Tag Archive for calvin at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'calvin'

Calvin On The Lord’s Supper - Or What I Mean By Sanctifying Grace

Published by Bryan June 10, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 15 Comments

Continuing the ongoing discussion of the Lord’s Supper (Part One, and Part Two) we will be looking at John Calvin’s view of what happens in the Lord’s Supper since there is much in it I share.

John Calvin, in section 4.17.3 of The Institutes of Christian Religion says the following regarding what the body and blood of Christ does:

As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate.

This is the best explanation of what I mean when I use the term “sanctifying grace”. The grace that is given by the eating the body and blood of Christ is not grace that saves a person, but the grace that works like physical food does. It renews us, gives us energy, and keeps us healthy, not physically like ordinary food does, but spiritually. This is what feeding on the body and blood of Christ does.

But is this feeding on the body and blood of Christ what happens in the Lord’s Supper, or is it something that happens only spiritually through relying and trusting in Christ? Most evangelicals would agree with Calvin if he was referring only to what happens through trusting and relying on Christ through faith with no connection to the Lord’s Supper, except perhaps through some disjointed symbolism. But it is clear that Calvin is not only referring to what happens only when one trusts in Christ, but what happens when one trusts in Christ through the Lord’s Supper as section 4.17.10 discusses.

Section 4.17.10 begins by repeating section 4.17.3 in a condensed form which shows it is the same line of reasoning continuing:

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ.

Calvin then goes on to answer the question of how Christ, being far away from us (sitting at the right hand of God) can be connected to us, allowing us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Although this question has not been a point I have dwelt on in my discussions of the Lord’s Supper it is an important point of which the Reformed and Lutherans have historically disagreed on.

This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.

Calvin then enters into discussion of the question we have here been considering in the past blog entries; what happens in the Lord’s Supper. His answer is that exactly when was said in 4.17.3 is what happens:

That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10: 16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified.

Calvin believes scripture connects the Lord’s Supper to what is symbolized by it. When we drink the wine we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the blood of Christ, likewise when we eat the bread we are participating(ESV)/sharing(GNB) in the body of Christ. If this is the case, then when we take the bread and wine we are in fact taking the bread and blood of Christ and the benefits that come with it. This is not to say that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ, Calvin would deny the Roman Catholic doctrine, but they are connected. How are they connected?

I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

The bread and wine symbolizes the body and blood of Christ, but the symbol is not a mere symbol. Through the taking of the symbol what the symbol represents is given. The benefits of the body and blood of Christ are given in the Lord’s supper because by receiving the symbol, one receives what is symbolized. To steal an explanation of this consider the example of a wedding ring. The wedding ring is a symbol (among other things) of the marriage, but when the ring is placed on the finger what it symbolizes comes into being. The ring is not the marriage, but it is so connected to the marriage that it is not an empty symbol; it truly represents the truth of the marriage and one who receives it receives the benefits of the marriage covenant through it.

How then shall this all be summed up? According to Calvin the Lord’s Supper gives the Christian sanctifying grace, that is grace for the Christian life, because the bread and wine are the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and through those symbols we participate with what they symbolize.

Vico And Calvin, Part 2

Published by Bryan March 4, 2008 in General and Philosophy. 2 Comments

This is part two in a two part series examining the similarities and differences in Vico and Calvin’s understanding of providence. Part one here.

Vico’s Providence
The differences in what providence is able to accomplish has consequences for one’s understanding of free will. Vico’s understanding of providence and free will is often difficult to make sense of. At some points he seems to suggest that providence cannot overcome a person’s will, yet at others it appears as if providence can. This can be seen when comparing sections 310 and 341.

In 310 Vico states:

And therefore it demonstrates the Catholic principles of grace: this it operates in man when his condition is one not of negation but of privation of good works, and hence of a potentially for them which is ineffectual; that is gives effect to this potentiality and this it therefore cannot act without the principle of free choice, which God aids naturally by His providence.

Yet in 341, Vico says:

Therefore it is only by divine providence that he can be held within these institutions to practice justice as a member of the society of the family, of the city, and finally of mankind.

In the first section Vico appears to be saying that mankind has the ability to do good works, and that ability is aided by providence, yet in the second section it is only by divine providence that mankind can be just which might negate free will. Since Calvin also has to deal with the issue of providence and free will, and he does so in a more direct way. It will serve us to examine his view at this point and then, returning to Vico’s to compare, attempt to make sense of the possible inconsistency.

Calvin’s Providence
Calvin’s understanding of providence does away with anything that can rightly be called a free will (Calvin does hold on to the term but removes choice from it as seen in Institutes II. II. VII.). He is clear when he says:

That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of scripture. (Calvin I. XVIII. I.)

There is no action that God does not govern by His providence, no chance, and no possibilities, everything is directly determined by God through His providence. Combined with the understanding that God is an all determining being is Calvin’s own unique take on biblical anthropology. Not only does he hold to the understanding that in the biblical fall mankind became corrupted, but also lost the ability to do any good work on his own which we shall see is more radical a position then Vico. Again Calvin is unambiguous;

All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace… (Calvin II. II. VI).

Although it would be easy to assume that Vico’s providence removes free will and makes God into some kind of being similar to Calvin’s God, the role for providence and the free will he imagines mankind as having must be less deterministic then what Calvin proposes. The fact that Vico speaks of providence aiding and not determining mankind shows that there is a vast difference in the way these two men understand God working among mankind, but how exactly does Vico’s understanding of providence and free will differ from Calvin?

The differences between the two thinkers starts with their understanding of the state of mankind. Although both agree that mankind has undergone some kind of corruption, the extent of that corruption is different. For Calvin, this corruption is total. There is nothing good left in mankind, all ability mankind may have had to do good before the fall is gone, and all that remains now is our capacity and drive to commit evil (Calvin II. II. XXVII.). Although Vico agrees with Calvin that mankind is corrupted, he would see Calvin as taking that corruption too far. When in section 310, Vico gives his most complete account of the fall of mankind he says; “…that man is not unjust by nature in the absolute sense, but by nature fallen and weak.” Vico seems then to hold a position that recognizes mankind being in a corrupt state, but a corrupt state that has only weakened their will to do good, not fully destroying it. This weakened will then allows Vico to hold on to the notion of a free will. The will may be partial to doing what is wrong, but it can be directed to do good. However, how can this be squared with Vico’s statement in section 341?
Continue reading ‘Vico And Calvin, Part 2′

Vico And Calvin, Part 1

Published by Bryan February 19, 2008 in Philosophy. 10 Comments

This is part 1 in a series comparing the Italian Philosopher Giambattista Vico’s understanding of providence with that of John Calvin’s understanding. Vico is for the vast majority of people an obscure philosopher, but his thoughts on providence, and why he holds to the view he does, are worth examining. All quotes from Vico are from his New Science, while all quotes from Calvin are from his Institutes of Christian Religion.

One of the major themes throughout Vico’s The New Science is providence. It is important to understand his philosophy of providence (even though it is not always the easiest idea to understand) since it effects all other areas of his philosophy. Because Vico does not systematically set out his understanding of providence, but instead threads it throughout his discussions of history, freedom, and God - great care is needed to understand exactly what is meant in regards to providence and the implications that follow from it.

To aid in this task, it is useful to compare his understanding of providence with another philosopher who also has a robust, but more systematic understanding, of it. Within this essay, John Calvin will be used to fulfill this task. Comparing Vico’s and Calvin’s views will not only be philosophically interesting but theologically as well. Although both were Christian philosophers/theologians, Vico was a Renaissance Catholic writer whose lived from 1668-1744, while Calvin was a Protestant Reformer who lived from 1509-1564.

Providence in Vico - Progress Through Institutions
To begin to understand the concept of providence in Vico, one must first determine the purpose it serves within his philosophy. One of the main questions in The New Science is how civilizations arise, fall and arise again; in essence, he is trying to understand how civil society progresses. To do this, he believes that an understanding of providence is necessary, he even lays out his task as setting up “a rational civil theology of divine providence” (Vico 342).

Why does he need a philosophy of providence to achieve this? Many people today look to economic, sociological, technological, or cultural factors to understand the progression of civilizations without reference to providence. Unlike many contemporary writers, Vico is working within the framework of historic Christianity, and therefore must deal with a biblical anthropology. Civilizations are made up of humans, and according to Christianity those humans are in a fallen state. As Vico explains;

But men, because of their corrupt nature, are under the tyranny of self-love, which compels them to make private utility their chief guide. Seeking everything useful for themselves and nothing for their companions, they cannot bring their passions under control to direct them towards justice. (Vico 341)

A corrupt civilization left to their own devices would not progress, but degrade. Vico recognizes this, but sees a solution in divine providence. Mankind is not left to their own devices but God, through divine providence, aids mankind (Vico 136). It is therefore divine providence that allows a civilization to avoid self-destruction, move forward, and be just, which why it is so central to Vico’s thought. Providence therefore has worked throughout the history of the world by allowing humans to develop institutions that moved our civilizations forward (Vico 342). This providence is not personal, and is difficult to see in the moment, but when Vico looks back at history he believes that one can see how providence worked through ordinary action to bring history to the point it is now at. In this brief sketch of Vico’s understanding of providence there is much that is similar in a broad sense to how Calvin understands providence, but when the details are sorted out the ideas diverge in important ways.

Calvin’s Providence - God “Holds the Helm”
Like Vico, Calvin takes the biblical story of the fall of mankind from perfection to a corrupt nature seriously; “All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace…” (Calvin II. II. VI.) Unlike Vico’s work, Calvin’s main concern in The Institutes of Christian Religion is not an understanding of how civilizations work, but an exposition of the Christian faith. However the question of government is not far from his mind (Calvin II. II. III.), and he therefore understands the implications of this biblical anthropology as well as Vico does.

As with Vico, Calvin also sees providence as a way of overcoming man’s corrupt nature, however the divergence between Vico and Calvin can already be begun to be seen on this point. In book one, chapter 16 of The Institutes of Christian Religion Calvin defines providence;

First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helm, and overrules all events. (Calvin I. XVI. IV.)

For Calvin, providence involves God watching over, and controlling all things that take place in the world. It is not that God’s providence allows humans to do good as Vico holds, but that it is God who does the good in spite of humanity. Both views use a kind of providence to overcome the problem of how a corrupt civilization can bring about good things, but uses that providence in radically different ways which will be explored further next time.

To be continued in part 2

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jul
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Zeal For Truth