This is the first part of what I hope to be delivering today in Manila. More to follow I hope.
We've heard something about Calvin the man. Clearly a man of many parts, it would be possible to explore him further from several different angles. For example, John Calvin Bible commentator; John Calvin letter writer; John Calvin preacher or (as we will) John Calvin pastor. He was, however, also a theologian and that is the aspect we want to explore now.
To say Calvin was a theologian is an understatement. He was not simply a theologian but what B B Warfield called “the Biblical theologian of his age” indeed of any age. His contemporary, Theodore Beza, said that “no theologian of his time expressed himself so clearly, so impressively and acutely as he” and Philip Melanchthon dubbed him “The theologian”.
The 19th Century, church historian Philip Schaff called him “the greatest theologian ... of the race of the Reformers”. For Schaff his “far reaching influence” makes him “one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity”. More recently he has been hailed “one of the best theologians the Christian tradition has to offer” (Ward Holder) “a theological genius” (Paul Helm) and a writer of “theology of breathtaking beauty and tough-mindedness” (Marilynne Robinson). Alister McGrath has written that “the originality, power and influence of Calvin's religious ideas forbid us to speak of him merely as a 'theologian' - though that he certainly was - in much the same way it is inadequate to refer to Lenin as a mere political theorist. Through his remarkable ability ... his insights ... his intuitive grasp ... Calvin was able to forge an alliance between religious thought and action which made Calvinism a wonder of its age.”
A great deal is made by some of Calvin's originality. Rather, we should see him as providing both discontinuity and continuity with what went before. He saw the Reformation as not just a return to the Bible but a faithful recovery of the teaching of the early church. “Above all” says McGrath, he “regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of St Augustine of Hippo.” “Augustine is totally ours” he wrote. He saw many errors in Mediaeval and earlier writers but he did not reject them out of hand. He was favourable to the writings of a man like Bernard of Clairvaux for example (he often quotes him). He was also happy to lean on fellow Reformers where he could. Helm says while “Calvin brings his very own style to theological writing, we should not be blind to the signs of [mediaeval] scholastic influence in both The Institutes and a number of other works ... Calvin was a man of his times who worked within the conventions of his age.” Warfield said something similar when he warned against seeing Calvin as speculative. He was “a speculative genius of the first order” but that is not the key to understanding him.
Others, equally wide of the mark, see Calvin as no more than a systematiser of the more creative insights of Luther. It is true to say that he followed Luther's lead in many areas – on original sin, Scripture, our absolute dependence on divine grace, justification by faith alone, etc – but there are significant differences between Luther and Calvin, substantial differences, not a matter of mere emphasis. Calvin differed from Luther in several areas – for example, the Christian attitude to the world and the Lord's Supper. We will discuss the latter issue later. As for the world, Luther tends to see it as incorrigible and is prepared to leave it very much to the Devil, a person who looms perhaps far larger in Luther's thinking than Calvin's. For Calvin this world was created by God and still belongs to him. It is potentially Christ’s kingdom and every Christian is obliged to struggle to make it so in truth by bringing it under God’s law. Calvin rehabilitated and legitimised culture, noting that it is God's gift, his gift of common grace. He freed us from the ‘dualism’ of nature and grace.
Many attempts have been made to find a single over arching and unifying theme in Calvin's theology – a central dogma - or to state his overall method in simple terms. Several suggestions are made – E A Dowey wrote of “the twofold knowledge of God” (ie Creator and Redeemer); T H L Parker pointed to the “fourfold ordering of the Apostles' Creed”. Others suggest union with Christ (Charles Partee, etc) and so on. The fact is that there has been no agreement on a central dogma and the endeavour to find such a unifying theme continues to prove elusive.
To say Calvin was a theologian is an understatement. He was not simply a theologian but what B B Warfield called “the Biblical theologian of his age” indeed of any age. His contemporary, Theodore Beza, said that “no theologian of his time expressed himself so clearly, so impressively and acutely as he” and Philip Melanchthon dubbed him “The theologian”.
The 19th Century, church historian Philip Schaff called him “the greatest theologian ... of the race of the Reformers”. For Schaff his “far reaching influence” makes him “one of the foremost leaders in the history of Christianity”. More recently he has been hailed “one of the best theologians the Christian tradition has to offer” (Ward Holder) “a theological genius” (Paul Helm) and a writer of “theology of breathtaking beauty and tough-mindedness” (Marilynne Robinson). Alister McGrath has written that “the originality, power and influence of Calvin's religious ideas forbid us to speak of him merely as a 'theologian' - though that he certainly was - in much the same way it is inadequate to refer to Lenin as a mere political theorist. Through his remarkable ability ... his insights ... his intuitive grasp ... Calvin was able to forge an alliance between religious thought and action which made Calvinism a wonder of its age.”
A great deal is made by some of Calvin's originality. Rather, we should see him as providing both discontinuity and continuity with what went before. He saw the Reformation as not just a return to the Bible but a faithful recovery of the teaching of the early church. “Above all” says McGrath, he “regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of St Augustine of Hippo.” “Augustine is totally ours” he wrote. He saw many errors in Mediaeval and earlier writers but he did not reject them out of hand. He was favourable to the writings of a man like Bernard of Clairvaux for example (he often quotes him). He was also happy to lean on fellow Reformers where he could. Helm says while “Calvin brings his very own style to theological writing, we should not be blind to the signs of [mediaeval] scholastic influence in both The Institutes and a number of other works ... Calvin was a man of his times who worked within the conventions of his age.” Warfield said something similar when he warned against seeing Calvin as speculative. He was “a speculative genius of the first order” but that is not the key to understanding him.
Others, equally wide of the mark, see Calvin as no more than a systematiser of the more creative insights of Luther. It is true to say that he followed Luther's lead in many areas – on original sin, Scripture, our absolute dependence on divine grace, justification by faith alone, etc – but there are significant differences between Luther and Calvin, substantial differences, not a matter of mere emphasis. Calvin differed from Luther in several areas – for example, the Christian attitude to the world and the Lord's Supper. We will discuss the latter issue later. As for the world, Luther tends to see it as incorrigible and is prepared to leave it very much to the Devil, a person who looms perhaps far larger in Luther's thinking than Calvin's. For Calvin this world was created by God and still belongs to him. It is potentially Christ’s kingdom and every Christian is obliged to struggle to make it so in truth by bringing it under God’s law. Calvin rehabilitated and legitimised culture, noting that it is God's gift, his gift of common grace. He freed us from the ‘dualism’ of nature and grace.
Many attempts have been made to find a single over arching and unifying theme in Calvin's theology – a central dogma - or to state his overall method in simple terms. Several suggestions are made – E A Dowey wrote of “the twofold knowledge of God” (ie Creator and Redeemer); T H L Parker pointed to the “fourfold ordering of the Apostles' Creed”. Others suggest union with Christ (Charles Partee, etc) and so on. The fact is that there has been no agreement on a central dogma and the endeavour to find such a unifying theme continues to prove elusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment