

 

Schreiner, Susan B.  The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1991.

 

Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: The New American Library, 1960.

 

Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin and Augustine. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956.

 

Wileman, William. John Calvin: His Life, His Teaching, and His Influence. Choteau, MT: Gospel Mission, 1981.

 

---

[1] William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University), 9.

[2] The Roman Church at this time defined ‘usury’ as lending money for interest. An alternative definition this paper will explore is that ‘usury’ is only the lending of funds with excessive, unjust, and unequitable interest rates.

[3] W. Fred Graham, The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1971), 88-89.

[4] R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: The New American Library, 1950), 45.

[5] Ibid., 45-46.

[6] Ibid., 98.

[7] Ibid., 93.

[8] Tawney, 77.

[9] Bouwsma, 199.

[10] Robert W. Green, Protestantism and Capitalism (Boston: D.C. Heath, 1959), 21-22.

[11] Tawney, 98.

[12] See APPENDIX I: JOHN CALVIN’S LETTER TO SACHINUS IN 1545.

[13] Tawney, 94.

[14] Graham, 92. The French phrase in #5 is “lawful by the iniquity of the world” (the wicked ways of the world system), which means something that is acceptable to the pagan world view and system that is opposed to God and His Word.

[15] Tawney, 93.

[16] Ibid, 101 and 2 Thess 3:10.

[17] Defined here as one who charges interest at an exorbitant rate.

[18] Tawney, 105.

[19] John Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke (Grand Raids: Baker,1981), 44.

[20] David E. Holwerda, ed., Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 198.

[21] Benjamin B. Warfiled, Calvin and Augustine (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956), 16.

[22] John T. McNeill, ed., Calvin: Institute of the Christian Religion, 2. Vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), vol. 2, 1487.

[23] Bouwsma, 197-199.

[24] Susan B. Schreiner, The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1991), 84-85.

[25] Graham, 91-92.

[26] John Calvin, Commentary on The Book of Joshua and The Book of Psalms 1-35 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), vol. 4, xl-xliii.

[27] John Calvin, Commentary on The Acts of The Apostles 14-28 and The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans 1-16 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), vol. 19, 65-66.

Genesis 21: Living life with a Promise Keeping God

 

Sermon Title: Living Life with a Promise Keeping God

Sermon Text: Genesis 21

(Introduction)

Attention: Has God worked clearly providentially in your life? Providing Jimmy’s kidney - an act of divine providence. (Tell the story of testing and volunteer)

Need: No matter how difficult life gets, we can trust the promises from our covenant keeping God that are revealed to us as His people in the word of God.

Textual Idea: Abraham’s family experiences Yahweh working behind the scenes to keep His covenant promises by revelation, providence, and power.

Background: God’s covenant with Abraham has oaths, promises, and has unconditional and conditional parts. Gen 12, 15, 17. There are many beginnings in the book of Genesis. We will explore some today.

Sermon Idea: Faithful Yahweh keeps His covenant promises by revelation, providence, and power.

Interrogative: How does Yahweh keep His promises to His covenant people?

Transition w/ Key Word: Yahweh faithfully keeps His promises by providing revelation, superintending providence, and supernatural intervention.

(Body)

(Direction) We will explore 3 beginnings in this text. 1. Messianic Nation, 2 The Ishmaelites, 3. Cross cultural communication. What does God & then Abraham do?

Division 1 Statement: THE BEGINNING OF THE MESSIANIC NATION OF ISRAEL THROUGH ISAAC. vs 1-8

Explanation: A Miracle - promise keeping God. As ‘He had said.’ He did what He promised. At 100, and Sarah (noble woman) 90 years old, God did what man cannot do. Isaac (He laughs) brought laughter to this tent. Abraham (father of a multitude) obeys the word of God & put the sign & seal of – covenant--circumcision, on Isaac at 8 days old. He is obeying the word of God. The person to carry – Messianic seed was born by a supernatural birth.

Illustration: This miraculous birth foreshadows two other births. Elizabeth was not as old as Sarah, but she was unable to conceive. The angel announced to her and Zachariah that their son John would be a great prophet. But the even more astounding birth is - miracle birth that was the virgin conception and birth of Jesus the Messiah. He did not get his stepfather Joseph’s sin nature by this birth. Born without sin, He lived a holy life in our place, and he died a substitutionary death in our place.

Argumentation: Through your seed, Abraham, all the families of the earth will be blessed. Paul tells us in Galatians that part of the that fulfillment was through Jesus the Messiah (seed, a collective noun, use in the covenant means both the one and the many). The Jewish nation was supposed to be a nation of priests that would reach the other families on the earth. They did not always obey that mandate. The descendants of Isaac through Jacob were chosen to provide the Messiah for all peoples and to be a witness to all peoples. We have this purpose as well. In God’s providence, descendants of Ismael will take Joseph from Canaan to Egypt to provide protection for the future nation in the land of Egypt for 430 years.

Application: If we truly love God, out of that love will flow obedience to His word. We can trust God to keep His promises to us. We find His promises in – Bible, so we must know the book to know the God of the book and His words to us. When we properly handle the Bible and find promises that are for us, we can trust the powerful God of Abraham, Yahweh to keep them. We can get into trouble if we apply words that are not to us or for us or are not promises at all (like Proverbs are saying that come true 80% of the time and are not promises)

Transition: It was not just the nation of Israel that is begun in this chapter. We see next:

Division 2 Statement: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW NATION THROUGH ISHAMEL. vs 9-21

Explanation: Ismael makes fun of Isaac. Sarah, like a mother bear when someone messes with her cubs, steps up to protect him. Her remedy seems harsh to Abraham. His past sin has put him in a dilemma. He loves both of his sons, but -Messiah will not come through Ishmael (God will hear). Abraham’s weakness is also a hidden strength. Mercy & fatherly love. Sinful choices make our need for special revelation -God even more important in - future to try to do right. We can’t follow our emotions. Once he has the revelation from God, he does the hard, right thing. Abraham provided (lehem) food, could be grain & meat and water for the trip. Enough that she needs to carry on – shoulder, not just - hand. There is no Bible yet. God special revelation comes at this point in redemptive history by spoken words. Ishmael is 14-17 yrs. old. Abraham does this because God’s word to him confirmed it was the right choice. It was hard, as any parent or grandparent knows. Hagar and the boy head south toward Egypt. This – trial, need God’s wisdom. The water runs out. – boy under a bush & mom is about 18-32 meters away. God’s special revelation comes again. The angel of God reveals to Hagar that she & Ishmael will be fine. She can now see the well providence has led them to travel close too. God hears Ismael. Just like his name (God hears). Do not fear. I will provide and protect. God was with this young man and kept his promises about and to him. He was a great hunter and married a lady from Egypt. He lived in dessert near Egypt, south of Beersheba.

Illustration: Jesus said at the feast while they were pouring out large water pots, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.” Jesus fed over 5K with loaves and fish when they needed food. The Lord met Hagar and Ismael’s need for water. Jesus offered living water to a Samaritan woman at the well. I offer living water that is permanent. Once you have received the Holy Spirit, you have your source to meet your need with you at all times. God met their needs and can meet yours as well.

Argumentation: The messenger of God or of Yahweh in the OT is sometimes God the Son, our Lord Jesus the Messiah. Like the Father, God the Son is eternal and everlasting. So, it is possible that the person who made the promises to Hagar in Gen 16 and in Gen 21 about Ishmael, was the Son of God, long before his birth in Bethlehem and his death outside of Jerusalem. Moses, the human author was also a child sent out in nature, totally dependent on the power and providence of God, like the youth Ishmael, lying under the bush in the desert heat with no water. Both could have been harmed by wild animals, humans, or natural elements. God providentially superintended their protection to faithfully keep His covenant promises. God had directed them near a well but hid it until He provided further revelation & repeated His promises.

Application: The text says God was WITH the boy. When God is with someone, He is there to provide His protection and provision. If you belong to Jesus, God is with you. He will work His plan in and around you and hopefully through you. His providential care will not fail to accomplish His secret plan. You do not have to let fear overcome you. Call out to God. He will hear your voice. He will accomplish His plan right on His time. Trust Him, love and obey Him. It is a wonderful thing to be part of – covenant community with a covenant bond to – God that rules from heaven. Don’t try to fix things for God like Abraham taking Hagar as a second wife. We should check out our special revelation Bible before making key choices just like Abraham should have done by asked God before he made that sinful choice. Sarah & the culture were wrong, and in this chapter, Sarah deeply regrets her bad advice over 14 yrs. ago.

Transition: Not only did two nations start, in this chapter, but we also see – beginning of covenant people relating to – cultures around them. We see next:

Division 3 Statement: THE BEGINNING OF COMUNICATING ACROSS CULTURES THROUGH ABRAHAM. 22-34

Explanation: The geography in the text. Abimelech (my father is king) is from Gerar, to the west of Beersheba, to west of Gerar is Gaza & - Med. Sea. North of Beersheba is Bethlehem (61km), & Jerusalem is (9.7 km) N. of Bethlehem. We see Yahweh working here through superintending providence. Everyone can see God is with Abraham. He is blessing him to build a Messianic Nation. Jesus will be one of Abraham’s descendants. The key One. Abraham enters a covenant to operate as a good citizen of the land where he dwells. Abraham lied to Abimelech in the past, so now this king wants a solemn oath. It will one day be Abraham’s land, but he is seen as a stranger in the land by - Philistines. Abraham brings up a conflict with clear communication so that it can be resolved. He is dwelling in Beersheba (the well of the oath of 7). He gives 7 lambs to symbolize this agreement. Abraham and his family can now use this well. It is vital for survival for both people and animals. It was a big problem that the Philistine’s took over this well. He is starting to build a nation. Planting of – evergreen shade tree is an act of faith in God’s promises. (This kind grows 30’ tall, spreads out, and requires little water). God’s promise: I will give you this land. Abe, thinks, I am going to need some shade in - future to stay where God has placed me. Abraham is a foreigner, has a different culture that the Philistines and Canaanites. He is one who is worshipping the everlasting God, Yahweh (the eternally present one, covenant keeper) and Him Only. We see from Genesis that worshipping the true God is what a believer like Abraham does on a regular basis and wherever he moves. He loves God. He trusts. He fails, but tries to obey God, even when it hard because of the results of past sins. Wait until next week when you consider the ultimate covenant test for Abraham.

Illustration: Again, we note that Jesus chose to travel straight through Samaria instead of avoiding it like other Jews. He offered living water to a Samaritan woman at different well than Abraham used. He reached across cultures and prejudices. If a Samaritan’s shadow fell on a Jewish merchant’s cart of melons, he would discard them as defiled. Not Jesus. Some Greek came to the Apostles, “We would like to speak with Jesus.” He healed a Gentile Syrian woman’s son. In the Great Commission, the church is commanded to disciple every people group. The father of faith, Abraham, models cross culture communication without compromise. You can discuss difficult matter with truth and kindness. Focus on what is important. Abe needed water to build -Messianic nation.

Argumentation: We not only have things that have begun for the first time in Gen. chapter 21, but we also have things that continue from earlier in Genesis. We see with Abraham, his weakness, his faith, his obedience, and his worship that continue from previous chapters. This is in contrast with Yahweh’s continuing revelation, power, providence, and faithfulness. God does not change. When He says, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in you heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. You can trust this promise and the God who gave it.

Application: Like Abraham, we are also to be in the world, but not just like the world. Don’t let the pagan world squeeze you into its mold. We are to please God first and then, we as children of light will be different than the children of the darkness. On cultural matters the Bible does not address in word or principal, we can use those common bonds in the culture for a bridge for the gospel of Jesus Christ. What the Bible command, we should do, what it forbids, we should avoid. But things like using electricity for light, is fine to use it or not. We have - freedom to choose.

Transition: We have a rare event in this chapter and elsewhere in the Bible.

(Conclusion)

Visualization: There was a baren woman in Israel years latter who was married. The angel of Yahweh told her she would give birth to son who would be a judge. The messenger came back and told her husband and her together. They were surprised they survived when they realized this was a visitation from God. They lived & Samson was born, another miraculous birth. The prophet Samuel was another. These are rare in the Bible, but the providential protection and provision of God for His people is on every page & happens every day. I will be your God; and you will be my people. The presence of God will be much greater in heaven, but we have the Holy Spirit with us now.

Reiteration: We considered today 3 beginnings from this text. 1. The Messianic Nation by Isaac; 2 The Ishmaelites by Ishmael; and 3. Cross cultural communications by Abraham.

Action: You can have a new beginning if you have not yet surrender to Jesus the Messiah. If any person is in Christ, he is a new creation. Believer, are you willing to do the hard things God asks you to do in the Bible? Are you willing to build bridges to communicate clearly across cultural divides? Will you study the Bible to avoid sinful choices and learn from Abraham’s sin to not repeat it?

Appeal: Trust Jesus. Love Him and follow Him. Do not fear. He sees and He hears when we call out to him in prayer. Pray, trust, believe, worship Him. He is faithful and true. His providence is with you every day. Be grateful for His care.

 

 

Abraham's Four Surrenders, D. L Moody, Men of the Bible

 Abram/Abraham

Abram’s 1^st Surrender: to go, leave Ur of the Chaldeans and travel to Haran and then Cannan. Abram forsook all the false gods of Ur to follow the true God of heaven and earth (Josh 24:2).

Abram’s brother (Nahor & wife Milcah) remained in Ur, worshipping the false gods of the city. His father Terah traveled to Syria, Haran, and died there before they continue the trip to Cannan.

Abram goes down to Egypt because of the famine and lies about Sarai. The famine ends and they return to Cannan. They return to near Bethel and Abram uses the altar he built before to worship Yahveh. Both he and Lot are rich and have numerous animals and servants.

Abram’s 2^nd Surrender: Abram lets Lot pick first. Abram’s humility is rewarded by God’s expanding promise of giving Abram and his decedents, the Jews, all the land of Israel and Jordan and beyond forever. Abram was able, by faith, to see the big picture. Lot walked by sight. Lot follows his sight, picking the well water lands and starts a process of many bad decisions that lead to the death of his wife and incest with his daughters. Moody makes the point, if it was not for the NT (Heb 11), we would not expect to see Lot in heaven. He protects the angels from the perverted mob, and he obeys the word of God from the angels, and he did not look back. Abram prayed for Yahveh to spare the righteous in the city, and God sent His messengers to rescue Lot’s family. But the first chastisement of God upon Lot was to be robbed and taken captive by the four kings that defeated the 5 armies, that included Sodom and Gomorrah. Abram, who was afraid of the men of Egypt, defeats these four kings with 318 men and some Canaanite allies from Hebron. He rises to the occasion and is operating by faith more than fear. Abram is blessed by Melchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem.

Abram’s 3^rd Surrender: Avoidance of appearance of evil. Not letting it be said, ‘Abram is rich because he was paid well by the king of Sodom.’ He refused the wages of perversion. An illustration of this was when Oral Roberts was hiding in the tower to collect funds from widows’ retirements accounts and the dog tracks funding. He said, God will kill me if I don’t meet the deadline. A Charismatic ministry to the homeless in Houston Texas, Trinity Foundation, seeking to help some of those widows in TX that lost their homes in sending their nest eggs to Oral Roberts, did the investigation on Robert Tilton that Diana Sawyer reported on ABC along with Larry Lee, and one other prosperity preachers living off funds sent to his ministry for orphans in Hati. Trinity wanted to prevent more widows from becoming homeless. Tilton went to jail. Abram would not take funds from the wicked king of Sodom.

Abram met with the Prince of Peace and the Prince of this world. He does not lie here. He makes the right choice. Read Moody, Men of the Bible, pg. 11, second paragraph to pg. 12.

Does God’s word say, “do not fear” to anyone else in the Bible? It is said numerous times in both OT and NT, in both the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. It is often a command. (See below)

Moody. “We find that Abram was constantly surrendering his own selfish interest and trusting God.” What can we learn from his example of controlling fear with faith and replacing worry with worship?

Which descendant (seed) of Abram is in view, in Gen 12, when God says, “And in you, all the families of the earth will be blessed?” and in Gen 22:18 “in your seed all nations of the earth will be blessed?” It is Jesus the Messiah! See Matt 1:2, 16; Luke 3:23, 34; Gal 3:8, 15-16, 19, 29; Rom 1:1-7; Gen 3:15.

Abram listens to Sari and takes on Hagar as a second wife/concubine and Ismael is born. God continues to purse Abram. He changes both names, Abraham and Sarah. Hagar causes household division and then runs away. The Angel of Yahveh finds her and sends her back to Abraham’s house. She is to submit to Sarah. Abraham wants to move on with the promise of the Messianic line through his son Ishmael. Yahveh says: “No.” This is going to be a legitimate birth with your current wife, but a miraculous birth. (Also, a type of the Messiah.) Isaac will be the heir through whom the Messiah comes.

Gen 21:1-12. Abraham has a dilemma because of his sin. He does the hard thing and sends Hagar and Ishmael away. Of course, both Sarah and Abraham knew this would cause problems when they chose the wrong path. Sarah admits it here. The Angel of the Yahveh shows up again. God in providence leads Hagar to a well and the 14-year-old boy and her survive and live in the desert just north of Egypt. Abimelech enters into a covenant with Abraham. He lied to this man about Sarah as his sister. A lie he committed a second time. So, now they work out a covenant of peace. Abram has to swear before this pagan king will trust him. Then comes the final surrender.

Abraham’s 4^th Surrender: Give up your only legitimate son, the Messiah’s ancestor.

Gen 22: 1-8

Moody puts himself in Abraham’s sandals and notes that he probably could not have eaten or slept during this hard covenantal test. Abraham had passed some tests and failed others. This is the supreme covenantal test. Do we love anything more than God? Was Isaac an idol? Abraham, following his faith, obeyed God and prepared to sacrifice his son. He trusted God would keep His promise and that this might involve the first resurrection from the dead. The angel of Yahveh called to him, Abraham, Abraham. Any time you see a double name in the Bible, it signifies a close personal relationship. Jesus said, Martha, Martha,” which reveals a kind tone and close friendship. It is done about a dozen in the Bible. We will see in a moment Isaac is a type of Christ. God gave this test before the Messiah was born so we could see the parallels. God will never ask a person to do this again.

Gen 22:12-18

The Dome of the Rock is built over top this stone altar now on the temple mound in Jerusalem. Mt. Moriah slopes down and you can see the base of it at the north wall of the city. When one goes out the Damascus Gate, to the right, down the road, on your left is the rock call Golgotha, the place of the skull [Latin: Calvary = Cranium] across the Damascus highway is the wall and the base of Mt. Moriah. It is possible that the three crosses were along the road in-between Moriah and Golgotha. 4,000 years ago, [Abraham’s time] Golgotha could have been connected to Moriah. It is only about 60’ apart.

The ram was not the only sacrifice that Yahveh provided for Abraham and Isaac. Yeshua’s cross-work was also completed at the base of Moriah, but also outside of the camp, as prophesied. The parallel language in John 3:16 “Only Son” should alert us that Isaac and especially the ram are types of the Messiah to come who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Father images always need biblical clarification. Don’t back-read our human fathers’ characteristics to God like Martin Luther did for years. We have the same temptation. God the Father is our model, we are not His model. He is light and love, not just sternness. But He is always holy, and we are only holy sometimes in practice. That is why God provided the sacrifice for us like he did for Abraham, the lying, former idol worshiping adulterer. He was saved by grace like we are saved by grace. God chased down this sinner. He left the 99 and went after the 1 sheep.

 Do not Fear in the Bible

Gen 15:1, 21:17, 26:24, 46:3; Exd 14:13, 20:20; Num 14:9, 21:34; Deut 1:17, 21, 29, 3:2, 22, 7:17-18, 18:22, 20:1-3, 31:6-8; Josh 1:2-9, 8:1, 10:8, 25,11:6; Judg 6:10, 23; 1 Sam 12:20; 2 Kngs 6:16, 17:35, 37, 38, 19:6; 1 Chrn 22:13, 28:20; 2 Chrn 20:15, 17, 2 Chrn 32:7; Neh 4:14; Psa 3:2, 27:3, 46:2, 56:4, 11, 78:53, 91:1-14, 112:7-8, 118:6; Prov 3:24-26; Isa 7:4, 8:11-12, 10:24, 12:2, 35:4, 37:6,  40:9, 41:10, 13-14, 43:1-5, 44:2, 8, 51:7-15, 54:4-8, 14-15; Jer 1:8, 10:5-7, 17:7-8, 23:4, 30:10-11, 42:11-12, 46:27-28, 51:45-48; Lam 3:56-57; Ezek 3:9, 34:26-31; Dan 10:12, 19; Zep 3:16;  Joel 2:20-25; Hag 2:4-5; Zech 8:12-15; Matt 6:25-34, 10:26-31, 14:27, 17:5-9, 28:5, 10; Mar 5:36, 6:50,  Luke 1:13, 30, 2:10, 5:10; 8:50, 12:4-9, 20-34; Jhn 6:20, 12:15, 42-43; Acts 18:9-10, 27:24; Rom 8:15; Phil 4:6; Heb 11:23, 13:6; 1 Pet 3:13-15, 1 Jhn 4:14-18; Rev 1:17, 2:9-11, 21:7-8  

 

 

 

 

R.J Rushdoony's The Mythology of Science

 

J.R. Rushdoony, in his book, The Mythology of Science, [1] evaluated the thinking process of many in the scientific community. His purpose in this work is to expose the intentions of modern science to be those of magic because of its desire for absolute control of history and ethics. Darwinian macro-evolution is merely a religious foundation for the humanistic presuppositions of these individuals and is not a scientific conclusion based on the scientific method of discovery. The scientific Man is the new god of modern man and is to be the controller and determiner of all human destiny.

These assertions by the author, however, are not made to discredit science when it is true science. Nevertheless, since science has left its Christian root as a tool of a believer in Christ to exercise his/her dominion under God, it now embraces a myth. The myth is that science itself has the ‘magical’ power to control the universe.

It is this student’s opinion, after studying this work, that Dr. Rushdoony adequately proves each of his assertions with careful reasoning and well-documented sources from modern scientists and proponents of evolution trained in other fields. Moreover, he exposes many of the claims and logically lays out the results of embracing the religion of Darwinian Evolution.

Rushdoony begins by giving evidence that modern science lacks objectivity. Thus, it is a religious hope based on the ever-changing man-made conclusions. Numerous scientists, whose underlying presuppositions are philosophically classical humanism, will accept contradictions, fraud, and even absurdities as unquestionable truth. [2]

Darwinian Evolution is a religious choice. The fixed order of the universe gives the student of science two choices. There is either a sovereign God or there is sovereign Nature. Therefore, Darwinian macro-evolution is “a revolt from the sovereign and all-sufficient God who by His predestining will and eternal counsel brought all things to pass.” [3] Therefore, Darwinian scientific socialism offers to bring the utopia here on earth for which men long to experience. Since, in their view, God does not exist, there is no such thing as a moral law or a fixed ethical standard. Thus, science should take control of the world through economics, medicine, government, and education.

Modern evolutionary based scientists are now concerned with the “scientific predestination of man.” [4] Through genetics, modern Darwinian scientists can ‘foreordain’ future generations. Without biblical ethics as a guide, they can seek to change things from eye color to sexual organs with no restrictions provided by their religion of Darwinian evolution. Likewise, there are no limits in mixing or changing species since all species evolved from each other according to their authoritative text, Origin of the Species.

Rushdoony postulates that the Darwinian evolutionists are often operating on principles and assumptions that are borrowed from Christianity. Based on their worldview, they have no right to do so. If this world is here by mere chance, then all facts are meaningless. This would include the so-called facts of macro-evolution. The scientist needs intelligent, special organized creation for his/her job to have meaning. Thus, the Darwinian scientific person wants to explore a universe with cause and effect and natural laws, yet only without the God of the Bible. The design of life on earth is not what a rational person would expect if it were merely the product of Father Time, Mother Nature, and Lady Luck (mathematical chance). Despite the evidence of design, many scientists choose the religion of Darwinian Evolution, with Man alone as sovereign. Likewise, man can now control the evolutionary process, making man autonomous and ultimate. [5] Hence, science is seeking to overcome death, time, and history. Darwinian evolutionary scientists have already started a program to control life, minds, man, and society.

Therefore, the debate between those who believe in the Bible and contemporary Darwinian evolutionary science is a religious controversy. Being unaffected by the facts, the Darwinian evolutionists defend their position with great emotion because they believe in their position as a matter of conviction (Nothing plus time plus chance equals everything). These individuals optimistically hope to bring paradise to earth, as they believe all things are possible for the contemporary scientific community.

Dr. Rushdoony’s book comprises twelve chapters and four appendices. There are a few weaknesses in this work. Unfortunately, the transition between several of the chapters took away from the overall flow of this thesis and sub-themes of this work. Likewise, his appendices are so vital for the documentation of his postulates, it may have been better to include some of them in the existing chapters. He does not use any charts or tables to communicate his evidence, yet he effectively used verbal illustrations to give the reader a mental picture portraying his points.

On the positive side, the theme of this book was carefully emphasized and supported in each chapter. Modern man is a practical atheist so that he/she can be free from God’s law and to be his/her own sovereign ruler. The author’s thesis was clearly asserted and documented throughout the book. The readability may have been slightly diminished by the large number of quotes. However, these were necessary to document each of his assertions.

For example, Rushdoony shows that Darwinian macro-evolution is a religion that is emotionally defended regardless of the scientific facts by quoting Louis Leakey. This Darwinian was digging in the dirt in Africa with only the aid of his human eyes. He was not in a laboratory. No age testing had occurred. His only equipment was a spade, a strainer, and a brush. Rushdoony notes, “Louis Leaky . . . described his discovery . . . of a bit of a skull and two teeth in these words: ‘We knelt together to examine the treasure . . .  and almost cried with sheer joy. For years people had been telling us that we’d better stop looking, but I felt deep down that it had to be there.’” [6] Dr. Rushdoony comments concerning this that “the scientist Leakey knows what he had found before he had examined it. He worked by faith, and he accepted his findings as ‘proof’ on sight. Second, the intense emotionalism and joy sounds more like a revival experience than a scientific analysis.” [7] Rushdoony analysis of these words is brilliant. They are kneeling in the field. Emotions are so riveting that they are almost in tears. They know this is what they have been searching for to prove Darwinian macro-evolution by mere eyesight. No radio-carbon dating had occurred. No geological layer analysis had been completed. But they had this strong feeling that a piece of a skull and two teeth would be all the proof they needed. This sounds like an eyewitness account of one of Finney’s revival meetings in the 1800s rather than a careful application of the scientific method. This new religion of Darwinian macro-evolution produces joy, emotional exhilaration, and almost tears as the congregants kneel in adoration. Rushdoony’s quote of Leaky proved his assertion.

Dr. Rushdoony’s reasoning through the facts discovered was superb. He had been well trained in logical analysis. His clear thinking is the most convincing characteristic of this book. Thankfully, he not only constructively critiques the claims of some modern scientists, but also offers biblical answers to their claims through this work. An open-minded skeptic of Christianity that reads this work would be challenged to questions some claims of the proponents of the religion of Darwinian evolution. But they would also be encouraged to submit to the sovereign God who created the universe and rules it as the Lord of all. Moreover, Rushdoony’s objectivity and calm but firm tone of this work add to this book’s ability to communicate truth to one willing to examine the facts.

The format and thesis of this work are carefully outlined by this gifted author. The overall layout was an effective tool in supporting and effectively communicating the major thrust of this work.

The Mythology of Science has significantly influenced this student’s views regarding the theoretical model of Darwinian macro-evolution and the importance of logic and critical thinking. This book and author have a way of challenging the reader to go beyond superficial answers and to carefully examine his/her presuppositions that are used to reach logical conclusions. Rushdoony’s book is a valuable contribution for those considering the theoretical models available to explain the origin of the earth, living things, and the universe. Hopefully, it will be back in print soon so that it is available to more students who are willing to examine these matters logically. [It is back in print!] The facts reveal that both theoretical models for the origin of the universe are faith based religious systems that are contrary to each other. Both could be wrong, but both cannot be true, since they are polar opposites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

End Notes

---

[1] Rushdoony, J.R. The Mythology of Science (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press), 1968 (128 pages).

[2] This system accepts that the end justifies the means, might make right, and the survival of the fittest. The commandment to not bear false witness is not included in their religion.

[3] Rushdoony, J.R. The Mythology of Science (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press), 1968, p 9.

[4] Ibid., p 32.

[5] We saw this atheistic evolutionary science ethics illustrated in Nazi Germany when the scientists used Jewish human beings for medical experimentation. When man is sovereign, ethics can be decided first by the votes of society, and then by the elite ruling class scientists who will decide right and wrong apart from God’s standard for their nation.

[6] Ibid., p 85.

[7] Ibid.

Author Page at Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/author/tedmanby