Day 101 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §27

Yesterday: the heresy that keeps three Persons but makes only the Father "truly God." Today Calvin answers its first slogan — "wherever God stands alone, the Father is meant." Look at S1: he does not argue the slogan, he dismantles it from the inside: the opponents' own proof-texts refute them (S2). The pivot word is relatively — a name is relative when it points to a correlative (Father ↔ Son). "God" can be used relatively without the Son being any less God.

Second — it is a lesson in reductio ad absurdum, delivered as a run of questions. Watch the machine: I ask whether … yes or no? (S8) — if no, … if yes, … (S9) — Is not he … who …? (S13–S15). Every question is built to leave one answer.

Third — the Scripture is the argument. Mt 19:17, 1 Tim 1:17, Isa 44:6, Phil 2:6–7, Isa 25:9, Gen 1:26, John 4:24 — seven texts in 36 sentences. Know which sentence carries which text (Period 7).

Fourth — printing traps. ⚠️ Goodness. (S11) and affirms. (S12): stray periods mid-sentence; a servants (S21: read a servant); glamour (S23: read clamour); untreated (S30–S31: read uncreated); Is. 25:9, Heb… as printed. We quote what is printed and flag it.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Inverted conditionals and absolute constructions: Were not the Father alone the true God, he would … (S4) · had he not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted (S20) · Goodness being … and yet being … applied to him, his rejection … intimates (S11). ⚠️ Drop if → front the auxiliary; absolute participles have their OWN subject. Formula 1.
2. Concession + verdict with though/although … yet, not only … but, not for the purpose of … but for the purpose of …: S5, S6, S20, S25, S36. ⚠️ The concession clause is Calvin's own — never the opponents'. Formula 2.
3. Reductio frames: I ask whether … yes or no (S8) · if … no, …; if yes, … (S9) · If … it follows that … (S17) · unless they concede that …, it will follow that … (S32) · I infer that … (S35–S36). ⚠️ Find the premise, find the forced conclusion, and keep the opponent's horn separate from Calvin's. Formula 3.

The assumption, that whenever God is mentioned absolutely, the Father only is meant, may be proved erroneous by many passages. Even in those which they quote in support of their views they betray a lamentable inconsistency because the name of Son occurs there by way of contrast, showing that the other name God is used relatively, and in that way confined to the person of the Father. Their objection may be disposed of in a single word. Were not the Father alone the true God, he would, say they, be his own Father. But there is nothing absurd in the name of God being specially applied, in respect of order and degree, to him who not only of himself begat his own wisdom, but is the God of the Mediator, as I will more fully show in its own place. For ever since Christ was manifested in the flesh he is called the Son of God, not only because begotten of the Father before all worlds he was the Eternal Word, but because he undertook the person and office of the Mediator that he might unite us to God. Seeing they are so bold in excluding the Son from the honour of God, I would fain know whether, when he declares that there is “none good but one, that is, God,” he deprives himself of goodness. I speak not of his human nature, lest perhaps they should object, that whatever goodness was in it was derived by gratuitous gift: I ask whether the Eternal Word of God is good, yes or no? If they say no, their impiety is manifest; if yes, they refute themselves. Christ’s seeming at the first glance to disclaim the name of good (Mt. 19:17), rather confirms our view. Goodness. being the special property of God alone, and yet being at the time applied to him in the ordinary way of salutation, his rejection of false honour intimates that the goodness in which he excels is Divine. Again, I ask whether, when Paul affirms. that God alone is “immortal,” “wise, and true,” (1 Tim. 1:17), he reduces Christ to the rank of beings mortal, foolish, and false. Is not he immortal, who, from the beginning, had life so as to bestow immortality on angels? Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? Is not he true who is truth itself? I ask, moreover, whether they think Christ should be worshipped. If he claims justly, that every knee shall bow to him, it follows that he is the God who, in the law, forbade worship to be offered to any but himself. If they insist on applying to the Father only the words of Isaiah, “I am, and besides me there is none else,” (Is. 44:6), I turn the passage against themselves, since we see that every property of God is attributed to Christ. There is no room for the cavil that Christ was exalted in the flesh in which he humbled himself, and in respect of which all power is given to him in heaven and on earth. For although the majesty of King and Judge extends to the whole person of the Mediator, yet had he not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a height without coming into collision with God. And the dispute is admirably settled by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servants (Phil. 2:6, 7). Moreover, how could such equality exist, if he were not that God whose name is Jah and Jehovah, who rides upon the cherubim, is King of all the earth, and King of ages? Let them glamour as they may, Christ cannot be robbed of the honour described by Isaiah, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him,” (Is. 25:9); for these words describe the advent of God the Redeemer, who was not only to bring back the people from Babylonish captivity, but restore the Church, and make her completely perfect. Nor does another cavil avail them, that Christ was God in his Father. For though we admit that, in respect of order and gradation, the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone, as if he were the deifier of the Son. On this view either the essence is manifold, or Christ is God only in name and imagination. If they grant that the Son is God, but only in subordination to the Father, the essence which in the Father is unformed and unbegotten will in him be formed and begotten. I know that many who would be thought wise deride us for extracting the distinction of persons from the words of Moses when he introduces God as saying, “Let us make man in our own image,” (Gen. 1:26). Pious readers, however, see how frigidly and absurdly the colloquy were introduced by Moses, if there were not several persons in the Godhead. It is certain that those whom the Father addresses must have been untreated. But nothing is untreated except the one God. Now then, unless they concede that the power of creating was common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and the power of commanding common, it will follow that God did not speak thus inwardly with himself, but addressed other extraneous architects. In fine, there is a single passage which will at once dispose of these two objections. The declaration of Christ that “God is a Spirit,” (John 4:24), cannot be confined to the Father only, as if the Word were not of a spiritual nature. But if the name Spirit applies equally to the Son as to the Father, I infer that under the indefinite name of God the Son is included. He adds immediately after, that the only worshipers approved by the Father are those who worship him in spirit and in truth; and hence I also infer, that because Christ performs the office of teacher under a head, he applies the name God to the Father, not for the purpose of destroying his own Divinity, but for the purpose of raising us up to it as it were step by step.

Sentence count: 36 (S1–S36). Three paragraphs: the rule refuted and "God" used relatively, with the good/immortal/wise/true questions (S1–S15) · worship, equality, Jehovah, and "God in his Father" (S16–S27) · Gen 1:26 and John 4:24 (S28–S36).

⚠️ Distribution: seven ★★★ (S2, S5, S6, S11, S20, S25, S36), fifteen ★★ (S1, S4, S7, S8, S10, S12, S18, S19, S22, S23, S27, S29, S32, S34, S35), fourteen ★ (the rest).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). (i) Section marker 24. removed at the head of the section (source line 5883). (ii) Line-end hyphens joined: Medi- | ator (S5), ex- | traneous (S32) → Mediator, extraneous. (iii) ⚠️ A page break falls INSIDE S7 — after none good but one, that: page number 136, footnote 50 (Bernard), running head removed; the sentence is continuous: … “none good but one, that is, God,” he deprives himself of goodness. (iv) ⚠️ Margin numbers 133 (S10) and 134 (S28) removed mid-sentence. (v) ⚠️ Footnote marker 51 removed after attributed to Christ. (S18); the French gloss (footnote 51) is not part of the text. ⚠️ A second page break falls INSIDE S26 — after or Christ is God: page number 137, running head removed; continuous: … or Christ is God only in name and imagination. (vi) ⚠️ Printed oddities quoted as printed: Goodness. (S11, stray period), affirms. (S12, stray period), a servants (S21), glamour (S23: read clamour), untreated (S30–S31: read uncreated). ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §27 = Beveridge printed §24, entire (source lines 5883–5967). The printed marker 25. follows next. Label offset +3 continues (BH's A/B decision still open).

              ─── I. THE RULE IS FALSE; "GOD" IS USED RELATIVELY (S1–S6) ───
[THESIS]      S1    "whenever God stands alone, the Father is meant" — provably erroneous
[THEIR TEXTS] S2    in the texts they quote, "Son" is the contrast ⇒ "God" is used RELATIVELY
[OBJECTION]   S3-4  "if only the Father is not the true God, he would be his own Father"
[ANSWER]      S5-6  "God" is specially applied to the Father by ORDER and DEGREE (he begat the
                    Wisdom; he is the God of the Mediator); "Son of God" has TWO grounds
              ─── II. THE TEXTS TURNED BACK (S7–S15) ───
[GOOD]        S7-11 "none good but God" — does Christ deprive himself of goodness? (dilemma)
[IMMORTAL…]   S12-15 1 Tim 1:17 — is the Son mortal, foolish, false? No: life-giver, wisdom, truth
              ─── III. WORSHIP, EQUALITY, JEHOVAH (S16–S27) ───
[WORSHIP]     S16-18 every knee bows ⇒ he is the God of the law; Isa 44:6 turned against them
[CAVIL 1]     S19-23 "exalted in the flesh" ⇒ no: equal with God before (Phil 2); Jah/Jehovah; Isa 25:9
[CAVIL 2]     S24-27 "God in his Father" ⇒ order yes, essence-ownership no; else essence manifold /
                    nominal Godhead / unbegotten-and-begotten essence
              ─── IV. GEN 1:26 AND JOHN 4:24 (S28–S36) ───
[PLURAL]      S28-32 "Let us make man": colloquy of Persons, uncreated; else outside architects
[SPIRIT]      S33-36 "God is a Spirit" covers the Word ⇒ "God" includes the Son; Christ teaches
                    "under a head" — to raise us to his Godhead step by step

Examiner's Eye.

① ⚠️ Direction-flip trap. "Calvin denies that the Father is ever called God in a special sense." ✗ S5 and S25 say the opposite: specially applied, in respect of order and degree — he ALLOWS it. What he denies is that the Son's Godhead is thereby derived or lesser.

② ⚠️ Scope trap. "Calvin teaches that Christ never calls himself Son of God by nature." ✗ S6: two grounds — begotten of the Father before all worlds AND the Mediator's office. Do not collapse the two.

③ ⚠️ Who speaks? S4 (say they) and S24 (that Christ was God in his Father) are the opponents' claims; S25's though we admit is Calvin's concession. A test item will quote the concession and attribute it to the opponents, or vice versa.

Formula 1 — Inverted conditionals and absolute participles.

Were + S + not + …, S + would + V          (Were not the Father alone the true God, he would …)
Had + S + not + V-pp, S + could + not + have + V-pp   (had he not been God …, he could not have been exalted)
[N + V-ing …], S + V                       (Goodness being …, his rejection intimates …)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Restore if and un-invert before translating. (b) In an absolute construction the participle's subject (Goodness) is NOT the main subject (his rejection). (c) say they = they say (inverted reporting clause). Drill: Render in Calvin's English: "아버지만이 참 하나님이 아니라면, 아들은 그의 아버지일 것이다." → Were not the Father alone the true God, he would be his own Father. · "그가 육신 안에 나타난 하나님이 아니었다면 그렇게 높이 오를 수 없었을 것이다." → Had he not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a height.

Formula 2 — Concession + verdict, and paired purposes.

though/although [Calvin's concession], yet / [main verdict]
not only because [A] but because [B]                 (S6: two grounds for one title)
not for the purpose of V-ing [X], but for the purpose of V-ing [Y]   (S36)
hold it (a) N to V …                                  (S25: it = to maintain …)

⚠️ Traps. (a) The concession is Calvin's; the verdict follows yet/main clause. (b) not only … but = both, with the second as the extra weight. (c) In hold it a detestable fiction to maintain that …, it is a dummy object for the infinitive clause. Drill: "아버지가 신성의 시작임을 인정하지만, 본질이 아버지에게만 속한다는 말은 가증한 허구라고 여긴다." → Though we admit that the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone.

Formula 3 — Reductio frames.

I ask whether … , yes or no?  /  If they say no, … ; if yes, …
If S1 …, it follows that S2.
unless they concede that A, it will follow that B
Is not he X who … ?                    (rhetorical question = Yes, he is)

⚠️ Traps. (a) if yes has an ellipsis (if [they say] yes). (b) it follows that marks the conclusion; the if/unless clause is the premise. (c) Is not he X who …? expects yes. Drill: "그가 영원한 지혜라면, 그는 지혜롭지 않은가?" → Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? · "그들이 아니라고 하면 불경이 분명하다." → If they say no, their impiety is manifest.

What the controversy is. This section continues Calvin's answer to the "essentiator" party (the previous section, our §26). The anti-Trinitarian movement in Geneva and Poland in the 1550s–60s affirmed three Persons but taught that the Father alone is truly God, who "essentiates" the Son and Spirit. Calvin names no individuals here; read the text as an answer to the doctrine. ⚠️ Do not attribute positions to named persons on the basis of this section alone.

The Nicene shape. S5 and S25 (order and degree, order and gradation) say what the Eastern tradition called the Father's monarchia: the Father is the source of the Persons (Creed: "God of God, Light of Light"), yet the Son is homoousios — one essence. Calvin's line: person is derived (begotten), essence is not divided or lent. S6's two grounds for "Son of God" (eternal generation + Mediator's office) keep both the Nicene and the economic truths.

The "God of the Mediator." S5's is the God of the Mediator reflects John 20:17 and Eph 1:17: Christ as Mediator speaks of God as his God. Calvin develops this in Book II, chapters 12–14. ⚠️ Do not read it as saying the Son's eternal nature has a God above it.

Mt 19:17 and the "good" argument (S7–S11). A classic Arian proof-text. Calvin does not deny that Christ refuses the title; he argues the refusal is of false honour, and so implies true goodness. The method — turn the opponent's text back on him — is typical.

Gen 1:26 (S28–S32). The Church fathers and Calvin read "Let us make" as a trace of plurality in God; Calvin acknowledges that many deride that reading (S28) and presses the logic: those addressed must be uncreated, or God addressed outside architects. ⚠️ Calvin elsewhere (Commentary on Genesis) is cautious about using this text as a proof of the Trinity against Jews; here he defends it against fellow Christians who deny the Son's full deity.

Reception. The pattern "Father = source in order, essence common" shaped later Reformed confessions (e.g. WCF 2.3: the Father is of none, the Son eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding — in the unity of the Godhead, "of one substance, power, and eternity").

⚠️ Over-reading guardrails (4). (1) Calvin does NOT deny the special use of "God" for the Father (S5, S25). (2) He does NOT say the Son is not begotten (S6). (3) He does NOT say the Father and Son are the same Person; he asks how they differ if not by essence (the next section's argument). (4) The two-horned dilemmas (S9, S26) are rhetorical devices aimed at a doctrine; do not treat them as a complete systematic account.

1. Mt 19:17 (cf. Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19) — S7, S10, S11. none good but one, that is, God — Calvin: the refusal of false honour implies true divine goodness.
2. 1 Tim 1:17 (cf. 6:16) — S12. immortal … wise, and true — attributed to God alone; S13–S15 show each belongs to Christ (life-giver, Wisdom, Truth: John 1:4; 1 Cor 1:24; John 14:6).
3. Isa 45:23 / Phil 2:10–11 — S17. every knee shall bow — worship due to God alone, given to Christ.
4. Ex 20:3–5 — S17. The law forbidding worship of any but the LORD.
5. Isa 44:6 — S18. I am, and besides me there is none else — turned against the opponents because every divine property is attributed to Christ.
6. Mt 28:18 / Phil 2:9 — S19. all power is given to him in heaven and on earth — the opponents' "exalted in the flesh" objection.
7. 1 Tim 3:16 — S20. God manifested in the flesh — the basis of Calvin's counter.
8. Phil 2:6–7 — S21. equal with God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servant (μορφῇ θεοῦ … μορφὴν δούλου).
9. Ps 68:4; Ex 3:14–15; Ps 18:10; Ps 80:1; Ps 47:7 — S22. Jah and Jehovah … rides upon the cherubim … King of all the earth.
10. Isa 25:9 — S23. Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him — the Redeemer-God.
11. Gen 1:26 — S28–S32. Let us make man in our own image — plurality.
12. John 4:23–24 — S34–S36. God is a Spirit … in spirit and in truth.

Calvin's method: he sets the opponents' text and the NT text side by side, then forces a dilemma; he reads Scripture's use of divine names/attributes as identification, and pastoral purpose (S36) as the reason Christ speaks of "the Father" as God.

① Grammar. Choose the INCORRECT sentence (in Calvin's English).

① Were not the Father alone the true God, he would be his own Father. ② Had he not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a height. ③ Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? ④ Though we admit that the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we holds it a detestable fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone.

Answer: ④. we holds → we hold (subject–verb agreement). ① inverted unreal conditional; ② inverted past counterfactual; ③ rhetorical question. Examiner's intent: Formulas 1–3; ④ hides a plain agreement error inside an archaic-looking long sentence.

② Comprehension. Which best states Calvin's answer in S2–S6?

① The Father is never called God in a special sense. ② In the opponents' own texts "Son" is the contrasting term, so "God" is used relatively (as Father); the name may be specially applied to the Father by order and degree without making the Son less than God. ③ The Son is called Son of God only because of the Mediator's office. ④ The Father alone is God in the strict sense, and the Son in a lesser sense.

Answer: ②. ① direction-flip (S5, S25 allow the special use). ③ scope-overreach (S6 gives two grounds: eternal generation and the Mediator's office). ④ the opponents' thesis attributed to Calvin. Examiner's intent: relatively (S2) and not only … but (S6).

③ Composition. Using Formula 3, render into Calvin's English: "그들이 그리스도께 예배를 돌려야 한다고 생각한다면, 그가 율법에서 자기 외에는 예배를 금하신 그 하나님이라는 결론이 따른다."

Model answer: If they think Christ should be worshipped, it follows that he is the God who, in the law, forbade worship to be offered to any but himself. Examiner's intent: If … it follows that … + relative clause with in the law inserted + any but himself.

One-line summary. Calvin shows that "God" standing alone does not always mean the Father only: the opponents' own texts use it relatively; the Father's special use rests on order and on his being the Mediator's God; and Scripture gives Christ goodness, immortality, worship, equality with God, the name Jehovah, and the Spirit-nature of God — so any claim that essence is the Father's alone leaves a God in name only. Grammar: ① inverted conditionals and absolute participles; ② concession + verdict and paired purposes; ③ reductio frames (I ask whether … yes or no, it follows that).

Homework (10 minutes). 1. Structure restoration: Rewrite S36 as four short sentences: (a) Christ's statement, (b) the opponents' reading, (c) Calvin's inference, (d) the purpose. Then mark because … , not for … but for …. 2. Composition: Render in Calvin's English: "그가 육신으로 나타난 하나님이 아니었다면, 하나님과 충돌하지 않고서는 그렇게 높이 올려질 수 없었을 것이다." (Use Had he not been ….) 3. Preview: Tomorrow Calvin turns to the next printed section: the "hallucination" of individuals each owning a part of the essence — Scripture teaches one God, essentially, and the essence of Son and Spirit is unbegotten, while the Father is first in order.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §27 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §28 (인쇄 §25).