Jacob Arminius was full of praise for the exegetical gifts of his theological opponent, John Calvin: "After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers - so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all."
By contrast, Arminius says that when you read Calvin's Institutes, you must read them "with discrimination"...
[F.F. Bruce, "The History of New Testament Study", in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, edited by I. Howard Marshall, Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1977 (revised 1979), p.33]
Am I mistaken but did not Calvin intend that his commentaries be read in the light of his Institutes, for having established his (systematic) theology in his Institutes he set the foundation for understanding his commentaries; in which he did not want to reproduce at length his systematic theology?
ReplyDeleteIt’s not too infrequent that I’ll run into an Arminian who wants to pit Calvin’s commentaries against his Institutes.
Thanks, Brian. I reproduced Arminius' quote simply because it interested me, not because I wanted to score a point of any sort. (I have a similar interest in Whitefield's comments about Wesley and vice versa.)
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Did not Calvin intend that his Commentaries be read in the light of his Institutes?" I don't know the answer to that question, but even if Calvin did say that or imply that, I am sure that there are many things in his Commentaries which people have found helpful, whatever their theological orientation. I could say a similar thing about our ancestors benefiting from the commentaries of Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Many years ago a Baptist pastor urged me to read these two commentaries; the fact that the pastor earnestly supported premillennialism whereas Matthew Henry and David Brown didn't, was not something that bothered him at all. (Though I grant that the Calvinist-Arminian dispute is closer to the heart of theology than disagreements about eschatology.)