RTS Papers / Church Polity / Winter 2018
Reflections on John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
There are some ways in which Calvin’s ecclesiology is rooted in his soteriology. For instance, the power that the Roman Church had falsely asserted rested atop the conscience of Christians deprived of assurance. The early chapters of Book III explain this. The works of satisfaction that made penance an impossible task also made the priest lord over conscience. Simply put, their sacrament of penance is not the same thing as biblical repentance. The key difference for Calvin is that the definitions upholding this sacrament focus entirely on “austerity” and “external exercises,” and not a hint of the more permanent “internal renovation of mind" [Institutes. III.4.1]. Worse yet, taking the three elements summarized by Lombard’s Sentences—compunction of heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of work—if these are prerequisites for pardon, then it is clear that no sinner could ever be saved.
It was said that the Roman priesthood had received the mandate of the Levites to discern sin as the priests of old had discerned leprosy, whether one was still unclean or clean. Calvin cited Hebrews 7:12 to the effect that this portion of the law was fulfilled in Christ. His citation from Chrysostom contains as much practical wisdom for us today as it functions as a refutation of Rome’s claim to antiquity of their practice: “I say not, tell [your sins] to your fellow-servant who may upbraid you, but tell them to God who cures them” (III.4.8).
We may summarize Calvin’s position by seeing mutual confession as a means of grace while not being the fountainhead of that grace so received. What then is the standard for when to confess, as James 5:16 says? It must be voluntary and “whenever that is conducive to the divine glory or our humiliation” [III.4.10]. Likewise the keys refers only to matters of legitimate discipline. The ultimate power that seals the conscience, even with respect to the flock dealing with their sins, is in the preached word [III.4.14]. This may sound like an extreme individualism in Calvin, but here he is only speaking of the sources of authority and power. He is not thereby denying the secondary causes in community.
Indulgences and Purgatory were the two means of supplementing satisfaction. The way that the Church usurped power from these is evident. Indulgences “bestow the remission of sins” and Purgatory was “the satisfaction for sin paid after death by the souls of the dead” [III.5.2, 6]. In replacing the blood of Christ, Rome was more able to replace the Head.
As to his own doctrine Calvin saw sola fide as “the principle ground” [III.11.1] of the church. As one moves through chapters 11 through 16, the arguments against contemporaries like Osiander bear resemblance to the present controversy with the New Perspectives on Paul. This being the case, we do well to note the connection the Reformer makes between true justification and a healthy church. At issue was whether justification was a “moral” work or a “forensic” work. If the former, then it was ongoing, incomplete, unsure, and dispensed by the Church’s means. If it is a moral work, then one is not grafted into Christ without first being made agreeable [III.15.6]. In this way justification by works, even if only in part, strengthens the radical divide between clergy and laity.
Book IV begins Calvin’s explicit doctrine of the church. The word and the sacraments (in that order) are compared to treasures which accomodate to our weakness and invest the true church with its power and marks of authenticity. Somewhere between (or above) a medieval Roman view of unity without diversity, and a modern Baptist view of diversity without unity, Calvin saw the invisible church as “a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd” [IV.1.2]. It is catholic as to its spiritual unity, apostolic as to its adherence to the Apostle’s teaching, and holy not as Donatists or Anabaptists would temporally press, but as a real trajectory. This is a balanced ecclesiology that centers on the ministry of the word. In the same way the legitimacy of a church—its ministry, or its officers—is defined by the word:
“Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the church of God has some existence” [IV.1.9].
Here is an important qualification: “even in the administration of the word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all heads of doctrine are not in the same position” [IV.1.12].
He then proceeds to distinguish between the essential and nonessential. That which would “destroy the unity of the faith” is what begins to divide a group from the true church. Short of that we are to exercise charity. This is true whether of assessing a ministry, or of bringing correction to a sheep even with a besetting sin. Why did Rome not pass this test, according to Calvin? He said, “Scarcely can we hold any meeting with them without polluting ourselves with open idolatry. Their principle bond of communion is undoubtedly the Mass, which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege” [IV.2.9].
As much as the work of the priests, the very power of making laws sets the Church as lord over the conscience. In the tenth chapter, Calvin explores the right of the church to bind the conscience. In summary the line ought to be drawn by what Christ himself has said. He is the lawgiver of the church. This is all the more serious when it comes to matters of worship. To “introduce necessity into things that are free” [IV.10.5] is to set oneself in the place of Christ.
The word must preside over the sacraments. They are “Akin to the preaching of the gospel,” and yet “there is never a sacrament without an antecedent promise” [IV.14.1, 3]. So “the sacrament consists of the word and the external sign” [IV.14.4]. Short of this there is the occasion for all manner of superstition: chief among them that righteousness may be infused apart from faith.
コメント