What do you think?
Rate this book
Calvin and Classical Philosophy
This is a thorough study of Calvin's conception of Christian philosophy, his exposition of insights of classical philosophy, and his evaluations of classical philosophers. Special attention is given to the doctrines of providence and predestination.
- GenresPhilosophyTheology
176 pages, Paperback
First published April 22, 2005
3 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 4, 2025
Accessible, helpful, interesting.
21 - Calvin thinks that his theology is superior to philosophy, but he does not seek to displace philosophy in a higher synthesis in which all of philosophy's legitimate concerns are resolved. Calvin gives us marginal notes on philosophy which are suggestive rather than a philosophical program which is exhaustive.
29 - Epistemology in itself is an empty science since knowledge cannot be isolated from its content. Knowledge depends on what is thought capable of being known. Therefore Calvin's "epistemology" can be considered apart from his "ontology" only for convenience in expo-sition. Calvin's opposition to rational speculation' does not preclude the necessity of ontological affirmations, but he is more concerned with the knowledge of God than the being of God. That is, Calvin is not interested in speculating about God-in-himself, but in God-as-revealed in his word.? Calvin is concerned with God-for-us. Thus to know God is to know his relationship to us as it is revealed and to refuse to search for a hidden God.* Of course, God-revealed-in-us implies God-sovereign-in-himself, but Calvin rejects the attempt to go behind or above God's self-revelation. He advises that the faithful "not indulge in curiosity or in the investigation of unprofitable things. And because the Lord willed to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true trust, and in the duties of holiness, let us be satisfied with this knowledge."
35 - achieve or even attempt a logically unassailable system as most scholars have recognized. For example, writing of Calvin's doctrine of justification, Willy Lüttge argues for tensions (Spannungen) or contradictions (Widerspruchen) in Calvin's theology. Emile Dou-mergue answers Lüttge by saying that while there are philosophical contradictions in Calvin, his pensée and pieté are combined in ex-perience. "The diversity, the clashes, the contrasts, the dualism, the defects of logic, the contradictions, if you like, the elements which entered into the composition of Calvinism, constitute precisely its originality, its richness, its force, in a word, its own peculiar life." Doumergue points out that Calvin uses both the a priori and a pos-teriori methods which had been developed in philosophy and theology, but maintains that while there is a logic of concepts, there is also a logic of life, of reality.
37 - The philosophers do not ignore experience, but the experience to which Calvin appeals is a specifically Christian experience. Hermann Bauke writes, "Calvin is from a material point of view entirely independent of philosophy, but formally he works with philosophy's rational-dialectic method. He is by no means a speculative philosopher or theologian, but he is throughout a theologian of experience (Erfahrungstheologe); at the same time he is a trained dialectician, a 'philosophically working' theologian." Bauke has exaggerated the situation in saying that Calvin is "entirely independent of philosophy". Most of the "material" Calvin works with is Biblical, but some of it is also philosophical, as Calvin recognizes. Calvin knows Plato and Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero too well to be entirely independent of them. Their views neither constitute nor determine Calvin's, but they contribute to it. It is also erroneous to characterize Calvin's method as "rational-dialectic". Calvin's thought is based on exegesis rather than dialectics. However Bauke is correct in suggesting the importance of the category of experience in Calvin's thought. That is to say, Calvin appeals his exposition of Christian philosophy not primarily to logic and reason but to the experience of the faithful.
46 - Calvin does not discuss the philosophers in terms of the two-nature Christological doctrine. Luther asserts that the philosophers know something about providence, but not about the Son.? For Calvin the knowledge of the Son includes knowledge of the Father and the Spirit, but it is not clear that the philosophers' vague knowledge of God includes even a dim recognition of the Eternal Son. The Stoic logos doctrine may be regarded as a kind of anticipation of the Christian doctrine, but its efficacy depends on the Christian ex post facto identification of the logos with Christ rather than being its logical or historical prerequisite. That is, Christology may claim the Stoic logos doctrine as an adumbration, but Christology is not a product of the Stoic understanding. Since, then, the philosophers affirm God's existence without knowing his proper nature, even their recognition of his existence, while commendable, is not dependable. Calvin says that it is a frigid speculation to discuss the proposition, "Quid sit Deus" when the real inquiry is "Qualis sit Deus. "The question is not whether there is a God, but what God is like. The classical philosophers are not totally ignorant concerning the existence of God, but without the light of Scripture, their insight is confused.
47 - asserts that the philosophers are correct in praising nature, but stupid "in failing to recognize God as the Lord and Governor of nature, who according to his will uses all the elements to serve his glory." With Lactantius, Calvin criticizes the Aristotelian and Stoic identification of nature and God. Calvin agrees with the Platonists? that the universe is founded as a theater or spectacle of God's glory. However Calvin criticizes the Platonic view that God is the architect rather than the creator of the world. Plato thinks that things made by nature are the work of divine art (Osio téxvn). In much the same sense as Plato the Stoics speak of God as the maker of the universe, but mean that God fashions the universe rather than creating it out of nothing.
54 - image of God in Adam is known from the image of God in the second Adam. Christ is the most perfect image of God and if men are conformed to him, they are restored to God's image. "Our happiness lies in having God's image, which was blotted out by sin, restored and reformed in us. Christ is not only, as the eternal Word of God, his lively image [imago], but even on his human nature, which he has in common with us, the imprint [effigies] of the Father's glory has been engraved, that he might transform his members to it." The end of regeneration is to restore the image of God which is almost obliterated by Adam's transgression. The image of God is found not in a return to nature but in obedience to God. This restoration is not immediate but a matter of life-long effort, so that "the closer any man comes to the likeness of God, the more the image of God shines in him.
The philosophers devote a good deal of attention to the doctrine of soul and its relation to divinity. Calvin does not question the accuracy of their basic analysis of man's essential spirituality, he denies its adequacy. Cicero speaks of a likeness between God and man, and so does Calvin, but Calvin insists that a distinction between man's created nature and his redeemed nature is necessary. The image of God in man is not to be understood solely in terms of nature as with the philosophers but from man's redeemed nature as revealed and received through Jesus Christ.
65 - The immortality of the soul in Plato, Plotinus, and Ficino has some resemblances to Calvin's doctrine but Calvin's Biblical con-cerns forbid an identification of his view as entirely philosophical. Contemporary theology sees a sharper distinction between the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body than Calvin perceives, but this fact does not make Calvin Platonic. Calvin looks at the subject of soul and body, immortality and resurrection through the "spectacles of Scripture". The lens of Calvin's spectacles were certainly tinted by Platonism here, but the source of Calvin's view of soul and body is the Scripture.
87 - What Calvin seems to mean by the relation between theology proper and Christology may be formulated this way; the ontic basis of salvation is the hidden (though gracious and just) will of God.
The epistemic basis of salvation is the revelation in Christ. In terms of the hidden and revealed will of God, this position holds that the ontological basis of salvation is hidden in the decrees of God. It must be acknowledged but not questioned. The epistemic basis of salvation is revealed in Jesus Christ and must be believed and obeyed. Calvin does not develop this difficult concept with an emphasis and clatity sufficient to obviate the misunderstandings of his position which arose both among his followers and opponents.
To suggest a distinction between the ontological and epistemological understanding of salvation does not solve the problems surrounding the doctrine, but it is intended to account for Calvin's usage. At least it is evident that having confessed God's eternal decrees Calvin wishes to go no further but to look to Christ.
Calvin's doctrine of salvation is expounded in terms of his doctrine of God eschewing a contributory role on the part of man.
This entirely passive role for man causes problems for anthropology, but an active role causes problems in theology. In discussing salvation in terms of the Trinity, Calvin comes closest to the philosophers in dealing with the sovereignty of God. The philosophers also dimly recognize the need for an intermediary, but their insight is uncertain and the direction of their aspiration vague. Thus Calvin goes beyond the philosophers' views not only in his Christology but also in his exposition of the work of the Holy Spirit.
21 - Calvin thinks that his theology is superior to philosophy, but he does not seek to displace philosophy in a higher synthesis in which all of philosophy's legitimate concerns are resolved. Calvin gives us marginal notes on philosophy which are suggestive rather than a philosophical program which is exhaustive.
29 - Epistemology in itself is an empty science since knowledge cannot be isolated from its content. Knowledge depends on what is thought capable of being known. Therefore Calvin's "epistemology" can be considered apart from his "ontology" only for convenience in expo-sition. Calvin's opposition to rational speculation' does not preclude the necessity of ontological affirmations, but he is more concerned with the knowledge of God than the being of God. That is, Calvin is not interested in speculating about God-in-himself, but in God-as-revealed in his word.? Calvin is concerned with God-for-us. Thus to know God is to know his relationship to us as it is revealed and to refuse to search for a hidden God.* Of course, God-revealed-in-us implies God-sovereign-in-himself, but Calvin rejects the attempt to go behind or above God's self-revelation. He advises that the faithful "not indulge in curiosity or in the investigation of unprofitable things. And because the Lord willed to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true trust, and in the duties of holiness, let us be satisfied with this knowledge."
35 - achieve or even attempt a logically unassailable system as most scholars have recognized. For example, writing of Calvin's doctrine of justification, Willy Lüttge argues for tensions (Spannungen) or contradictions (Widerspruchen) in Calvin's theology. Emile Dou-mergue answers Lüttge by saying that while there are philosophical contradictions in Calvin, his pensée and pieté are combined in ex-perience. "The diversity, the clashes, the contrasts, the dualism, the defects of logic, the contradictions, if you like, the elements which entered into the composition of Calvinism, constitute precisely its originality, its richness, its force, in a word, its own peculiar life." Doumergue points out that Calvin uses both the a priori and a pos-teriori methods which had been developed in philosophy and theology, but maintains that while there is a logic of concepts, there is also a logic of life, of reality.
37 - The philosophers do not ignore experience, but the experience to which Calvin appeals is a specifically Christian experience. Hermann Bauke writes, "Calvin is from a material point of view entirely independent of philosophy, but formally he works with philosophy's rational-dialectic method. He is by no means a speculative philosopher or theologian, but he is throughout a theologian of experience (Erfahrungstheologe); at the same time he is a trained dialectician, a 'philosophically working' theologian." Bauke has exaggerated the situation in saying that Calvin is "entirely independent of philosophy". Most of the "material" Calvin works with is Biblical, but some of it is also philosophical, as Calvin recognizes. Calvin knows Plato and Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero too well to be entirely independent of them. Their views neither constitute nor determine Calvin's, but they contribute to it. It is also erroneous to characterize Calvin's method as "rational-dialectic". Calvin's thought is based on exegesis rather than dialectics. However Bauke is correct in suggesting the importance of the category of experience in Calvin's thought. That is to say, Calvin appeals his exposition of Christian philosophy not primarily to logic and reason but to the experience of the faithful.
46 - Calvin does not discuss the philosophers in terms of the two-nature Christological doctrine. Luther asserts that the philosophers know something about providence, but not about the Son.? For Calvin the knowledge of the Son includes knowledge of the Father and the Spirit, but it is not clear that the philosophers' vague knowledge of God includes even a dim recognition of the Eternal Son. The Stoic logos doctrine may be regarded as a kind of anticipation of the Christian doctrine, but its efficacy depends on the Christian ex post facto identification of the logos with Christ rather than being its logical or historical prerequisite. That is, Christology may claim the Stoic logos doctrine as an adumbration, but Christology is not a product of the Stoic understanding. Since, then, the philosophers affirm God's existence without knowing his proper nature, even their recognition of his existence, while commendable, is not dependable. Calvin says that it is a frigid speculation to discuss the proposition, "Quid sit Deus" when the real inquiry is "Qualis sit Deus. "The question is not whether there is a God, but what God is like. The classical philosophers are not totally ignorant concerning the existence of God, but without the light of Scripture, their insight is confused.
47 - asserts that the philosophers are correct in praising nature, but stupid "in failing to recognize God as the Lord and Governor of nature, who according to his will uses all the elements to serve his glory." With Lactantius, Calvin criticizes the Aristotelian and Stoic identification of nature and God. Calvin agrees with the Platonists? that the universe is founded as a theater or spectacle of God's glory. However Calvin criticizes the Platonic view that God is the architect rather than the creator of the world. Plato thinks that things made by nature are the work of divine art (Osio téxvn). In much the same sense as Plato the Stoics speak of God as the maker of the universe, but mean that God fashions the universe rather than creating it out of nothing.
54 - image of God in Adam is known from the image of God in the second Adam. Christ is the most perfect image of God and if men are conformed to him, they are restored to God's image. "Our happiness lies in having God's image, which was blotted out by sin, restored and reformed in us. Christ is not only, as the eternal Word of God, his lively image [imago], but even on his human nature, which he has in common with us, the imprint [effigies] of the Father's glory has been engraved, that he might transform his members to it." The end of regeneration is to restore the image of God which is almost obliterated by Adam's transgression. The image of God is found not in a return to nature but in obedience to God. This restoration is not immediate but a matter of life-long effort, so that "the closer any man comes to the likeness of God, the more the image of God shines in him.
The philosophers devote a good deal of attention to the doctrine of soul and its relation to divinity. Calvin does not question the accuracy of their basic analysis of man's essential spirituality, he denies its adequacy. Cicero speaks of a likeness between God and man, and so does Calvin, but Calvin insists that a distinction between man's created nature and his redeemed nature is necessary. The image of God in man is not to be understood solely in terms of nature as with the philosophers but from man's redeemed nature as revealed and received through Jesus Christ.
65 - The immortality of the soul in Plato, Plotinus, and Ficino has some resemblances to Calvin's doctrine but Calvin's Biblical con-cerns forbid an identification of his view as entirely philosophical. Contemporary theology sees a sharper distinction between the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body than Calvin perceives, but this fact does not make Calvin Platonic. Calvin looks at the subject of soul and body, immortality and resurrection through the "spectacles of Scripture". The lens of Calvin's spectacles were certainly tinted by Platonism here, but the source of Calvin's view of soul and body is the Scripture.
87 - What Calvin seems to mean by the relation between theology proper and Christology may be formulated this way; the ontic basis of salvation is the hidden (though gracious and just) will of God.
The epistemic basis of salvation is the revelation in Christ. In terms of the hidden and revealed will of God, this position holds that the ontological basis of salvation is hidden in the decrees of God. It must be acknowledged but not questioned. The epistemic basis of salvation is revealed in Jesus Christ and must be believed and obeyed. Calvin does not develop this difficult concept with an emphasis and clatity sufficient to obviate the misunderstandings of his position which arose both among his followers and opponents.
To suggest a distinction between the ontological and epistemological understanding of salvation does not solve the problems surrounding the doctrine, but it is intended to account for Calvin's usage. At least it is evident that having confessed God's eternal decrees Calvin wishes to go no further but to look to Christ.
Calvin's doctrine of salvation is expounded in terms of his doctrine of God eschewing a contributory role on the part of man.
This entirely passive role for man causes problems for anthropology, but an active role causes problems in theology. In discussing salvation in terms of the Trinity, Calvin comes closest to the philosophers in dealing with the sovereignty of God. The philosophers also dimly recognize the need for an intermediary, but their insight is uncertain and the direction of their aspiration vague. Thus Calvin goes beyond the philosophers' views not only in his Christology but also in his exposition of the work of the Holy Spirit.
Displaying 1 of 1 review