Naoaki Yamazawa
-Introduction
-Literature
-Proposal of the Order of the Institutes
-Ending Words
Introduction
John Calvin has often been caricatured as an expounder of a logical and cold dogmatics. It is a surprise that there have been debates on the structure of Calvin’s most famous book, the Institutes of 1559. The Institutes has been one of the most well known books that has explained the Protestant view of the Christian faith in an orderly manner. In this paper, I will attempt to review the literature on this topic and having the literature in mind, I would like to make a new proposal for the order of the Institutes.
As T. A. Noble has described, most people should agree that ‘Our Knowledge of God’ is one ‘main theme of’ Calvin’s theology. ‘It is the theme of the famous opening sentence’ of the Institutes. “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves (I.1.1).”
Its “importance for the structure of the’ Institutes ‘is evident in the title of Book I:”
“The Knowledge of God the Creator”
“and Book II”
“The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, First Disclosed to the
Fathers Under the Law, And Then to Us in the Gospel.”
The main theme of Calvin’s theology is also closely related to the topic of this paper but unfortunately this is an area that we will not be able to discuss in detail. An article on this subject would be C. Partee, “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again” Sixteenth Century Journal 18 (1987) 191-199. Partee has illustrated his own view of the structure of the Institutes.. As François Wendel has pointed out, for a long time predestination has been considered to be ‘the central doctrine of Calvin’s theology.’ It would be fair to say that at present predestination is not considered to be the main topic of the structure of the Institutes.
Literature
The classic research on this topic has been J. Köstlin’s “Calvin’s Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geschlichtlichen Entwicklung” . We should note that the German word ‘Form’ means structure here. While not concentrating on the issue of structure, B. B. Warfield’s article ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’ is another classic which argues a topic closely related to the structure of the Institutes. This article has been reprinted in his collection of works Calvin and Augustine. , There is another significant article by P. Lobstein, ”La Connaissance religieuse d’après Calvin” which according to E. A. Dowey, originally was in Revue de théologie et de philosophie XLII (1909) 53-110.
The most significant debate on ‘the structure of the Institutes’ has been between Dowey and T. H. L. Parker. Both wrote a book on the Knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology. The title of Dowey’s book was The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology. The title of Parker’s first edition was The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: a Study in the Theology of John Calvin. In his 1959 revised edition, Parker added an Appendix which was a critical review of Dowey’s book. This edition was published in the United States. In the Appendix, Parker challenged Dowey’s thesis. Dowey went as far as maintaining that the knowledge of God as the Creator and as the Redeemer, ‘not the Apostles Creed’ was ‘the really significant ordering principle of the’ 1559 Institutes. Dowey considered the expression in (I.ii.1) as the key passage for the structure.
Since, then the Lord appears, as well in the creation of the world as in the general doctrine of Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a Redeemer in Christ, a twofold knowledge of him [hinc duplex emergit eius cognitio] hence arises: of these the former is now to be considered, the latter will afterwards follow in its order.
As Parker has described, Dowey divided the Institutes ‘into two parts’ and considered the structure of the Institutes to be ‘(1) Book I, on the revelation and knowledge of the Creator; (2) Books II-IV, on the revelation and knowledge of the Redeemer.’ Dowey maintained that in writing the 1559 Institutes, Calvin did not sustain accordance ‘with the distinction made’ at the beginning.
Parker considered this to be a piece of ‘illegitimate textual criticism.’ Parker maintained that the theme of the first sentence continued through the Institutes.
The two parts of wisdom, the knowledge of God and of ourselves, are closely interwoven; so closely, indeed, that Calvin cannot treat of the one without the other throughout the whole work. The two themes continue side by side and only for convenience in arrangement will he temporarily lay aside the one or the other.
In fairness to Dowey and Parker, Dowey did mention that Calvin had maintained a ‘Knowledge of Ourselves.’ Similarly, Parker did mention that Calvin had maintained a Knowledge of the Creator and a Knowledge of the Redeemer. ‘Knowledge of the Creator’ is the title of Part One of Parker’s book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God and ‘Knowledge of the Redeemer’ is the title of Part Two of his book.
B. G. Armstrong has surveyed the subsequent debates in his article ‘Duplex cognitio Dei, Or? The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,’ Duplex cognitio Dei means the ‘two-fold knowledge of God.’ Armstrong has made a contribution to this discussion by proposing a ‘Hypothetical Structure of Calvin’s thought.’ Armstrong noticed the ‘if’ factor in Calvin’s thought. In doing so, Armstrong has focused on expressions within the Institutes such as ‘I speak only of the primal or simple knowledge to which the very order of nature would have led us if Adam had remained upright (I.2.1) [emphasis by Armstrong].’ Another one would be ‘If we desire to provide in the best way for our consciences…we ought to seek our conviction in…the secret testimony of the Holy Spirit (I.7.4) [emphasis by Armstrong].’ For a final example,
[K]nowledge of ourselves lies first in considering what we were given at creation and how generously God continues his favor toward us, in order to know how great our natural excellence would be if only it had remained unblemished (II.1.1) [emphasis by Armstrong] .
Armstrong’s hypothetical structure is ‘an absolute perspective,’ a ‘perspective of God.’ An ‘absolute perspective’ and a ‘perspective of God’ were expressions that M. Potter Engel has mentioned. An ‘absolute perspective,’ a perspective by God is only possible from the Almighty himself. In other words, hypothetically considering ‘if we humans had not fallen,’ is only possible from God’s perspective. We humans willing to look through the Bible as ‘spectacles’ (I.6.1, I.14.1) is hypothetically possible when if we are considered to be saved.
A similar argument with Armstrong could be seen in M. P. Engel. Dowey considered Armstrong’s and Engel’s arguments quite independent but harmonious. Engel’s argument is that while distinct “the absolute perspective of God and the relative perspective of humankind appears” alternately. Engel’s has maintained that ‘in Calvin’s doctrines of creation and redemption,’ while having a basic distinction ‘the absolute perspective of God and the relative perspective of humankind appears in clearly identifiable variations.’ In this context, it could be said that Dowey admitted in his last edition of The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology, that there is some form of knowledge of God and of ourselves running through the Institutes.
Dowey has given his opinions on the works Armstrong had cited which were published before 1982. They are done in E. A. Dowey ‘The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the Two-Fold Knowledge of God.’ This paper was initially presented at the International Congress on Calvin Research in Geneva, 1982. An article that has attempted to propose an eclectic solution between Parker and Dowey is T. A. Noble, Our Knowledge of God according to John Calvin. A study that Armstrong has considered not receiving appropriate attention on this topic is F. L. Battles, ’Calculus Fidei’ in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor ed. W. H. Neuser (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1979) 85-110. In Armstrong’s words, Battles has demonstrated ‘the antithetical structure of Calvin’s logic…between two poles.’ According to Battles,
There is in Calvin a single principle, but it is expressed in many ways…[E]very fundamental notion of his thought is defined in a field of tension-a true middle between false extremes.
The ‘false extremes’ would be actual heresies and historical errors such as Roman Catholic Church and the Spiritualists or the Anabaptists on the church of sacraments. Another example would be idolatry and atheism. I have heard from John Hesselink that Battles’ view is considered interesting within the Calvin studies community, but is not widely accepted. While on Calvin’s concept of faith, there is a book both Dowey and C. P. Venema has regarded as significant literature. The book is W. Stuermann A Critical Study of Calvin’s Concept of Faith. Stuermann has maintained that ‘the concept of faith is the key doctrine of…[Calvin’s theological] system’ but he has not explained how by structure of the Institutes it is the key doctrine. In matters of faith and the knowledge of God, Dowey has described it more clearly in his book The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology. Dowey has given his critical review of Stuermann’s book in Theology Today XII (1955). Venema has written an article ‘The “Twofold Knowledge of God” And The Structure of Calvin’s Theology.’ Venema has not only looked at the Institutes but also Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. Venema focuses on concepts such as obedience and reverence to God which are closely related to Calvin’s concept of the knowledge of God. As Dowey has mentioned , J. Forstman in his book Word and Spirit has mentioned the content and character of knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology but he has not argued about the structure of the Institutes. Similar to Stuermann, Forstman has focused on faith as knowledge. We should note that Forstman has focused on how we accept the Word which would become faith and the content and character of the knowledge of God. Another book we should recognize would be Peter Wyatt Jesus Christ and Creation: In the Theology of JOHN CALVIN. The book has a chapter ‘4 Jesus Christ and the Knowledge of God from Creation’ but it does not go into the structure of the Institutes. R. Muller has completed the most recent study. In his book The Unaccommodated Calvin, he has discussed the issue on structure in Chapter Six ‘To Elaborate the Topics The Context and Method of Calvin’s Institutes’ and in Chapter Seven ‘Establishing the Ordo Docendi’
Why is there no consensus on the structure of the Institutes? One reason might be that it is because Calvin himself had no intent of making a rigid form of Systematic Theology. As John T. McNeill has described, in reading the Institutes, we should not have a preconception that Calvin’s ‘mind is a kind of efficient factory turning out and assembling the parts of a neatly jointed structure of dogmatic logic.’
I. J. Hesselink and S. Y. Lee have maintained that the concept ‘pietas, which can be translated either as’ “piety” or “godliness” is running through ‘his whole theology.’ This would be an unusual theme to permeate a Systematic Theology. The number of times that ‘pietas’ has occurred in the Institutes could be seen in R. F. Wevers, A Concordance to Calvin’s Institutio 1559 vol.IV
S. Y. Lee has gone as far as maintaining that
It could be said that that pietas was his entire theological entire theological direction and goal, rather than merely one theme in his theology.
Having a theme such as piety going through the Institutes, we should not expect a rigid structure within it, but in this paper we will attempt to find some hint.
-Proposal Concerning the Order of the Institutes
My proposal concerning the structure of the Institutes is as below.
Book I Knowledge of God the Creator and Ourselves interwoven
Book II (Ch.1-5) Knowledge of Ourselves as Fallen Forms
(Ch.6-11)Knowledge of Christ First Disclosed to the Fathers under
the Law
(Ch.12-17) Then to us through the Incarnation and the Saving Works
of Christ
Book III Faith as Knowledge of Christ
Book IV The Church as External Means or Aids which we are Invited into the Society of Christ which is the ultimate aim of Knowledge of Christ.
The first reason in claiming originality would be in claiming that Book I is
‘Knowledge of God the Creator and Ourselves interwoven.’ This would differ from Partree’s claim that Book I is part of A. God for us I. As Creator. According to Partree, in Book I a. His creation and b. His providence are discussed. This would also differ with Noble’s attempt to make a compromise between Dowey and Parker. Noble’s version is that ‘Book I… (Chapters 1-13) expounds the Knowledge of God the Creator as revealed in creation…and in Scripture (plus an excursus, chapter 7-9, on Scripture)’ and the ‘second part of Book I (chapters 14-18) expounds Knowledge of Ourselves as Creatures –taking ‘Ourselves,’ as a synecdoche for all creation. One critical assessment of Noble might be that it is not as easy to make a line between Book I Chapter 13 and 14 as making a line between Book II Chapter 5 and 6.
Using Wever’s Concordance again we are able to notice that expressions such as ‘hominum mentes’, ‘hominum mentibus’ (men’s mind) or ‘humanae mentis’ (human mind) occur many times between ch.1 and ch.13 in Book I. This is where, according to Noble, ‘The Knowledge of God the Creator’ should be more emphasised than the ‘Knowledge of Ourselves as Creatures.’ One example would be ‘There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.’ in (I.3.1). Another example would be in (I.6.1) where Calvin has emphasised that humankind’s mind is corrupt, Scripture is necessary for the knowledge of God. All of these expressions focus on the knowledge of ourselves as creatures.
Calvin has emphasised the connection between the ‘knowledge of God and of ourselves’ (I.1.3).’ One reason for the confusion of the Institutes might be that he has continued in (I.1.3) to mention that between the ‘knowledge of God and ourselves’ the former must come first. Then Calvin continues to maintain that there is another twofold knowledge, one the knowledge of the creator and another ‘in the face of Christ (I.2.1).’ It could be said that in Book I, while interwoven, Calvin had kept this principle that between the ‘knowledge of God and ourselves’ the former must come first, but reversed this order in Book II. This might have led Dowey to say that ‘Book II really begins in chapter’ 6. This position was sharply criticized by Parker.
We should be careful in the fact that where Calvin has maintained there is twofold knowledge of the Creator and in Christ, he has said this in the context of the corruption of humankind. Calvin’s contention is in the context of the corruption of humankind, ‘no one…experiences’ or knows ‘God either as Father…of salvation…until Christ comes forward to reconcile’ with us (I.2.1). We should conclude that in Book I, the knowledge of God as Creator and ourselves are interwoven. Hence I agree with Parker that in Book I these two ‘continue side by side.’
In Book II onwards, we are able to notice the word ‘Christ’ is seen in every title of each book.
Title of Book II: The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, First Disclosed to the Fathers Under the Law, And Then to Us in the Gospel
Book III: The Way in which we receive the Grace of Christ: What Benefits Come to Us From It, And What Effects Follow
Book IV: The External Means of Aids by Which God Invites Us Into
the Society of Christ and Holds Us Therein
Looking at these titles, we are able to agree with Dowey that knowledge of Christ is the main theme from Book II onwards.
We are also able to agree with Noble in that ‘Knowledge of Ourselves as fallen forms’ comes first in Chapters 1-5 and that ‘Knowledge of God as Redeemer in Christ’ comes second in Chapters 6-17. As Hesselink has described, we could add another line between Chapter 11 and Chapter 12. In the title of Book II, Calvin has maintained that there are two parts of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, First disclosed to the Fathers under the law and then in the gospel. The law is discussed in Chapters 6-11, the Incarnation and the saving works of Christ are discussed in Chapters 12-17.
While Calvin does admit we do waver sometimes in faith, as Dowey has described, Calvin has emphasized the subjective side of knowledge which is faith. The ultimate objective of faith is to sustain the society with Christ for which the church exists. To sum up the above analysis, the structure of the Institutes would become like below, which we have seen at the beginning of this section.
Book I Knowledge of God the Creator and Ourselves interwoven
Book II (Ch.1-5) Knowledge of Ourselves as Fallen Forms
(Ch.6-11)Knowledge of Christ First Disclosed to the Fathers under
the Law
(Ch.12-17) Then to us through the Incarnation and the Saving Work
of Christ
Book III Faith as Knowledge of Christ
Book IV The Church as External Means or Aids which we are Invited into the Society of Christ which is the ultimate aim of Knowledge of Christ.
Ending words
While the Protestant Church is not in tension with the Roman Catholic Church in most parts of the world, I believe that Calvin’s structure of the Institutes is appealing as ever as a helpful guide to faith in a modern world where humankind is in search of the meaning of life. I believe this is especially true of in Japan. It could be said that this is one reason why Nobuo Watanabe who has translated the second Japanese translation of the 1559 Institutes has focused on Calvin’s Institutes as ‘a Catechetical Work’ at the Asian Congress on Calvin Research held at Tokyo in 1999. Atsume Kume gave a similar paper on the ‘Twofold Knowledge in Calvin’s Methods’ at this congress. Relevant to the mission of the modern world, in this sense we could say that the structure of the Institutes is truly a treasure of the Reformed tradition.
Bibliography
(Primary Sources）
Joannes Calvinus, Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta [ＯＳ],Petrus
Barth Guilelmus Niesel (Ediderunt)
・Volumen 3. Institutionis Christianae Religionis 1559 libros 1. et 2.
continens, München: Chr.Kaiser, 1928
・ Volumen 4. Institutionis Christianae Religionis 1559 libros 3.
continens, München: Chr.Kaiser,1931
・Volumen 5. Institutionis Christianae Religionis 1559 libros 4. continens, München:Chr.Kaiser,1936
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) [trans. and indexed by] F.L. Battles (edit. by) J. McNeill (Philadelphia, 1960)
(Secondary)
Battles, Ford Lewis’ Calculus Fidel’ in Calvin’s Ecclesiae Doctor ed. W. H. Neuse Dampen: J. H. Kook, 1979; 85-110
Beeke, Joel, ’Selected Bibliography’ J. Beeke and S. B. Ferguson (eds.) Reformed Confessions Harmonized Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999
Dowey JR, Edward A. The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology, (Expanded ed.) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994
---------------------------, ‘The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the Two-Fold Knowledge of God’ Calvinus ecclesiae Genevensis custos Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang,1984;135-148
---------------------------,‘Book Reviews: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; A Study in the Theology of John Calvin, by T. H. L. Parker; and ,A Critical Study of Calvin’s Concept of Faith, by Walter Stuermann’ Theology Today XII (1955)
Engel, Mary P. John Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology Atlanta: Scholars, 1988
Forstman, Jack, Word and Spirit Stanford CA: Stanford University 1962
--------------------‘Coherence and Incoherence in the Theology of John Calvin’ in M. P. Engel and W. E. Wyman, Jr. (eds.) Revisioning The Past: Prospects in Historical Theology Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992; 13-130
Gamble, Richard. Articles on Calvin and Calvinism vol.7 The Organizational Structure of Calvin’s Theology New York and London: Garland, 1992
Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997
-----------------------, Calvin's Concept of the Law Allison Park PA: Pickwick 1992
Köstlin, Julius “Calvin’s Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geschlichtlichen Entwicklung” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 41 (1868) 7-62, 410-486
Kume, Atsumi. ‘Twofold Knowledge in Calvin’s Methods’ Sou-Young Lee (ed.) Calvin in Asian Churches: Vol.1 Proceedings of the Asian Congress on Calvin Research Seoul: Korea Calvin Society: 91-98
Lee, Sou-Young “Calvin’s Understanding of Pietas” W. H. Neuser and B. G. Armstrong (eds.) Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Proctector of the Purer Religion Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1997; 225-239
Lobstein, P. La Connaissance religieuse d’après Calvin Paris and Lausanne : Librarie Fischbacher and Georges Bridel, 1909
Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated Calvin New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 2000
Noble,T. A. "Our Knowledge of God According to John Calvin" Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982) 2-13
Parker, T.H.L. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: a Study in the Theology
Of John Calvin Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1952
--------------------Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959
Steinmetz, David. Calvin in Context New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1995
Stuermann, Walter. A Critical Study of Calvin’s Concept of Faith Tulsa, Oklahoma: University of Tulsa,1952
Tavard, George. The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000
Venema, Cornelis P. ‘The “Twofold Knowledge of God” and the Structure of Calvin’s Theology’ Mid-America Journal of Theology 4 (1988) 156-182
Warfield, Benjamin. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God’ in Calvin and Augustine (ed. by) S. Craig, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956
Watanabe, Nobuo. ‘Calvin’s Institutio as a Catechetical Work’ in Sou-Young Lee (ed.) Calvin in Asian Churches: Vol.1 Proceedings of the Asian Congress on Calvin Research Seoul: Korea Calvin Society 1-12
Wendel, François. Calvin (trans.) P. Mairet, New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1963
Wevers, Richard. A Concordance to Calvin’s Institutio 1559 Grand Rapids: Digamma, 1992
Wyatt, Peter. Jesus Christ and Creation: In the Theology of JOHN CALVIN Allison Park: Pickwick, 1996
Zachman, Randall ‘The Awareness of Divinity and the Knowledge of God in the Theology of Calvin and Schleiermacher’ in M. P. Engel and W. E. Wyman, Jr. (eds.) Revisioning The Past: Prospects in Historical Theology Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992; 131-146.
