Calvin and the Reformed Tradition

[Prufrock]

(Split from this thread: God Love Everybody - John Calvin)

By no means kick his head, but Calvin ain't the be-all end-all of our tradition, and there's quite a bit of development between him and the confessions as people worked out reformed theology according to their contexts. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in calling "Calvinism" a perjorative (though I still like "reformed" better), but he needs to be held to scripture as much as anyone. Because in the end, it's not about Calvin, it's about Christ, and Calvin would agree with me here.

Now, as for the quote in the beginning, looking over it again, I should note that Calvin (particularly in the bolded portions) is simply using the phraseology of Scripture.

Nobody has suggested that Calvin is the end-all of Reformed theology; in fact, no one has even suggested that Calvin was the most important or more formative theologian of the Reformed tradition. I explicitly stipulated that, in many areas, Bullinger, Musculus and Vermigli were as or more formative in the historical process of the development of Reformed theology during that intial period of codification between the reformation and the move toward a true Reformed orthodoxy. And, of course, if Calvin erred on these points, we should frankly admit it. Given, however, the historico-ecclesiastical issues of how the intention of the Confessions on these points is to be understand, on account the self-indentifyingly Calvinian nature of these doctuments, then what Calvin actually taught becomes an issue of fairly deep importance. Accordingly, before one makes a claim based upon an isolated statement of Calvin's, they should give this special heed. So when you say "Because in the end, it's not about Calvin, it's about Christ, and Calvin would agree with me here;" if you mean to imply that anyone here would suggest that, with respect to truth and theology, it is about Calvin, you impute thoughts to people most unjustly; I think you miss the big picture, however, by ignoring the fact that with respect to speaking about what we as a church confess, Calvin does have at least something to do with it.

I would also note that you mention "development" between Calvin and the confessions. Of course. But that word, "development," is important. We speak of development, not discontinuity. Big difference.

 

[Philip]

And frankly, Paul, I'm not trying to deny anything you just said, I'm just trying to avoid putting Calvin on a pedestal as the "greatest of all theologians" as one person on that thread did. There's huge danger, in my mind, to putting that much emphasis on one man who isn't Jesus. By all means, there's great continuity between Calvin and the confessions, but let's also remember that there's development refinement, and even breathing room between the two. The confession doesn't speak to everything that Calvin speaks to, largely because there are things that Calvin talks about that the Divines didn't consider necessary parts of the reformed faith.

if you mean to imply that anyone here would suggest that, with respect to truth and theology, it is about Calvin, you impute thoughts to people most unjustly;

I don't think anyone would say so, but I find that in practice, some give almost as much weight to what Calvin says as to what Scripture says. That's not to say that Calvin should not be used to shed light on the scriptures, just that the debate needs to be scripture-centered. I'm wary of the too-high praise of Calvin because it smacks of turning him into a Protestant Thomas Aquinas, where we hold his works up almost on a par with Scripture, with about as much time spent interpreting Calvin, as is spent interpreting Scripture.

I'm not implying that anyone on this board would advocate doing this, but it is a danger.

 

[Pergamum]

Where would Calvin differ in either content or emphasis from the WCF?

 

[Philip]

Where would Calvin differ in either content or emphasis from the WCF?

That's a bit beside the point. I'm objecting to the "St. John of Geneva" mentality that Calvin could do no wrong and that his theology defines the reformed tradition. Naturally it plays a major role, but he's not the only authority and was certainly not treated as such by his contemporaries.

 

[Scott1]

I'm just trying to avoid putting Calvin on a pedestal as the "greatest of all theologians"

Acknowledging that Mr. Calvin is the "greatest" theologian in terms of the breadth and influence of his work is only acknowledging the unique role God gave him, and at a pivotal point in history.

A "theologian" being distinguished from an apostle who had unique authority by God to establish the foundation of our faith by the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.

Nor does it mean that, while being the greatest of all time, that one is infallible, right 100% of the time.

It means being used by God in a unique, extraordinary way, which the Theologian from Geneva, who did not seek pre-eminence for himself, has certainly attained.

 

[Philip]

Acknowledging that Mr. Calvin is the "greatest" theologian in terms of the breadth and influence of his work is only acknowledging the unique role God gave him, and at a pivotal point in history.

Is it unique? Surely there were a couple of others writing at that time. The best we could argue here is that he was first among equals, nothing more.

the greatest of all time

So you can see the future now?

The best theologians are only right about 80% of the time anyway.

 

[MW]

The best theologians are only right about 80% of the time anyway.

Are you claiming 100% accuracy for that statement?

 

[KMK]

The best we could argue here is that he was first among equals, nothing more.

Is Calvin at least in the discussion as greatest theologian of all time? Is he in your top 5? If so, then I don't see why you begrudge those who view him as the greatest. What's the big deal?

 

[jayce475]

Okay, so some of us think that Calvin is realllyyy great, while others just think he is great. Regardless, we still benefit greatly from reading him, no?

 

[Philip]

Is Calvin at least in the discussion as greatest theologian of all time?

I'd rather not make that kind of a judgment, honestly. I'm not supposed to be judging who is greatest, thank God I'm not in that position.

Okay, so some of us think that Calvin is realllyyy great, while others just think he is great. Regardless, we still benefit greatly from reading him, no?

Obviously. I'm not trying to downplay his importance in our tradition in the least, just to put it in perspective. By no means do I want us to stop going to him for help or even considering him to be a great theologian. What I want to avoid, though, is treating him as the Theologian with a capital T, like Catholics traditionally treated Thomas Aquinas (in word, if not in actual theology). The confession binds us. Calvin doesn't.

 

[Scott1]

Is it unique? Surely there were a couple of others writing at that time. The best we could argue here is that he was first among equals, nothing more.

It's hard to know what you know of church history, or the legacy of the greatest theologian. His impact as "the Theologian of the Holy Spirit."

Suffice it to say, he systematized a biblical theology that spread to refugees, transformed Geneva, "lit Europe on fire," spread to the British Isles, to the Commonwealth and to North America.

Such that today, later doctrine refined, based on his original work, resulted in the doctrines of grace, "five points" that are an essential part of reformed theology today. An essential part of all the reformed creeds.

No one matched then nor matches now that breadth and scope, yet he did not seek pre-eminence.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

Is Calvin at least in the discussion as greatest theologian of all time?

I'd rather not make that kind of a judgment, honestly. I'm not supposed to be judging who is greatest, thank God I'm not in that position.

The difficult is, your posts sound like you are- and it's not clear what you are basing it on (e.g. 80% "right" "at best, first among equals.")

Okay, so some of us think that Calvin is realllyyy great, while others just think he is great. Regardless, we still benefit greatly from reading him, no?

Obviously. I'm not trying to downplay his importance in our tradition

in the least, just to put it in perspective.
What perspective?

The only comparison offered was to that of an apostle (with apostolic authority to establish canon of Scripture)- and we are all aware he did not claim that authority for himself.

By no means do I want us to stop going to him for help or even considering him to be a great theologian.
?

What I want to avoid, though, is treating him as the Theologian with a capital T, like Catholics traditionally treated Thomas Aquinas (in word, if not in actual theology). The Roman church treats church history, tradition as more authoritative than Scripture- Mr. Calvin not only never did that, but He systematically exegeted Scripture to prove that was not the case (to risk of his own harm).

The confession binds us.

But look at how much influence what we call "Calvinism" had on the historic confessions. Calvin doesn't.

Are you aware of Mr. Calvin's part in the Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims and disseminated in the new world?

Among the "Huguenots?"

His influence through John Knox?

Upon the British Isles?

In Korea today?

Or in transforming the city of Geneva from a crime ridden, squalid place to one of order, higher learning, and safe haven for refugees from throughout the continent of Europe.

Or his role in recovering a scripturally based understanding of the presence and role of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Philip]

Suffice it to say, he systematized a biblical theology that spread to refugees, transformed Geneva, "lit Europe on fire," spread to the British Isles, to the Commonwealth and to North America.

You could say the same of Augustine or Athanasius. Maybe it's my conservative nature, but I like to avoid superlatives just because I'm not sure arguing over who is the greatest theologian in the kingdom is of much help to it or our theology.

It's hard to know what you know of church history, or the legacy of the greatest theologian.

I'm very familiar with him and his legacy, actually, and have in the past defended him from detractors. I'm just not sure how helpful it is to call him "greatest" when he's part of a larger tradition that he certainly didn't start and which has continued to develop since his time. Great? I think it's safe to say so. The greatest? I'm not sure any of us is qualified to judge that.

Again, I'm quite aware of his impact and consider myself an heir of that legacy. But I would also include others both before Calvin, contemporary with him, and after him, as equally or even of greater importance (Anselm, for instance---all reformation theology rests upon his conception of atonement as primarily substitutionary---a conception which in turn rests upon the high Christology developed by the early Church).

Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but they too stand on the shoulders of others. Breadth and scope of theology are no guarantee of greatness.

 

[KMK]

Is Calvin at least in the discussion as greatest theologian of all time?

I'd rather not make that kind of a judgment, honestly. I'm not supposed to be judging who is greatest, thank God I'm not in that position.

No one is asking you to judge whether he is the greatest Christian, or if he even was a Christian. It is a matter of admiration. Which theologian do you admire most?

 

[Philip]

No one is asking you to judge whether he is the greatest Christian, or if he even was a Christian. It is a matter of admiration. Which theologian do you admire most?

Alright, if that's all we're saying, then let's say it that way. "Greatest" implies an objectivism that I don't claim to have in this regard.

Scott, I'm not at all denying Calvin's immense importance and contribution to our reformed heritage (I'm well aware of each and every one of the facts that you mentioned, and more besides). Obviously God used him and his teaching mightily. But the movement which we somewhat euphemistically call "Calvinism" is much larger than Calvin and I'm simply not comfortable placing a fallible man, any fallible man, on a pedestal and saying "here is the greatest of all theologians." The claim is simply bigger than the evidence warrants---we might just as well call Luther the greatest, since without his work, Calvin wouldn't have been able to do his.

Again, I'm not trying to downplay his importance (indeed, I felt his influence in the liturgy of, ironically enough, an Anglo-Catholic evensong I went to recently---the forms were Catholic, but the words were Calvinian) just to say that he isn't the be-all end-all of our theology and that the term "greatest" is not (to my mind) sufficiently warranted. If "greatest" is meant in the sense of subjective personal admiration, then I would ask that when you use it, you make this clear.

Again, not trying to downplay Calvin's importance here, and if he says something, I duly note it and take it seriously (indeed, I'm often surprised by the things he says) but I also do that with Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuyper, and a host of others.

The Roman church treats church history, tradition as more authoritative than Scripture- Mr. Calvin not only never did that, but He systematically exegeted Scripture to prove that was not the case (to risk of his own harm).

And it's one of the many reasons I admire Calvin's work. So let's treat it like we would the work of any other theologian in our tradition. Let's not hold it up above the others. Calvin did well not to seek pre-eminence because he knew well that pre-eminence belongs to Christ alone, and we would do well to follow his example here. It goes without saying that our theological heroes are and were all sinners, saved by grace as we are.

 

[Scott1]

You could say the same of Augustine or Athanasius.

Not really.

Although your quotation again removes the context,

The list of far reaching impact of Mr. Calvin is not all applicable to Augustine (likely the next "greatest" of all theologians, after Mr. Calvin) E.g.

Augustine Had nothing to do with transforming Geneva, creating an English Bible for the Puritans, influencing the Huguenots, etc. Nor did Augustine write commentary on the entire Bible, etc.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Scott1 quote

He systematically exegeted Scripture to prove that was not the case (to risk of his own harm).

And it's one of the many reasons I admire Calvin's work.

Glad you recognize that.

 

[Philip]

The list of far reaching impact of Mr. Calvin is not all applicable to Augustine

Other than the fact that it was the rediscovery of his theology (plus Anselm's) in the 16th Century that created the reformation. If you're going to claim Korea for Calvin, then you can claim the reformation for Augustine (and Anselm).

 

[MW]

Other than the fact that it was the rediscovery of his theology (plus Anselm's) in the 16th Century that created the reformation. If you're going to claim Korea for Calvin, then you can claim the reformation for Augustine (and Anselm).

I think the difference here is that you are looking at Calvin as mere theologian, whereas others are looking at it from an ecclesiastical and confessional perspective, in which Calvin was the instrument under Providence for establishing a reformed community and mission which continues to this day. Knox called Geneva the most perfect school of Christ, from which alot of British Presyterianism has emerged. And numerous continental reformed ministers and teachers regarded Calvin with the highest esteem for the same reason. Those who stand in this living tradition cannot lightly depart from their esteemed reformer.