Book II Chapter 10

I think in Chapter 10, Calvin saw himself as some sort of caped super hero theologian, vanquishing uber-villains, and saving commoners from Hell.

I just imagined John Calvin in superhero tights and about lost my breakfast.

He starts out with a bunch of name calling. The reason for having to write this chapter he blames on villains:

• 'that monstrous miscreant, Servetus' 
• and those Anabaptist 'madmen' 

What did they do to serve the nasty names?  They had promulgated a 'pestilential error': they denied that the Bible is flat. They considered the New Testament and the Old testament as different. Or, in Calvin's words: 'think[ing] of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine.

Morons.

How could they not see that both the Old and New Testament are actually one Promise? Calvin gives reasons why both testaments are the same. WARNING: HUGE THEOLOGICAL STRETCHES FOLLOW

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both promise immortality. 

First, Calvin says that this is a useless exercise for Anabaptists since they reject all things OT. Which is a ridiculous pot shot, since that is not what Anabaptists believe nor have they ever believed it. 

He gives some fairly exhaustive 'proofs,' some of which are hilarious. I won't put you through a recitation, even for the purposes of refutation. Our purpose here is to make fun of Calvin, not refute him. I will say only two things. Immortality may be a part of the meta-narrative of the Gospel, but there is no way the patriarchs knew that. There is just no way. Second, many of Calvin's 'proofs' (especially in the Torah), the characters were pretty clearly speaking about blessing being passed to their progeny, not personal life after death. 

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both are founded on the mercy of God in Christ. 

Ok. I see what he was trying to do here, and I would generally agree with it. He is saying there is a gospel narrative that stretches across both covenants, but he insists on proof-texting. 

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both contain the sacraments.

Are you kidding me? He claims that the sacraments are found in the the Old Testament since passing through the Red Sea was a type of baptism, eating manna in the wilderness was a type of Eucharistic host. So, when ignorant aboriginal people find crumbs in the jungle and/or take a swim in a lake, should we declare them part of the inheritance?

What a stupid chapter. Let's see how a real theological superhero does it.