Calvin, Accomodation, and the Trinity

On 6/8/06, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi Rich, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Trying to find a spherical Earth in the OT is similar to finding the Trinity
> in the OT.
>
>
>
>
> Not that hard. "And God said, Let us make man in our image; after our
> likeness" (Gen. 1:26). "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as
> one of us, to know "good and evil …" (Gen. 3:22).
>

I commend to you Calvin's caution found in his commentary on Genesis
1:1 about having Scripture saying more than it does. Glenn seems to
think what motivates us is to make our position less prone to
falsification. Rather, it is to apply what the Chief Justice of the
United States refers to as modesty, not making the text say more than
it does. Why do I use Genesis 1 as my locus classicus? Because for
Calvin, theology proper is precisely the core of his view on
accomodation. I will repeat my assertion that accomodationism and
concordism are complementary. Accomodation makes sure we don't make
the text say too much while concordism makes sure we don't make the
text say too little. As for Glenn's assertion that some
accomodationists want him to go away, if it is a true assessment of
other accomodationists -- and I am not so sure it is -- I violently
disagree. We need each other in order that we all can rightly divide
the Word of Truth and thus avoid error. Enough of me. Let's hear what
Calvin has to say.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vii.htm

God. Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. Whence the
inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here
noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to
have little solidity, will not insist upon the word; but rather
caution readers to beware of violent glosses of this, kind. 7 They
think that they have testimony against the Arians, to prove the Deity
of the Son and of the Spirit, but in the meantime they involve
themselves in the error of Sabellius, 8 because Moses afterwards
subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim
rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here
denoted, there will be no distinction between them. For it will
follow, both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit
is not of the Father, but of himself. For me it is sufficient that the
plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating
the world. Moreover I acknowledge that the Scripture, although it
recites many powers of the Godhead, yet always recalls us to the
Father, and his Word, and spirit, as we shall shortly see. But those
absurdities, to which I have alluded, forbid us with subtlety to
distort what Moses simply declares concerning God himself, by applying
it to the separate Persons of the Godhead. This, however, I regard as
beyond controversy, that from the peculiar circumstance of the passage
itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of that powers
which was previously in some way included in his eternal essence.9

7 The reasoning of Calvin on this point is a great proof of the candor
of his mind, and of his determination to adhere strictly to what he
conceives to be the meaning of Holy Scripture, whatever bearing it
might have on the doctrines he maintains. It may however be right to
direct the reader, who wishes fully to examine the disputed meaning of
the plural word Myhla which we translate God, to some sources of
information, whence he may be able to form his own judgment respecting
the term. Cocceius argues that the mystery of the Trinity in Unity is
contained in the word; and many other writers of reputation take the
same ground. Others contend, that though no clear intimation of the
Trinity in Unity is given, yet the notion of plurality of Persons is
plainly implied in the term. For a full account of all the arguments
in favor of this hypothesis, the work of Dr. John Pye Smith, on the
Scripture testimony of the Messiah -- a work full of profound
learning, and distinguished by patient industry and calmly courteous
criticism -- may be consulted. It must however be observed, that this
diligent and impartial writer has mot met the special objection
adduced by Calvin in this place, namely, the danger of gliding into
Sabellianism while attempting to confute Arianism. -- Ed.
8 The error of Sabellius (according to Theodoret) consisted in his
maintaining, "that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one
hypostasis, and one Person under three names," or, in the language of
that eminent ecclesiastical scholar, the late Dr. Burton, "Sabellius
divided the One Divinity into three, but he supposed the Son and the
Holy Ghost to have no distinct personal existence, except when they
were put forth for a time by the Father." -- See Burton's Lectures on
Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2:p. 365; and his Bampton Lectures, Note
103. This will perhaps assist the reader to understand the nature of
Calvin's argument which immediately follows. Supposing the word Elohim
to denote the Three Persons of the Godhead in the first verse, it also
denotes the same Three Persons in the second verse. But in this second
verse Moses says, the Spirit of Elohim, that is, the Spirit of the
Three Persons rested on the waters. Hence the distinction of Persons
is lost; for the Spirit is himself one of them; consequently the
Spirit is sent from himself. The same reasoning would prove that the
Son was begotten by himself; because he is one of the Persons of the
Elohim by whom the Son is begotten. -- Ed.
9 The interpretation above given of the meaning of the word Myhla
(Elohim) receives confirmation from the profound critical
investigations of Dr. Hengstenberg, Professor of Theology in the
University of Berlin, whose work, cast in a somewhat new form, and
entitled "Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch," appears
in an English dress, under the superintendence of the Continental
Translation Society, while these pages are passing through the press.
With other learned critics, he concludes, that the word is derived
from the Arabic root Allah, which means to worship, to adore, to be
seized with fear. He, therefore, regards the title more especially
descriptive of the awful aspect of the Divine character.
On the plural form of the word he quotes from the Jewish Rabbis the
assertion, that it is intended to signify 'Dominus potentiarum
omnium,' 'The Lord of all powers'. He refers to Calvin and others as
having opposed, though without immediate effect, the notion maintained
by Peter Lombard, that it involved the mystery of the Trinity. He
repels the profane intimation of Le Clerc, and his successors of the
Noological school, that the name originated in polytheism; and then
proceeds to show that "there is in the Hebrew language a widely
extended use of the plural which expresses the intensity of the idea
contained in the singular." After numerous references, which prove
this point, he proceeds to argue, that "if, in relation to earthly
objects, all that serves to represent a whole order of beings is
brought before the mind by means of the plural form, we might
anticipate a more extended application of this method of
distinguishing in the appellations of God, in whose being and
attributes there is everywhere a unity which embraces and comprehends
all multiplicity." "The use of the plural," he adds, "answers the same
purpose which elsewhere is accomplished by an accumulation of the
Divine names; as in Joshua 22:22; the thrice holy in Isaiah 6:3; and
Mynda ynda in Deuteronomy 10:17. It calls the attention to the
infinite riches and the inexhaustible fullness contained in the one
Divine Being, so that though men may imagine innumerable gods, and
invest them with perfections, yet all these are contained in the one
Myhla (Elohim)." See Dissertations, pp.268-273.
It is, perhaps, necessary here to state, that whatever treasures of
biblical learning the writings of this celebrated author contains, and
they are undoubtedly great, the reader will still require to be on his
guard in studying them. For, notwithstanding the author's general
strenuous opposition to the and -- supernaturalism of his own
countrymen, he has not altogether escaped the contagion which he is
attempting to resist. Occasions may occur in which it will be right to
allude to some of his mistakes. -- Ed.
Received on Thu Jun 8 08:38:22 2006