The Clark–Van Til Controversy: The Text of a Complaint and The Answer to a Complaint

In order to help our understanding to the historic watershed that split the Reformed faith into two camps, one can read The Complaint (scanned document), The Text of a Complaint Against Actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia In the Matter of the Licensure and Ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark. As a complaint to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church against the ordination of Dr. Clark, this was filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty on October 6, 1944.

As a respond to a complaint filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty, one can read The Answer (scanned document), The Answer to a Complaint Against Several Actions and Decisions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Taken in a Special Meeting Held on July 7, 1944. As an answer from the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church to denies the complaint and to sustain the ordination of Dr. Clark.

In conclusion, the Presbytery denies that the meeting of July 7, 1944, was illegal and that its actions are thus void. The Presbytery judges that the Complaint fails to prove that Dr. Clark's thinking “bears all the earmarks of rationalism, humanistic intellectualism . . . vicious independence from God” (P. 10, 2; O. 40). The Presbytery denies “that various views of Dr. Clark as set forth in that meeting, and with which this Complaint is concerned, are in error and in conflict with the constitutional requirements for licensure and ordination, and that, therefore, the decision to sustain his theological examination, the decision to waive two years of study in a theological seminary, the decision to proceed to license Dr. Clark and the action of licensing him, the decision to deem the examination for licensure sufficient for ordination, and the decision to ordain Dr. Clark, were in error and unconstitutional, and are, therefore, null and void” (P. 15, 3; O. 61). The Presbytery urges the complainants to study this answer to the Complaint; to acknowledge that they have misrepresented Dr. Clark's views, and that they have wronged him in charging that “Dr. Clark studiously avoided answering” (P. 8, 1; O. 30) a question asked him during his examination; and to desist from their Complaint.

The scanned document of original transcripts, The Complaint and The Answer taken with permission from God's Hammer blog by Sean Gerety. The typed text from original transcripts, The Complaint and The Answer taken with permission from Reasonable Christian blog by Charlie J. Ray.

I corrected some typo and compiled it in two texts. I hope these texts can be used for further study on The Clark–Van Til Controversy. Especially to clarify some misunderstanding and caricature from both side for future discussion on this issue.

Calvinism and Art: Investigating Abraham Kuyper's Influence in Shaping Reformed Tradition Engagement of Art and Aesthetics

Introduction

Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures on Calvinism presented a significant theological reflection and cultural engagement that extrapolates the original vision of Calvinism. Here in a classic six lecture series delivered at Princeton in 1898, Kuyper’s argument presented Calvinism to be understood not as a sectarian classification or denomination but as all encompassing life system that is rooted in a form of religion that is peculiarly its own. Kuyper argues that given the nature in which Calvinism has developed, with its all embracing unity of its principles, Calvinism stands in line with other system of life known as Paganism, Islamism and Romanism. It is within this context and interest of Calvinism as a proposed, distinctive life-system, specifically in providing differentiation and sufficient unity of its principles in relation to Arts, that this investigation was initiated.

The question of theological engagement of Art and Aesthetics in general has become increasingly important to be investigated. In historical development of civilization, Art has shown continuous evidence of expression to religious beliefs and beliefs in general. Aesthetics, as an independent field of philosophical inquiry since Alexander Baumgarten used the term in the 18^th century has increasingly evolves into a system that subordinates or predominantly influences the formation of beliefs and values. Despite historical evidences of Art and Aesthetics continuing relationship to religious beliefs; whether in conflict or in support, or in subordination of one to another, insufficient theological reflection has been given to exhaustively understand Art and Aesthetics relationship to theology. With the abandonment of the search for unity of life-system in the way that pre-17^th century model of life-system is understood, Art and Aesthetics frequently stated similar claims or authority in influencing value formation and interpretation of reality within a life-system.

The Fifth Lecture: Calvinism and Art

In effort of understanding Kuyper’s reflection in Calvinism and Art, we must firstly be aware of Kuyper’s intention and recognize what limitation his lecture had as result of the starting point that he has chosen. Secondly, we must situated Kuyper’s argument within the historical context of Art and Aesthetics development of his time, and in which characteristics of that development Kuyper responded to elaborate upon possible form of Calvinism’s engagement with Art and Aesthetics.

Kuyper’s extrapolation of Calvin’s position corresponded with the context of polemics of his time

Heslam [1] concluded his analysis of Kuyper’s Calvinism and Art lecture by underlining Kuyper’s main concern, which was to challenge prejudice against Calvinism in matters of Art [2]. Why addressing Calvinism and Art have become important? What drove the need of Kuyper’s defense of Calvinism as a distinctive Life-System, and his possible reason to include Art as one of examples given? The need to address the prejudice that perceived Calvinism and Art as mutually incompatible does exist; as Kuyper’s argument must be understood in the context of the late 18^th to the 19^th century Europe. To build better understanding of Kuyper’s emphasis, historical contexts of the late 18^th to the 19^th century Europe must be provided in philosophy, art movement, and theology. In the late 18^th to the 19^th century Europe discourses regarding Art and Aesthetics rose within Art movements, and were represented by the rise of Romanticism and Realism in rejection to Neoclassicism [3]. From its philosophical constellation, the continuation of rationalists and empiricists’ debate were represented through schools of thought such as British Empiricism, Romanticism, German Idealism, Positivism, Existentialism, and Transcendentalism [4]. From its theological landscape, the post-Enlightment theological response to Kant in Schleiermacher’s On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers attempted a redefinition of the essence of religion in responding to Romanticism [5].

Muller [6] classifies development stages of Protestantism as Initial period of Reformed Theology, Early Orthodoxy, and High Orthodoxy. The first period of Reformed Theology (1523-1564) were situated in the similar timeframe of the Renaissance period (14^th-17^th century), it was clear that the period was the time of early theological formulation, which in consequence have not produced complete systematic engagement to address polemics in all aspect. The Early Orthodoxy (1562-1640) was especially marked by elaboration, enunciation of presuppositions and premises of Protestant Theology. Although the Early Orthodoxy was situated in the same timeframe of the rise in modern science and rationalism [7], Protestant theology was not affected directly until the late 17^th century. The full-fledge discursive and expository development of Protestantism in more dialectical and sophisticated form begun in the time of High Orthodoxy (1640-late 17^th century), marked by increasingly advanced dogmatic orientation and the use of philosophical systems in theology. This development brought an end to Protestant orthodoxy and brings the subsequent rise of rationalistic dogmatics of the 18^th century. This historical transition of Protestantism from early orthodoxy to the rise of rationalistic dogmatics give us clues in what context did religion or Protestantism and specifically Calvinism was affected by its relation to the philosophical landscape. The necessity of developing a comprehensive polemical establishment for doctrines of Protestant theology has, at some point, affected by and then perceived in the philosophical context around it.

Looking at the context of the ongoing polemics in which Kuyper’s lecture is situated, the challenge to Protestantism and Calvinism specifically is to sufficiently position itself within the ongoing discourse as viable alternative life-system in for the people in contemporary society. To be able to do that Calvinism must be presented in offering a distinctively different position on main polemical areas. In response to Post-Enlightment philosophy, Calvinism differs from Hegelian Idealism or Romanticism. How does Calvinism responded to Romanticism’s understanding of reality as a single, sublime, unified reality that cannot be systematically dissected and understood by discursive reason?

Kuyper’s fifth lecture on Calvinism and Art were addressing prejudices that were logical conclusion resulting from the rise of Romanticism. As what has happened to Pietistic Protestantism transition to rationalistic dogmatics, the response to the rise of rationalism influences in religion was represented in Schleiermacher’s theology. Schleiermacher’s theology can be viewed as a proposition similarly affected by and then perceived in the philosophical context of romanticism that rise to challenge rationalism. Romanticism rejection to reason as access to ultimate reality was characterized with the understanding that the ultimate reality can only be achieved through the process of experiencing. By this definition, the sensory perception capacity, in which Aesthetics hold ground, is elevated, in contrast with rationalistic definition of what is reality. Thus this philosophical context nourished the institutionalism of High Art that elevated Art and Aesthetics significance as a conduit of accessing ultimate reality [8]. With the rise of Art and Aesthetics as predominantly acceptable conduit to transcendental and ultimate reality, the question regarding Calvinism lack of visible influences to Arts and Aesthetics of the time is completely reasonable. If Calvinism claimed to be a Life-system, and provides a completely revelational access to the ultimate reality, the lack of visible influences of Calvinism in the realms of Art, even more, Calvin’s rejection to many forms of ecclesiastical Art in Romanism, must cast doubt to Calvinism credibility as a Life-system in the context of Romantic society [9]. Kuyper’s fifth lecture anticipated such prejudice by his first critical analysis of the democratization of Art, and the ongoing discussion of what became the universal measure of Aesthetics [10]. Raising the ongoing debate of universal measure through Aesthetics, Kuyper set the stage to address the prejudice to Calvinism that is result of such development; questioning to what extend does the present Aesthetical movement consider the religious significance of artistic instinct as a universal human phenomenon [11]. In the second analysis regarding the prejudice, Kuyper resorted to the insights of modern philosophy, again by it contextualizing and extrapolating Calvin’s position on ecclesiastical arts to the philosophical discourses of his time. By drawing from Hegelian aesthetics, Kuyper extrapolates Calvin to establish Calvinism stand on ecclesiastical art and how Aesthetics are viewed. By doing this Kuyper also provided separation between Calvin’s criticism of the abuse of arts, and his ideas about where art should be situated. Again it would be interesting to examine the rise of Arts in Calvin’s time to further investigate the context in which Calvin’s criticism on Art was given. Protestant Reformation was situated at the same historical timeline with the rise of Renaissance period. Because Aesthetics as an independent field of inquiry did not exist during Calvin’s time, these extrapolations are needed.

Based on these analyses above regarding where Kuyper’s fifth lecture on Calvinism and Art, situated in various polemical discourses, how did the fundamental differentiation of Calvinism engagement with Art as presented by Kuyper, provided sufficient framework to differentiate Calvinistic Aesthetics? This paper proposes an analysis of probable emphasis:

1. The focus upon Arts and Aesthetics not as an independent and/or alternative access to ultimate reality and independent construction of human beliefs but as partial response in analogy to the ultimate reality and in articulating such belief.

This principle can be extracted both in Kuyper’s argument on democratization of Art [12]; Art, Religion and Symbolism. What can be drawn from both discussions is the emphasis of Calvinistic concerns of how Arts and Aesthetics in general, which at its very substance possess the ability at some point to cease to be an expression or response in encounter with essential religious reality [13]. This ability enables purely sensory perception constructs a partial reality that is centered not upon purer essence of religion but its external symbolism. By doing so external symbolism may evolve to the point where increasingly religious reality is understood not from the doctrinal substance but from wider and arbitrary response to the symbol, not returning to the essence that it ought to represent. So the issue is not a rejection to arts or aesthetics in general, but what purpose and proportion in engagement of reality does it misrepresent or undermine.

2. Art and Aesthetics as inseparably religious universal phenomenon that represents lower stage of religious reality.

Kuyper’s argument in answering Romanism presents several possible differences. He began with elaboration on art as a universal human phenomenon, and how that universal phenomenon seemed to be inseparably religious at the point of its highest historical development. Heslam [14] argues in his analysis that Kuyper’s perspective on relationship between art, religion, and symbolism can be found in his doctrine of Sphere-Sovereignty. Following this doctrinal principle, art and religion occupy their own autonomous spheres, so for the healthy development of each, it is necessary that both are free from interference from the other, a freedom that is undermined by religious symbolism, and subordination of the art sphere under the tutelage of the Church. Heslam suggested that Kuyper saw this shifting position as significant contribution from Calvinism to the development of the arts. Can it then be characterized that Kuyper’s support for independence of Art sphere from religious symbolism indirectly resulted in secularization? I would argue that while Kuyper’s acceptance of art as a universal phenomenon, with certain autonomy in forms of spheres, resulted in similar appearance of freedom in human reasoning and experience that can be found in Enlightment’s, it proposed a completely different form of freedom. But what seemed to be similar liberation of arts and aesthetics from the tutelage of the Church, as resulted also from both idealism and empiricism, is based not in Enlightment’s conviction but constructed on Calvin’s doctrine of common grace. This paper propose that we may trace Kuyper’s chosen arguments not only to his doctrine of sphere-sovereignty, but to what is distinctly Calvinistic foundation, in the doctrine of common grace [15] and the creator-creature distinction [16]. Kuyper stated:

“Art also is no side-shoot on a principal branch, but an independent branch that grows from the trunk of our life itself, even though it is far more nearly allied to Religion than to our thinking or to our ethical being.” -Lectures on Calvinism p.150

“Thus also no unity in the revelation of art is conceivable, except by the art-inspiration of an Eternal Beautiful, which flows from the fountain of the Infinite. Hence no characteristic all-embracing art-style can arise except as a consequence of the peculiar impulse from the Infinite that operates in our inmost being. And since this is the very privilege of Religion, over intellect, morality and art, that she alone effects the communion with the Infinite, in our self-consciousness, the call for a secular, all-embracing art-style, independent of any religious principle, is simply absurd.” -Lectures on Calvinism p.151

Heslam stated that in his rejection to symbolism Kuyper put forward his agreement to Hegel’s position that it was only in its lower, sensual stages of development that religion needed the support of art in order to liberate human spirit [17]. Eduard von Hartmann [18] also quoted by Kuyper to be compared with his extrapolation of Calvin’s position [19]. The implication that can be drawn from Kuyper’s order of argument was that Art is understood as common grace, a given nature. As it should be accepted as common grace, it can only be situated under the same starting point of understanding reality, not autonomous in terms of human reasoning towards ultimate reality, but an independent sphere free from symbolism of religion. The distinction between autonomous reasoning and independent sphere is clear. Independent sphere is a freedom based on acknowledgment of Common Grace; a common unity that made each particularity possible to be known by itself, inseparable from its relationship with the other, but such unity is not based upon human construction or achieved through any autonomous reasoning or experience. Sphere-sovereignty in arts should then be understood as an extension in understanding of God’s sovereignty, that if Calvinism insisted in no other possible beginning point but an Absolute Person of God, then it resulted in two consequences, first, it is inconsistent to upheld one sphere dominion on all others without denying the existence of common grace and the sovereignty and centrality of the absolute person of God above all spheres. Thus it is also at the same time inconsistent to hold a position of any spheres or realms autonomy, or any possibility of secularization. Following this principle above any political or ecclesiastical control which subjected all spheres into constraints created in the context of fallen human knowledge, even in religious institutions, cannot escape the possibility of distortion. Even more, the subjection of all under one that is not absolute tends to eliminate antithetical arguments that are needed to sustain it. This posits the need for sphere freedom that differentiates Calvinism from Romanism.

The second implication is in the context of Romanticism. Kuyper’s argument presents examples that acknowledge of Art as an instrument of religious potential, and having universal implications, but denying its claim as an autonomous agent of reaching noumenal reality. It repositioned arts and aesthetics not under the tutelage of the Church as practiced in the exclusivity or superiority of religious symbolism, but acknowledging its position as common ground from which the sense of divinity that is embedded within man may be articulated as part of the process of knowing, responding and confirming.

3. Art and Aesthetics simultaneously presents objective reality and able to transcends analogically to metaphysical reality.

Through Kuyper’s formulation we discover a deliberate tension in understanding of aesthetics between Idealism and Empiricism. Kuyper stated:

“...the forms and relations exhibited by nature are and ever must remain the fundamental forms and relations of all actual reality, and an art which does not watch the forms and motions of nature nor listen to its sounds, but arbitrarily likes to hover over it, deteriorates into a wild play of fantasy. But on the other hand, all idealistic interpretation of art should be justified in opposition to the purely empirical, as often as the empirical confines its task to mere imitation.” -Lectures on Calvinism p.154

Situated in the context of aesthetic discussion of objective and subjective beauty. Kuyper’s position in aesthetics insist that beauty have an objective reality, opposing the notion of Kantian idealism that extend the artistic role of going beyond imitating nature or mimesis but a freedom of creating a new reality [20]. If we try to understand art not as mimesis but as creation, as we can understand it in Idealism, we must also understand the logical conclusion of giving arts and aesthetics the ability to create autonomously. Heslam described the result in his book Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism as:

”The divine world became more human and immediate, and the beautiful, although it still preserved its former transcendental nature [21], acquired a new character that allowed it to be equated with art.”

What might be Kuyper’s objection with Idealism position of art as creation in relation to Calvinism? Kant’s formulation introduced the notion that the human mind constructs the categories of space and time, in which the aesthetic reality can be known, this can be seen as a starting point of differentiation. The way it may be understood, the attempt of integrating noumenal and phenomenal reality in Idealism above would posit a contradiction to Calvinistic principle of Creator-Creator distinction [22] and how Calvin understood the relationship of the natural man, reality and God [23]. If the notion of art as creation is interpreted in the context of idealism, then autonomous reconstruction of transcendental divine reality in human terms is possible. Further investigation may be conducted to probe deeper on this argument above on how the understanding ‘art as creation’ in the context of the autonomous reasoning that characterized idealism may contribute to our discussion of Calvinism engagement with arts.

Kuyper’s objection to an empiricist view of art and aesthetics may be understood in his opposition to a form of artistic positivism, in which the factual and material phenomenon is considered able to separate or eliminate from itself any metaphysical relevance [24]. While deriving from an opposite principles to idealism. Kuyper saw the emphasis on objective reality to the extent of gaining independence in all phenomena of its metaphysical implications achieved similar autonomous alternative access to reality, by denying noumenal reality existence [25].

4. Art and Aesthetics in common grace and sphere sovereignty as instrument of worldview which is held in tension with epistemological antithesis.

Heslam’s argues that in his lecture at Princeton Kuyper did not address adequately the central tension between his view of antithesis and corresponding isolation on the one hand, and common grace and corresponding engagement and accommodation on the other [26]. So is it possible to discover how art and aesthetics engagement in Calvinism, in consistency to the antithesis presented in Kuyper’s other lectures? Can Kuyper’s lectures on Calvinism, although unresolved on this side of the argument, provide sufficient understanding on how this can be conducted?

As Kuyper chose to emphasize the idea of Common Grace in his address regarding art, the underlying antithesis and differentiation between Calvinism positions may not be as clear as it could be in practical implications. What Kuyper seemed to achieve is to demonstrate how different theological and philosophical presuppositions unavoidably resulted in differences, not necessarily in its superficial appearances, but in producing various logical conclusion of a different structure that is rooted in a completely distinct life-system. So while Kuyper’s argument may not produce clear proposition of what aesthetics principles or artistic characteristics can be categorized as distinctively Calvinistic, his argument rejected such categorization and in return proposed a different set of questions that he conclude is needed, and to examine differences from this new foundation. This new foundation is rooted in constructing a Calvinistic worldview with established epistemological, axiological distinction.

Arguments from where Kuyper build and identify his position to idealism and empiricism may be understood as case-based rejection to the theological assumption behind the Kantian noumena/phenomena divide. Heslam stated that Kuyper believed that by regarding God’s glory as manifest in both spiritual and material phenomena, the antithesis between idealism and empiricism falls away [27]. In responding to Romanticism and Romanism arguments were built by balancing theological considerations of both too high and too low view of art and aesthetics. In presenting this tension Kuyper stated how arts acted as an antidote and provided higher aspirations of the soul in the cold irreligious and practical age [28]. Through examples presented Kuyper positioned Romanticism view of art and aesthetics as too high view of arts and aesthetics, while religious symbolism presented in Romanism is regarded in its excessive ecclesiastical forms, too low view of art and aesthetics, subjecting it purely as and instrument of purpose with no significance outside its religious tutelage. It can be said that Kuyper read Calvin correctly in constructing his position. While Calvin stated that only the area of the visible creations offers permissible subjects suitable for the imitation of reality, for which the fine arts serve as an instrument of expression [29]. Calvin also referred to simple enjoyment that can also serve memory of education, things, themes that are profane by virtue, in such that they did not represent divine goal or strengthening of faith, but represents human culture, history, reality and in result bring edification.

Kuyper insisted in his argument regarding the impossibility of art and aesthetics to be absolutely independent from any religious principle. In the whole argument presented in Calvinism and Art, and in the context of common grace and sphere-sovereignty, Kuyper was shifting the antithesis presented in the challenge of Romanism, Idealism and Romanticism from the realm of evidential and religious phenomena to the question of epistemological antithesis. What Kuyper did was to propose a different perspective to romanticism interpretation to the historical phenomena, and to demonstrate how this significant differentiation is resulted from epistemological difference.

Similarity in Reformed Tradition engagement of Arts and Aesthetics

How would Kuyper’s contribution in presenting his argument on Calvinism and Art be measured? Previously given example from present writers such as Nicholas Wolterstorff present some comparison to other Reformed Tradition engagement in the context of art and aesthetics. Covolo [30], in his article that examined Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics, presents similar argument regarding the tension between empirically-based aesthetics and more transcendent spiritual aesthetics from above in Bavinck [31]. Bavinck, a Dutch Reformed theologian contemporary to Kuyper, also rejected all attempts to reduce the dynamic of beauty to its empirical aspects; he also believes that the distinct perception of beauty is an objective, fundamental element that is distinctly human. Covolo pointed out important Protestantism distinction that Bavinck took opposite to Romanism in the discontinuity between divine beauty (along with truth and goodness) and creation’s beauty. So here it can be stated that Beauty (and in wider sense the discussion of human capacity in arts and aesthetics) is again confirmed in the context of communicable attributes (or inherently given by God in human constitution) and at the same time maintain both qualitative and quantitative distinction that is inseparable (creator-creature distinction). Bavinck responded to Schelling’s [32] elevation of Art as the complete revelation of the absolute, the perfect manifestation of the divine idea, as Pantheistic [33], a contradiction to Calvinism as it elevates art as human origin metaphysical answer that rejected the creator-creature distinction.

As it can be observed, Bavinck position also represents an engagement between Protestant theology, philosophy and specifically aesthetics in response to the context of late 18^th to the 19^th century Europe. Similar with Kuyper, the rise of Art to an elevated position of accessing noumenal reality must be addressed firstly by any other competing life-system, at the level of recognizing the framework of presuppositions that support its new elevated position. Not until the mid 20^th century further elaboration based upon this understanding of presuppositions were then presented in theological aesthetics works of Rookmaaker [34], Schaeffer [35], Wolterstorff [36] and Dyrness [37].

Kuyper’s contribution was not to identify or define specific constraints of Calvinism engagement with Aesthetics. His contribution was clarifying a starting point from where an engagement of theological aesthetics and polemics should be drawn. The lecture manages to demonstrate that any life-system, including Calvinism, can not afford to allow any engagement without first examine the epistemological root and underlying presuppositions. It is an absolute necessity to have the ability of finding tension between antithesis and engagement, failure to clearly defined these distinctiveness before any engagement or interpretation of phenomenon can be seen as the subordination of any life-system to other life-system that has been used to construe the point of engagement. To the present Post-modern engagement between Aesthetics and Theology, where the question of life-system, meaning and value has again subjected to previously known presuppositions, albeit in more popularized and vulgarized variants that draw from the roots of Enlightment, the increasing inability to examine polemics from both its underlying presuppositions and historical evolvement seems to suggest an increasing dissolution of Calvinism as a distinct life-system that Kuyper presented.

---

[1] Heslam, P.S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)

[2] Heslam argues that by allowing what he perceived as prejudice against Calvinism to dominate his argument, Kuyper forfeited the opportunity to present a vision for renewal of the arts along Calvinistic lines.

[3]Shelley, James, in his writing "The Concept of the Aesthetic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) described the polemics between British Empiricism and Rationalism this way: “Rationalism about beauty is the view that judgments of beauty are judgments of reason, i.e., that we judge things to be beautiful by reasoning it out, where reasoning it out typically involves inferring from principles or applying concepts. At the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, rationalism about beauty had achieved dominance on the continent, and was being pushed to new extremes by “les géomètres,” a group of literary theorists who aimed to bring to literary criticism the mathematical rigor that Descartes had brought to physics...it was against this, and against more moderate forms of rationalism about beauty, that mainly British philosophers working mainly within an empiricist framework began to develop theories of taste.”

[4] This ongoing debate between rationalism and empiricism focus at to what extent are we dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge can be gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

[5] Grenz, S. & Colson, R.E., 20^th Century Theology (Inter-Varsity Press, 1992) described Schleiermacher’s theology as in part an attempt to answer Kant’s critique of religion while accepting the limitation he placed on reason.

[6] Muller, R.A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, (Baker Publishing Group, 2003)

[7] The same historical timeframe represents significant advancement in realms of philosophical enquiry that fueled scientific revolution and the age of Enlightment. Francis Bacon (1561 -1626) initiated the rise of Empiricism, while Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is a major figure in Continental Rationalism.

[8] Wolterstorff, N., Art in Action, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.) Wolterstorff described a phenomenon that he named as institution of High Art. The institution of High Art can be understood as a process in which the arts are increasingly reserved as the ultimate perceptual contemplation, elevating it to a form of aesthetics exaltation that ultimately lead to the mysticism and the religion of the aesthetic. This process is well situated and fueled with the various responses to ongoing debate between rationalism and empiricism, and later expression in romanticism.

[9] Schleiermacher’s redefinition of true religion as the ‘sense’ and ‘taste for the infinite’ in Protestant theology, his agreement to Romantic thinkers rejection of reason as adequate access of ultimate reality, and his redefinition of doctrine as the result of reflection on religious feeling would arguably put Calvinism and its current emphasis of polemical and doctrinal engagements in odds with arts and aesthetics, which has been the bastion of Romanticism.

[10] Wolterstorff in his book Art in Action, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.) provided an argument that support an argument that the culmination of Romanticism in Art that supported such growth in the institution of high art moved from elevating art and aesthetics as perceptual contemplation to religious feeling. Thus religion of aesthetics replaced previous doctrines based upon external, revelational truth of God and took the Romantic approach of rooting religion in the inner world of the human spirit, so that it is a person's feeling or sensibility about spiritual matters that comprises religion. Wolterstorff stated: “Thus work of art becomes surrogate gods, taking the place of God the creator; aesthetic contemplation takes the place of religious adoration; and the artist becomes one who in agony of creation brings forth objects in absorbed contemplation of which we experience what is of ultimate significance in human life. The artist becomes the maker of the gods, we their worshippers. When the secular religions of political revolution and of technological aggrandizement fail their devotees, when they threaten to devour them, then over and over the cultural elite among modern secular Western men turn to the religion of aestheticism.” Art in Action, p.50

[11] Kuyper’s extrapolation of Calvin’s position is acceptable. As Calvin did not think of fine arts as having value of free arts, Calvin’s understanding of art was even further away from the polemical discussion of taste and Kant’s disinterested contemplation of the 18^th century aesthetics. Calvin understood art as means which are so considerably vast to translate culture, an imitation of reality for which it serve as instrument of expression. To the extent that artistic creation has no direct moral or intellectual utility, Calvin recognizes the legitimacy of artistic enjoyment as conversational pleasure. Calvin’s objection reflected concerns of possibility of perversion in opposition to principles of decency, austerity, moderation, usefulness and piety.

[12] Kuyper’s argument in the democratization of art seems to indicate his support to the process as a positive relief from materialism and rationalism, and that through that process it gave voice to ordinary life and reality of common people. However, Kuyper identified the danger of vulgarization that comes along with the process. Heslam stated in Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994) that Kuyper made connection between democratization of art and the ‘atrophy’ caused by the dominating influences of money (materialism) and of barren intellectualism (rationalism). So it can be concluded that Kuyper identified the democratization of art as a response to the domination of materialism and rationalism and extrapolates to one of its logical conclusion, of art being the instrument where relief is sought. Kuyper saw this possibility to the extend that art positioned itself as replacement of religion. I believe that Kuyper was sensitive to these developments of new trends and tensions in the school of thoughts that permeates the more popular level of the society. This alternative access of religious expression through art is supported with romanticism appointment to art and aesthetics to represent the search of noumenal reality, also by the rise of Protestant theologians such as Schleiermacher and Ritschl, who elevate the immanence of God in religious feeling as the foundation of theology.

[13] “Art becomes a cosmos of more and more consciously grasped independent values which exist in their own right...Art takes over the function of a this-worldly salvation, no matter how this may be interpreted."-Max Weber quoted in Wolterstorff., N., Art in Action, p.49

[14] Heslam, P.S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.209

[15] Van Til., C., The Defense of the Faith (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955) p.151-178 Cornelius Van Til in his writings regarding Common Grace and Scholasticism raised the way Kuyper adhered to Calvin’s Common Grace. Van Til explained that Common Grace is the way that every man has the sense of deity within, a revelation within man that is meditated through the constitution of man himself, thus the knowledge of God is inherent in man. This can be understood as innate knowledge based upon the Scripture’s revelation of man created in the image of God; Calvinistic understanding is in contrast to innate ideas in idealist philosophy that is based on the idea of the autonomy of man. Kuyper’s suggested that Calvinism presented a distinctive break from the tutelage of the Church (in Romanism) in sphere of the arts. By presenting art as a virtue of common grace, Kuyper is suggesting a position different from Romanism, Empiricism and Idealism. It differs with Romanism in treating arts as an independent sphere from subordination of religion, but with unavoidably religious potential as an expression that responded to the revelation within man himself and nature. It also differs from Romanism as consequence of different position on how sin affected human knowledge, where distinctly Calvinistic view will look at religious symbolism not as neutral expression but potentially a shift where vitality of religion and artistic forms of worship can be a negative relationship to each other. It differs from idealism and empiricism in understanding the extent of freedom possible to human reasoning and the starting point from which ultimate reality can be known. Van Til explain that as metaphysically speaking all man have something in common of knowing God, thus there can never be an absolute separation between God and man, as such in Calvinism autonomous human reasoning towards ultimate reality and God cannot even exist.

[16] If there can never be an absolute separation between God and man, does that mean that the innate knowledge that is part of man’s constitution have the possibility of knowing, within every human, of finding that unity and ultimate reality? Here I believe the different understanding of Creator-Creature Distinction underlies the different position taken.

[17] Ibid.,p.203., Heslam explained that Kuyper was referring to Hegel’s Encyklopadie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften in Grundrisee (Berlin, 1845)

[18] Hartmann’s position is stated as: “The more religion progress towards maturity the more it will free itself from the bonds of arts, because art is unable to express the essence of religion.”

[19] Calvin, Institutes, I.xi.13., quoted in Heslam., P.S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.204

Calvin stated: “religion was still flourishing, and a purer doctrine thriving, Christian churches were commonly empty of images. It was when the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated that they were first introduced for the adornment of the churches.”

[20] Houlgate, Stephen, "Hegel's Aesthetics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Accessed 10^th of December 2011

Houlgate stated: “Kant also maintained that our experience of beauty is an experience of freedom. He argued, however, that beauty is not itself an objective property of things. When we judge that a natural object or a work of art is beautiful, on Kant's view, we are indeed making a judgment about an object, but we are asserting that the object has a certain effect on us (and that it should have the same effect on all who view it). The effect produced by the “beautiful” object is to set our understanding and imagination in “free play” with one another, and it is the pleasure generated by this free play that leads us to judge the object to be beautiful.”

[21] Ibid.

Stephen Holgate explanation that differentiate Kant and Hegel’s position regarding objective beauty, give us further context of Idealism as Kuyper must have contemplated in relation to his construction of Calvinism’s response to it. In this article above Houlgate stated that Hegel, against Kant’s rejection to objective beauty, agrees that beauty is an objective property of things. Here we can see that Kuyper agree with Hegel against Kant in principle of objective beauty. However, Holgate stated that Hegel’s understands beauty as the direct sensuous manifestation of freedom, not merely the appearance or imitation of freedom. That true beauty is understood as direct sensuous expression of the freedom of spirit, it must be produced by free spirit for free spirit. Nature is capable of a formal beauty, but true beauty is found in works of art that are freely created by human beings, making it reach what it means to be free spirit.

Holgate continues that Hegel understand Beauty, not just a matter of form; but also content. This is at odds with those modern artists and art-theorists who insist that art can embrace any content we like and, indeed, can dispense with content altogether. The content that Hegel claims is central and indispensable to genuine beauty (and therefore genuine art) is the freedom and richness of spirit. To put it another way, that content is the Idea, or absolute reason, as self-knowing spirit.

Holgate stated: “Since the Idea is pictured in religion as “God,” the content of truly beautiful art is in one respect the divine. Yet, as we have seen above, Hegel argues that the Idea (or “God”) comes to consciousness of itself only in and through finite human beings. The content of beautiful art must thus be the divine in human form or the divine within humanity itself (as well as purely human freedom).”

Here is where it can be stated that Kuyper in the context of Calvinism would disagree with Hegel. As similar with Kant, while the transcendental and metaphysical nature of aesthetics was maintained, it was at the expense of God as the ultimate starting point of this objectivity. To equate God as the ‘Idea’ and that it comes to consciousness of itself in and through finite human beings would be to arrive in the same logical conclusion of autonomous reason, and the possibility of human being to reach ultimate reality in a purely human freedom.

[22] It can be stated that Creator-Creature distinction that is rooted in Calvin’s theology provided clear differentiation from where Kuyper built his arguments. The strong emphasis of Calvinistic position is that unless this distinction is made basic to all that man knows about anything, then whatever man knows is untrue. To accept the possibility of natural man, to build any assumptions that he himself and the facts about him are not created, is to begin from an ultimate starting point that is basically false. How would this significantly differ from Romanism, for example? As argued in the introduction, to posit Calvinism as a Life-System with clear distinction from Paganism, Romanism and Islamism Kuyper must provide sufficient evidence. Kuyper’s argument on Religion and Symbolism seemed to be pointed at both answering the accusation from Romanism regarding Calvinism hostility to Arts and at the same time clarify a basic differentiation of Calvinism from the closest Life-System (Romanism) within Christianity itself. Kuyper’s specific examples in relation to Romanism, if succeeded in providing adequate response to Romanism challenges regarding Ecclesiastical Art, Symbolism in religion, will provide more clues of what differences in theology were articulated through Romanism and Calvinism engagement with art.

[23] Cornelius Van Til in his explanation about differentiation between Reformed and Romanist apologetics in Reformed Apologetics: defending the faith, Torch and Trumpet (The Outlook) 1951, April-May issue, Volume 1, No. 1, suggested that the reason why the one type of apologetics does and the other does not wish to make the Creator-creature distinction basic at the outset of all predication is to be found in the differing conceptions of sin. These different conceptions of Sin lead to significant difference on how human knowledge and human mind as the beginning point interpretation of reality can be accepted. Romanism, through Aquinas, support the basic assumption that in spite of sin man in his nature still have the ability to first know much about himself and the universe and afterward ask whether God exists and Christianity is true. Calvin’s position assumes that as consequence of sin nothing can be known by man about himself or the universe unless God exists and Christianity is true. If this understanding of theological differences is true, it can be stated that the idea of autonomous reasoning and human freedom can possibly be derived as a logical conclusion from Romanism position but would be a logical contradiction from Calvinism. This different position is reflected in Kuyper’s arguments against Romanism.

[24] Lectures on Calvinism p.154-155 “And this is what Calvin asserted: viz., that the arts exhibit gifts which God has placed at our disposal, now that, as the sad consequence of sin, the real beautiful has fled from us. Your decision here depends entirely upon your interpretation of the world. If you are considering the world as the realization of the absolute good, then there is none higher, and art can have no other vocation than to copy nature. If, as the pantheist teaches, the world proceeds, by slow processes, from the incomplete to perfection, then art becomes the prophecy of a further phase of life to come. But if you confess that the world once was beautiful, but by the curse has become undone, and by a final catastrophe is to pass to its full state of glory, excelling even the beautiful of paradise, then art has the mystical task of reminding us in its productions of the beautiful that was lost and of anticipating its perfect coming luster. Now this last-mentioned instance is the Calvinistic confession.”

[25] Ibid., p. 156.,

“...art reveals to us a higher reality than is offered by this sinful world. “

Positivism can be defined as a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. Positivism was part of the philosophical discourses of Kuyper’s time. If we look at more recent works to better understand what alternatives were available between Idealism and Empiricism, and various discourses from which Kuyper must differentiate Calvinism position on art, it is not a suprise that Kuyper also included Positivism, albeit in not in its complete argument. Wolterstorff term ‘analogy’ is in essence similar to what Kuyper was saying in his lecture:

“That is one pole: Art is an expression of self on analogy to the creative self-expression of God the Creator. The other pole is the insistence that the work of art is first of all not an imitation of nature, nor a bearer of a message, but a new reality.” Wolterstorff, N., Art in Action P.53

[26] Heslam, P.S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.222

[27] Ibid., p.213

[28] Lectures on Calvinism p.143

[29] Calvin, Institutes, I.xi.12., quoted in Selderhuis., H.J. (Ed.)., The Calvin Handbook, (Eerdmans, 2009)

[30] Covolo, R.S., Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis http://bavinck.calvinseminary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TBR2_Covolo.pdf., accessed 10^th of December, 2011

[31] Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and churchman, contemporary to Abraham Kuyper.

[32] Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775 -1854), quoted in Covolo, R.S., Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis

[33] Levine, Michael, "Pantheism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = . Accessed 10^th of December 2011

Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) “God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature” (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a “unity” and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) “‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.” Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.

[34] Rookmaaker, H. R.: Modern Art and The Death of Culture, (Crossway Books 1994)

[35] Schaeffer,F.A., Escape From Reason: A Penetrating Analysis Of Trends In Modern Thought, (InterVarsity Press January 1977)

[36] Wolterstorff, N., Art in Action, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.)

[37] Dyrness, W.A., Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue (Engaging Culture) (Baker Academic 2001)

Hyper-Calvinism: Historical Developments, Caricatured Myths, and Concrete Facts

Reformed theology deals with two kinds of extreme: Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism (HC). In one extreme, Arminianism overemphasize human response in the free offer of the Gospel and underemphasize the sovereignty of God in showing His compassion on whoever He wills. While, HC overemphasize the efficacy of God acts in all things including evil and underemphasize human responsibility to walk in the newness of life.

Unlike Arminian, HC doesn't bring fruits of evangelism. Arminian may lead Christians to emphasize man's salvation upon self-centered response to God's grace but they still care to go out evangelizing people who need the Lord. HCs not only reject Christ's great commission, they even emphasize the sovereignty of God up to the extent that it diminish the loving kindness of God to His creature who originally created in His image.

Most people who later became mature Christians, came from Arminian understanding of salvation initially. Even though they might never heard a man named Jacob Arminius before. It's later in their live when they began to realize the sovereignty of God and the meaning of unmerited grace. That by grace God enabled us to make a response to His external calling and to regenerate us from our former state being dead in sin to be able to respond to His effectual calling. It's God who works in us both to will and to act so that we may believe and persevere in holiness.

HC should be rejected on the basis of contradicting God's revealed attributes: His love, holiness, and justice. Instead of giving positive results by emphasizing grace, HC brings more negative results. We need to analyze their thought carefully in order to understand its origins and developments. And guarding our self from portraying them into straw men while we studying their theology. As a Christian we're called to love our brothers. This is my open letter to HCs so that we can have a common understanding in following Scripture representation of the Gospel.

By sincerely representing HC theological position correctly, I hope all of us can receive benefits from this and learn to understand each other better. Let us learn to represent the Gospel in truth and love. Theology is important for our edification in our process being conformed to Christ.

To read the article below, please open this link in a new tab.

complete version
printer-friendly version

Soli Deo Gloria.

John Calvin on Evangelism and Missions

By Ray Van Neste
from Founders Journal, How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism?, Issue 33, Summer 1998.

Introduction

From his own lifetime onward John Calvin has been a controversial person. One controversy stems from the accusations leveled against him by many that he was completely unevangelistic and unconcerned about missions. A. M. Hunter, in his book on Calvin's teaching, said, "Certainly he [Calvin] displayed no trace of missionary enthusiasm."[1] Some have even said that Calvin's teaching on predestination necessarily destroyed evangelistic fervor; "we are all familiar with the scornful rationalization that facilely asserts that his horrible doctrine of divine election makes nonsense of all missionary and evangelistic activity."[2] Others, however, have said: "One of the natural results of Calvin's perspective of predestination was an intensified zeal for evangelism."[3] Though some have used Calvin's teachings to excuse their apathy towards evangelism, a close examination of Calvin's historical context, his writings, and his actions would prove John Calvin to be a man truly committed to the spread of the gospel.

Historical Context

In order to understand John Calvin, or any other historical figure, one must understand the time in which the person lived and worked. Calvin emerged as a Reformation leader in 1536 with the publication of The Institutes of the Christian Religion and remained in leadership until his death in 1564. Thus, Calvin was a generation after Luther, and the Reformation, well entrenched in Germany, was spreading all over Europe. However, there was little organization among the churches that had split with Rome. Historian Owen Chadwick noted that

The problem now was not the overthrow of the papacy, but the construction of new modes of power . . . In breaking down papal authority, the Reformation seemed to have left the authority of the Christian ministry vague and uncertain.[4]

Protestant groups, who had been accustomed to strong central authority in Rome, were now only loosely organized and, though they claimed scripture for their authority, they disagreed on what the scriptures meant with regard to certain doctrines. By the time that Calvin gained prominence in 1536, Protestant churches were in great need of organization and structure in their doctrine and practice.

In addition to the disorganization within, there was a persecution from without. The scattered condition of Protestantism was only worsened by the intense efforts of the Roman Church to eradicate the Protestant movement. Protestant churches were struggling not only for their identity but also for their very survival. Calvin himself had to leave France for personal safety, and he wrote the first edition of the Institutes in response to the ill treatment of French Protestants. Identification with Protestantism brought immediate punishment, including torture and even death.

Obviously, Calvin's era was a time of intense difficulty for Protestant churches. The demands of the day led him to spend a considerable amount of his energy developing a church organization, writing theology, and training ministers. With such pressing needs one might understand if Calvin neglected evangelism or missions. After all, the church itself and its message must first be established. Moreover, preaching Reformation doctrine in areas other than the Protestant cities would mean almost certain death. However, even these pressing needs and problems, which would immobilize many churches today, did not stop the evangelistic efforts of Calvin and his followers.

Calvin's Writings

Calvin's writings on predestination have most often been targeted as unevangelistic and destructive to missionary zeal. Calvin addressed predestination primarily in related parts of his Institutes and in his treatise, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, which J. K. S. Reid called "the longest and most sustained exposition which Calvin wrote on the subject."[5] Dealing with predestination in the Institutes, Calvin does not directly address evangelism specifically, but neither does he describe it as unnecessary. He does, in fact, write several times about the gospel being preached to the masses, resulting in the salvation of the elect and the hardening of the non-elect (III.23.10; II.5.10). In other words, Calvin did not limit the preaching of the gospel to those considered to be elect. He explains his views more fully in his treatise on predestination:

Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace . . . even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined.[6]

Calvin clearly encouraged Christians to be involved in evangelism! "It befits us" to desire all people to be saved. The result of this proper desire should make us try to lead everyone "we come across" to faith in Christ, for that is the only way they could share in peace. This is not to be a half-hearted effort. Christians are to use "even severe rebuke" if necessary to prevent others from ignoring the gospel and perishing. Christians must make the effort to evangelize everyone knowing that only God can save.

Calvin's doctrine of predestination did not make the preaching of the gospel unnecessary; instead, it made preaching necessary because it was by the preaching of the gospel that God had chosen to save the predestined.

Aside from his writings on predestination, Calvin also strongly supported the idea of missions with passages widely scattered throughout his commentaries.[7] Commenting on Micah 2:1-4, Calvin states, "The Kingdom of Christ was only begun in the world when God commanded the gospel to be every where proclaimed and . . . at this day its course is not as yet complete."[8] In other words the Great Commission was not fulfilled by the apostles and, consequently, this mission is still the responsibility of Christians.

Calvin expressed similar views as he commented on 1 Tim. 2:4, saying "there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception."[9] He is not, of course, saying that everyone in the world would be saved, but that certain people from all parts of the world would be saved. The whole idea of the passage is that God desires "foreign nations" to hear the gospel and to be included in salvation. It is the Christian's duty "to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling."[10]

No one should be denied the opportunity of hearing the gospel proclaimed. Continuing to verse five of the same passage, Calvin writes that those people insult God "who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation."[11] The gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all people, and the decision about who will believe is to be left to God.

Indeed, Calvin never portrays God as a cruel tyrant grudgingly allowing some to be saved. In a comment on Ezek. 18:23, he states:

God certainly desires nothing more than for those who are perishing and rushing toward death to return to the way of safety. This is why the gospel is today proclaimed throughout the world, for God wished to testify to all the ages that he is greatly inclined to pity.[12]

God desires for men to be saved and by His election has assured that some will be. It is the fact that God will definitely call some that encourages believers to "bestow more toil and exertion for the instruction of rebels," realizing that "our duty is, to be employed in sowing and watering, and while we do this we must look for the increase from God."[13] Clearly, Calvin recognized the need for Christians to exert effort in evangelism in order to be used of God to call out His elect. He saw evangelism as a duty and employment involving "toil and exertion." Such is far from an indifferent attitude toward evangelism.

Calvin's Activity

Perhaps the best evidence of Calvin's concern for missions is the mission activity of the Genevan church under his leadership. Under Calvin's leadership, Geneva became "the hub of a vast missionary enterprise"[14] and "a dynamic center or nucleus from which the vital missionary energy it generated radiated out into the world beyond."[15] Protestant refugees from all over Europe fled to Geneva; they came not merely for safety but also to learn from Calvin the doctrines of the Reformation so they could return home to spread the true gospel. Philip Hughes notes that Geneva became a "school of missions" which had as one of its purposes

to send out witnesses who would spread the teaching of the Reformation far and wide . . . . It [Geneva] was a dynamic centre of missionary concern and activity, an axis from which the light of the Good News radiated forth through the testimony of those who, after thorough preparation in this school, were sent forth in the service of Jesus Christ."[16]

Thus was Calvin's missionary concern reflected in the church he served and the students he taught.

The pastors of Geneva, including Calvin himself, met regularly and kept sporadic notes of their actions in a register, which became the greatest source of information on the missionary activity in Geneva. In April 1555 the Register of the Company of Pastors for the first time listed men who were sent out from Geneva to "evangelize Foreign Parts."[17] The entry that mentioned these men stated that they had been sent out prior to April 1555, and they were already ministering in the Piedmont valleys.[18] More ministers may have been sent out before this time without being recorded in the Register because the notes were not complete and it was often dangerous to record the names of missionaries.

By 1557 it was a normal part of business for the Genevan pastors to send missionaries into France. Robert M. Kingdon called it a "concentrated missionary effort."[19] By 1562, religious wars had broken out in France, and it was no longer safe to record the names of missionaries. However, between 1555 and 1562 the Register records 88 men by name who were sent out from Geneva to different places as "bearers of the gospel."[20]

In reality many more than 88 were sent. In one year, 1561, though the Register mentions only twelve missionaries, other sources indicate that at least 142 missionaries were sent![21] Hundreds of men were sent out, reaching Italy, Germany, Scotland, England, and practically covering France.[22] From all over Europe requests came to Geneva for ministers of the gospel and the Genevan Company of Pastors filled as many as possible. At times even their own churches were deprived of pastors in order to meet the needs of struggling groups abroad.[23] Thus, Geneva, under Calvin's direction, served as the heart of the Reformation in Europe, pumping out the lifeblood of trained ministers into all areas.

In addition to the extensive work in Europe, one group of Genevan missionaries was sent to Brazil. The Register simply states that on Tuesday, August 25, 1556, M. Pierre Richier and M. Guillaume were sent as ministers to Brazil. "These two were subsequently commended to the care of the Lord and sent off with a letter from this church."[24] The ministers were sent in response to a request from Admiral Coligny, a Huguenot leader. They were to serve as chaplains for a group of Protestants who were going to Brazil to establish a colony, and they would have opportunity to instruct the natives in the gospel.[25] One man who went on the trip wrote that, upon receiving the request,

the church of Geneva at once gave thanks to God for the extension of the reign of Jesus Christ in a country so distant and likewise so foreign and among a nation entirely without knowledge of the true God.[26]

Sadly, the mission was not successful because the leader of the group betrayed the Protestants. Some were killed, and others were sent back to Europe. Though the mission failed, it remains "a striking testimony to the far reaching missionary vision of Calvin and his Genevan colleagues."[27]

Conclusion

Though evangelism was not discussed as much in the sixteenth century as it would be later, Calvin proved himself to be genuinely concerned for the spread of the true gospel. In light of the situation of the world around him, his mission activity, and that of his colleagues, is truly admirable. His writings also show that he believed the gospel should be preached to all. The missionary endeavors of the Genevan church especially prove Calvin's commitment to missions. Speaking of these efforts, Philip Hughes states,

Here is irrefutable proof of the falsity of the too common conclusion that Calvinism is incompatible with evangelism and spells death to all missionary enterprise.[28]

Clearly, Calvin must have believed his teachings were compatible with mission work since he was so involved in such work himself. Whether or not one agrees with all of Calvin's views or actions, one must admit the great reformer's teachings (including predestination) do indeed support evangelism and mission work.

Selected Bibliography

Beaver, R. Pierce. "The Genevan Mission to Brazil." In The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. J. H. Bratt, 55-73. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. Ephesians - Jude. Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.

. Calvin's Commentaries. Vol. 7, The Gospels. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., n.d.

. Calvin: Commentaries. Edited by Joseph Haroutunian. Vol. 23, The Library of Christian Classics, eds. Baillie, McNeill, Van Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vols. 20-21, The Library of Christian Classics, eds. Baillie, McNeill, Van Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. The Epistles Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965.

Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London: James Clarke and Co. Limited, 1961.

Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. Vol. 3, The Penguin History of the Church, ed. Owen Chadwick. Pelican Books, 1964; reprint, New York: Penguin Group, Penguin Books, 1990.

George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988.

Gerstner, John H. A Predestination Primer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980.

Hughes, Philip E. "John Calvin: Director of Missions." In The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. J. H. Bratt, 40-54. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1973.

. ed. and trans. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966.

Hunter, A. Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin, A Modern Interpretation. Glasgow: Maclehose, Jackson, and Company, 1920.

James, Frank A., III. "Calvin and Missions." Christian History 5, no. 4 (Fall 1986) : 23.

"It was both 'a horrible decree' and 'very sweet fruit."' Christian History, 5, no. 4 (Fall 1986) : 24-26.

Kingdon, Robert M. "Calvinist Religious Aggression." In The French Wars of Religion, How Important Were Religious Factors?, ed. J. H. M. Salmon, 6-11. Problems in European Civilization, eds. Ralph W. Greenlaw and Dwight E. Lee. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1967.

Kuiper, R. B. God Centered Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961; reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1978.

McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin, a Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990.

McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954.

Justification by Union with Christ

Justification by Union with Christ
Only Through Living Faith
A Brief Comparison of Calvin’s Institutes with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms regarding the shape of imputation

By Mark Horne

This essay is a brief argument that the soteriology of John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion regarding union with Christ and the imputation of his righteousness is the same as that of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. To give an idea of what I am hoping to provide evidence for, it might be best to start with an example from another area of theology.

Let’s start, then, with the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

As is well known, John Calvin forceably stated that the Lord’s Supper could supply believers with no benefits unless the Lord’s Supper provided Christ himself as the source of those benefits. For example, he writes in his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord:

But as the blessings of Jesus Christ do not belong to us at all, unless he be previously ours, it is necessary, first of all, that he be given us in the Supper, in order that the things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them the graces and blessings which we have by his means. Now the efficacy of the Supper is to confirm to us the reconciliation which we have with God through our Savior’s death and passion; the washing of our souls which we have in the shedding of his blood; the righteousness which we have in his obedience; in short, the hope of salvation which we have in all that he has done for us. It is necessary, then, that the substance should be conjoined with these, otherwise nothing would be firm or certain. Hence we conclude that two things are presented to us in the Supper, viz., Jesus Christ as the source and substance of all good; and, secondly, the fruit and efficacy of his death and passion. This is implied in the words which were used. For after commanding us to eat his body and drink his blood, he adds that his body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. Hereby he intimates, first, that we ought not simply to communicate in his body and blood, without any other consideration, but in order to receive the fruit derived to us from his death and passion; secondly that we can attain the enjoyment of such fruit only by participating in his body and blood, from which it is derived.

While a great deal might be said, this much is clear about the shape of Calvin’s view of the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper: in order to receive Christ’s benefits we must receive Christ himself as the only source of them.

The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are quite clear in following precisely Calvin’s thought on this matter. Chapter 27 of the Confession of Faith (”Of the Sacraments”) states in the leading paragraph that, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace … to represent Christ, and his benefits…” The next chapter, “Of Baptism,” says,

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.

Notice here that baptism “intrafting into Christ” heads the list of benefits. Finally, the same structure, though not as clear, can be detected in the following chapter on the Lord’s Supper, which is for “for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself [Christ] in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers.”

The Shorter Catechism is even more clear. “A sacrament is an holy ordinance … wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers” (q. 92; emphasis added). Thus, we are told that baptism “doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace” (q. 94; emphasis added). And, in the Lord’s Supper, believers are “made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits” (q. 96).

The Larger Catechism’s definition of a sacrament does not maintain the distinct shape we see in the Confession and Catechism, but with question 165 we are back in familiar territory:

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life.

Being ingrafted into Christ leads to forgiveness, regeneration, adoption, and even resurrection.

As in the sacraments, so in salvation generally: John Calvin argued that union with Christ was the key to both justification and sanctification and all other benefits that believers received. He begins his book on the application of the redemption purchased by Christ in this way:

We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him (3.1.1).

As Calvin’s opening statement on how we receive Christ’s benefits this would be enough to show that Calvin taught that union with Christ was the key to sharing in Christ’s righteous status before the Father. However, Calvin does not simply leave his Institutes with this general introductory statement, but rather reiterates the importance of union with Christ. In chapter 11 of Book 3, Calvin begins his discussion of justification by saying:

I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.

Here it is laid out for us. Faith is given to us by God so that we may be united to ["apprehend"] Christ and thus be both justified and sanctified.

Calvin goes on in the next sentences to point out that he dealt with sanctification first before justification. He could have, by his own account, dealt with them in either order, and chose sanctification as the first topic for pedagogical reasons. But this certainly shows that, for Calvin, there was no logical precedence to justification. Both benefits are necessary parts of the Christian life but neither depends on the other. Rather both depend on union with Christ.

If possible, Calvin becomes even more explicit while refuting Osiander. Speaking of the righteousness we have from Christ, he writes,

I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.

Union with Christ, to reiterate the obvious, has “highest rank” in Calvin’s soteriology according to his Institutes. A great deal more evidence could be cited, but since I know of no alleged counter-evidence, I shall leave the Institutes and turn to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

In chapter 11 of the Confession of Faith, entitled “of justification” we find more than once a phrase that seems to be parallel to the idea in the sacraments of Christ and his benefits. We do not merely receive Christ’s righteousness but Christ and his righteousness.

• Paragraph 1: Christ’s obedience and satisfaction are imputed to those who are “receiving and resting on him and his righteousness.”
• Paragraph 2–”Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.”
• Paragraph 4–”God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.” Here, one is justified when and because one is united to Christ by the Spirit

Turning from the Confession, let us look at the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A69: The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him [emphasis added].

Questions 70 and 71 of the Larger Catechism speak of Christ’s righteousness being imputed without explicit mention of Christ himself being received of believers being united to him. But then:

Q72: What is justifying faith?
A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,… whereby he … receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness…

Q73: How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A73: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God … only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applies Christ and his righteousness.

The Shorter Catechism presents the same pattern, though it does not reiterate the statement of “Christ and his righteousness.” Question 33 mentions only receiving Christ’s righteousness without mentioning also receiving or being united to Christ. However, notice the ordo here:

Q29: How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ?
A29: We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit.

Q30: How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?
A30: The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling [Emphasis added].

Q31: What is effectual calling?
A31: Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby … he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

Whether or not each individual question asserts “Christ and his righteousness” in every case is irrelevant. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is clear and consistent with the Larger Catechism and the Confession: The only people who receive/have imputed to them Christ’s righteousness are those who receive/are united to Christ only by faith. For the Shorter Catechism, the reason why the effectually called are justified is precisely because they are united to Christ by faith in that calling.

The Westminsterian “order of salvation” is that of John Calvin. One is united by Christ by faith and, in Christ, one is both justified and sanctified. Bot justification and sanctification are manifestations of union with Christ (Larger Catechism #69).