Thread by @SytsmaDavid

🧵 The historical Calvin vs. the Calvin of faith

One way to think about diverse reactions to Aquinas and medieval scholasticism in Reformed circles – both past and present – is to recognize at least two main approaches to the authority and interpretation of Calvin. /1

I’ll call these approaches the “historical Calvin” & the “Calvin of faith”.

1) The Calvin of faith: This perspective views Calvin as normative for whatever is identified as the Reformed faith, while interpreting him for the most part in isolation from his 16th c. co-laborers. /2

Scholars w/this view regard Calvin as the best or at least most representative Reformed theologian on all topics, & are less willing to consider weaknesses. Methodologically a book with a title “Calvin & ABC modern theologian on XYZ topic” is likely to fall into this category. /3

The appeal to the singular authority of Calvin is especially evident among modern systematicians. Calvin’s authority figured prominently in the Barth-Brunner debate on natural theology, as well as the “Reformational” philosophy of Dooyeweerd. /4

archive.org/details/nctt-v…

2) The historical Calvin: This perspective sees Calvin as one of the most highly influential teachers, contributing many distinctive teachings to a larger movement (e.g. Lord’s Supper), but not for all topics. It sees Calvin both as a man of strengths (e.g. grasp of Augustine) /5

and also a man of weaknesses (e.g. lack of formal scholastic education). There is here a historical conviction that Calvin did not stand alone — he looked to Martin Bucer as his theological father, and tried to recruit PM Vermigli to teach in Geneva. /6

https://twitter.com/SytsmaDavid/status/1481433823644557316

Upon comparison of Calvin and contemporaries/ successors, scholars of this persuasion may conclude that other Reformed theologians surpassed Calvin in various ways, e.g. grasp of the scholastic tradition or skill in technical exegesis. /7

https://twitter.com/SytsmaDavid/status/1479450665831534596

The “historical Calvin” and the “Calvin of faith” do not coincide with modern categories liberal/conservative or confessional/non-confessional. There are people on all sides of the modern spectrum of beliefs who tend toward both views. /8

As a perspective, the “historical Calvin” is more representative of how Calvin was viewed in the 16th and 17th centuries within the Reformed tradition. For example, in the 17th c. Edward Leigh did not recommend Calvin as the best commentator on Romans. /9

https://twitter.com/SytsmaDavid/status/1487427006878781441

Since the 19th century the “Calvin of faith” grew in popularity, likely fueled in part by the availability of his works and the more popular, less technical style of his commentaries. /10

But in recent decades with advances in scholarship on other major reformers like Bucer, Musculus, and Vermigli, it has become more difficult to ignore the “historical Calvin”. /11

Since the medieval and scholastic roots of other theologians around Calvin are stronger and more obvious, interest in the works of Bucer, Vermigli et al. leads to corresponding interest in the medieval sources, including Aquinas. On which see: /12

https://twitter.com/SytsmaDavid/status/1466746058722406401