The Prologue of the Gospel of John Calvin

A psalm of the Reformer, an ESV onlyist

In the Beginning was the King James Version of the Bible written in 1611,

And the KJV was with God and was God,

And nothing was created without the help of King James and his prophets.

There was a man. More masculine than any second century Jewish carpenter.

His name was John Calvin. He was not the light, but he gave the perfect testimony to the Light.

In case you did not know, the Light is and will always be the King James Version of the Bible.

The Light shone in the darkness, the darkness where all the unenlightened persons of the Third World reside.

The Fathers gave John Calvin the ability to testify to the light, and the Authorized Version must become greater, John Calvin, unfortunately, lesser.

The Light came into the world.

Karl Barth detected Him not.

For the Word came into the world, in a random town in Germany, and tabernacled among the Reformers.

John Calvin witnesses concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This is whom must transcend me and my works because the KJV was before me. From the fullness of his grace we have received god himself in a form of a book. For legalism was given to Moses and lawlessness was given to us Christians.” No one has ever seen god until now, that one and only god, pressed close to the Father’s heart, squeezed and hugged by the faithful, the ones god calls HIS children, those that worship god, the King James Version.

0 thoughts on “The Prologue of the Gospel of John Calvin

  1. Antony Solomon

    Not fair on Calvin, since out of his work came the Geneva Bible, the best Reformation Bible ever. It had to be politically suppressed to make way for the KJV, which is actually a more latinate RC translation at the instigation of King James I.

    And Calvin was in Switzerland!!

    Reply
  2. Antony Solomon

    On the wider issues, I wonder if this matter represents a problem at the heart of confessional Protestantism/Evangelicalism. Is it the case that the RCs can handle textual matters because the Bible is not the primary source for them, but rather they defer to the teaching magisterium? Could it be that the Orthodox churches, insofar as they also accept scholarly findings, defer to the Liturgy anyway. In which case, the issue is not KJV/MT-TR-onlyism, or ESV-onlyism (which are only recent anti-modernist positions, they don’t go back to Calvin), but Bible-onlyism. In reaction to the dogmatic authority of the Pope, we have over-reacted the other way (and this does stem from Calvin). We have set up mini-pope’s along the way, such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, but ultimately there has been only one authority, and that must be unquestioned for the faith to remain secure.
    Scholarly findings are seen as undermining this authority, and thus the whole Fundamentalism issue rose up. There is a great gulf set between the two sides now.
    The Anglican church accepted tradition and reason as part of the authority, but elsewhere this was rejected. Confessions took centre-ish place, and often the Bible was made to conform to those, although it was still seen as the defining authority.
    What way ahead is there? I can only think it must come from the scholarly side, in that they are seen to be followers of Jesus, which isn’t always the case; they are seen to be working for the church, not to independent academic criteria and for the sake of novelty (as Thomas Oden has criticised). That is the only uniting authority available, and might bridge the gap.

    Reply
    1. Rod

      We all have a magesteriums, rather, it is the Church Fathers or our human experience, or what our parents taught us about the Bible.

      Reply
  3. Solly

    Indeed we do, after all Xty is a teaching religion, so perhaps a balance of them is a good idea, like the anglicans. Protestantism, however, doesn’t acknowledge a higher magesterium than the Bible, and so it gets in a flumox when people mess with it. Ultimately, there is only one leg on their stool; anyone who touches that leg is a ‘liberal’. I was told recently that the only definition of the difference between an evangelical and a liberal, is that an evangelical accepts the whole bible, and the liberal only accepts the bits they like.

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Mike asks a question; Rodney gives the answer | The Church of Jesus Christ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *