Calvin’s importance for us today lies in the fact that he realised more clearly than most have done that there are three pillars of Christian teaching that must be distinguished, developed and kept in the right balance. The first of these pillars is biblical exegesis, the theme of his many commentaries. The Bible is the source of Christian doctrine and must therefore be studied carefully and consistently. It is no good reading only parts of it or interpreting some things in it in a way that makes them contradict other statements. Nor is it true that everything is of equal value in every circumstance, regardless of the context. Without good exegesis, it is possible to have a developed systematic theology and even a comprehensive pastoral practice (as Roman Catholics do) but the foundation of these is insecure. Today, the study of the Bible has progressed in ways that Calvin could not have imagined, but the task of the exegete remains as significant now as it ever was. The sad fact is that much of what passes for exegesis today is little more than special pleading for one cause or another….
The next thing that Calvin is noted for is his dedication to a coherent theology, based on the principle of the absolute sovereignty of God. That principle is important because it protects both God’s transcendent majesty and also his involvement with his creation, a balance which is easily lost by the widespread tendency to err in one direction or the other. It would seem obvious that if there is one God with one mind, there ought to be only one divine message, and that message should make sense….
Finally, Calvin’s theology was a preached theology. It is a great misfortune that his sermons are less well-known than either his commentaries or his Institutes. Sermons do not travel well, it is true, but without them we cannot appreciate the dimension of pastoral application which was essential to Calvin’s theological enterprise. A theology that cannot be applied is no theology at all, and a theologian who cannot preach convincingly is betraying his calling. Conversely, all preachers are theologians of a kind””the only question is whether their theology is good or bad, coherent or incoherent, well constructed or cobbled together out of disparate elements. What we want are effective preachers, and only those who can handle the Word of God responsibly have any hope of achieving that. Most Anglican preaching today is poor because it is based on feelings and personal opinions, not on a reflective and relevant exposition of the Bible.
“Without good exegesis, it is possible to have a developed systematic theology and even a comprehensive pastoral practice (as Roman Catholics do) but the foundation of these is insecure.”
I understand that for many Protestants, the primary and most effective (for them) theological argument against Catholics is to insist that they do theology without “good exegesis”. Catholics of course might argue just the opposite. Calvin may have been a coherent theologian, but then so were Augustine and Aquinas. I’m not so sure that their exegesis is less “good” than Calvin’s.
I agree, Dan (#10.
Aquinas, for instance, was known in his time as a Master of the Sacred Page, and wrote commentaries as well as his big Summa. And of course, Augustine’s theology was also a coherent, preached theology. We are blessed that hundreds of his outstanding sermons have survived.
But I still relished this fine, eloquent tribute to Calvin by Reformed Anglican scholar Gerald Bray. As he says toward the end of the essay, the CoE may owe its freedom to Henry VIII, but it “owes its soul to Calvin.” 2009 was not only the 500th anniversay of Henry’s coronation, but also of Calvin’s birth (July 10th). And I’d forgotten another coincidence, 1534 was not only the year that Henry broke with Rome in terms of papal jurisdiction, but it was also the year that Calvin was converted and broke with Rome theologically.
Bray aptly notes that in the latter 1500s, [i]”conformist opinion in England was just as imbued with Calvin’s mindset as any Puritan was.”[/i] And he rightly points to Archbishop John Whitgift (1583-1604) as a prime example. Elizabeth’s chosen pick to lead the CoE for the last 20 years of her reign was indeed [i]”as Calvinist as anyone in Geneva could have hoped for, but (he) was implacably opposed to Puritanism.”[/i]
Those of us who are much more high church or catholic minded than Bray is may naturally deplore that historical reality, but facts are stubborn things (John Adams) and there is no denying the indubitable fact that early Anglicanism was very heavily influenced by Calvin (along with other Reformed leaders like Bucer, Bullinger, and Zwingli himself). The 39 Articles remain unmistakeable evidence of that profoundly formative influence during the first generations after the English Reformation.
And proudly Reformed leaders within Anglicanism like James Packer or Sydney’s ++Peter Jensen show that Calvin’s heritage remains very much alive and well within at least certain Anglican circles.
Personally, I like Luther much better than Calvin overall, and I admire John Henry Newman more than either of them, but I gladly acknowledge that all three were among the greatest theologians of all time. And all three are worthy of being considered “Doctors of the Church.” Along with Augustine and Aquinas.
David Handy+
David Handy+’s reference to other reformers such as Bucer and Bullinger is well made. I understand where Bray is coming from, but I think his article misses the mark by overstating the influence of both Calvin and Henry VIII, and failing to give due consideration to the English reformers.
Bray wrote:
“It was in Geneva, under [Calvin’s] auspices, that the best and most influential early English translation of the Bible appeared (in 1560) …”
I suggest this is over-egging the pudding. The Englishman William Tyndale died at the stake in 1536 for producing an English translation of the bible which not only came 30 years before Calvin’s, but has arguably been far more influential (in Anglican terms). In turn, Coverdale’s Great Bible was based on Tyndale’s translation and printed in great numbers during 1539-1540. It was promoted by Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, so an all-English affair. As I recall, the scripture passages in the 1662 BCP are aslo mainly based on Tyndale’s translation.
We mustn’t forget that the Reformation didn’t just influence Britain – British theologians influenced the Reformation, and not only through Wyclif’s teachings in the 14th century:
For example, William Tyndale began his bible studies at Cambridge in 1515 – a good two years before Luther nailed his theses to the door at Wittenberg. Tyndale’s criticism of Henry VIII’s divorce as unscriptural was published in 1530, four years before Calvin’s conversion. Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More instigated Tyndale’s martyrdom in 1536, the same year as the first of Calvin’s publications.
Another example: Hugh Latimer strongly promoted reformist teachings in the Church of England from 1524, and this intensified when he became bishop of Worcester in 1535. He was deposed and sent to the Tower by Henry VIII in 1539. Clearly Latimer wasn’t influenced by Calvin, however there is a very real likelihood that Calvin was influenced by Latimer!
Similarly, Nicholas Ridley led the Cambridge faculty which published the following resolution in 1534: “That the Bishop of Rome hath no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop.” Again, no influence by Calvin in this, rather the reverse.
Also, as bishop of London from 1550, Ridley led the opposition to John Hooper (sponsored by Bucer and Bullinger) in the vestments controversy and prevailed. So hardly a case of the continental reformation influencing the English reformation.
So when I read the following in Mr Bray’s article: “By breaking with Rome in 1534 (coincidentally also the year of Calvin’s conversion to Protestantism), Henry VIII set the Church of England on course to becoming an independent Reformed church”, I have to seriously disagree! English Reformism was in strong development well before Calvin was even converted, and Henry VIII’s influence was more fortuitious than anything else – Henry was more often an enemy of the English Reformation than its friend.
#3: I think you have missed Bray’s point, which is that ‘The 39 Articles’ largely follows the order of Calvin’s ‘Institutes’ and would agree with his predestinarian thinking. ‘The Institutes’ was written (in Latin) in 1536 and was certainly known by Cranmer, whose son in law translated it into English in 1561.
Some people would also be surprised to learn how profoundly learned Calvin was in Greek patristic sources and how much he interacts with them in ‘The Institutes’. Calvin was closer to being an apophatic theologian than is often appreciated. Bray has a lot ot say about this in his book ‘The Doctrine of God’.
Azusa,
I don’t think I missed Bray’s point at all. If you re-read the points I made in my post, they dealt with particular parts of Bray’s article which go much further than your paraphrase, and are not justifiable.
Of course Calvin was influential in the development of the Church of England – at a later period, and as were a number of other theologians. I would go further than you in saying that Calvin’s thought was particularly influential in the predecessor to the 39 articles, although that does not mean it was the only influence.
But my original point stands: the theology of the English reformation was formed before Calvin – his thought *added* to something that was already there, and indeed it is likely that Calvin’s own theology was influenced by the English reformers.
And Bray’s claim about Calvin’s Bible has to be modified, at least in the context of the English reformation: It cannot stand without some acknowledgement of the work by Tyndale and others, which was spread throughout England 20 years prior to Calvin’s translation, was formative in the English reformation, and remained in the Book of Common Prayer.
Actually, after further thought, I think I should go further. When Bray writes: “but it is fair to say that between them, they [Henry VIII and Calvin] had a greater influence on the course of British religion and on the development of the Church of England than any comparable figures in our history”, I don’ think this can be sustained, at all.
Whilst Calvin was a great theologian, a number of reformers prior to him had a much greater influence on the Church of England. I have mentioned English reformers above. Of Continental reformers, Calvin had a fairly limited influence, compared particularly to those continental reformers who lived in England and worked with the leadership of the CofE for an extended period: e.g. Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr, Jan Laski and Paul Fagius.
Of course the English Reformation was underway while Calvin was still a Catholic lad, and Henry VIII didn’t intend to break with Catholicism (as he idiosyncratically understood it). But who or what was influencing the Edwardine Reformers? What was Cranmer reading? Whence his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper? It has always seemed rather Calvinist to me.
Another critical issue concerns the Marian exiles (including Sandys and Jewel): besides Strasbourg and Frankfurt, the largest number were in Geneva where they were directly influenced by Calvin and the Geneva Bible was produced – certainly the most influential English version of the 16th century, replete with its notorious notes.