Hermeneutical discontinuity between Calvin and later Calvinism
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Calvin's interpretation of biblical passages related to the question of the extent of the atonement differed significantly from the later tradition. This difference in interpretation is explained by the fact that Calvin did not share certain he...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2011
|
| In: |
Scottish journal of theology
Year: 2011, Volume: 64, Issue: 3, Pages: 299-312 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Calvin's interpretation of biblical passages related to the question of the extent of the atonement differed significantly from the later tradition. This difference in interpretation is explained by the fact that Calvin did not share certain hermeneutical presuppositions which were to become almost universal among theologians of the later Reformed tradition. This article will examine two hermeneutical ‘rules’ which Calvin frequently employed in his interpretation of scripture and will contrast his handling of scripture with the interpretative practices employed by the later Reformed tradition. The first hermeneutical ‘rule’ involves those passages in scripture which state that Christ came to give his life as a ransom for ‘many’, or that he shed his blood for ‘many’. Contrary to the later Reformed interpreters of scripture, Calvin understands these passages to mean that Christ died for all people rather than just some. The second hermeneutical ‘rule’ concerns Calvin's frequent appeal to the fact that the word ‘all’ does not always mean ‘all’ when it is used in scripture. Certain present-day Reformed theologians argue that since Calvin shares this second hermeneutical rule with the later Reformed tradition, then his reading of scripture must not have differed significantly from that of the later tradition. Therefore, Calvin must have held to a limited atonement. However, this article will show that this conclusion only holds true if we read Calvin's own writings by means of this hermeneutic. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-3065 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Scottish journal of theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0036930611000135 |