When they hear of "Calvinism," many instantly think of double predestination and assume that must be the primary difference between them and us. However, this was never really the case. While we certainly disagree on this topic, what has always been at the forefront of our debates have been the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (hence why we have historically called them the Sacramentarians). Once the debate sprung up, we quickly discovered that an even more fundamental doctrine was disputed: Christology. Without getting too far into the weeds, the Calvinist confesses that Christ cannot be bodily present in the Eucharist because it is the nature of a human body to be finite and in one place, but for Christ to be present in the Eucharist, he could neither be in heaven nor on every table, since that would require his flesh to be in multiple places at once. In the Lutheran mind, this calls back to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism, in which the heretic Nestorius confessed such a distinction of the human and divine natures of Christ that he effectively separated our Lord into two persons. However, in this post, I would like to actually read some Calvin in order to show why exactly such an accusation arises. For the purposes of this blog post, I’ll be sticking to his 4th book of the Institutes, chapter 17, as it is written on this website, since that’s really where I would say the issues are centralized.
“The promise to which they appeal, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," is not to be applied to the body”
This passage is strange and, I’d say, immediately opens up Calvin to a great deal of criticism. When he argues that such a passage isn’t applicable to his body, the question remains, what of our Lord’s soul? If our Lord’s body cannot be present in all places due to natural bodily constraints, how can our Lord be present with us spiritually? Surely there isn’t enough spirit to go around. This absurdity is one result of such a harsh distinction made between Christ’s divine and human natures.
“Second, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them.”
The first issue with this understanding is that it is nowhere stated in the text but is rather an assertion. It also comes off as really strange, arguing that Christ’s promise was merely metaphorical and that he wasn’t actually promising to be with them. Thus, he wasn’t comforting him with his presence but with his protection, which is more of an interpolation than interpretation. You must assume that Christ isn’t present bodily everywhere in order to conclude that He is saying He isn’t. It is a classic example of crying “context” in order to defend one’s eisegesis.
“I speak not of Papists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so hurried away by contention as to say, that on account of the union of natures in Christ, wherever his divinity is, there his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is also; as if that union formed a kind of medium of the two natures, making him to be neither God nor man. So held Eutyches, and after him Servetus. But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired. That Eutyches was justly condemned, they will not have the hardihood to deny. It is strange that they attend not to the cause of condemnation, viz., that destroying the distinction between the natures, and insisting only on the unity of person, he converted God into man and man into God.”
It's funny that he says our doctrines are worse than the papists, we say the same of them, for we, with Luther, “would rather drink blood with the pope than wine with Zwingli.” In addition, his conflation of Eutychianism and Lutheranism is absolutely bizarre. The Lutheran view is that Christ’s human and divine natures are neither separated nor overlapping but united. We say, as above, that where Christ’s divinity is, there His flesh is as well. Sure, one brand of Monophysitism (the Eutychian heresy) says that the human and divine natures fused into a third new thing that was neither God nor man, which we would obviously reject. None here have stated that the two natures fused, only that there are communications between natures regarding certain properties. In Col. 1:19 and 2:9, we see the illocal God localized in human flesh. In Col. 2:2-3, Christ is said to hold “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” showing omniscience in a human person. In Dan. 7:13-14, John 5:27, and Matthew 11:27 we see Christ, a man, given all authority and power on heaven and earth. Such qualities are certainly not natural to the human nature, and yet the entire person of Christ shares in them. What’s more, Calvin’s view is, in some ways, closer to Monophysitism than ours! Instead of the aforementioned view, some believed that, at the ascension, Christ’s divine nature overshadowed and swallowed up His human nature. This is much more akin to the Calvin’s heresy, since he says that our Lord’s divine nature overshadows His humanity in omnipresence. So as to not overstate my case, I would say it is much more similar to the heresy of Nestorianism mentioned above. In saying that there are places where the divine nature is but the human is not, how can that be anything less than a division of the natures into two separate persons? What is a harsher distinction than a distinction of presence itself?
“There is a trite distinction in the schools which I hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgement.”
While researching this incredibly important line, it appears to be a misunderstanding of Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, question 52 article 3, in which he writes, (pardon the long quote, it's necessary for context) "Christ's Person is whole in each single place, but not wholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed, all places put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it His immensity that embraces all things. But it happens in those things which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively, that if a whole be in some place, then no part of it is outside that place. But this is not the case with God. Hence Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "It is not according to times or places that we say that the whole Christ is everywhere, as if He were at one time whole in one place, at another time whole in another: but as being whole always and everywhere." When one reads the entire quote, it is clear that he isn't saying Christ's person is divided, with only his divine nature in some places and his entire person in others. Rather, Aquinas argues that Christ is not entirely in a given place because His person cannot be contained anywhere, for He is omnipresent. Far from supporting his case, it is rather opposed to the entire notion Calvin seeks to defend!
With that said, this doesn't make my case for me, for his argument isn't dismantled by showing it to be a misquoting of a significant figure, but by attacking the idea itself. The biggest problem with this is the aforementioned issue of dividing the natures to such a point so as to make Christ into two persons. As I posed above, what greater disjuncture can there be between natures than in presence itself? Nestorius divorced the origin of each nature from the person by refusing to call Mary the Mother of God, but Calvin goes so far as to say that the two natures aren't even present together in all places! In this way, Christ ends up being a kind of meat suit piloted by the divine nature and taken back up into heaven when He served His purpose. O dear Lord, do not let us fall into such errors, but keep us from all wickedness and vice. Amen.
댓글