 |
| museeprotestant.org |
Turning to the questions from Lane, chapter 1 (p. 27): "How did Calvin see the Institutes relating to Scripture and to his commentaries?" He really saw the Institutes and commentaries as a dual resource, with each pointing to the other, and both pointing consistently back to Scripture. Calvin was convinced that everything Christians needed to know was in the Bible, but the Bible didn't interpret itself, so Calvin offered his assistance: "Perhaps the duty of those who have received from God fuller light than others is to help simple folk at this point, and as it were to lend them a hand, in order to guide them and help them to find the sum of what God meant to teach us in his Word" (Institutes, p. 6).
Next question from Lane: "How does Calvin answer the charge of novelty?" A major challenge to Protestantism in the 16th century was that its leaders--Calvin, but also Martin Luther and, acutely, the Anabaptists--were making up something new and leading unsuspecting folk down the garden path to perdition. Calvin tells the hostile king that he's not making up anything new, because (a) his doctrine comes straight from that ancient book, the Bible ("by calling it 'new,' they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty," Prefatory address, sect. 3); and (b) even church fathers, at least the really good, really old ones, taught the same faith that Calvin himself taught. The main church father to whom Calvin will appeal, constantly, is Augustine.
Last question: "Where was the true church in the Middle Ages?" Mostly Calvin spent Prefatory Address sect. 6 complaining about the false church, but he described the true church as sustained by Christ's hand (Institutes p. 24) even while "scattered and hidden" (p. 26) during persecution. The big idea here is the distinction that Calvin, following Augustine, drew between the visible and the invisible church. You know the joke that being in a garage doesn't make you a car any more than being in a church makes you a Christian? It's a more sophisticated version of the same idea. You can read more about it here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc8.iv.xiii.iii.html.
The last element I've asked for in these blog posts is at least one question from the blogger. I got to ask several questions of the dean in this week's podcast (see Moodle for that), so I'm kind of question-ed out. As a church historian, though, I have the large and probably unfair question of why Calvin thought his attempt to return the church to the Bible and maintain "the pure doctrine of godliness" (Institutes p. 4) was going to work. The early church had the Scriptures, but they managed to, in Calvin's estimation, go completely off the rails. Christian history is actually full of attempts to restore a pure faith. (The impulse to do so is called primitivism, and the attempts are called restorationism.) What went wrong in the early church, and how could Calvin be sure it wouldn't happen again? Or maybe Calvin wasn't sure, just hopeful. The church could be "scattered and hidden" again at any point, because of internal problems or external challenges, but as long as it was held in Christ's hand it would never die out completely.
-------
Programmatic note for HT 775 students: Please follow this format for the lead blog posts this semester. Title your post with the number of the corresponding Lane chapter (if applicable; see Moodle for the blog schedule and the new "wild card" category) [colon] descriptive title for the post (eg. 1: Intro to the Institutes). Images and links are optional but nice. Please use a jump break so that the whole text of your post doesn't appear on the blog's front page. Text formatting works best if you compose in Blogger rather than in a Word processing program, and Blogger does allow you to save work in progress before publishing, but copy and paste should work in a pinch. If you find yourself unable to post for technical reasons, e-mail me.
Also, I had anticipated 3 lead blog posts per week, but then our class grew from 10 to 15 students, so instead there are going to be 4 each week. You might not be able to comment on all of them (I don't know how long reading and commenting will take.) For now, anticipate as your weekly participation commenting on 3 out of 4--except this week, when you should all comment on this post.
To inspire you in our blogging project, perhaps you'll want to inscribe this quote from Calvin, quoting Augustine, above your computer: "I count myself as one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write" ("John Calvin to the Reader").
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dr. Coffman for this helpful summary of Calvin's Introduction, responses to Lane's questions in Chapter 1, and the helpful weblink you've provided. I also appreciate your discussion with Dean Longfield via podcast. All of these provided important background information as we delve into Calvin's discourse.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand correctly, Calvin gave utmost authority to Scripture, but he believed that Scripture could be meditated through secondary authority - "prima scriptura" as it is commonly called. This is different from Martin Luther's idea of "sola scriptura" - Scripture alone. Am I correct to say this?
Thank you again for these introductory materials.
Great question, Wil. I don't doubt that arguments can be made, using quotations from Luther and Calvin, that there was a shade of difference between them on this topic. Functionally, though, Luther, Calvin, and pretty much everyone else understood that sources outside the Bible guide our reading and interpretation of the Bible. One of my mentors, David Steinmetz, wrote, "While it is true that the reformers were at first optimistic that it would be possible to teach and preach a theology that was wholly biblical, they rarely intended to exclude theological sources that were non-biblical. Sola scriptura generally meant prima scriptura, Scripture as the final source and norm by which all theological sources and arguments were to be judged, not Scripture as the sole source of theological wisdom" (Luther in Context, p. 129).
DeleteI can add to this a little. I apologize for my background, but I was privileged to chat with Timothy Wengert (well- known LUther historian) who reminded us that Luther himself did not use the term sola scriptura in his writing although he did advocate for faith based on scriptur. Luther, as Dr. Coffman, pointed out recognized the authority of the church fathers as far as their writings illuminated scripture.
Delete"How does Calvin answer the charge of novelty?" I believe he starts his defense in (Sect. 2 Plea for the Persecuted Evangelicals.) In these wonderful words that sound like poetry.
ReplyDelete"Now, if our interpretation be measured by this rule of faith, victory is in our hands. For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? That we are slaves to sin, to be freed by him? Blind, to be illumined by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him?"
It's hard to make your case if your audience stops listening. I may be the only person to have ever said this, but there is a gentleness in Calvin's writing and gift to make a friend of the reader. (To me anyway.)
I see that gentleness too, most folks speak harshly of Calvin, and no doubt his passion may get the best of him, but it is nice to be reminded of this quote, and the poetry within Jean Calvin that is often dismissed.. Thank you!
DeleteThank you Dr. Coffman for your summary post on the introductory material for Calvin's Institutes. As you noted part of Calvin's purpose is to plead with the king for understanding as well as to ask the king to examine the happenings in the church and the claims made by the priests against the reformers such as Calvin.
ReplyDeleteOne question that struck me was calvin's inclusion of what a true king was like when he states:
"The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that is, by his divine word."
Was this written as a reminder to the King of France as to how one rules or was their an implication that in fact this particular king was not ruling as God would have him rule - especially if this king regarded the priests more highly than he did the teachings of the reformers?
Calvin is certainly arguing that a good king would respect what Calvin himself is saying and, even moreso, would respect God and the Scriptures. Consequently, if King Francis doesn't listen to Calvin, he'll be demonstrating that he isn't a worthy ruler.
DeleteAs Dean Longfield pointed out on the podcast, Reformed theologians often found themselves in a tight spot on church-state issues. Calvin was among the "magisterial reformers" (there's an essay on magisterial reform at https://joshuahoffmann1.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/the-ecclesiology-of-the-magisterial-reformers-a-study-of-the-view-of-the-church-and-its-mission-that-was-held-by-martin-luther-and-john-calvin/), meaning that he wanted to work alongside civil authorities, because he believed them to be ordained by God. But the top civil authority in France, the king, was trying to kill Protestants. John Knox, the Scots founder of Presbyterianism, similarly found himself at odds with the English monarchs. But Reformed theologians manifestly did not want to be confused with the "radical reformers" (Anabaptists) who thought the civil order was bad, and Christians should cut themselves off from it.
So one way to read Calvin in this prefatory address is that he's trying to say, "I believe that civil rulers are good, in general, but I'm not so sure about you, King Francis. I'm no radical rebel, but I might have to oppose you, if you won't see the light of godly reason." When, as Dean Longfield noted, Reformed Christians became ardent participants in the American Revolution, they were making the same argument against George III. Reformed theology teaches respect for good, godly rulers but leaves open the question of which rulers qualify.
Thank you, Dr. Coffman, for your summation of the introduction to Calvin's Institutes. You have a beautiful way of translating 16th century speak to modern day conversation.
ReplyDeleteI have two thoughts in response to your query regarding whether Calvin thought his Reformed doctrine would take root in the hearts of believers. Firstly, I think his practice (not just preaching) of humility is evident in his writing. On page 4 of the Reader's Letter, he essentially says, "I am content that God alone will judge my writing and if it doesn't 'take,' then I will still be right with God even if I am sideways with people." Calvin really wouldn't have been worse off because he was already making enemies. He continually encouraged others to hold up their doctrine to the light of Scripture and urged others to put his doctrine to the same test. "Above all, I must urge him to have recourse to Scripture in order to weigh the testimonies that I adduce from it." (p. 8, Subject Matter)
Secondly, and still on the subject of humility, Calvin seems a little over the top at proclaiming his own humility. Using the same quote regarding those who have received fuller light (presumably himself) versus simple folk (p. 6, Subject Matter), it stings just a bit in the 21st century to be addressed as "simple folk." In today's world, we seem to value those who live humble lives, but don't tell others that they are humble. Judging humility is for those on the outside. Was Calvin's manner of speaking of his own humility typical for 16th century theologians? I believe it is a dilemma we will face as future clergy. It may be quite a task to balance confidence and humility when proclaiming God's Word.
Humility in a writer or preacher is a really funny thing, isn't it? There are some literary conventions of humility--for example, it was common well into the 20th century for people writing autobiography to claim that their friends insisted that they write something, else they never would have been so presumptuous. But there's more going on for the Christian writer or speaker. If you set out to preach or to teach theology, you're essentially saying, "I'm putting God's word in authority over myself, but I'm putting myself in authority over the rest of you as well." Paul regularly makes this move at the start of his epistles. As you point out, Sharon, it's a good thing to be sensitive about.
DeleteTo your specific question about Calvin addressing people as "simple folk," that was common, and not (generally) seen or meant as insulting. The Bible likens us all to God's children, to sheep, and other lowly creatures. A popular catechism in early America was called "Spiritual Milk for Boston Babes." Actually, the full title is even crazier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Milk_for_Boston_Babes
Hi Sharon - I can add to Dr. Coffman here too, as my the German hymnwriters constructed their hymns in part for the "simple folk," those who could not read and write. Robert Scribner, a well-respected Reformation scholar is well-known for his groundbreaking study "For the Sake of Simple Folk" (adopting this language in his title) where he addressed how the reformers' reached the illiterate through image, sermon and hymns. THe reformers were concerned about having people read and hear the Bible in their own tongue. In the 16th century, education was not yet universal and many had to learn through aural and visual means. It is truly significant that the reformers were some of the first that felt these "simple folk" should know the Bible as they were part of the "priesthood of all believers."
DeleteThanks for your great post, Dr. Coffman. I have put on my seatbelt, because I can tell that I am in for a BIG ride!! I am excited about all we are going to learn in this creative format. I was struck by the heart of Calvin in the exploration of the first question. He initially wrote the Institutes in Latin to reach the learned man; however, his translation into French was to provide a “key to open a way for all children of God into a good and right understanding of Holy Scripture.” (Institutes, p. 7) I appreciate his motivation for writing the commentaries and the Institutes. While he may sound arrogant among people, referring to himself as one who has “received from God fuller light than others is to help simple folk...” he did seem to maintain a humility before God. “I shall recognize that it is God’s more than mine. And in truth, any praise for it must be rendered to him.” (Institutes, 7-8) I also liked his Paul-like exhortation to “press onward”, if one does not understand, trusting that another Biblical passage will enlighten our path.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith appreciation for all of your patience with me, I will begin again with my response/reply:
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through the letters written as a preamble to the Institutes, I believe Calvin was not altogether confident that his efforts would in fact return the Church to the Scriptural teachings and maintain 'the pure doctrine of godliness'. I do believe his confidence lay solely on his deep conviction that the Lord had blessed his writings. He seemed to believe that the way his writings were being received and accepted by 'almost all the pious' indicated the Lord's use of his work for greater good. (Epistle to the Reader) Calvin commented that he saw his attempts as 'a trivial undertaking', but with trust that the Lord's hand was at work in his 'humble ability', he persevered in his work. And so, what I see is full trust and belief in the Lord's presence in his work, rather than an arrogance.
Thank you Dr. Coffman for the introduction. I want to thank you for easing the fears of taking Calvin the first year of seminary. It seems like Lane’s book, the format of the class, and a guide are all easing some of my anxieties. My initial thought is that Calvin seems to be very intentional in pointing to Scripture. It is also interesting that he was able to complete commentaries (an amazing writer). Lane suggests that there may not be as much care given to Calvin’s biblical references (p.24, are they Calvin’s or the interpreter’s). Is this something that we need to be concerned with?
ReplyDeleteAs I read Lane’s book and listened to this week’s podcast, I began to wonder if there are any references in the Institutes to Calvin’s commentaries or does he always point back to biblical references. Then I wondered if the commentaries pointed to the Institutes. I look forward to the coming weeks and our discussions.
To try to address your question, Jerry, I ran a Google search on "Calvin Institutes commentaries references" and found, via Google books, a book titled _The Unaccommodated Calvin_. It appears that the relationship between the Institutes and the commentaries is complicated. Some of the scripture references in the Institutes--Calvin's own references, not those added by editors--point to his commentaries, and not necessarily his commentary on a particular verse, but sometimes his comments on the passage that includes the verse cited. Other times, Calvin refers only to the Bible itself, because, at the time he made the reference, he hadn't written a commentary on that portion of scripture. He worked on both the Institutes and the commentaries for much of his life, so the process of citing his own work was somewhat fluid. FYI, you can find Calvin's commentaries online here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html
DeleteThank you Dr. Coffman for setting an example that we can follow so clearly. I am excited to dig into Calvin's theology this semester. I feel that many of his insights and institutes have influenced the Church as a whole. Even Christians who do not particularly label themselves as Calvinist tend to believe things from his teachings. They have adapted his views along the way without knowing or realizing where those particular teachings came from. They hear someone else say it, maybe even twist or misinterpret the views themselves. Then they add it to their own belief system without understanding the origin or meaning fully. I look forward to really grasping the foundations of what he brought to the table which have changed the way Christians view faith and how scripture is viewed along with how the Bible is interpreted. I hope that I am able to bring to light areas of Calvin's institutes that people and friends in my life are lacking the knowledge or background. So that they can better determine their own beliefs and have the ability to formulate a solid position in their own lives.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. Coffman for the concise summary of the first chapter. Though this first chapter seem general, there are some thought provoking moments in the reading and the questions are equally good.
ReplyDeleteLast question: "Where was the true church in the Middle Ages?" The Church is of Christ, and that is why Calvin writes that "He preserves His own children from extinction though they are hidden in the midst of all these errors and darkness" (Institutes, p. 25). Giving examples as, Daniel in Babylon, Micah, the truth teller, and Jeremiah the lone ranger, there was no mention of any such people in the era of the councils, bishops, who ruled in the middle ages. Who and one point to as the Daniel's, the Micah's and the Jeremiah's of the time? The church?
Ahh, Ben, very intriguing question! Although Calvin did mention the Church could be "invisible," he actually seemed to say that it was "barely" visible by naming people that held the light when all was in darkness (Jeremiah, etc.). No doubt the mention of any beacon in the medieval church would have been used against him at the time, but I, too, wonder who he would have pointed to now that carried the torch?
DeleteThank you Dr. Coffman for the concise summary of the first chapter. Though this first chapter seem general, there are some thought provoking moments in the reading and the questions are equally good.
ReplyDeleteLast question: "Where was the true church in the Middle Ages?" The Church is of Christ, and that is why Calvin writes that "He preserves His own children from extinction though they are hidden in the midst of all these errors and darkness" (Institutes, p. 25). Giving examples as, Daniel in Babylon, Micah, the truth teller, and Jeremiah the lone ranger, there was no mention of any such people in the era of the councils, bishops, who ruled in the middle ages. Who and one point to as the Daniel's, the Micah's and the Jeremiah's of the time? The church?
Your question as to why Calvin thought his attempt to return the church to the Bible might work is an interesting one and might even be quite relevant in our own day when we might ask why we ourselves might be successful in bringing the Bible back to secular society. I think, for Calvin, the first indication was the unexpected success of the reception of his "Institutes' (p.3). Second, he felt that his arguments and thoughts would be read and understood by Godly people (p.6). Third, it was important to him that his "Institutes" were clear and comprehensive and that they might 'prevent stumbling' (p.5). I think his dedication to King Francis reflects an optimistic belief that people might be persuaded by the force of his words, his enunciated reality of the Word itself.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. Coffman. I was reflecting on your question about why Calvin thought his attempt to return the church to the Bible and maintain "the pure doctrine of godliness" (Institutes p. 4) was going to work. I think we face the same issues today. Could it be that he is still fighting the same issues as Luther - these people were never given a Bible in a language they could read, so had to rely on what was told to them in church? Maybe he is hopeful that once people can discover God and what He has said for themselves, the church would get back on the right path.
ReplyDeleteHi Pam - I can add a little on Luther here. Luther truly believed in the early part of the reform that if people could read the Bible that the Holy Spirit would guide them toward the same, true understanding. With the German Peasants' War in 1525 (when the peasants quoted scripture in defense on the uprising) and in 1527 after the first church visitations, Luther realized that people did not have the same understanding and proceeded to introduce the Kleine catechism and the first fully supervised hymnbook, das Klug'sche hymn of 1529 (where Luther wrote the introduction and guided the contents of the book). Calvin, as a 2nd generation reformer in particular understood that people needed guidance in reading scripture, "it can be a key to open a way for all children of God into a good and right understanding of Holy Scripture." p. 9
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you Dr. Coffman for giving us a good guideline for the blog. I have read portions of the Institutes in the past so it is very exciting to read them in depth. However, this time I get to put on the theologian's hat (baby cap) instead of the historian's hat and, honestly, this will be very hard. I am particularly struck by the interplay between polemic and genuine piety in the introductory material -- especially in the final introduction which he constructed, in part, because of its early popular reception. p.3 I am also a bit surprised to find Calvin so often showing the dualism between God and Devil. Historians frequently point out these opposing fores in Luther, but I thought it had softened under Calvin. I am curious to how this is reflected in the rest of the Institutes as well as how it impacts his overall theology.
ReplyDelete