john@watever.waterloo.edu (John Robinson) (07/01/89)
(Posting for soc.religion.christian:)
I have known of Luther's opinion of the Letter of James for a long time ("a
right strawy epistle"), and I've recently heard that both Luther and Calvin
had a low view of the value of The Revelation. I'm interested to know:
. whether these attitudes reflect an overall approach to Scripture.
. whether they represent a high view of scripture as a whole but
doubts about the Canon.
. to what extent other Protestant "heros" of various complexions
(eg Zwingli, the Anabaptists, Wesley, Finney, Gen Booth - what a
mix!) exhibited similar attitudes to parts of Scripture, or to
the treatment of the whole Bible.
I'd also like to expand this, and ask about the development of Conservative
Evangelical views of Scripture. In particular I'm intrigued by the differences
in statements on the Bible between Evangelical organisations. One approach,
(particularly outside North America) is to hold it as the "final authority
in all matters of faith and conduct" (which I am sure Luther et al would
have no problem with). Another approach seems to be to stress verbal, plenary
inspiration and inerrancy. How did these emphases evolve?
[The only Reformer I can speak about with any real authority is
Calvin. He had a very high view of Biblical authority. To him it was
the word of God. He considered that God had directly inspired it
(even using a term like "mouthpieces of God"), and had seen to it that
it was preserved. He mentions specifically how miraculous it was that
it survived the various Jewish exiles and the persecutions under
Alexander's successors. He is very clear that the Church is founded
on the Scriptures, and that the authority of scripture does not depend
upon that of the Church. He saw the Scripture as self-authenticating,
through the power of the Holy Spirit. Note that in his commentaries
Calvin insisted on use of the best scholarship available. He tried to
avoid reading Christ into the Old Testament where he did not see
support in the text (a characteristic that caused some to accuse him
of being a Judaizer). He insisted on putting books into their
historical context. In my view (and I am not alone in this), Calvin
is the Biblical interpreter par excellence of the Reformation, as
Luther is the theologian. Calvin is certainly a competent theologian.
But he does not have the originality and "sparkle" that Luther did.
He is at his best as a commentator, both in his dedication to
scholarship and the spiritual discernment of his exegesis. If you
just read the Institutes you may come away thinking of Calvin as
rather cold. In order to assess him truly, you should really take a
look at some of his commentaries.
We have to make sure that we don't try to read from Calvin answers to
questions that he never faced. He never faced the question of
inerrancy in its current form. He says things that sound like what
modern innerrantists say. However he also saw differences in detail
among the Gospels, and differences in numbers in OT accounts. On a
discrepancy of 1000 between Num 15:90 and Paul he said "that the
Biblical writers cared no more than the ancient Romans for numerical
minutiae (on I Cor 10:8). Paul was concerned to warn the church at
Corinth against idolatry. What mattered was the reliability of the
Bible with regard to the word of God and the pomises of God, and not
the factual accuracy on detail." (from the preface to Calvin:
Commentaries, in the Library of Christian Classics. Unfortunately
they don't give the passage itself in that volume, so I have only this
summary of what Calvin said, and not his exact words) So he also says
things that are consistent with a more liberal view. The truth is
that he simply didn't address the issue of inerrancy as it is put now.
On the question of canon, he accepted the usual Protestant canon. He
did NT commentaries on all books except II and III John and Rev.
However he quoted Rev in the Institutes (though *very* seldom) without
any sign that it lacked authority. (He didn't quote II or III John,
though I don't know of any reason to think that he denied their
canonicity.) His OT commentaries are not as complete, but he clearly
accepted the entire Hebrew canon. He argued strongly that the
identity of Scripture as the word of God does not depend upon the
decision of the Church. It's an interesting question where he thought
that canon came from. I guess he thought it was self-evident: The OT
was the Law and Prophets, as cited by Christ and the NT writers
(presumably this is why the apocrypha didn't count -- it wasn't part
of the Jewish OT, so he would assume that it was not accepted by
Christ and the apostles). The NT was the writings of the apostles.
In the Institutes IV.9.14 he is responding to the claim that the Bible
is a creation of the Church because the Church decided on the canon.
He takes a view that I find a bit perplexing. He seems not to accept
the concept of canon at all: "They bring forth as evidence an ancient
list, called "canon," which they say came from the judgement of the
churhch. But I ask once more, in which council was that canon
promulgated? Here they must remain mute. However, I should like to
know futhermore, what sort of cnaon they think it is. For I see that
it was little agreed on among ancient writers. And if what Jerome
says ought to have weight, the books of Maccabees, Tobit,
Ecclesiasticus, and the like are to be thrown back into the rank of
Apocrypha. This the Romanists cannot bear to do." I presume he is
rejecting the process in which the church debated on what should be in
the canon over a period of centuries, not the concept that there is a
specific list of books in the Bible. Presumably he thinks that the
list of books which are apostolic is obvious.
It's interesting to see what Calvin does in the Institutes with the
Apocrypha. A number of topics that he discusses have standard
proof-texts taken from the Apocrypha. He always discusses those
texts. He indicates at that point that he does not accept the
Apocrypha as canonical, and that he could simply refuse to discuss
them. But he always does go ahead and do exegesis of them. He always
believes that when properly interpreted they support (or at least do
not disprove) his view. So he doesn't end up rejecting the Apocrypha
quite as strongly as I would have expected.
I'll let someone else comment on the history of the evangelical
concepts on Biblical authority.
--clh]