conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

calvin post four

From Bouwsma's book John Calvin, A Sixteenth Century Portrait...

Effective communication, for Calvin as for other humanists, required more than a fidelity to truth, the sole aim of a philosophical discourse, which accordingly, refusing to make concessions to a general audience, employed a specialized vocabulary. A humanist, in contrast, recognised that the distance between one human being and another can be bridged only by the essential rhetorical virtue, decorum - that is, deliberate adaptation to one's audience for the sake of persuasion. Calvin held decorum in profound esteem." (p. 116)

I am glad he said this. I have been wondering this for a while. Calvin's use of Chrysostom is not prooftexting to get at the historical truth, per se, but because Chrysostom was a rhetorical tool for Calvin. Yes, Calvin agreed with much of what Chrysostom had to say, but he was not covicted/converted by Chrysostom. He simply used him to prove his own thinking as a rhetorical divice.

The slogan ad fontes had led these scholars back to the exegetical tradition of the church, of which Calvin was generally respectful. "Since in this life we canot hope to achieve a permanent agreement in our understanding of every passage of scripture, however desireable that would be," he wrote "we must not be carried away by the lust for novelty, nor be pushed into scurrility or impelled by hatred or titillated by ambition, but only do what is necessary and depart from the opinions of earlier exegetes only when it is beneficial."(56)...He turned for guidance, though always with discrimination, to the Fathers. Their "godliness, learning, and sanctity," he wrote, "have secured them such great authority that we should not dispise andthing they have produced."(58) He especially approved of Chrysostom, log a favorite of humanist students of Scripture because of his simple, literal-historical approach to the text. (p. 119)

footnote 56: Serm no. 3 on 2 Sam., 23
footnote 58: Comm. Is. 3:17

I am enjoying this more and more. "...though always with discrimiation" is very telling. This is the truth of it. He disagrees with the Fathers almost as much as he agrees with them. Calvin did not employ Augustine's exegesis because he found the interpretation to be too metaphorical, not simple, direct and literal as Chrysostom was. He knew the Fathers as human beings first, ensconsed within their own context, driven by their own concerns as he was driven by his. Yes, he revered them, but always with the caveat of context and, perhaps, a sense of dialogue with them. Disagreeing with the Fathers was never a theological problem for Calvin. Again, decorum or rhetoric would win out.

You have to love a lawyer.

And in other news, Robyn has a new site where she is working some hard stuff out. Give it a glance. She is cool.

And Jennifer has popped it wide open. Oh my.

Posted by tripp at March 19, 2004 08:50 AM