Man of the Bible
John Calvin was one of the truly great Christian exegetes and, indeed, systematic theologians of all time—never mind that I disagree with a great deal of what he has to say about God, his sovereignty, the nature of his grace, and election, predestination, and human freedom.
I attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is largely in the Reformed tradition, even though I was an evangelical Methodist. I read Calvin, Theodore Beza, both Hodges (Charles and A. A.), B. B. Warfield, G. C. Berkouwer, Louis Berkhof, Cornelius Van Til, and various other Calvinists. I enjoyed taking a class on Calvin with T. H. L. Parker at the University of Durham in England during my doctoral studies and reading in his commentaries. The end result was discovering that when it comes to careful exegesis and consistent theological systems, Calvin had set the bar high.
Along the way, I also discovered exactly why I am not a Calvinist, and I became a more convinced Arminian as a result of reading Calvin. I also discovered that Calvinism is actually in the main a redoing of Augustine's theology. Calvin's is not at all a distinctively Protestant form of theologizing. But he deserves full marks for working out the logical implications of Augustinianism to the nth degree, as well as for adding some new wrinkles.
Above all for me, he is to be respected for understanding that biblical theology can only be done on the basis of a detailed and comprehensive exegesis of all the relevant material. This is precisely what I have tried to do in my career. I needed to follow Calvin's lead and begin by researching and writing commentaries on the entire New Testament corpus. Exegesis is the basis for all good biblical theology, and the latter should not be attempted without first doing the former.
Years ago my wife and I made a pilgrimage to Geneva. We visited the Reformers' memorials, and I even sat in Calvin's teaching chair (please don't tell the elderly Swiss guard at that shrine). As a Protestant, I owe much to Calvin as well as to Luther, as did my spiritual forebears John and Charles Wesley. Calvin's theology proved to be the iron offered by a brother who sharpened my own theology. For this I am truly grateful.
I have fond memories of working carefully through Calvin's Institutes for the first time, and being especially surprised by and taken with his profound theology of the Holy Spirit. I remember reading in Gordon-Conwell's newspaper a rather interesting historical curio from a letter of Calvin about how one morning he woke up and found himself speaking in lingua barbaria. The article went on to speculate that Calvin may have spoken in tongues!
All in all, Calvin lived out Bengel's maxim: Apply the whole of the text (of the Bible) to yourself. And apply the whole of yourself to the text. It's a motto by which any Christian should be proud to live.
Ben Witherington is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, Asbury, Kentucky.
Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
This article appeared in the September 2009 issue of Christianity Today as part of the series "What Calvin Gets Right: Even those who vigorously disagree with the Reformer are still impressed." Other articles in the series include:
Theologian of the Spirit | Calvin was no charismatic, but he was closer to it than some Reformed people readily admit. By Roger E. Olson
A Common Hope | Much of 'Calvinism' is simply Christianity. By John Wilson
Other articles on Calvin appearing in the September 2009 issue include:
John Calvin: Comeback Kid | Why the 500-year-old Reformer retains an enthusiastic following today.
The Reluctant Reformer | Calvin would have preferred the library carrel to the pulpit.
Calvin's Biggest Mistake | Why he assented to the execution of Michael Servetus.
More on Calvin is available in our full coverage area.
The Latest in Movie News, May 23, 2013
God Among the Roma
Grieving with the Good Friday God
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 12 comments
See all comments
minnborn
I am mystified by my Arminian brother’s claim that “Calvin's is not at all a distinctively Protestant form of theologizing.” And that he was too Augustinian in his theological orientation-which would, by the way, make him very much like Luther. You know the former Augustinian monk Martin Luther who wrote the tract, “Bondage of Will” in response to Erasmus’ “Diatribe”. The same Luther who laid the actual pillars of Protestantism with the four legged standard of salvation “Only by Scripture, only by faith, only by grace along with the priesthood of all believers.”
Arkady N.
Three points: 1) The problem with Calvinism is the Calvinists, not necessarily the body of work. The same can be said of Arminianism...2) Calvin's theology was based upon what he saw as in need of reform regarding CATHOLIC theology. He didn't come up with TULIP (must have been a Dutch Calvinist), however those 5 points are 180 degrees from the corresponding Catholic theology. Calvin certainly was not trying to establish any sort of authority or position for himself. His theological contribution to Christianity is what he came to through his own exegetical efforts. Had Calvin and Arminius had the chance to sit down and discuss their differences...3) The Bible trumps all. Arminians and Calvinists need to take that to mind and focus on the common ground that both positions have with the Holy Writ. P.S. Cheer up Arminians, Arminius will likely get his due in 2060.
revrogers
I am a Southern Baptist pastor and definitely not a Calvinist. I have deeply serious problems with the entire Calvinist theological system. However, I am not disturbed about CT doing so-called Reformed coverage. Calvinists are at the forefront of deep theological analysis of culture and Scripture. They are the ones making the "theological" news and coverage is thus warranted. It is time for non-Calvinists to intellectually engage more in deep theological anaylsis. Non-calvinists do not have a definitively described center around which theological discussion can proceed. It is more vague ("we just love Jesus"; but Calvinists make the same claim). Calvinism should be engaged by giving a counter theological analysis at the same intensity of investigation. That is what Witherington and Olson and Wilson are attempting to do. Otherwise, the Calvinists will always be at the forefront because they are providing theological meat stew rather than non-Calvinist bouillon cube water.