Dr. Richard C. Gamble is the new director of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies and Associate Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. The evening of Jan. 22 was the occasion of his inauguration in the Calvin Library, followed by a reception at the manor house. He was introduced by Dr. Fred H. Klooster of the seminary, who mentioned some of his impressive credentials and service in teaching church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Dr. Gamble then spoke on “John Calvin as Theologian and Expositor (or Exegete): Is There Anything New?”
Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 1:9, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and the historian soon learns that in the church and the history of its doctrine there have been very few giants and “none is a VIP.” To the question, “Was there anything unique about John Calvin?” one is tempted to answer “No, he was at best a re-arranger.” Calvin as a theologian has been analyzed with remarkably diverse results.
According to Calvin, we must begin our thinking by considering the foundation of knowledge itself. His famous Institutes began with the observation that “true and sound wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.” For an answer to the question, “How do we know?” Calvin refers us to the Scriptures (the “glasses” through which we with our defective vision are enabled to know the true God (Bk. I. chapter 6). Calvin knows no greater authority than the Bible. We were created by God, “in His image,” in a relationship with Him. We must know ourselves as His creatures, infinitely inferior to the Creator who “fills heaven and earth,” but who comes as close to us as is needful, telling us about Himself in nature and in the Bible.
How must we read and understand the Bible? God there speaks to us in a way that we may understand, no matter how diverse our education or culture. God is not bound to a “context.” He accommodates Himself to us as a grownup does to a child, speaking “baby-talk” to us in the Bible. Although we cannot fully understand God, we do not therefore remain ignorant of Him, for He gives us all of the knowledge that we need for salvation and life. We through the Bible, know Him in His saving purpose and work, although we still see “through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12). This perspective introduces us to the essence of Calvin’s theology.
Calvin especially stressed the fact that this true knowledge of God must be accompanied by religion and piety, and this is to be realized within the church. We need the church’s education to grow to adulthood. In all of this Calvin also especially stressed the Holy Spirit and His work.
These emphases in Calvin were not new; their main lines were often noticeable in his predecessors. A most important characteristic of Calvin’s teaching is his making theology dependent on exegesis of the Bible. It is a mistake to study only Calvin’s Institutes, for he regarded that major work as only introductory to the study of God’s Word which fills his commentaries. Calvin’s difference from his contemporaries is especially apparent in his exegesis (or treatment of the Bible) in his commentaries. 1. That treatment was comprehensive and brief. He looked at the whole text, yet kept his comments short and to the point. (Compare Calvin’s one volume on Genesis with Luther’s eight.) 2. Calvin saw the difference between the Creator and the creature as fundamental. God accommodates Himself to our capacity in the simple and rude style of the Scriptures, and Calvin tried to reflect that style in his commentaries. The relationship between Calvin’s teaching and his method of interpreting the Bible bas not received the study that it should, and it is a subject in which the speaker expressed a special interest. The dependence of Calvin’s teaching on exegesis of the Bible is a very important practical principle because the church is to be built up by the Bible.
Dr. Gamble’s address seemed a refreshing and auspicious beginning for his service among us. It came as a new and needed reminder of what B.B. Warfield once observed in an address on “John Calvin the Theologian” (Appendix to the 1956 volume of Warfield on Calvin and Augustine, p. 481, f.) . Warfield too noted Calvin’s dependence on “exegetical investigation” of the Bible for his teachings. “In one word, he was distinctly . . . 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 offence 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 finality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teaching 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. H e could not present the dictates of the Holy Ghost as a series of debatable propositions.” Warfield went on in that essay to point out how Calvin, more than any other theologian stressed the work of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Gamble’s address highlighted Calvin’s fundamental concern to base all of his teaching upon the Bible rather than on any (even “Christian”) philosophizing on the basis of the Bible. In the demoralized late medieval church and society Calvin, following Luther, found his guide in the Word of God. Seeking to help everyone else to follow the same guide created his career as outstanding teacher of the Reformation. In the similar confusion of our times and churches, stressing Calvin’s dependence on and faith teaching of the Word of God seems an especially auspicious beginning for a service of teaching in our institutions which bear his name.