“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, And light unto my path.” Psalm 119:105.
“And we have the word of prophecy . . . whereunto ye do well that ye take heed. as unto a lamp shining in a dark place . . . ,” II Peter 1:19
The Bible teaches us that we must receive and be guided by it as the light which God has given to show us where we are and where we must go. Much of the confusion and weakness of Christians and churches in our time are direct results of neglecting or discarding that light. Returning to its guidance has brought and brings revival and reformation. For the church this implies the following.
THE ONLY PROPER CHURCH DOCTRINE OR “THEOLOGY” IS BIBLE TEACHING!
A year ago in the February 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK I called attention to a remarkable little essay of Richard B. Gaffin in the book Jerusalem and Athens, an essay entitled “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul.” That essay showed how Abraham Kuyper had distinguished sharply between the Bible and the dogmas or “theology” which the church and its theologians constructed ‘with materials from the Bible. Dr. Vos observed that to make such a distinction is wrong. It is not the church’s business to make its own theology with materials it draws from the Bible, but it is the business of the church simply to teach the same “inspired, infallible revelation” that Paul and the rest of the Bible teach (p. 233).
Recently I ran across a somewhat similar criticism of Kuyper in an old book printed here in 1913 under the title Oud en Nieuw Calvinisme (Old and New Calvinism.) by Rev. L. J. Hulst and Professor G. K. Hemkes. While the authors revealed a good deal of appreciation for Abraham Kuyper and his amazing influence, they expressed some serious reservations regarding his view of the Bible. Kuyper saw the Bible as revealing the truth but only as “kernel” (“in kern”), a kernel in principle seen by Augustine, first pointed out by Calvin, but now needing to be disclosed, developed and applied by believers in the broad areas of life (pp. 12, 13, 15). Kuyper saw this “kernel” needing to be developed by scientific theologians in their academic institutions far beyond the competence of the churches.
The authors, Hulst and Hemkes, saw in this development a shift or emphasis away from the Bible to “Calvinistic Principles” (p. 24). And so Kuyper’s followers spoke more of these “principles” than of what Holy Scripture taught so that even preaching in the churches by these enthusiasts sometimes became a scientific discussion of such principles instead of a gospel message directed to sinners calling them to reconciliation in Christ. (Notice the startling similarity to current criticisms of the AACS movement which prides itself on its debt to Kuyper and similarly, or even further, reduces the role of the Bible to be merely one of several “forms” of God’s Word!)
In last year’s article I observed that in our churches, whether we were consciously following in the tradition of Kuyper, or just happened to share some of his views on this matter, Christian doctrine has often been preached and taught as the authoritative teaching of the church with little or only passing reference to the Bible. When such doctrines are being questioned or brushed aside, as they are today, churches which have regarded and taught them in this way are just as powerless to defend and maintain them as the Roman Catholics were to defend theirs in the Reformation—and that for the same reason.
If we are really to appreciate our doctrines for what they are, to experience the realities of which they speak and to teach them with any conviction to others, we will have to make the same discovery that our Reformed fathers made that they are not the invention of clever theologians or of church synods, but simply, as the Apostle Paul wrote, “in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13).
THE ROLE OF JOHN CALVIN
Hulst and Hemkes in their little book pointed out that Kuyper’s notion of the truth as a “kernel” which believers had to develop through the centuries was completely foreign to the writings of Calvin (p. 13) who always stressed the centrality of the Bible in the Christian faith and life and also called and taught the church and her leaders to be simply preachers and teachers of it. We have not always realized this. Most of us learned our Christian doctrine first in simpler catechism classes and then from the more extensive systematic teaching of Louis Berkhof. The latter’s Reformed Dogmatics or Systematic Theology at every tum shows its dependence on the Bible by its massive lists of Scripture references. But too often when we studied the system of doctrine we learned only the minimum amount of “proof texts” required to pass an examination. The very number of references often discouraged the busy student from taking the time and trouble required to look them up, much less to study their relationships to and in the whole of the Bible. Studying and learning doctrine in this way, helpful as the well-organized system was, easily fostered the impression that church teaching was this system rather than the Bible which it was supposed to help us understand. This system we sometimes called Calvinism after the name of the Genevan Reformer from whom our predecessors had presumably learned it.
When, through assignment or otherwise, we began to become acquainted with John Calvin through his own writings, we found him to be somewhat different from what we had expected him to be. Whether one began to read in his masterwork, The Institutes, or in his voluminous commentaries, it was not primarily a system which met the eye. Instead of that it was always page after page of careful, patient, comparative study of the Bible, with the doctrines appearing at the end of the discussion as conclusions from that study. No one can read Calvin’s writings without becoming instantly aware that he was teaching and preaching not a system called “Calvinism,” but simply God’s Word. What system there was was just the “pattern” he found in the Bible (II Tim. 1:13). That was the secret of his strength, assurance and tremendous influence. It was just because he was such a thorough and devoted student and teacher of the Bible that so many from all Europe flocked to Geneva to learn the gospel from him and then went on to become leaders of the Reformation.
B.B. Warfield in his essay “John Calvin the Theologian” (in Calvin and Augustine, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956, pp. 481, 482) aptly says:
“In one word, he [Calvin] was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of eminence the Biblical theologian of his age. Whither the Bible took him, thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short.
“It is this which imparts to Calvin’s theological teaching the quality which is its prime characteristic and its real offense in the eyes of his critics—I mean its positiveness. There is no mistaking the note of confidence in his teaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidence irritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to his declarations, not staying to consider that he gives them this air of 6nality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teachings of the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word . . . . And it was just because he refused to go one step beyond what is written that he felt so sure of his steps.”
Parallel to this emphasis on the Bible. War6eld found in Calvin also an emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit so as “to constitute Calvin preeminently the theologian of the Holy Spirit” (p. 484). But this guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may add, is not a blind guidance. It illuminates us by God’s Word so that in this way we see where we are and where we must go.
If Calvinists of today are to know the reality and power of Calvin’s faith and amazing influence, they will , like him, have to go back to the gospel. Paul called that “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16).
WHAT CALVIN LEARNED FROM AUGUSTINE
From time to time we have been told that Calvin in his teaching largely followed St. Augustine, who had preceded him by over 1100 years. If we were to be asked in what way Calvin followed Augustine, I suppose that most of us would answer that Calvin held some of the same doctrines as Augustine, such as salvation by grace and predestination. Recently in doing a little history reading I was surprised to observe how inadequate such a description of the relationship between these two really is.
Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of The Institutes in the Library of Christian Classics contains unusually extensive indexes including one of “Authors and Sources.” In this index one discovers a list of seven double-columned pages of references which Calvin makes to Augustine’s writings! No other writer gets anywhere near such extended recognition. Calvin’s own voluminous writings get only half as many references and while another contemporary reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, gets 5 pages, no one else gets more than a column or two at most.
How was this classic work of Calvin related to Augustine’s writings? To which Augustine’s works did Calvin most frequently refer in his Institutes? Among the references to Augustine’s works listed in the index, by far the longest lists of references are to the massive City of God, to Augustine’s commentaries on John and the Psalms, to his letters and to his sermons.
Calvin, therefore, seems to have especially observed and appreciated Augustine’s Bible interpretation, preaching and pastoral writing! Although Calvin occasionally differed from Augustine, their teachings were so similar because they were both such diligent student of the same Bible. Augustine’s great place in the life of the Christian church was primarily that of a teacher and preacher of the gospel. His tremendous influence on later church doctrine (and evidently on Calvin) was just the influence of a faithful preacher of Cod’s Word. His Augustinian theology, like Calvin’s “Calvinism,” was nothing but such faithful Bible teaching. That is why it was and continues to be important. That is the only kind of doctrine right down to the present that is adequate for our own salvation and life, and that is worth trying to give to the rest of the world. That is the gospel God gave and which He will empower, preserve and fulfill. Our Christian fathers believed and taught it. Will we in our troubled times rediscover, believe and teach it too?
(The remarks in Calvin’s commentary on II Timothy 1:13 are interesting: “. . . Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for … the word which Paul employs on this occasion—denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree is exceedingly injurious.”)
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
“And we have the word of prophecy . . . whereunto ye do well that ye take heed. as unto a lamp shining in a dark place . . . ,” II Peter 1:19
The Bible teaches us that we must receive and be guided by it as the light which God has given to show us where we are and where we must go. Much of the confusion and weakness of Christians and churches in our time are direct results of neglecting or discarding that light. Returning to its guidance has brought and brings revival and reformation. For the church this implies the following.
THE ONLY PROPER CHURCH DOCTRINE OR “THEOLOGY” IS BIBLE TEACHING!
A year ago in the February 1972 issue of THE OUTLOOK I called attention to a remarkable little essay of Richard B. Gaffin in the book Jerusalem and Athens, an essay entitled “Geerhardus Vos and the Interpretation of Paul.” That essay showed how Abraham Kuyper had distinguished sharply between the Bible and the dogmas or “theology” which the church and its theologians constructed ‘with materials from the Bible. Dr. Vos observed that to make such a distinction is wrong. It is not the church’s business to make its own theology with materials it draws from the Bible, but it is the business of the church simply to teach the same “inspired, infallible revelation” that Paul and the rest of the Bible teach (p. 233).
Recently I ran across a somewhat similar criticism of Kuyper in an old book printed here in 1913 under the title Oud en Nieuw Calvinisme (Old and New Calvinism.) by Rev. L. J. Hulst and Professor G. K. Hemkes. While the authors revealed a good deal of appreciation for Abraham Kuyper and his amazing influence, they expressed some serious reservations regarding his view of the Bible. Kuyper saw the Bible as revealing the truth but only as “kernel” (“in kern”), a kernel in principle seen by Augustine, first pointed out by Calvin, but now needing to be disclosed, developed and applied by believers in the broad areas of life (pp. 12, 13, 15). Kuyper saw this “kernel” needing to be developed by scientific theologians in their academic institutions far beyond the competence of the churches.
The authors, Hulst and Hemkes, saw in this development a shift or emphasis away from the Bible to “Calvinistic Principles” (p. 24). And so Kuyper’s followers spoke more of these “principles” than of what Holy Scripture taught so that even preaching in the churches by these enthusiasts sometimes became a scientific discussion of such principles instead of a gospel message directed to sinners calling them to reconciliation in Christ. (Notice the startling similarity to current criticisms of the AACS movement which prides itself on its debt to Kuyper and similarly, or even further, reduces the role of the Bible to be merely one of several “forms” of God’s Word!)
In last year’s article I observed that in our churches, whether we were consciously following in the tradition of Kuyper, or just happened to share some of his views on this matter, Christian doctrine has often been preached and taught as the authoritative teaching of the church with little or only passing reference to the Bible. When such doctrines are being questioned or brushed aside, as they are today, churches which have regarded and taught them in this way are just as powerless to defend and maintain them as the Roman Catholics were to defend theirs in the Reformation—and that for the same reason.
If we are really to appreciate our doctrines for what they are, to experience the realities of which they speak and to teach them with any conviction to others, we will have to make the same discovery that our Reformed fathers made that they are not the invention of clever theologians or of church synods, but simply, as the Apostle Paul wrote, “in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe” (I Thess. 2:13).
THE ROLE OF JOHN CALVIN
Hulst and Hemkes in their little book pointed out that Kuyper’s notion of the truth as a “kernel” which believers had to develop through the centuries was completely foreign to the writings of Calvin (p. 13) who always stressed the centrality of the Bible in the Christian faith and life and also called and taught the church and her leaders to be simply preachers and teachers of it. We have not always realized this. Most of us learned our Christian doctrine first in simpler catechism classes and then from the more extensive systematic teaching of Louis Berkhof. The latter’s Reformed Dogmatics or Systematic Theology at every tum shows its dependence on the Bible by its massive lists of Scripture references. But too often when we studied the system of doctrine we learned only the minimum amount of “proof texts” required to pass an examination. The very number of references often discouraged the busy student from taking the time and trouble required to look them up, much less to study their relationships to and in the whole of the Bible. Studying and learning doctrine in this way, helpful as the well-organized system was, easily fostered the impression that church teaching was this system rather than the Bible which it was supposed to help us understand. This system we sometimes called Calvinism after the name of the Genevan Reformer from whom our predecessors had presumably learned it.
When, through assignment or otherwise, we began to become acquainted with John Calvin through his own writings, we found him to be somewhat different from what we had expected him to be. Whether one began to read in his masterwork, The Institutes, or in his voluminous commentaries, it was not primarily a system which met the eye. Instead of that it was always page after page of careful, patient, comparative study of the Bible, with the doctrines appearing at the end of the discussion as conclusions from that study. No one can read Calvin’s writings without becoming instantly aware that he was teaching and preaching not a system called “Calvinism,” but simply God’s Word. What system there was was just the “pattern” he found in the Bible (II Tim. 1:13). That was the secret of his strength, assurance and tremendous influence. It was just because he was such a thorough and devoted student and teacher of the Bible that so many from all Europe flocked to Geneva to learn the gospel from him and then went on to become leaders of the Reformation.
B.B. Warfield in his essay “John Calvin the Theologian” (in Calvin and Augustine, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956, pp. 481, 482) aptly says:
“In one word, he [Calvin] was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of eminence the Biblical theologian of his age. Whither the Bible took him, thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short.
“It is this which imparts to Calvin’s theological teaching the quality which is its prime characteristic and its real offense in the eyes of his critics—I mean its positiveness. There is no mistaking the note of confidence in his teaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidence irritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to his declarations, not staying to consider that he gives them this air of 6nality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teachings of the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word . . . . And it was just because he refused to go one step beyond what is written that he felt so sure of his steps.”
Parallel to this emphasis on the Bible. War6eld found in Calvin also an emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit so as “to constitute Calvin preeminently the theologian of the Holy Spirit” (p. 484). But this guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may add, is not a blind guidance. It illuminates us by God’s Word so that in this way we see where we are and where we must go.
If Calvinists of today are to know the reality and power of Calvin’s faith and amazing influence, they will , like him, have to go back to the gospel. Paul called that “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16).
WHAT CALVIN LEARNED FROM AUGUSTINE
From time to time we have been told that Calvin in his teaching largely followed St. Augustine, who had preceded him by over 1100 years. If we were to be asked in what way Calvin followed Augustine, I suppose that most of us would answer that Calvin held some of the same doctrines as Augustine, such as salvation by grace and predestination. Recently in doing a little history reading I was surprised to observe how inadequate such a description of the relationship between these two really is.
Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of The Institutes in the Library of Christian Classics contains unusually extensive indexes including one of “Authors and Sources.” In this index one discovers a list of seven double-columned pages of references which Calvin makes to Augustine’s writings! No other writer gets anywhere near such extended recognition. Calvin’s own voluminous writings get only half as many references and while another contemporary reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, gets 5 pages, no one else gets more than a column or two at most.
How was this classic work of Calvin related to Augustine’s writings? To which Augustine’s works did Calvin most frequently refer in his Institutes? Among the references to Augustine’s works listed in the index, by far the longest lists of references are to the massive City of God, to Augustine’s commentaries on John and the Psalms, to his letters and to his sermons.
Calvin, therefore, seems to have especially observed and appreciated Augustine’s Bible interpretation, preaching and pastoral writing! Although Calvin occasionally differed from Augustine, their teachings were so similar because they were both such diligent student of the same Bible. Augustine’s great place in the life of the Christian church was primarily that of a teacher and preacher of the gospel. His tremendous influence on later church doctrine (and evidently on Calvin) was just the influence of a faithful preacher of Cod’s Word. His Augustinian theology, like Calvin’s “Calvinism,” was nothing but such faithful Bible teaching. That is why it was and continues to be important. That is the only kind of doctrine right down to the present that is adequate for our own salvation and life, and that is worth trying to give to the rest of the world. That is the gospel God gave and which He will empower, preserve and fulfill. Our Christian fathers believed and taught it. Will we in our troubled times rediscover, believe and teach it too?
(The remarks in Calvin’s commentary on II Timothy 1:13 are interesting: “. . . Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for … the word which Paul employs on this occasion—denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree is exceedingly injurious.”)
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.