John Calvin's Understanding of Human Reason in His Institutes

Jung S. Rhee

An inquiry has been made about why the Reformed theology tends to be rationalistic, scholastic, and philosophical. One of the best answers may be found in the study of John Calvin, the Founder of the Reformed theo­logy. Whether Calvin is a rationalist became controversial in our century. While John P. Le Coq, in his article entitled “Was Calvin a Philosopher?”, answers his own question negatively with severely criticizing Calvin’s lack of rationality and logicality,[1] most scholars agrees with the positive understanding of Robert H. Ayers, who, in his article “Language, Logic and Reason in Calvin’s Institutes”, evaluated Calvin with Augustine and Aquinas in his rationality and view on reason: “In short, there is as high regard for reason in Calvin as there is in Augustine and Aquinas.”[2] All three, whose epistemology is commonly characterized in the famous expression “We believe in order, to know(credo ut intelligam)”,[3] agrees that no man is with­out the light of reason and reason, while not the master of faith, is its servant, an indispensable servant having an essential role to play in the task of faith seeking understanding.[4]

Calvin’s high regard of reason and rationality is generally regarded as the influence of his early humanistic education. Quirinus Breen gave a great importance to the fact that Calvin converted to Protestantism after his “mental set” was already framed, ”rather later in life”.[5] For he had been almost entirely committed to the humanistic ideal until his twenty-fourth year, and at twenty-four already he was “a seasoned humanist”. When he left the universities he was, according to Schaff, “the most promising literary man of the age”.[6] As an excellent young humanist, John Calvin had never shaken off the “mind set”[7] and “never had got away from his humanistic inheritance”-logic, rhetoric, and etc.[8] Even though he did not slavishly adhere to his humanistic back­ground in all its aspects,[9] his scholastic methodology and appeal to the “common sense” and reason, which was “an earmark of humanism”,[10] was due to his humanistic spirit.

Calvin was a theologian whose principle was “sola Scriptura”, but John H. Leith does not consent with it. In his article “Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology”, Leith contended that Calvin’s theological methodology was formally biblicism but really rationalism.[11] Calvin’s “implicit confidence in the competence of reason to theologize on the basis of’ the biblical materials” was the crucial factor in his theology. “In the second book of the Institutes Calvin left no doubt about the sinful corruption of reason, and everywhere he rejected reason as an avowed source of theology. However, reason did become a source of his theology through speculation about and organization of the biblical materials. Calvin betrays little doubt as to the full competence of reason in the systematization and rational elaboration of the biblical materials... On the basis of the pre­supposition that the Bible supplies infallible material for theology and that reason is competent to manipulate and theologize about those materials, Calvin was convinced that he possessed the truth.”[12] In another words, “While he avows the greatest loyalty to Scripture, he actually goes beyond Scripture as a result of an almost irresistible tendency to extrapolate rationally the scriptural data.”[13] According to Leith, this rationalistic tendency has dominated later Calvinism, though Calvin himself was relatively success­ful to overcome the continuing threat of rationalism.[14]

It is an almost universal opinion that Calvin was “a master of logic” like Thomas Aquinas, and Quirinus Breen calls his logic “an iron logic”.[15] Calvin has caught the reader in a net from which escape is impossi­ble, and it holds the mind as in a vise from which there is no release. This logicality of Calvin is generally regarded as trained in the French humanism, which follows the rhetorical tradition. Breen specifies what kind of logic Calvin used: “There is a logic in the Institutes. In fact, it is full of logic. But the logic is not syllogistic. It is rhetorical logic. Syllogistic logic uses induction and the syllogism; rhetorical logic uses example and the enthymeme.”[16] On the contrary, Robert H. Ayers contends that Breen is “mis­leading” for Calvin did not use “rhetorical logic” but “the Aristotelian cate­gorical syllogism with its distributed middle term and the Stoic propositional inference schemas such as Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and several forms of the Disjunctive Syllogism.”[17]

However, what kind of logic he used is not our concern in this paper. Whether it is rhetorical logic or syllogistic logic, one thing certain is that Calvin used logic, “full of logic”, and he was logical. Concerning the difference, Charles Partee explains that “the Germans tend to examine Calvin in metaphysical terms and the French in terms of the rhetorical tradition.”[18] As a matter of fact, syllogism and enthymeme have no real difference. A syllo­gism has three members: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, while enthymeme omits one of those three because the total reasoning process is extremely burdensome for the general reader and therefore rhetorically in­effective.[19] The effectiveness of omission can be considerable: “All men are mortal. Socrates was a man!” This is more dramatic than the syllogism.[20] Calvin favored to use enthymeme rather than perfect syllogism of three members in order that Calvin theology should be the possession of the “common man”.[21] However, “An enthymeme is a syllogism”[22] and perfectly logical.

While we agree with the rationality and logicality of Calvin, it perfectly has a great difficulty to subscribe Breen or Ayer’s perfectly rationalistic understanding of Calvin’s theology. For Calvin is embracing many irrational or illogical doctrines within his theology. Charles Partee has a very dissimilar look: “Because Calvin’s thought is not based on reason, he does not achieve or even attempt a logically unassailable system as most scholars have recognized.”[23] In 1922, Herman Bauke had discovered three characteristics of the Formgestaltung in Calvin’s theology, which make all of the very diverse and even contra­dictory interpretation of Calvin possible: rationalism, biblicism, and complexio oppositorum.[24] The most significant discovery of Bauke is “complexio oppositorum”, which reconciles the other two contradictable motifs, i.e. biblicism and rationalism. John H. Leith explains about it:

Calvin’s theological method is not the deduction of a system from one or two central doctrines. He does not seek to find some Diagonale or Stammlehre or central doctrine or material principle from which individual dogmatic teachings can be deduced and developed. On the contrary, he seeks to bind existing individual dogmatic teachings which are even in logical and meta­physical contradiction into a systematic coherence. This characteristic explains the existence of many contradictory interpretations, for interpre­ters have concentrated on one doctrine and neglected others which are equally important .[25]

Emile Doumergue described Calvin’s procedure as the “methode des contrarietes”. For “Calvin was ready to sacrifice logical inconsistency in order to do justice to the complexity of Christian revelation and experience.”[26] Confronted with “the Divine Mystery” incomprehensible to our reason, “Calvin, then, was completely convinced of a high degree of clarity and comprehensibility of individual themes of the Bible, but he was also so utterly submissive before divine mystery as to create a theology containing many logical inconsisten­cies rather than a rationally coherent whole.”[27] Edward A. Lowey, Jr. con­cluded clarity of individual themes, incomprehensibility of their interre­lations as a hallmark of Calvin s theology.[28]

Though it can be a provisional answer, Bauke’s “complexio oppositorum” is but a phenomenal and superficial analysis unable to highlight Calvin’s theology. Moreover, it coldly ignores Calvin’s confidence in the unity and consistency of his own theology. As Leith rightly observed, Calvin himself was unaware of any inconsistency in his theology and, in other words, he believed no inconsistency in his theology.[29] Rather, we are best to follow Calvin’s own way in our inquiry. Calvin required “definitions” as a starting point for any discussion or debate.[30] Did Calvin think that his theology is rational? What did he understand to be rational? What is reason to him? Calvin included several kinds of reason in the same term “reason”. When Calvin was seeking a rational theology, what kind of reason did he follow? John Calvin’s view on human reason, therefore, is one of the most important studies which be able to give the fundamental and permanent answer to any question about the rationality of Calvin’s theology. Furthermore, because his understanding of human reason is decisive in his theology, it will serve as a key to understand his interpretation of the Scripture and. his whole theological system, as well as later Calvinism whereto Calvin’s view on reason has been implicitly transmitted with his theology.

In his doctoral dissertation published later entitled “John Calvin’s Teaching on Human Reason”, Leroy Nixon concluded his analytical study with the final evaluation that “Contrary to popular opinion, Calvin overemphasized the ability of human reason”, while he “underemphasized the limits of human reason.”[31] This also misses the point, for he did not define or distinguish what kind of reason Calvin was talking about. In my judgment, Calvin has neither over nor under emphasized human reason. Calvin distinguished human reason into two different kinds of reason: “reason of the flesh” and “reason of the redeemed”, “corrupted reason” and “restored reason”, or “carnal reason” and “right reason”. And he rejected the former to take the latter. According to the definition of reason given to the latter, Calvin is a perfect ration­alist and his theology is a model of “rational theology”.

There are some debates, controversies, schisms, and disagreements with­in Calvinism due to the various understanding of Calvin’s view on human reason. Cultural Calvinists carelessly exalt the undefined human reason too high, while biblicistic Calvinists ignorantly despise to use reason for theology and Chri­stian scholarship. Two kinds of reason distinguished by Calvin are not anti­thetical; One is partly functioned and dead unto God and His Word, and the other is fully alive and active. As a redeemed Christian, we are restored to the “image of God” partly lost and confused after the fall. By this study, I hope to throw away any ambiguity or negative feeling to the human reason as well as too optimistic favoritism to it, and thus to use reason in theology properly.

My research will concentrate on Calvin’s main work in this regard, “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”. While I have thoroughly surveyed the Institutes from the first page to the last page, I have found far more than Ford Lewis Battle’s Concordance of the Institutes and Leroy Nixon’s foot­notes have suggested. For the convenience, I made the reference to the Insti­tute in a special form, i.e. not in footnote area but among the texts in the abbreviations like II.vi.23. I intentionally made as many quotations as possible directly from Calvin’s own works so that Calvin could speak for his own view on human reason. This is not a criticism of Calvin’s view on reason, but an attempt to describe it.

This paper consists of four chapters. In the chapter 1 entitled “Man As a Rational Being”, I have tried to introduce Calvin’s anthropology with a special focus on reason. Discussing man either before or after the fall, his anthropology is reason-oriented. In the chapter 2, “Reason’s Incomprehensibi­lity of God” will be discussed. Even to the unfallen reason, the essence of God is incomprehensible. Moreover, the essential difference of man and God makes communication impossible without God’s transactive intermediation of accommodation to the limited man. By this, I aimed at correcting some mysti­cal misconception of the original reason. In the chapter 3 “Corruption and Restoration of Reason”, I will try to show how the totally corrupted reason and will are restored by the Holy Spirit’s regeneration through the Scripture and. giving faith. Finally, in the chapter 4, I will introduce Calvin’s idea of rational theology and his “Use of Reason in Theology”. The redeemed reason is definitely necessary for theology as its main organism. Only in this approach, Calvin’s seemingly contradictory two major motifs, i.e. bibli­cism (sola Scriptura) and rationalism will be able to stand together.

I

Man as a Rational Being

Aristotle first understood man as a “rational animal” and the Stoics followed that idea. Cicero teaches that reason makes men superior to the beasts, and Seneca claims that man is a “reasoning animal”. John Calvin accepts this view of man as a rational being.[32] Rhetorically, Calvin suggests that men are not “irrational creatures” without “the seed of the knowledge of God”.(I. v. 15)

This connection of reason and seed of religion is very significant, because in Calvin these two are inseparably united. God’s providence drives us to contemplate God. “This of necessity happens to all men.”(I. v. 11 ) Whether they will or not, men are compelled to know that these are the “signs of divinity”. All the “seed of divinity” is spread abroad in human nature.(I.vi.1) This is “an awareness of divinity” by natural instinct existing within the human mind. Calvin insists that “To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain un­derstanding of his divine majesty”. He continues, “Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no house­hold, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.” in his judgment, this “seed of religion” differs man from brutes.(I. iii. 1) “It is worship of God alone that renders men higher than the brutes, and through it alone they aspire to immortality”.(I. iii. 3) Reason and religion are the marks of “imago Dei”, and to Calvin religion is essential in human reason.

The Fall brought a great change in man, but man as a rational being is still true. Just as seed of religion is present in all men, Calvin agrees that “no man is without the light of reason”.(II. ii. 13) Reason has an aspect of social order. For “some seed of political order has been implanted in all men”, “no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws”. It is “ample proof” that every man has reason. (II. ii. 13) “To perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability”, Calvin set forth a distinction between “things below” and “things above”, “earthly things” and “heavenly things”.

I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of theHeavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it.(II. ii. 13)

After this distinction, Calvin classified that human reason, even though it because unable to understand the “heavenly things”, still continues to have ability to the “earthly things”. On the other hand, this is evidence to clearly testify to a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in man”. And “because it is bestowed indiscriminately upon pious and impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts.”(II. ii. 14)

Here we come to another distinction of Calvin between the supernatural gifts and natural gifts. Among the former are “faith, love of God, charity toward neighbor, zeal for holiness and for righteousness”, and the latter includes “soundness of mind and uprightness of heart”. Calvin follows the opinion of Augustine “that the natural gifts were corrupted in man through sin, but that his supernatural gifts were stripped from him”. Since reason, therefore, by which man distinguishes between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be completely wiped out, but it was partly weakened and partly corrupted. This shows man “to be a rational being, differing from brute beasts”.(II.ii.12)

The mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and. ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. The Lord left many gifts to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. He asks rhetorically:

Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the savings of madmen?(II.ii.15)

Calvin answers his own question with a definite “No”, because he could not read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without “great admiration”. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, the works of human reason is the grace of the Holy Spirit. Calvin understands “the state­ment that the Spirit of God dwells only in believers (Rom. 8:9) as referring to the Spirit of sanctification”. For the “common good of mankind”, the same Spirit works also in the work and ministry of the ungodly.(II.ii.16) There­fore, Calvin regarded every reasonable and rational activities as the work of the Holy Spirit whether they are believers or not. As Calvin summarized, “We see all mankind that reason is proper to our nature; it distinguishes us from brute beasts”, and reason is “the general grace of God” for if he had not spared us our fall would have entailed the destruction of our whole nature. It is of “some traces of the image of God, which distinguish the entire human race from the other creatures.”(II.ii.17)

Because Calvin said that our reasoning is the work of the Holy Spirit, T. F. Torrance misunderstood about the nature of reason when he says that “Calvin’s view of reason is functional, not substantial. Reason cannot be regarded as a static gift from God, but is maintained in being by God’s Spi­rit in the creatio continua even in sinful man.”[33] Everything in the world is sustained by the Holy Spirit, but it does not mean that everything is not a substance. According to Calvin, a man is composed of body and soul, and soul is constituted of reason and will. Let us closely look at Calvin’s view on the constitution of man as focused on reason.

To be sure, Calvin is absolutely confident in the dichotomy of man: “Furthermore, that man consists of a soul and a body ought to be beyond con­troversy.” He understands by the term “soul” an immortal yet created essence. “Spirit” is its synonym. It is breath, or a force divinely infused into bodies, not but that it nevertheless is not without essence. Calvin asks a question to prove the essence of soul “how could a motion without essence penetrate to God’s judgment seat, and inflict itself with dread. at its own guilt?’ For the body is not affected by the fear of spiritual punishment, which falls upon the soul only, from this it follows that the soul is endowed with essence. Human under­standing surely goes beyond the sense of body. With our intelligence we con­ceive the invisible Cod and the angels, something the body can by no means do. It clearly shows that there lies hidden in man something separate from the body. Calvin finally appeals to the Scripture: “Now, unless the soul were something essential, separate from the body, Scripture would not teach that we dwell in houses of clay(Job 4:19) and at death leave the tabernacle of the flesh, put­ting off what is corruptible”.(I.xv.2) He concluded that “the soul is an incorporeal substance.” (I. xv. 6)

Incomparably, soul is nobler than body. According to Calvin, soul is “divinity in man”(I.v.5), “the divine nature within us”(I.v.6), in short the proper seat of “imago Dei”.(I.xv.3) He objects to the idea that the image of God is in both body and soul, because God is spirit. Also, he clarifies that “nor does reason or intelligence belong to the body merely because man is called a ‘rational animal’.”(I.xv.3) Calvin is Platonic, when he says that “the chief activity of the soul is to aspire thither”.

Almost soul is identified with reason in Calvin. So he says like this: “Hence more anyone endeavors to approach to God, the more he proves himself endowed with reason.”(I.xv.6) He did it, because his view of man is soul-oriented and his view of soul is reason-oriented. “Soul consists of two faculties, understanding and will”, and the activity of soul is decided in the interaction of those two faculties. As Aristotle said, “the mind has no motion in itself, but is moved by choice”. So, the choice of will is de­cisive, but Calvin rather regards understanding “the leader and governor of the soul”.(I.xv.7) When Calvin changes the term “reason as guide” or “the guidance of the reason”, he uses the terms “understanding” and “reason” interchangeably. Therefore, will should obey reason, not the reverse as some volitionistic Calvinists supposed. It is the creation order for body to fo­llow soul, for will to follow reason. As Augustine compared, man’s will is like a horse awaiting its rider’s command.(II.iv.1) If will follows the inclination of his nature, like an animal, not reason, he is following the flesh. (II.ii.26) Therefore, the corrupted will is more problematic than the imper­fect reason.

II

Reason’s Incomprehensibility of God

We may not deny that some mystical superstition about the original ability of man is prevalent among the Christians and theologians. According­ly, the limitations of human ability at the creation tend to be confused with the corrupted limitations due to the sinful fall. Calvin is very clear in this regard without blurring the original ability of human being set up by have God at the creation. Reason is unable to have the direct and perfect understand­ing of God Himself and His will. This is true not only to the corrupted reason, but also to the uncorrupted original reason. Calvin proves this fact through three theories; Incomprehensibility of His essence, Limitedness of revelation, and Need of accommodation. This discussion will help to estimate, clearly and frankly, what we lost by sin and what we could regain after regeneration in the area of human reason. Often we expect too much and are not satisfied with the present recovery.

As a reality, God is God, and man is but a man. Our essential limita­tion due to creation in space and time made us inevitable to draw a bold line between God and man. Though a man was created in the image of God, which makes us possible to personally communicate our feeling, reason and will with God, nevertheless it is limited in its quality and quantity. Our soul is immortal and transcendental, but it is not totally free from its body. Calvin understood that “Indeed, his(God’s) essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception”.(I.v.l) God gave another way to know him. Though man is not enabled to know God directly, “upon his indivi­dual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folks cannot plead the excuse of ignorance.” The most vast and beautiful system and skillful ordering of the universe is for us “a sort of mirror in which we can contemplate God.”(I.v.l)

Therefore, Calvin required all men to seriously and faithfully contemplate in His works: “There is no doubt that the Lord would have us uninterruptedly occupied in this holy meditation; that, while we contemplate in all creatures, as in mir­rors, those immense riches of his wisdom, justice, goodness, and power, we should not merely run over them cursorily, and, so to speak, with a fleeting glance; but we should ponder them at length, turn them over in our minds ser­iously and faithfully, and recollect them repeatedly.”(I.xiv.21) As Leroy Nixon understood, Calvin was quite confident in the ability of reason to de­duce the attributes of God from His works.[34] So, he has ardently encouraged “the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural sciences are intended”. (I.v.2)

Moreover, Calvin’s love and zeal for “the study of humanities” is more fervent and respectful9 because Calvin agrees with some philosophers that man is a “microcosm”. While we can comprehend God by the study of all the far and wide cosmos, another excellent and more fruitful way is to concentrate on man, who is microcosm and the bearer of “imago Dei”. Studies of man’s reason, mind, conscience, sense, behavior, history, relationship, language, and etc. is a beautiful way to understand God and His will for us. Accordingly, Calvinistic tradition has emphasized the importance of’ liberal arts education and develop­ments.

However, whether it is through natural science or liberal arts, our knowledge of God and His will is mediate and reflective. We are limited in space and time, but God is spiritual and transcendental. This incomprehensi­bility of God in a direct and real way is due to the ontological limitation of our being. Until our being is transformed to conform the eternity, it is our destiny that human reason could not comprehend God face to face, and. it has been decided when God created man in this world.

Even as an indirect knowledge, we can’t comprehend all of God and His will. Man is allowed to know only as far as God revealed Himself and His will in nature and the Scripture. This limitedness of revelation is another reason why human reason was limited at the original endowment. Even Adam could not know everything of God except what God taught him. God’s revelation in nature is general and. limited, even though it is enough to close any manes mouth to excuse his ignorance of God. Calvin understands the Scripture also as limited revelation, when he says that “For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know.”(III.xxi.3) Accordingly, Calvin regulated “the theologian’s task” as “not to speak, guess, or even to seek to know, concerning obscure matters anything except what has been impart­ed to us by God Word” but, ”satisfied” with the revelation in the Scripture, to study only within the given revelation.(I.xiv.4)

The divine providence “far surpasses our understanding”. “Why he so willed, it is not for our reason to inquire, for we cannot comprehend it.” (III.xxiii.5) Also, human reason “do not observe to what end the Lord in­structed. his people to pray”.(III.xx.3) Our mental capacity is limited to God’s way transcending our reason: “But even though his will is one and simple in him, it appears manifold to us because, on account of our mental incapacity, we do not grasp how in diverse ways it wills and does not will something to take place.” (I.xviii.3) In a wonderful and ineffable manner nothing is done without God’s will, not even that which is against his will, but our reason can hardly comprehend “how in acting through them(Satan and all the wicked to his will) he does not contract some defilement from their transgression, and even in a common undertaking can be free of all blame, and indeed can justly blame his ministers”.(I.xviii.l) Therefore, we may not indulge ourselves in curiosity about what God did not reveal for us.(I. xiv.4) Such an “empty speculation” is, according to Calvin, stupid, unpro­fitable, illegal and therefore punishable. For “it is not lawful for mortal man to intrude upon the secrets of God”(III.xxi.3), “it is right for the stupidity of human understanding to be thus punished with dreadful ruin when man tries by his own strength to rise to the height of divine wisdom”.(III. xxiv. 4)

Not only the revelation in the Scripture is limited and. mediate, but also it is accommodated to the human reason. Therefore, even our knowledge of God and His will from the Scripture is not its original bare knowledge. The epistemological accommodation of God presupposes our reason’s incomprehen­sibility of God in a direct and perfect way. Calvin’s so-called “accommodation theory” is well expounded by Joseph Haroutunian in his introduction to “Calvin’s Commentaries (LCC :XXIII)”:

…the language of the Spirit is the language of human beings... (and is) spoken not in an alien tongue with an alien logic but in the familiar tongue of man with its common logic.[35]

God “accommodates the knowledge of him to our slight capacity”(I.xiii.l), and the Spirit “accommodates the utterance to the measure of our understanding”. (III.xxiv.9)

Expressions of some sort “have been accommodated to our capacity that we may better understand how miserable and ruinous our condition is apart from Christ”.(II.xvi.2) The Holy Spirit “describes God for us in human terms”. “For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the descrip­tion of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it.” Calvin clarifies that the image of God in the manner of accommodation is not the reality of God itself but a seemingness of God to us, when he says that ”Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us”.(I.xvii.13) Sometimes, i.e. “repentance”, accommodation is expressional but in general all the words of the Scripture are the accommodated languages of the spiritual and languageless God for “matching the measure of our comprehension”.(I.xiv.8) The necessity of accommodation is imperative between different species of being, and then inevitably their communication is limited and imperfect.

III

Corruption and Restoration of Reason

In Calvin, “we cannot have a clear and complete knowledge of God unless it is accompanied by a corresponding knowledge of ourselves”. The knowledge of man “is twofold: namely, to know what we were like when we were first created and what on condition became after the fall of Adam”. Of those two, “unless we recognized in this sad ruin what our nature in its corruption and deformity is like”, it would be of little benefit to under-j stand ourselves.(I.xv.1) If we look at “only of our good traits”, Calvin thinks that it “will not advance in self-knowledge, but will be plunged into the worst ignorance”.(II.i.2) For the knowledge of God and ourselves are inseparably interrelated, until we accept the miserable reality of ourselves, we can have neither the knowledge of God nor of ourselves.(I.i.1-2)

To understand Calvin’s doctrine of man, his doctrine of original sin and total depravity are decisive. Adam, when he lost the gifts received, lost them “not only for himself but for us all”.(II.i.7) Rejecting Pelagianism “that Adam sinned only to his own loss without harming his posterity”, Calvin insists that “it is not unreasonable if it is spread to all his off­spring”, since “the curse, which goes about through all the regions of the world, flowed hither and yon from Adam’s guilt”. “After the heavenly image was obliterated in him, he was not the only one to suffer this punishment -that in place of wisdom, virtue, holiness, truth, and justice, with which adornments he had been clad, there came forth the most filthy plagues, blind­ness, impotence, impurity, vanity, and injustice - but he also be entangled and immersed his offspring in the same miseries.” This is the inherited corruption, which the church fathers termed “original sin”, meaning by the word “sin” the depravation of a nature previously good and pure.(II.i.5) Even though this hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature is coming clown from our ancestors “just as a burning furnace gives forth flame and sparks, or water ceaselessly bubbles up from a spring”, the guilt through it is ours “For that reason, even infants themselves, while they carry their condemnation along with them from the mother’s womb, are guilty not of another’s fault but of their own”.(II.i.8)

However, more controversial argument is how far and how much man is corrupted by the original sin. Calvin’s answer is rather radical: it “dif­fused into all parts of the soul”. “We are so vitiated and perverted in every part of our nature that by this great corruption we stand justly condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity.”(II.e.8) When Calvin criticized the “half-alive” theory(II.v.19), it was an attack to Thomas Aquinas. As Nicholas Wolterstorff compares, Calvin “held that sin had affected all our capacities, in­cluding our reason, so that we were totally depraved”, while Aquinas “in­sisted that sin had not affected man’s reason as such for it has not affected our natural capacities”.[36] Calvin severely criticized “all ecclesiastical writers except Augustine” for their ambiguous position and double-talk ‘wandering between total depravity and human ability.(II.ii.9)

Even though “All ecclesiastical writers have recognized both that the soundness of reason in man is gravely wounded through sin, and that the will has been very much enslaved by evil desires, Calvin was dissatisfied with some of them for “Despite this, many of them have come far too close to the philosophers” and “strove to harmonize the doctrine of Scripture half-way with the beliefs of the philosophers”.(II.ii.4) Due to them including Duns Scotus, “man was commonly thought to be corrupted only in his sensual part and to have a perfectly unblemished reason and a will also largely unimpaired”.(idem):

Thus it is pointless and foolish to restrict the corruption that arises thence only to what are called the impulses of the senses; or to call it the “kindling wood” that attracts, arouses, and drags into sin only that part which they term “sensuality”. In this matter Peter Lombard has bet­rayed his complete ignorance. For, in seeking and searching out its seat, he says that it lies in the flesh, as Paul testifies; yet not intrinsically, but because it appears more in the flesh... Paul removes all doubt when he teaches that corruption subsists not in one part only, but that none of the soul remains pure or untouched by that mortal disease. For in his discus­sion of a corrupt nature Paul not only condemns the inordinate impulses of the appetites that are seen, but especially contends the mind is given to blindness and the heart to depravity.(II.i.9)

Calvin exclaims, “What could men’s mind produce but all carnal and fatuous things?”(IV.x.24) Now, we are “deprived of all credit for our wisdom and virtue”(II.ii.l) According to him, not only will and sensuality but also reason and understanding were totally corrupted. We have fallen from our original condition where we have been endowed with reason and understanding. (II.i.1) Our reason is overwhelmed by so many forms of deceptions, is sub­ject to so many errors, dashes against so many obstacles, is caught in so many difficulties, that it is far from directing us aright. For human reason “which we count the most precious gift of all”, Calvin is radically named “empty reason”.(II.ii.25)

However, it may be better to understand such a radical expression as “rhe­torical”. “Is our diligence, insight, understanding, and carefulness so com­pletely corrupted that we can devise or prepare nothing right in God’s eyes?” (Idem) Rather, absolute inability of human reason is limited in the area of the knowledge of God and His will. Calvin analyzed “what human reason can discern with regard to God’s Kingdom and. to spiritual insight”. According to him, “this spiritual insight consists chiefly in three things: (1) knowing God; (2) knowing his fatherly favor in our behalf, in which our salvation consists; (3) knowing how to frame our life according to the rule of his law”. In the first two points - and especially in the second, Calvin is cynically negative, “the greatest geniuses are blinder than moles”. He concludes that “Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wishes to be toward us”.(II.ii.18) It is that “we lack the natural ability to mount up unto the pure and clear knowledge of God.”(I.v.15) For Calvin, man ought to proceed from knowledge of a god to knowledge of God, but cannot because of the noetic effects of sin.[37] We have “utterly died as far as the blessed life is concerned”.(II. v.19) As we have discussed in chapter 1,our reason has a considerable ability enough to achieve in the “things below” or “natural things”. Accordingly, Calvin’s severe criticism on human reason that makes us not to suggest any ability of reason is mostly rhetorical and emphatical. Calvin’s true mind is a true estimation of our ability, no more and no less: “Why do we presume so much on ability of human nature? It is wounded, battered, troubled, and lost. What we need is true confession, not false defense”. Therefore, to be realistic is for Calvin to be humble, when he emphasized humility rhetorically: “if you ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, first, second, third, and always I would answer, ‘Humility’.”(II.ii.ll)

The corruption of reason is apparently proven by Calvin in five aspects: simplicity, diversity, privacy, independency, and immorality. First, reason is limited to understand only the simple and. became a slave of logic. God and the truth is rather complexive and interrelated, sometimes paradoxical. But the corrupted reason cannot comprehend the truth beyond simple logic. Calvin pointed out that our reason “forbids us to transfer the peculiar qualities of the one to the other”.(III.xi.6) Whoever said that, or whatever the truth is, the corrupted reason does not subscribe what logic could not comprehend. Accordingly, it rejects any paradox or mystery.

Second, our corrupted reason can hardly achieve the unity of conclu­sion. Diversity is an. ample proof that reason cannot be our guide. Not only “the rude and untutored crowd”, but also “the philosophers who have tried with reason and learning to penetrate into heaven, how shameful is the diver­sity!” Corrupted reason makes diversity of answers, all of which are reason­able and logical. As far as “men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear cut”, but gives only “this very confused diversity”.(I.v.12) Calvin is emphatic upon “the fact that that motion of reason has been perverted, so that now reason is at variance with itself”, and its whole procedure proves how unfit it is to seek the truth and find it. (II.,ii.12)[38] There is “nothing firm” in our reasonings.(I.xv.6)

Third, the corrupted reason is selfish and misuses it for one’s private justification. All mortals “became vain in their reasonings”(Rom. 1:21), for everybody reasons according to their own authority, judgment, tradition or “their own way”.(I.v.13-14) Calvin agrees with “Themistius’ rule” that “the intellect is very rarely deceived in general definition or in the essence of the thing; but that it is illusory when it goes farther, that is, applies the principle to particular cases.” In example, “every man will affirm that murder is evil. But he who is plotting the death of an enemy contemplates murder as something good. The adulterer will condemn adultery in general, but will privately flatter himself in his own adultery.” As a matter of fact, “when he comes to a particular case, he forgets the general principle” and try to reasonably justify his own case.(II.ii.23)

Fourth, our corrupted reason does not depend on God and rather inde­pendently judges God and His will according to the standard of the corrupted reason in pride and imprudence. As said before, reason and religion is in­separable in the image of God, but the corrupted reason proclaims its inde­pendence from piety, religion or worship of God. This organic imbalance proves its problem to be against its Giver within limits. “For they(”the dogs”) wish nothing to be lawful for God beyond what their own reason pre­scribes for themselves.”(I.xvii.2) Calvin criticized those who reject God’s election and reprobation “by men’s authority” or men’s judgment of equality, which they think more objective and dependable.(III.xxii.1) For as Augustine truly contends, they who measure divine justice by the standard of human justice are acting perversely enough to be called “pigs and dogs”.(III.xxiv.17)

Fifth, the morality of corrupted reason does not comprehend “love” as its major principle, and further develops an immoral ethics conformable to the flesh. As Paul testified in Rom. 2:l4-15, “There is nothing more com­mon than for a man to be sufficiently instructed in a right standard of con­duct by natural law”: of conscience.(II.ii.22) However, “if we want to measure our reason by God’s law, the pattern of perfect righteousness, we shall find in how many respects it is blinds Surely it does not at all comply with the principal points of the First Table” and the principal principle of divine morality, i.e. love. “And this is the common judgment of human reason: the mark of a servile and abject person is to bear it with patience; that of an honorable and free born man to shake it off. Nor do the philosophers consider the avenging of injuries to be a vice”.(II.ii.24) With both Tables of the Law and all the teachings of the Scripture, God “commands us to put off our nature and to deny whatever our reason and will dictate”, even though “nothing is more difficult than, having bidden farewell to the reason of the flesh and having bridled our desires - nay, having put them away - to devote ourselves to God and our brethren”.(III.vii.3)

Now, we are alienated from “right reason and will”(II.v.19) and our reason lost its original rectitude.[39] Man’s mind, full as it is of pride and boldness(I.xi.8), needs to be humiliated. And the corrupted reason making confusion and immorality, became to request “faith and authority” as its an­chor. As a result, “some are not at all convinced by reasons but always require authority”.(IV.x.26) And where faith is suspect, where authority is despised, there is little progress only by reasoning even among the teachable. So, in restoring our reason, the Holy Spirit gives us faith in God and His will written in the Scriptures. Restoration of reason is possible in Christ, and we regain what we lost. In God, “each of us may recover those good things which we have utterly and completely lost.”(II.i.l)

Calvin believes in the perfect restoration of our corrupted nature, and its renewal is of soul consisting reason and will. In the restoration “which we obtain through Christ”, he restores us “to true and complete integri­ty”.(I.xv.4) Just as man was totally depraved, for Calvin its restoration and renewal must be total and perfect. “Now the soul is not reborn if merely a part of it is reformed, but only when it is wholly renewed “(II.iii.1) He reasons that our regeneration should begin with that of our reason for it is the highest part of our soul representing the image of God for which restoration is oriented.

In the first place he(Paul) posits knowledge, then....From this we infer that, to begin with; God’s image was visible in the light of the mind, in the uprightness of the heart, and in the soundness of all the parts. For although I confess that these forms of speaking are synecdoches, yet this principle cannot be overthrown, that what was primary in the renewing of God’s image also held the highest place in the creation itself.(I.xv.4)

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to apply the redemption achieved by Christ to us and restores our soul to the original “imago Dei”. “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and. done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us”, and it is by the Holy Spirit that “we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits” for “the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself”.(III.i.l) For “man’s understanding is pierced by a heavy spear when all the thoughts that proceed from him are mocked as stupid, frivolous, insane, and perverse”(II.iii.l), it needs to be healed by the grace of God. Without divine grace and favor, the mind of man must ever remain “a mere chaos of confusion”.(II.ii.18) “Accordingly, whatever good things are in us are the fruits of his grace; and without him our gifts are darkness of mind and perversity of heart.”(III.i.3)

For the restoration of soul, the Holy Spirit gives “faith”. Because of the corruption of nature, we cannot have faith by nature, the spirit of faith. So, without the Spirit man is incapable of faith. For “far indeed is the mind of man, blind and darkened as it is, from penetrating and attain­ing even to perception of the will of God” and. “the heart, too, wavering as it is in perpetual hesitation, is far from resting secure in that conviction”, our mind must be otherwise illumined and our heart strengthened, that the Word of God may obtain fall faith among us. So, Calvin gives us “a right definition of faith” as “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit”. (III.ii.7) Accordingly, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Word can do nothing.(III.ii.33) The man who depends upon the light of nature comprehends nothing of God’s mysteries(II.ii.20). Deploring “how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure”, Calvin teaches us: “What, then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.”(IV.xvii.l0)

Faith is “the spirit of understanding”.(II.xii.5) Though faith is a matter of the heart rather than the mind(III.ii.36), “understanding is joined with faith”.(III..ii.3) This endowed “light of understanding” at the regener­ation (III.ix.5) is crucial to the Christian reason, for without this “under­standing heart” no teaching, exhortation or reproof is able to change mind.(II.v.4) It will heal our “defect of understanding” caused by the apostasy from God. (II.iii.2) “Until human reason is subjected to the obedience of faith”, we cannot understand the creation of the world by God (I.xiv.2), but “by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God (Heb. 11:3).”(I.xvi.l) Thus, the redeemed reason of faith understands every truth in the Word of God. The reason does not contradict with the Word, but rather delights with the Truth because it is the believing reason restored by the Holy Spirit. Faith is the precondition for the right reasoning(III.ii.6), and therefore Wolterstorff is right when he classified Calvin as a “precon­ditionalist” in the view of the relation of faith and reason, together with Augustine whose maxim is “credo ut intelligam”. “Faith is seen as a condition for arriving at a fully comprehensive, coherent, consistent, and true body of theories in the sciences.”[40] Therefore, faith does not need “rational proof”.(III.ii.14)

Faith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge.(III.ii.2) Faith rests upon the knowledge of Christ(III.ii.8), and it is specifically on the Scripture. Therefore, the redeemed reason depends on the Holy Scripture rather than reason itself .(II.ii.19) “Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read dis­tinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the other confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.” (I.vi.1) As a “special gift”, God gave us aid of the Scripture, and “un­less Scripture guides us in seeking God, we are immediately confused.”(I.xiv.1) The Scripture, therefore, is the guide and authority to the reason, which does not fully and rightly function without faith. This connection achieves “only one kind of faith” as Scripture teaches.(III.ii.9)

Calvin agrees with Augustine that when God. restores our soul it means to create “new reason” as well as “new will”.(II.v.15) As regeneration pre­supposes death of ourselves on the cross with Christ, the restoration of our reason pre-requires to give up our corrupted reason and unite with the reason of God. Calvin declares, “We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds....Conversely, we are God’s....let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions.”(III.vii.l) What is the dif­ference between the corrupted reason and the redeemed reason, and their philo­sophies, logics and. rationalities? Calvin gives us a very clear distinction: “they (unbelieving philosophers) set up reason alone as the ruling principle in man, and think that it alone should be listened to; to it alone”, “But the Christian philosophy bids reason give way to, submit and subject itself to, the Holy Spirit so that the man himself may no longer lie but bear Christ living and reigning with him”.(idem) The restored reason is inseparably united with religion, piety or the worship of God, for both were originally set up together in the image of God.

IV

The Use of Reason in Theology

Throughout his life, Calvin followed his distinctive idea of theology that theology must be pious, experiential, and rational. Lamenting the whole world of theology gripped by the brute stupidity of proud speculation and im­pious falsehood(I.xi.1), Calvin insisted that “the knowledge of God does not rest in cold speculation, but carries with it the honoring of him”.(I.xii.l) Piety is requisite for the knowledge of God. God is not known where there is no religion or piety which is “reverence joined with love of God”. All the right knowledge of God is born of obedience(I.vi.2), and the true piety of a theologian is the full submission to the Word of God. So, Calvin suggests the sole way of right theology: “no one can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture”.(idem)

And what the pious mind perceives is the “practical knowledge” which is doubtless more certain and firmer than any idle speculation. (I.xiii.13) The true knowledge of God is an “experience” of Christ in the life. (I. ii.1-2) A true theology is “a doctrine not of the tongue but of life”. It is not apprehended by the understanding and memory alone, as other disciplines are, but it is received only when it possesses the whole soul.(III.vii.4) That is what Doumergue meant when he characterized Calvin’s theology as a logic of life: “While there is a logic of concepts, there is also a logic of life, of reality.”[41]

Quirinus Breen explained why theology should be rational: “when we theologize we discourse rationally about the faith. We do this because we are rational… we have no choice.”[42] The same author, in another article, introduced the view of the contemporary humanists including John Calvin on similarity of philosophy and theology as follows:

Speaking broadly, philosophy is the love of wisdom, and theology is the love of a revealed religion. Just as philosophy is an intellectual love of wisdom, so theology is an intellectual love of a revealed religion. A crucial fact is that philosophy is not the wisdom itself, and that theo­logy is not the revealed religion itself. Philosophy is a discourse about a revealed religion, in both it is an intellectual discourse. . . .The dif­ference... is a difference of addition... to human wisdom’s belief that the only source of all knowledge is human reason, there was added that the most important source is divine revelation... Theology was added to phil­osophy. Through this incarnation theology took on the form of philosophy. Therefore the style of philosophy is also the style of theology... what is the proper style of theological and philosophical discourse? Ideally it is syllogistic, or geometric.[43]

Calvin had the idea of “rational theology”. Theology is “a most beau­tiful dispensation, and one much more certain than all the philosophical ones”. (III.vi.1) He was proud of his highly systematic and rational theology, when he said, “Now, let these persons who think that moral philosophy is duly and systematically set forth solely among philosophers find me among the philoso­phers a more excellent dispensation!’(III.vi.3) According to Donald T. Williams, Calvin was certainly interested in communicating and would have agreed with his contemporary Lorenzo Valla, who said; “Some people deny that Theology is subject to the rules of grammar, but I say that theologians ought to obey the rules of a language, whether written or spoken. In fact what is more stupid than to corrupt the language you use and make yourself unintelligible to those whom you are addressing”.[44]

If theology intends communication, it should be discoursed by common language and common logic understandable to whom to communicate. Of course, theology is a study of faith, but it requires communicability just like other disciplines. In a word, it must be reasonable and rational. Theology trans­cends the natural reason, but it may not violate it. Only the redeemed reason accepts the Scripture as the true foundation and source of theology, but upon it theology needs to be persuasive even to the natural reason. Calvin used a deductive methodology “to assemble from various passages of Scripture” a doctrine or pattern of life.(III.vi.1) As Higman correctly pointed out, Calvin used reason not for exploration but only for explanation.[45]

Now, let us analyze how Calvin used reason in theology. Calvin’s rational theology begins with the concept of the Scripture as rational. He understood that the Scripture is full of “reasonings”: God is reasoning, Jesus is reasoning, Paul is reasoning and every authors are reasoning. (II.iii. 1/III.xxiv.16/II.iii.2 et al) So, the whole Scripture is rational, even though some of them are not comprehensible to the carnal reason. In interpreting the Scripture, as a man of letters he subjected the Scripture under the liter­ary criticism not with irreverence but to understand its exact meaning. It is evidenced by his zeal to restore the true text of Scripture, his respect­ful mention of the critical works of Valla and Erasmus, and his hermeneutical principle to understand the Scripture as real messages to actual historical situations, rather than take-off points for fanciful allegoresis. Eschewing the traditional method of searching for hidden “deeper” meanings, Calvin “affirmed and carried out the sound and hermeneutical principle that the Biblical authors, like all sensible writers, wished to convey to their readers one definite thought in words which they could understand”. Schaff therefore calls him “the founder of modern grammatico-historical exegesis”.[46] Calvin has sought its reasonable interpretation, i.e. contextual exegesis, and been angry with its unreasonable interpretation: “But we must not allow Christ’s enemies to twist Scripture into an alien meaning to defend their evil case.” (IV.viii.11)

Calvin used logic of natural reason to construct his theology by de­duction, analysis and synthesis and argument of the Scripture, and also he appealed to the natural and universal reason to attack false doctrines and theology. Mainly, this use was to attack their formal illogicality or irra­tionality by appealing to “sound reason”, “plain reason” or “common sense”, but sometimes Calvin used this method to prove the irrationality of the false doctrine itself. In example, in the preface of his first theological trea­tise called “Psychopannychia”(1534), Calvin criticized that the doctrine of soul-sleeping during the intermediate state is “unsupported by reason and judgment”.[47] Generally, Calvin used the natural reason to criticize the logi­cal irrationality of false doctrines in four ways: false generalization, re­versed order, contradiction, and dimensional confusion.

First, Calvin pointed out false reasoning to generalize the particular. In criticism to Servetus, Calvin pointed out his irrationality “to apply to all equality what is said of a certain number is unreasonable”, as well as “false reasoning to apply to infants what was said concerning adults alone”.(IV.xvii.31) Rejecting Peter as the chief of church, he criticized making “a universal rule out of a particular example”. “If one man was over twelve men, does it follow from this that one ought to be put over a hundred thousand men?” asked he. Further, he rejects any general interpretation to the particular instan­ce in the Scripture.(IV.xiii.13) On the other hand, he “permitted to reason from the general to the particular”.(IV.xvii.21)

Second, Calvin pointed out illogical reasoning of reversed order. In defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he criticized that his opponents “stupidly reason from reward to merit” because they assumed men’s merit when God promised reward.(III.xvi.2)

Third, Calvin rejected false doctrines on the basis of their self­-contradiction. Disagreeing with the absolute truth of all the councils’ deci­sions, Calvin attacked the problem of “councils against councils”, in example, the Council of Constantinople, convened under Emperor Leo, decided that images set up in churches should be pulled down and smashed. A little later, the Council of Nicaea, which the Emperor Irene, in hatred toward the first council, assembled, decreed the restoration of images. Calvin cynically asks: “Need I then recount how councils disagreed with councils?” His opinion is that “of the two that disagree one is not legitimate”. He determined from Scrip­ture, the only sure principle on which to distinguish, which one’s decree is not orthodox.(IV.ix.9) As a conclusion, Calvin denied “it to be always the case that an interpretation of Scripture adopted by vote of a council is true and certain”.(Iv.ix,13) Also, concerning the Romanist doctrine of ubiquity of Christ’s body, Calvin pointed out, “Surely the coming of the Spirit and the ascent of Christ are antithetical; consequently, Christ cannot dwell with us according to the flesh in the same way that he sends his Spirit”.(IV.xvii.26) Because Christ was truly raised and “it is the true nature of a body to be contained in space, to have its own dimensions and its own shape”(IV.xvii.29), Calvin is sure that rationally “by his ascension into heaven he made it plain that it is not in all places, but when it passes into one, it leaves the pre­vious one”.(Iv.xvii.30) As another example, Calvin criticized those who re­ject infant baptism on the basis that circumcision and baptism are essentially different, by attacking their contradictory reasoning: “Moreover, the differences... are not only ridiculous and devoid of all semblance of reason but mutually contradictory”.(IV.xvi.16)

Fourth, Calvin divided physical dimension and spiritual dimension in reasoning. On this logical division, Calvin makes it foolish to suppose some place for the souls in the intermediate state. “Concerning the place, it is no less foolish and futile to inquire, since we know that the soul does not have the same dimension as the body”.(III.xxv.6) In general, “For as Christ’s whole kingdom is spiritual, whatever he does with his church must not be sub­jected to reason of this world”.(IV.xvii.32) Further, he did not agree that the spiritual callings might be subjected under “the judgment of human and. philosophical reason”.(III.xi.6) As a rule, Calvin transcended his reasoning as far as spirits or spiritual things are concerned.

Calvin’s appeal to common sense or sound reason consists of a great part in Calvin’s theology. He criticized all of his theological opponents as “a foolish reasoner”(III.xviii.l0), who “unbecomingly and absurdly reason”. (III.xx.26) To Calvin’s eye, they were too foolish and unintelligent. In criticizing the medieval monasticism, Calvin believed that “intelligent readers may judge by comparison the shamelessness of those who claim antiquity to support present monasticism”.(IV.xiii.l0) He despised a crooked argument: “And it is wonderful how unconcernedly they fabricate principles that no one of sound mind will admit!”(III.iv.18) A man of sound mind and sound judgment makes a beautiful argument with a reasonable syllogism.(III.xviii.8) “To bind Christ, the Spirit, and the church to a place, so that whoever may rule there, even if he be a devil, is still considered the vicar of Christ and head of the church because it was once Peter’s see”, Calvin contends, “this, I say, is not only impious and insulting to Christ, but extremely absurd and alien to common sense! “(IV.vii.29)

While true theology does not violate human reason, false theology always conflicts with reason. “Surely everything there is so unlike, indeed, so alien to, Christ’s institution, has so degenerated from the ancient ordi­nances and customs of the church, and so conflicts with nature and reason”. (IV.v.13) Concerning the layman’s baptism of those in danger of death, Calvin does not see “how this can be defended with sound reasoning”.(IV.xv.20) Against the Romanist’s subtle reasoning that either one, i.e. bread or wine, is enough for two, Calvin vigorously criticized their irrationality: “The boldness of man’s reason cries out to the contrary that bread is blood, wine is body - as if the Lord had no reason to distinguish his body from his blood”. (IV.xvii.47)

Even though he utilized the full use of the critical function of na­tural reason, Calvin had never thought theology as a discipline of natural reason. Theological reason must be the redeemed reason in piety and humility. The natural reason is unable to theologize the Christian faith in the Scripture. Therefore, Calvin could criticize some theologians who were doing theology irrationally in the sense of the redeemed reason. To be theologically rational, Calvin regarded, one must reason from the beliefs like the unity of the Scripture, the divinity of Christ, the incomprehensibility of God’s will, and the power of God.

First, Calvin starts his reasoning from the belief in the unity of the Scriptures. It is prerequisite for true theology of piety and humility to believe the Scriptures as the work of One Author, the Holy Spirit, without reducing human authors’ diverse distinctiveness. His view on the inspiration of the Scripture as organic, plenary and verbal is basic to his theological reasoning. This concept of biblical unity made his idea of “rational theology” possible. According to Leroy Nixon, Calvin’s exegetical methodology to har­monize the Gospels was a rational approach.[48] Moreover, Calvin felt no problem in some seemingly antithetical concepts in the Scriptures, for he believed that all the individual notions in the Scriptures have inner unity and there­fore they can be reasonably reconciled: “I have elsewhere explained how Scrip­ture reconciles the two notions that all are called to repentance and faith by outward preaching, yet that the spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all”. (III.xxii.10)

Second, Calvin based all of his theological reasoning upon the belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Any attempt of theology without Christ is not reasonable according to the redeemed reason. “If what Christ says is true—‘No one sees the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’(Matt. 11:27)”, Calvin reasons, “Surely they who would attain the knowledge of God should always be directed by that eternal Wisdom”.(IV.viii.5)

Third, Calvin thought that it is rational to believe in the incompre­hensibility and omnipotence of God. If we contend against the rationality of God’s will or the possibility of God’s power, we are utterly irrational. When the Roman Catholic Church denied the symbol of the blood to lay and profane persons against the edict of the eternal God that all should drink, Calvin re­gretted such lawgivers who “irrationally contend against their God”: “they pretend perils that could occur if this sacred cup were commonly offered to all, as if those perils had not been foreseen and considered by God’s eternal wisdom!”(IV.xvii.47) Furthermore, it is not reasonable that God’s ability is limited. Therefore, such an irrational truth to the natural reason like crea­tion, revelation, mysteries, miracles, incarnation or resurrection etc. is perfectly rational to the redeemed reason. However, he did not recognize any mystical theology “beyond the meaning of language, above the reach of sense, above the capacity of understanding.” (I.xiii.5)

Conclusion

As generally recognized, John Calvin included several sets of seem­ingly contradictory doctrines in his theological system. One of them is the doctrine of total depravity and the doctrine of imago Dei. Two sides of his followers came to exist within the camp of Calvinism, when they simply empha­sized one of those two seemingly contradictory doctrines without understanding both of them.

As Kent D. Lawrence pointed out, an one-sided Calvinism, exclusively dogmatized by the doctrine of total depravity, has developed “rejectionism” to the human ability in general, which resulted “a devaluation of man.”[49] This regrettable perspective, with a great doubt and disbelief on human rea­son, has produced a dichotomous and mystical view of true knowledge. On the other hand, the other-sided Calvinism, blindly focused on the doctrine of imago Dei, gradually became to consent on the possibility of natural theology and thus to reject the corruption of reason like one of the Thomists. This kind of extreme minds like to ask whether Calvin was rational or irrational, without first asking what Calvin meant by the term “reason”.

However, neither represents Calvin’s true integrity because either did not distinguish human reason as Calvin did, i.e. the redeemed reason from the natural reason. Therefore, Harvie M. Conn was right when he recognized that Calvin did not discuss human reason in general.[50] In the introduction, we raised a question how we can reconcile two extreme understanding of Calvin’s rationality and systematic unity. And to solve the question, this paper has tried to thoroughly examine all the texts of John Calvin in his Institutes concerning his view on human reason. In the four chapters respectively, I attem­pted to prove that (i) Calvin understood “man as a rational being” regardless of fall or corruption, and his theological anthropology was reason-oriented. (ii) Calvin recognized the essential limitedness of original human reason at the creation, and thus demanded reason’s humility and dependency upon the divine revelation. (iii) Calvin demonstrated the corruption of human reason and convinced its perfect restoration to the original condition, which happens with the re-unity of reason and faith given by the Holy Spirit at the regener­ation. (iv) Calvin established his theology according to his idea of “rational theology” by the full use of both natural and redeemed reason. Now, I like to conclude it with discussing Calvin’s two great contributions to the Chri­stian use of human reason and answering all the previously raised questions therein.

First, Calvin presented a best biblical relationship between reason and faith. T. H. L. Parker regarded this “even closer connection” beyond the previous “credo ut intelligam” tradition as a distinctive contribution of Calvin.[51] Calvin understood reason in the context of creation, God, and piety. Human reason is a created organ for communication of truth. It is passive, formative, and functional. Its creatureliness implies that it was created not to produce truth independently but to communicate the revealed truth of God. This limitation is not due to the fall or corruption. It is the original formulation of God at creation as well as its ontological necessity. In this sense, Calvin attempted to humiliate and “humanize”[52] reason and theology. Reason is right when it is humble as a mere creature in the presence of its Creator and His revelation.

Moreover, Calvin’s doctrine of imago Dei opened a very healthy way to keep good relationship between reason and faith, for imago Dei has two representations, which are reason and faith (Here, faith includes such as piety, religion or worship of God etc.). Without one of them, imago Dei is defective. However, we can’t lose reason because it is substantial and foundational, while we may lose faith. When they are separated, our reason becomes corrupted, confused, and blind to the “things above”. However, when it is reunited with faith, it be­comes “the redeemed reason” to be able to receive the divine revelation. This relational view of human reason in imago Del is the hallmark of Calvin’s view of human reason.

The separation of faith from reason happens when we have sinned and separated from God. Because our reason is now corrupted and unable to the “things above”, the re-unity with faith must come from outside of reason. Faith is an acceptance or commitment, which requires no reason or evidence.[53] Natural reason “cannot be a criterion for judging religious truth, nor can it be an instrument for the discovery of religious truth.”[54] Faith is given by the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is pre-rational and trans-rational. Calvin totally excludes any working of reason in the process of revelation giving faith. By this, Calvin rejects any idea of natural theo1ogy.

In Calvin’s system of thought, the Scripture and the right reason do never contradict each other for both are given by the same God. However, it does not mean that we may subject the Scripture under the reason Even the redeemed reason does not create truth or fact but only explains them in a reasonable and understandable way. The redeemed reason accepts the Scrip­ture as truth by faith. The necessary proof in this accepting process is not “rational proof” but the irresistible testimony of the Spirit which each believer experiences within himself. It is “the highest proof of Scripture”, and “the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason.”(I.vii.4) Such is a persuasion and “a conviction that requires no reasons: such a knowledge with which the best reason agrees.”(I.vii.5) Therefore, “it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning.”(idem.) In this sense, Calvin is negative to the possibility of natural theology. He wisely pointed out as follows: “But those who wish to prove to unbelievers that Scripture is the Word of God are acting foolishly, for only by faith (sola fide) can this be known.”(I.viii.13)

Accordingly, Calvin does not recognize any “product” of reason. Reason serves fact and reality which is already there in regardless of rea­son’s contribution. In this context, we may understand Leroy Nixon’s conclusion that “Calvin did grant to human intellect some limited analytical ability”, but “Calvin did not ascribe to unaided human reason any ability to synthesize, such as Kant assumed in his Critique of Pure Reason.[55] Partee agrees with him: “In summary, then, Calvin gives a positive evaluation to reason, not in its speculative endeavors, but in its humble search for connections. Reason may be used but not exalted”.[56] As Robert H. Ayers expressed, reason is “an indispensable servant of faith”.[57]

Thus, Calvin’s realism is a kind of factualism. A fact needs no proof (III.xi.5), not because it is unreasonable but because it precedes and. thus transcends reason. The Scripture never lack reason, and therefore “so far as human reason goes, sufficiently firm proofs are at hand to establish the cre­dibility of Scripture.”(I.viii.title) However, without the work of the Spirit no corrupted reason receives it as credible and sure. Accordingly, Calvin recommends a rational proof only as secondary or complementary purpose: “Indeed, these human testimonies which exist to confirm it will not be vain if, as secondary aids to our feebleness, they follow that chief and highest test­imony.”(I.viii.13) Syllogism does not produce any new truth (III.xx.1, IV.xvii. 35), and in the mysteries of faith common sense is not our advisor.(IV.xvii.25)

Seconds Calvin emphasized the unity of any truth, for all the truth have only one source: God who is the Truth. He did not divide holy truth from secular truth. He distinguished the natural reason from the redeemed reason but f or the positive purpose, which was to save reason’s ability in the “things below”. And those two reasons do not exclude each other but rather share “common” part as the following chart shows.

Moreover, by regarding natural reason as the work of the Holy Spirit, Calvin rejected any wall to the secular knowledge. Calvin’s sanctified view is con­sistent with the Scripture, where all the truth has the divine origin whether it is spiritual or natural truth. It is the clear rejection of any dichotomy in human knowledge of truth. Accordingly, Calvin recognized inseparable unity between reason and revelation, for both are God-given truths.[58]

As Francis M. Higman pointed out, Calvin believed that “Scripture, being the work of the divine Author, must be self-consistent.” Accordingly, the seeming contradiction found by the human reason is regarded “due to the error inherent in human itself.”[59] God is the Truth, and the image of God is reasonable in its true sense. Moreover, the Word of God is consistent and ra­tional in its unity and accommodation. Calvin found a perfect consistency between the Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit, God the Father and Christ the Son, James and Paul, the Word and the Church, the Law of God and the law of conscience, and the Truth in the Scripture and the truth imprinted in the Nature. (i) The Holy Spirit is “the Author of the Scripture: he cannot vary and differ from himself. Hence he must ever remain just as he once revealed himself there.” (I.ix.2) “Therefore the Spirit, promised to us, has not the task of inventing new and unheard-of revelations, or of forging a new kind of doctrine, to lead us away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but of sealing our minds with that very doctrine which is commended by the gospel.”(I.ix.1) Therefore, it is deadly wrong to despise the Scriptural doctrine as childish and mean in the name of the Holy Spirit.(idem) (ii) To the Anabaptists who condemn all oaths with­out exception on the ground of Jesus’ prohibition of them in Mt. 5, Calvin angrily criticized their irrational blasphemy: “in this way they heedlessly dash against Christ, making him the Father’s enemy as if he had come down to earth to set aside God’s decrees.... Will they make God contradict himself so that he afterward forbids and condemns what he once approved by enjoining it upon men’s behavior?”(II.viii.26) (iii) On the controversial issue of “James against Paul” on the doctrine of justification whether it is by faith alone or with work together, Calvin is sure of their unity: “Will they drag Paul into conflict with James? If they consider James a minister of Christ, his statement must be so understood as not to disagree with Christ speaking through Paul’s lips... The same Spirit teaches... It is sure that the Spirit is not in conflict with himself.”(III.xvii.11) (iv) Also to the Roman Catho­lic’s idea of independent authority from the Scripture, Calvin attacks its arbitrariness: “Their statement that the church cannot err bears on this point, and this is how they interpret it - inasmuch as the church is governed by the Spirit of God, it can proceed safely without the Word... Our opponents locate the authority of the church outside God’s Word; but we insist that it be attached to the Word, and do not allow it to be separated from it.”(IV.viii.13) (v) Furthermore, Calvin understood the equity of the divine law in the Scripture and. that in the nature: “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been pres­cribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.”(IV.xx.16) (vi) And in general, “Indeed, the knowledge of God set forth for us in Scripture is destined for the very same goal as the know­ledge whose imprint shines in his creatures.”(I.x.2)

Is Calvin rational? “Yes” according to the redeemed reason, but “no” according to the corrupted reason. In its redeemed sense, Calvin was a perfect rationalist, and his theology was ideally rational. Theological reason must be the redeemed reason, for the fallen reason does not understand the Scrip­ture and thus it is not eligible to theologize the Scripture. Calvin’s ra­tionalism is based on his doctrine of total providence and natural grace,[60] and has a rhetorical purpose of communication. It may be regarded as influ­enced by humanism, but Calvin’s reason is not philosopher’s reason. In his rational theology, there is no such thing like complexio oppositorum, nor tension between biblicism and rationalism. All the world of truth is God’s, and we are his children.

Bibliography

Ayers, Robert H. “Language, Logic and. Reason in Calvin’s Institutes”, Reli­gious Studies 16(1980): 283-297

Battles, Ford Lewis, A Computeriz