The Integral Relationship between External Authority of Scripture and Internal

Word and the Spirit

How then can we understand the relationship of between the Word and the Spirit, more precisely, between the self-authenticating authority of Scripture and the testimony of the Spirit?

Calvin’s notion of the self-authenticating Scripture reflects a dominant principle which governs not only the Institutes but also all Calvin’s thought in both content and method, namely ‘the supreme principle of objectivity,’ to cite Torrance’s phrase (1988:64). The self-authentication of Scripture means that Scripture retains its own majesty. The

107

be testified not by ecclesial authority but by God Himself — the divine Spirit — and hence that the truth of Scripture is to be acknowledged only in accordance with what it is independently in itself. In other words, the authority of Scripture is not an attribute of believers, but of Scripture per se. Scripture as the Word of God stands over against believers, challenges them, and transforms their hearts. Calvin’s emphasis on the

testimonium Spiritus sancti does not mean that the authority is not vested in Scripture

itself but rather in the Spirit speaking through it (Gerrish 1982:64). Rather, as we have already noted, Calvin’s real intention is to rebuff the Roman Catholic claim that the authority of Scripture is dependent on the testimony of the church. Therefore, for Calvin, the locus of authority rests not with the subject who interprets it — whether individual Christian or the Church —, but with the object — Scripture itself. This transference of the centre of authority from the magisterium of the church to Scripture as the truth of God had a decisive significance in Calvin’s idea of scriptural authority.

At this point, we need to pay careful attention to a subtlety of Calvin’s thought. On the one hand, the point of Calvin’s notion of the self-authenticating Scripture is unambigu- ous: the authority intrinsic to Scripture is firmly claimed without the accreditation of that authority by us and hence in this sense “objective”; the authority as such and the authority with us must be distinguished. On the other hand, however, through the prominence of the testimonium Spiritus sancti, Calvin sought to provide the issue of authority with a significant ground for going beyond the notion of a purely external or purely objective authority. What matters for Calvin is the religious aspect of epistemological question, namely how we can know that Scripture is the Word of God and thereby how we can listen to the Word of God with reverence and obedience. Therefore, it may be said that Calvin’s much greater concern is given to “the authority with believers”, that is, ‘the authority as registered in the hearts of believers’ (Murray 1960:46). The acceptance of Scripture as the Word of God is possible only through the work of the Spirit because the authority of Scripture does not rely upon any human element — even upon faith. It should be noted that the acceptance of Scripture via the testimony of the Spirit is the result of the objective authority that Scripture already obtains in and of itself. For Calvin, the authority of Scripture is inseparably interwoven with the testimony of the Spirit, just as the stem is organically conjoined with the fruit.

108

The authority and the testimonium are to be distinguished, yet inseparable, and hence

mutually interrelated. The extra nos of the authority is distinguishable from the in nobis

of the testimony, but both are indissolubly connected.60

In chapter 9 of Book I of the Institutes, Calvin approaches the reciprocal relationship between Word and Spirit in another way of thinking. That is, Calvin affirms the significance of the mutual bond of the Spirit and the Word particularly against the background of standing against the “enthusiasts” or “fanatics” who consider Scripture as the dead letter and appeal to only the Spirit, abandoning Scripture. For Calvin, an appeal to the Spirit is in no sense to deny the authority of the Word. The Holy Spirit must be recognised by His harmony with Scripture, because ‘He is the Author of the Scriptures: he cannot vary and differ from himself. Hence he must ever remain just as he once revealed himself there’ (Inst 1.9.2). The work of the Spirit is neither inventing new revelations, nor forging a new kind of doctrine, to lead us away from the doctrine taught by Scripture; rather it is ‘sealing our minds with that very doctrine which is commended by the gospel’ (Inst 1.9.1). Therefore, if we are to acquire any benefit from the Spirit of God, we must engage ourselves in reading and hearing Scripture (Inst 1.9.2). Thus Calvin says that ‘the Holy Spirit so inheres in His truth, which He expresses in Scripture, that only when its proper reverence and dignity are given to the Word does the Holy Spirit show forth His power’ (Inst 1.9.3).

At this point, it would be helpful to consider the different contexts within which Calvin accentuated both the intrinsic majesty of Scripture and the testimony of the Spirit. Calvin’s arguments were contoured amidst his battle on two different fronts. On the one hand, to oppose the captivity of scriptural authority to the magisterium of the church, Calvin underlined the testimonium Spiritus sancti and by so doing sought to put Scripture back where it truly belonged, that is, in the hands of the Spirit. On the other hand, to oppose the Radical Reformation’s abandonment of Scripture that resulted from a radical reaction against the slavery of Scripture to the church, Calvin put stress on the

60 _{For this reason, Murray’s observation of Calvin’s seemingly ambiguous attitude towards a distinction}

between objectivity and subjectivity may be to some degree right (Murray 1960:44): ‘It may have to be conceded that this distinction is not as clearly formulated in Calvin as we might desire. At least, as far as the term “authority” is concerned, there appears to be some ambiguity.’

109

intrinsic majesty of Scripture. Responding to these two positions that set the Spirit apart from the Word, Calvin insisted that the Word and the Spirit must be understood to belong together. The Spirit does not substitute for, or supplement, the Word; but rather the Spirit authenticates the Word.

The strong attachment of the Spirit to the Word, however, does not necessarily mean that the Spirit is subordinate to the Word. Rather, it is the matter of inner consistency of the Spirit, who both inspired the Scriptures in the past and convinces believers of their truth in the present (Heron 1983:105). Because of the depth of our depravity, the Word is unavailable without the Spirit. The work of the Spirit ought not to be seen as restricted to the Word written or preached. Albeit the Spirit works through the instruments of the Word, the sovereign freedom of the Spirit of God over those ordained means must be affirmed (Milner Jr 1970:191; Lopes 1997:44-46). The Holy Spirit as the sovereign God cannot be subordinate to the Word; rather, ‘the Spirit wills to be conjoined with God’s Word by an indissoluble bond’ (Inst 4.8.13). Calvin makes explicit the notion of the Word as a means or instrument ‘by which the Lord dispenses the illumination of his Spirit to believers’ (Inst 1.9.3).

We can find a significant motivation of Calvin’s pneumatological prominence to the issue of the authority of Scripture in his genuine concern for spirituality. Calvin’s theological intention, which is manifestly spiritual and pietistic rather than dogmatic or speculative, was made clear in the opening remarks of his prefatory address to King Francis I, which accompanied the first edition of the Institutes in 1536 (Inst :9): ‘My purpose was solely to transmit certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness.’ With this practical concern, Calvin wrote (Inst 1.5.9): ‘[W]e are called to a knowledge of God: not that knowledge which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if it takes root in the heart.’ The knowledge of God cannot be obtained ‘where there is no religion or piety’ (Inst 1.2.2). For this reason, Dowey (1952:26) argues that Calvin was primarily interested in the religious or existential aspects of knowledge of God, in which knowledge ‘determines the existence of the knower.’

110

In her insightful book By the Renewing of Your Minds, Ellen Charry (1997:217), professor of historical and systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, maintains that Calvin’s whole theology needs to be read from the perspective of what she calls the ‘aretegenic agendum.’61 In her estimation (:212), the deeper issue, for Calvin, is ‘who you are, who God calls and enables you to be(come),’ that is, a matter of character-transformation with God’s help. For Calvin, argues Charry (:205-219), theology is to invite believers to be transformed by knowing and loving God into piety, which engenders Christian virtues such as reverence, obedience, humility, and gratitude. Through this transformation, divine pedagogy leads Christians to the aim of Christian life, namely the renewal of the imago Dei. Within Calvin’s pastoral concern, the knowledge of God is on every occasion related to ‘forming excellent character and promoting genuine happiness’ (:18).

Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, seems to be in convergence with Carry on this point. Through exploring Calvin’s rhetorical strategies in the 1559

Institutes, Jones (1995) portraits Calvin as a practical theologian (or even an artist)

rather than a speculative one in general, and emphasises the eminently practical and pastoral character of the Institutes in particular. According to Jones (:35), Calvin’s primary concern was the shaping of the disposition of pietas in his readers/audiences. Out of this concern, Calvin’s use of rhetorical language was intended and designed ‘to engage and shape his audiences’ habits of thinking, attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions’ (:48). Judged from this rhetorical criteria, it becomes evident that the purpose of Calvin was not ‘to present a set of propositional truth claims about where one should begin the theological enterprise,’ but rather ‘to convert and redispose him or her’ by convincing, confronting, and empowering his audiences with the truth of Scripture as the Word of God (:122). In other words, for Calvin, knowledge cannot be held apart from piety; piety is requisite for the knowledge of God. The knowledge of God always involves ‘the dispositional reorientation of the one who holds it’ towards God (:124).

61 _{Charry (1997:19) coins new words, “aretegenic” and “aretology,” to express the connotation that she}

intends to carry. In her neologism, the adjective “aretegenic,” which derives from the ancient Greek areté (“virtue”) and gennao (“to beget”), means “conductive to virtue.” With the term “aretegenic,” Charry intends to elucidate ‘the virtue-shaping function of the divine pedagogy of theological treatises’ (:19).

111

Drawing on Charry’s and Jones’s insights, we can legitimately say that Calvin’s genuine concern for the self-transformation into the imago Dei or the dispositional reorientation towards God through knowing God led him to linking deliberately the testimony of the Spirit closely to the objective authority of Scripture. In such a way as to eschew falling into either the extreme of objectivism or subjectivism, Calvin united the testimonium Spiritus sancti with the self-authentication of Scripture. In a somewhat similar vein, William Abraham (1998:137) maintains that the Reformers’ appeal to Scripture was located ‘in the context of piety or spirituality, for they were profoundly concerned about coming to know God, receiving the gift of eternal life, living a godly life, and entering final glory.’ For the Reformers, the knowledge of God was inextricably related to salvation rather than religious experience, natural reason, the tradition of the church, or its current teaching. In other words, Calvin and the Reformers looked on Scripture as providing the norm of all claims about the identity, character, and action of God towards His people, and thereby as forming and transforming the identity, dispositions, and praxis of the church.