Discussion:
Calvin's Christology
(too old to reply)
Paul
2006-11-08 01:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Quick (maybe!) question for the Calvinists on the group:

Recently I was reading a textbook on Christian history, and in one spot it
made a comment that John Calvin believed the Son, second Person of the
Trinity, was sitting on His throne in Heaven while Jesus was on the earth.

I'd never read or heard anything like this regarding Calvin (or Calvinism
since his time). Does it ring any bells? Is it even a remotely correct
statement of Calvin's beliefs? If not, any ideas where it might have come
from?

I'm inclined to be skeptical of the textbook's statement, but was curious
enough to ask for any clarifications you may have.

In Christ,
Paul

----

[This sounds like a mistake, or a description that is so misleading as
to be in effect a mistake. Calvin wouldn't, of course, consider the
Logos as literally located in a place called heaven. The Logos is
omnipresent. If by Jesus you mean specifically the human nature of
Christ, then of course like any other human body, his was present in
only one place at a time.

The problem, however, is that the second Person of the Trinity and
Jesus are *one person*, a doctrine that Calvin accepted just as much
as anyone. So as long as the statement is contrasting the two natures,
then I guess it's OK, but the way it's worded it certainly suggests a
more complete separation than most of us would be happy with.

Calvin intended to present standard Christology, so I wouldn't expect
a major difference with anyone else on this question. I get the
impression that Luther was trying for something more sophisticated than
Calvin in Christology, but I'm not competent to describe it.

There was, however, a famous disagreement between Luther and Calvin
about the mode in which Christ is present in communion. Calvin
believed that Christ's body, like other human bodies, is only in one
place. Even after his death and resurrection. (After his resurrection
his body is presumably "in heaven", as long as you don't take that too
literally.) Thus his body can't be everywhere at once. While Calvin
believed that we really commune with Jesus' body, he believed that our
connection with it is mediated by the Holy Spirit.

Luther believed in a somewhat more literal presence. However the
difference can be exaggerated. The Book of Concord denies that Christ
is locally present everywhere, so the mode of presence they have in
mind is not quite that in which our physical bodies are present.
Indeed the Solid Declaration quotes Luther in a description that seems
tolerably consistent with Reformed thought, although not quite the way
Calvin would have put it.

--clh]
Burkladies
2006-11-10 03:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Calvin was another crazy man. Even funnier, folks follow his crazy
thinking, Baptists, Ana-baptists I think. Crazy preachers like Foley
use that thinking, am I right? Regardless of who thinks Calvins
theology is worth witnessing or preaching with, I hope he got baptized.
For example Constantine who made christianity a state religion way
back when. He was finally baptized upon his death bed after all that
history he made. Which makes Calvin worthless to me. Good to be
skeptical!

Blessed be, Lady
Post by Paul
Recently I was reading a textbook on Christian history, and in one spot it
made a comment that John Calvin believed the Son, second Person of the
Trinity, was sitting on His throne in Heaven while Jesus was on the earth.
----
[This sounds like a mistake, or a description that is so misleading as
to be in effect a mistake. Calvin wouldn't, of course, consider the
Logos as literally located in a place called heaven. The Logos is
omnipresent. If by Jesus you mean specifically the human nature of
Christ, then of course like any other human body, his was present in
only one place at a time.
j***@go.com
2006-11-10 03:59:03 UTC
Permalink
This is not directly related to the original author's question,
or the moderator's reply, but it is related to Calvin.

In his classic book _Escape From Freedom_,
Erich Fromm points out that Calvin, in at least one
place in his writings, directly contradicts the New
Testament by stating that faith and hope are
more important than love. (I don't have the
book handy, but I think Fromm footnotes
the exact place in the _Institutes_ where
this remarkable statement, flying directly
in the face of I Corinthians 13:13, makes
its appearance. You'll have to look for it,
which means you'll have to read the book,
which is a very Good Thing.)

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent

---

[FYI, here's what Calvin says in his commentary on I Cor 13:13

The greatest of these is love. It is so, if we estimate its excellence
by the effects which he has previously enumerated; and farther, if we
take into view its perpetuity. For every one derives advantage from
his own faith and hope, but love extends its benefits to others. Faith
and hope belong to a state of imperfection: love will remain even in a
state of perfection. For if we single out the particular effects of
faith, and compare them, faith will be found to be in many respects
superior. Nay, even love itself, according to the testimony of the
same Apostle, (1 Thessalonians 1:3,) is an effect of faith. Now the
effect is, undoubtedly, inferior to its cause.

--clh]

Loading...