The second paper was again on Calvin. This time we had a paper from Don Carson on Calvin as commentator and systematician.
By way of opening remarks Dr Carson observed that it is a remarkable thing to be both. Studying the subject is complicated by the constant interaction between the commentaries and the successive editions of the Institutes.
We then had a brief history of the use of the phrase "biblical theology". Also some words on tracing themes, understanding books in their context, etc. The best roots of biblical theology, however, are seen in Calvin.
Calvin self-consciously criticised the commentaries of Melanchthon and Bucer and others. The Aristotelian method used was to identify certain loci and then deal with them exhaustively. That meant that certain things were missed. When all was included the commentary became too long (as with Bucer).
Calvin aimed at "clear brevity" in his commentaries and then dealt with loci in his Institutes (see T H L Parker 51ff "Calvin's NT commentaries")
Sometimes Calvin expanded on certain subjects. Eg Knowledge of God, justification, repentance, OT/NT, predestination, providence, monks vows.
Genesis 1 and 2
Referred to in Chapter 1 of the 1536 Institutes. Lots on the image of God. Commentary (1554) much briefer on the image of God.
Genesis 1:2, 26
Plural references to God poses a question. Calvin careful not to read in Trintarianism carte blanche. "Addressing his wisdom and power". Accused of being a Judaiser in his time. Not an unsystematic theological minimiser in his commentaries. Followed the grammatico-historical way rather than the Christological one of Luther. He did not wish to say more than the text warranted.
Genesis 3
In the Institutes 1536 he speaks of the removal of the image of God. Living for righteousness (little Book on the Christian Life) an increasing part of the Institutes.
Exodus-Deuteronomy
1. In the commentary on the last 4 books of Moses he makes an exception to his normal method and pursues certain loci
2. He gives a more lengthy discussion of the introduction to the law in the commentary than in the Institutes
3. He alters the order of things in his commentary on the last four books (something he does not do with the harmony of the Gospels)
4. Note that his Harmony of Exodus-Deuteronomy was an actual book not just lectures. Perhaps it came from his attempts to employ biblical theology
Exodus 20:1-17
Discusses verse 18 first. Similar things in Deuteronomy 5 commentary.
1 Peter 2
Calvin speaks of three marks of the church but in later editions of the Institutes it comes down to two. This was not a change in his theology as other documents show. Why is not clear. He was willing to adapt clearly, however.
1 Corinthians 1
Sanctification. Paul calls the Corinthians sanctified leading to the distinction between definitive or positional sanctification and progressive sanctification that leads to real holiness. In his commentary in a summary of the first chapter he says that Paul prepares them for what is to come and that although the statement in verse 2 may seem strange there were still tokens of a true church there. He speaks of initial separation (regeneration) but he says "it may be taken in two senses". He goes for the defintional but says it makes no great difference.
He refers to the verse only once in the Institutes (4.1.14). In both works he strongly rejects over zealous separationism but argues for sanctification.
It may be that the word sanctification is used to refer to the positional sort more often. However, Calvin was already seeing that the vocabulary of the discourse of systematics is not always the same a the vocabulary of the discourse of the Bible.
Another example - is it right to speak of God being reconciled to us? We sing in these terms without any idea of saying he compromises.
The vocabulary of the discourse of hymn singing is not always the same as the vocabulary of the discourse of systematics.
If you read a lot of systematics read more commentaries and vice versa, etc.
By way of opening remarks Dr Carson observed that it is a remarkable thing to be both. Studying the subject is complicated by the constant interaction between the commentaries and the successive editions of the Institutes.
We then had a brief history of the use of the phrase "biblical theology". Also some words on tracing themes, understanding books in their context, etc. The best roots of biblical theology, however, are seen in Calvin.
Calvin self-consciously criticised the commentaries of Melanchthon and Bucer and others. The Aristotelian method used was to identify certain loci and then deal with them exhaustively. That meant that certain things were missed. When all was included the commentary became too long (as with Bucer).
Calvin aimed at "clear brevity" in his commentaries and then dealt with loci in his Institutes (see T H L Parker 51ff "Calvin's NT commentaries")
Sometimes Calvin expanded on certain subjects. Eg Knowledge of God, justification, repentance, OT/NT, predestination, providence, monks vows.
Genesis 1 and 2
Referred to in Chapter 1 of the 1536 Institutes. Lots on the image of God. Commentary (1554) much briefer on the image of God.
Genesis 1:2, 26
Plural references to God poses a question. Calvin careful not to read in Trintarianism carte blanche. "Addressing his wisdom and power". Accused of being a Judaiser in his time. Not an unsystematic theological minimiser in his commentaries. Followed the grammatico-historical way rather than the Christological one of Luther. He did not wish to say more than the text warranted.
Genesis 3
In the Institutes 1536 he speaks of the removal of the image of God. Living for righteousness (little Book on the Christian Life) an increasing part of the Institutes.
Exodus-Deuteronomy
1. In the commentary on the last 4 books of Moses he makes an exception to his normal method and pursues certain loci
2. He gives a more lengthy discussion of the introduction to the law in the commentary than in the Institutes
3. He alters the order of things in his commentary on the last four books (something he does not do with the harmony of the Gospels)
4. Note that his Harmony of Exodus-Deuteronomy was an actual book not just lectures. Perhaps it came from his attempts to employ biblical theology
Exodus 20:1-17
Discusses verse 18 first. Similar things in Deuteronomy 5 commentary.
1 Peter 2
Calvin speaks of three marks of the church but in later editions of the Institutes it comes down to two. This was not a change in his theology as other documents show. Why is not clear. He was willing to adapt clearly, however.
1 Corinthians 1
Sanctification. Paul calls the Corinthians sanctified leading to the distinction between definitive or positional sanctification and progressive sanctification that leads to real holiness. In his commentary in a summary of the first chapter he says that Paul prepares them for what is to come and that although the statement in verse 2 may seem strange there were still tokens of a true church there. He speaks of initial separation (regeneration) but he says "it may be taken in two senses". He goes for the defintional but says it makes no great difference.
He refers to the verse only once in the Institutes (4.1.14). In both works he strongly rejects over zealous separationism but argues for sanctification.
It may be that the word sanctification is used to refer to the positional sort more often. However, Calvin was already seeing that the vocabulary of the discourse of systematics is not always the same a the vocabulary of the discourse of the Bible.
Another example - is it right to speak of God being reconciled to us? We sing in these terms without any idea of saying he compromises.
The vocabulary of the discourse of hymn singing is not always the same as the vocabulary of the discourse of systematics.
If you read a lot of systematics read more commentaries and vice versa, etc.
This was a rather bitty paper but easy to listen to and led to a good discussion on hermeneutics. There was a general feeling that Calv in could have been more Christological.
No comments:
Post a Comment