THE APOSTLES' CREED (Section 20)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
졸업과정: 기독교강요 총정리 9 THE APOSTLES' CREED (Section 20) Part I:”I Believe in God” I. THE PLACE OF THE CREED IN CALVIN'S THEOLOGY Ironically, early in his career Calvinʹs orthodoxy was slightly suspect for a while because of his refusal to subscribe to the three catholic creeds (Apostlesʹ, Nicene, and Athanasian). His lifelong namesis, Pierre Caroli, an unreliable rogue, at a disputation in Bern in 1537 accused Farel and Calvin of Arianism, that is, of faulty doctrine of the Trinity. Calvinʹs response was(1) he had already affirmed his beliefin one God(2) he insisted that Caroli had no right to demand such a subscription; and(3) he pointed out that the authenticity of the Athanasian Creed was questionable and that it had never been adopted by a church council, In the Catechism he also acknowledges that he is not sure about the author(s) of the Apostlesʹ Creed either: “Who the author was or rather who wrote down this epitome of the faith is not of great concern to us, for it contains nothing merely human but has been assembled from very sure testimonies of Scripture”(sec. 20, Introduction).1 It was not that Calvin did not have a high regard for the creeds, especially the Apostlesʹ Creed; it was rather that he felt that the new Genevan Confession was adequate and faithfully reflected the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, all those present at the disputation would have needed to do was to check Calvinʹs newly published Catechism (available only in French at this juncture) to see with what respect he treats the Apostlesʹ Creed. He refers to it as “The Symbol of the Faith”(for some reason not so translated by Battles even though the Latin title is Symbolum Fidei). The word “symbol”in this context reflects an early Christian usage to denote that which stood for the faith, in particular the Apostlesʹ Creed. Hence the study of Christian creeds in often called “Symbolics”2 The significance of the Apostlesʹ Creed for Calvinʹs thinking is reflected in the later editions of the Institutes. Prior to 1543, whether in his first Catechism or the first two editions of the Institutes, the Creed was discussed in one lengthy chapter. In the third edition of the Institutes (Latin, 1543; French, 1545) he divides the discussion of the Creed into four chapters, which in the final 1559 edition became the framework for the structure of the whole Institutes, in other words, the four books of the Institutes which correspond more or less with the four parts of the Creed: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Church. It should be noted, however, that Calvin does not follow this order consistently; hence Edward Dowey, I believe, is correct in stressing that it is not so much the framework of the Creed as the notion of the twofold knowledge of God‐God the Creator and God the Redeemer‐which really determines the structure and distinctive character of the Institutes.3 A staunch defender of the other view, that the Creed is the clue to the structure of the Institutes, is the English Calvin scholar T.H.L. Parker, who defends his thesis in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.4 The strength of Parkerʹs contention is that only one book is devoted to the knowledge of God the Creator, whereas three books are given over to the knowledge of God the Redeemer, an admittedly lopsided arrangement. Ⅱ. THE GOD OF CALVIN This heading may sound strange, for normally one would speak of “Calvinʹs concept of God” or something similar. However, this phrase is a deliberate takeoff on the extremely negative and scornful references to “the God of Calvin” by certain popular writers and historians of an earlier era who, relying on old caricatures and secondary sources, often depicted Calvinʹs understanding of God as being cold, cruel, and capricious. Their conclusion was usually based on a superficial understanding of the discipline exercised in Geneva, the execution of Servetus, and d distaste for the doctrine of predestination. An example of this kind of judgment comes from the popular historian Will Durant, in his volume The Reformation, volume 6 in the series The Story of Civilization. He concludes his fascinating but very uneven treatment of Calvin and the Genevan Reformation with the incredible sentence: “We shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense”.5 It is hard to take seriously such an intemperate blast, but one is nonplussed to find even d Reformation scholar of the stature of Harold J.Grimm, professor emeritus of history at Ohio State University, stating that whereas Luther “placed the loving and forgiving God of the New Testament in the foreground . Calvin followed Bucer in stressing the autocratic God of the Old Testament. That these caricatures have no basis in fact will be demonstrated later, but first we should take a look at Calvinʹs views of the Trinity and the providence of God. A. The Trinity In the Catechism Calvin makes only a passing reference to the Trinity. “When we name Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are not fashioning three Gods, but in the simplest unity (Lat.; cf. fr. essence) of God, Scripture and the very experience of godliness [pietatis] disclose to us God the Father, his Son, and the Spirit” (sec. 20, introductory paragraph, my translation). He proceeds to point out that we cannot think of the one “person” of the Trinity without thinking of the others and hence our attention should be focused on the one God even when we experience him in three different forms. There is nothing unusual about this description of the Trinity. The same is true of the later and fuller treatment in the 1559 Institutes, book I, chapter 13. Crucial here is Calvinʹs understanding of the difficult notion of the “persons” of the Trinity. He is obviously aware of the subtle distinctions made by various church fathers, in particular Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, and Augustine. However, says Calvin. “I am not, indeed such d stickler as to battle doggedly over words”(I.13.5). He then tries to give as simple a definition as possible: “Person,” therefore, I calla “subsistence” in Godʹs essence, which, while related to the others, is distinguished by an incommunicable quality. By the term “subsistence” we would understand something different from “essence.” For if the Word were simply God, and yet possessed no other characteristic mark, John would wrongly have said that the Word was always with God [John 1:1]. when immediately after he adds that the Word was also God himself, he recalls us to the essence as s unity. But because he could not be with God without residing in the Father, hence emerges the idea of a subsistence, which even though it has been joined with the essence by a common bond and cannot be separated from it, yet has s special mark whereby it is distinguished from it. Now, of the three subsistences I say that each one, while related to the others, si distinguished by a special quality. This “relation” is here distinctly expressed; because where simple and indefinite mention is made of God, this name pertains no less to the Son and the Spirit than to the Father. But as soon as the Father is compared with the son, the character of each distinguishes the one from the other. Thirdly, whatever is proper to each individually, I maintain to be incommunicable because whatever is attributed to the Father as a distinguishing mark cannot agree with, or be transferred to, the Son (Inst. I.13.6). This is fairly traditional definition and relatively nontechnical as far as discussions of the Trinity go. What is characteristically Calvinian, however, is his appeal not only to Scripture but also to “the very experience of godliness” (Catechism, sec. 20) as s source of our knowledge of the Trinity. He takes a similar tack later in his discussion of the divinity of the Spirit. “For what Scripture attributes to him [the Holy Spirit] we ourselves learn by the sure experience of godliness” (Inst. I.13, 14). These observations are significant for tow reasons, One is that Calvin does not hesitate to appeal to the experience of believers, more particularly their godliness or piety, as that which can and should confirm the witness of Scripture. This is not atypical, for Calvin frequently appeals to experience with expressions like “Experience teaches... “or” with experience as our teacher we find God just as he declares himself in his Word” (Inst. I.11.2). Experience for Calvin is far preferable and more valuable than “high‐flown speculation” (ibid.). The second point is that for Calvin the doctrine of the Trinity was not an @abtruse doctrine only of interest to theologians, but a vital belief for faith and life. He can deal with this question on a scholarly level when he discusses the shades of meaning in the Greek word hypostasis and the Latin persona (person), which he would translate as either “substance” or “subsistence” (Inst. I.13.2), the point being that each “person” or “hypostasis” in the Trinity is shared by the other and is conjoined in one essence or hypostatic union7. Here contemporary scholars frequently applaud Calvin not only for his awareness of the nuances in these technical words but also for his balanced presentation8. All thins notwithstanding, Calvinʹs primary concern is of a practical and religious nature, rather than theoretical and philosophical. Recall how in the beginning of his discussion in the Catechism and the Institutes he appeals to “the very experience of godliness.” Similarly, in the Institutes he warns against “evanescent speculation” (I.13.19), and affirms that “this practical knowledge [of the Trinity] is doubtless more certain and firmer than any idle speculation” (I.13.13).