This latest installment considers the second chapter of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion: 'Of the Knowledge of Man and Free Will.' Calvin has a pretty low view of man's ability to understand the gospel apart from God's direct action. I'm not so sure, so I examined two of the references he uses to prove his point. I think he misses the Apostle John's use of light and darkness as demonstrated below.
The second chapter of Calvin’s Institutes concerns the abilities, or rather disabilities of man. Here’s a paraphrase of one part: You suck at thinking, especially about God. In this section, Calvin considered the philosophers attempts to understand God, and recognized their inability and recommends considering Scripture as more valuable than reason.
As Calvin considers passages in the gospel of John to establish his point, he cites John 1:4-5 and 1:10. The conclusion he draws from these portions reads thus:
"For by these words he (John) well teaches that the human soul is somewhat illuminated by the light of God so that it is never devoid of some flame, or at least of some spark. But likewise he notes that it cannot understand God by this illumination [Jn. 1:10]. Why not? Because with regard to the knowledge of God all its spirit is pure obscurity, for when the Holy Spirit calls people ‘darkness’ He strips them of every faculty of spiritual understanding."
If I understand his point correctly, Calvin stated that (1) the light of God attempts to illuminate man’s darkened mind and (2) the darkness equals a complete absence of spiritual understanding. Checking all of Calvin’s Scripture references daunts the hardiest of souls, but this one struck me as important. How did Calvin understand the Apostle John? Does John use the idea of ‘darkness’ in as absolute a sense as Calvin seems to? How does John use the idea of ‘light’? Fortunately, John uses the idea of darkness in only a few places, often in contrast to the idea of light.
The specific word for darkness used in Calvin’s citations occurs as a figurative usage for ‘darkening of the mind or spirit’ . John seems particularly fond of this usage and it occurs in Jn. 1:5ab, 8:12, 12:35a and perhaps b, and 12:46. Similar usage is rare outside John, one usage in Matthew 4:16 and several further usages in 1 John. John uses the term literally twice, to refer to actual darkness (Jn. 6:17, 20:1 and perhaps 12:35). John consistently uses this word for opposition to ‘the light’ which he explicitly reveals in several contexts.
John 8:12: “Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 12:46: “I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me will not remain in darkness.”
The concept of darkness as spiritual understanding presented in John does resonate with Calvin’s usage to a point. Those who are outside the light remain in spiritual ignorance. There may be an inconsistency in Calvin’s usage of ‘the light.’ Calvin presents the light as a general illumination from God with no mention of the person of Christ, a usage foreign to John. In John, the light specifically refers to the person of Christ. Calvin presents darkness as man’s stubborn ignorance that resists illumination. John presents darkness as a condition of men who reject the person of Christ. When John writes in his first chapter that: “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (Jn 1:5), he specifically refers to the rejection of Christ by the spiritually darkened men of the time. This cursory examination of a small portion of the available data suggests further study of Calvin’s use of darkness in John's Gospel.
In order to properly consider how Calvin understands John, I would need to refer to Calvin's commentaries, research journals and scholarly commentaries. The tentative conclusion at the end reflects the need for further study.
I can tell you put on your scholarly underwear for this one! Being respectfully tentative until all of the data is in. But assuming that your sample of the literature is on the right track, then we can say that Calvin's understanding of depravity is at odds with the apostle John. If John the apostle is saying that Jesus is the light and the natural mind of human beings is ignorant without Jesus, then the remedy for removing the darkness is to introduce someone to Jesus. Since Jesus is the "light", he will act as an illumination of God (because He is God). Therefore the natural effects of sin on the mind (bringing darkness=ignorance of God) are corrected by turning on the light (learning of Jesus= gaining knowledge of God). So it seems as if John the apostle would say that the darkness of the natural mind is removed upon seeing Jesus. This does not mean that humans will then believe the Gospel. Illumination of the truth is different from accepting the truth.
ReplyDeleteIf this line of thinking is accurately representing Calvin, then I wonder what he does with Paul's comments in Romans 1 about general revelation? I could look, as I own all of Calvin's commentaries, but they are in the garage. So I will put on my scholarly clothing and remain tentative as well.
Yeah, I disagree with Calvin on his beliefs about the effect of sin on the intellect and on the will. Chapter two in the Institutes is dense, and seems to have some outright contradictions. In this article, I only consider the word skotia and its use by John as compared to Calvin.
ReplyDeleteJesus Himself seems to assign darkness to those who reject Him. The open question (from a Calvinist perspective) is on how the human will does or does not function in relation to knowledge of God and submission to His Word.
I think a possible research topic would be to examine Calvin's use of Scripture in contexts that have not already been considered. I'm sure other scholars have done this kind of thing.
John Calvin was never accepted by the Catholic Church in any sense, except as another sinner needing redemption.
ReplyDeleteHis leading people into heresy and away from the Body of Christ has been one of the major heartaches for all good Catholic saints who have worked so hard through the centuries to repair the damage he has done to innumerable souls in cutting them off from Divine Grace through severance from the Church.
One saint in particular, St. Francis de Sales spent his life as a missionary, and subsequently as bishop of Geneva trying to reconvert (with great success) those who had been led astray.
The Jesuits were founded, as a religious order, specifically to help combat the heresy of Protestantism.
I was saved, I am saved and I am being saved. Yes, but only GOD knows who they are.
Hi Michael, thanks for sharing your perspective. I think Calvin got a lot of things wrong, and he addresses his reasoning for leaving the Catholic church in the 1541 Institutes during the chapter on Penitence (chapter 5).
ReplyDeleteOne thing Calvin and the larger body of Reformers got right is a return to the original sources of the Christian faith in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The larger Reformation movement led to widespread Catholic reform (the counter-Reformation) and there is a lot to learn for both Catholics and Protestants from the history of the time.