Zwingli’s influence remained rather limited. This was not true, however, of the theology of John Calvin, which gradually became definitive for the entire Reformed tradition.
One of Calvin’s predecessors was the previously mentioned Martin Bucer, the Strasbourg reformer, who combined elements from Luther as well as from the Biblical humanism of Erasmus in his theology. In the dispute over the Lord’s Supper between Luther and Zwingli he took a mediating position. In many respects Bucer foreshadowed the Calvinistic point of view. This was true, for example, of what he taught about predestination and about the glory of God as the purpose of world history. The congregational order he formulated in Strasbourg also reminds us of the one Calvin later developed. Calvin sojourned in Strasbourg during the years 1538–41 and was deeply impressed by Bucer’s theology and church polity. Some time later Bucer was in exile in England, and his influence was felt there in the reorganization of the Anglican Church under King Edward VI.
John Calvin, who was born in France in 1509, received a broad education, including studies in the field of law. As far as evangelical theology is concerned, Calvin was largely self-taught; he became acquainted with Luther’s ideas chiefly by literary means. Because of his beliefs Calvin was forced to flee from France in 1534; he went to Basel, where in 1536 he brought out a doctrinal manual, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in part designed to defend his brothers in the faith in France. He went to Geneva in that same year and took charge of the Reformation there. Often using harsh measures, Calvin imposed a strict form of discipline on the church in Geneva. He also designed a new congregational order, based on a college of presbyters working in close cooperation with the secular authorities. He died in Geneva in 1564.
Calvin’s position was largely completed in the Institutes of 1536. But in later editions (1543 and 1559) he expanded the original work into a comprehensive dogmatic presentation, comparable to Melanchthon’s Loci, but arranged in a more strictly systematic manner. The third edition of 1559 (the last to be edited by Calvin) divided the doctrinal material into four books, which dealt successively with God as Creator, God as Savior, the manner of receiving Christ’s grace, and the external means whereby God invites us to and preserves us in the fellowship of Christ (church and sacraments). Besides the Institutes Calvin wrote many lesser works, sermons and letters and commentaries on nearly all the books of the Bible.
Although Calvin did in some respects perpetuate the tradition begun by Zwingli and Bucer (not least of all in the field of church polity), we must not disregard the fact that Calvin thought of himself above all as a faithful follower of Luther, as one who represented basically the same point of view as that held by Luther. But as is true of Melanchthon, Calvin’s theology bears a stamp different from Luther’s and reveals contributions from other sources as well. Some of Calvin’s basic concepts will be sketched in what follows.
The idea of God’s glory (la gloire de Dieu) occupies a central place in Calvin’s theology. As he saw it, the glory of God is the goal of all God’s plans for the world and for salvation, as well as of human activity. “[God] has established the whole world to this end, that it might be the scene of His glory” (C. R., 36, 294). The lives of Christian people are to serve to increase the glow of God. Absolute subjection to the will of God and obedience to His law are the foundations of the Calvinist faith. The Christian is to demonstrate his faith, and at the same time promote the glow of God, by working industriously at the task to which he has been called and actively cooperating in matters pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Closely associated to the idea of God’s glory (gloria Dei) in Calvin’s mind was the doctrine of God’s providence (providentia Dei): all that happens is impelled by God’s almighty will and by His active cooperation. God’s omnipotence also includes human activity, even that which is evil. Is any kind of freedom possible then? Calvin answered by saying that God’s providence does not work as external coercion (coactio externa); it only means that all that happens stands under a higher necessity. He did not therefore exclude psychological freedom in human activity.
That God is active in evil things that happen must not, according to Calvin, simply be understood as permissio; it rather goes back to God’s active will, which we are not able to comprehend. God has therefore willed Adam’s fall, just as He decides that some men shall be lost and deprives them of His Spirit.
With that we have already touched upon Calvin’s concept of predestination, which is often referred to as Calvinism’s “central doctrine.” Just as the entire course of the world stands under God’s providence, so also does every man’s salvation or damnation depend on God’s almighty will and predestination. Or in Calvin’s own words: “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, whereby He has decided what He will have happen to every man. For not all have been created under the same conditions: some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. And inasmuch as a man is created to reach the one goal or the other, we say that he is predestined to life or to death.” (C. R., 29, 864 f.—Institutes, III, 21, 5)
This, then, is double predestination—both to salvation and to damnation. Calvin emphasized that rejection also depends on God’s eternal predestination, a fact which is not to be ignored from the pulpit. Even the damnation and the eternal punishment of evil men serve to glorify God. God is not the source of evil, but He has His secret, inscrutable uses for it. God remains just even in rejecting, but this justice transcends all human norms. For this reason it is incomprehensible; it is a part of God’s hidden nature.
Calvin felt that this concept of predestination ought to support rather than destroy one’s certainty of his salvation. It becomes clear, in this way, said Calvin, that man’s salvation is based not on what he himself does but on an eternal decree. In other words, double predestination in Calvin’s thinking (as in Augustine’s) is the ultimate guarantee of salvation by grace alone. Furthermore, the eternal decree must be intimately associated with the order of salvation which has been carried into effect in time. The call and justification are definite signs that a man is one of the elect. In a corresponding manner, the rejected have a sign of their condition in the fact that they are excluded from knowledge of Christ or from sanctification.
Calvin’s concept of predestination presupposes a divine justice which goes beyond all that man conceives of as just. The divine order cannot be measured by the same gauge as can the order of creation; neither can it be fathomed by human reason. But Calvin at the same time asserted that there is a distinct connection between divine and human justice. In the work of creation man has a witness to God, and by rational means he can attain to some knowledge of Him—the so called natural knowledge of God. Similarly, the law which rules in creation is a copy of God’s eternal justice. By knowledge of this law, then, man has an insight into God’s eternal law and His justice.
At one and the same time, therefore, there is a similarity and a contrast or dissimilarity between the divine and that which is created. This trend of thought, which corresponds to the medieval, Thomist concept of the analogy of being (analogia entis), also contributed to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. The justice which is expressed by the fact that God rejects on the basis of His eternal decree is inscrutable to man and is in opposition to what we otherwise call justice. Nevertheless, this same rejection expresses divine justice and is in agreement with the righteousness of God. That God should stand outside of law altogether (and thus be exlex), or that predestination should be decreed in a blindly arbitrary way, is out of the question.
In assigning Calvin his position in the history of theology, the transition between the ideas here presented is an important point to remember. The teaching of double predestination associates Calvin with Luther’s theology, while the analogy concept strongly reminds us of the Middle Ages, and above all of the Thomist tradition.
The influence of the analogy concept was responsible for the fact that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was different from Luther’s. Calvin also used this doctrine in a different way. He related it to the acquisition of salvation itself, while Luther, in the corresponding situation, emphasized that one should turn away from the hidden God and hold fast to God’s revealed will, to the atonement wrought by Christ, which is valid for all.
It is on this point that the Lutheran tradition rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination: in opposition to Calvin’s concept of double predestination, Luther referred to the Bible passages which speak of God’s universal will to save, or of the reconciliation of the entire world. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 1 John 2:2)
In his doctrine of predestination, as elsewhere, Calvin proceeded above all on the Scriptural principle: theology must set forth what is set down in the Bible. His concept of Biblical inspiration was set forth in terms of the Holy Spirit’s dictation, infallibly transmitted through those who wrote down the words of Scripture. Calvin used to be referred to as the originator of the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. This is hardly correct, inasmuch as similar theories were already propounded in the early church. In the later Calvinist tradition the doctrine of inspiration was given a different, more mechanical form than in Lutheran orthodoxy. Whether or not this mechanical doctrine of inspiration can be traced back to Calvin is a disputed question.
The Old Testament had a different position for Calvin than it has in Lutheran theology. Calvin held that the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic law was abolished in and with the appearance of Christ. But, on the other hand, he taught that the moral law of the Old Testament applies also to Christians. They stand under its obligations and are to arrange their lives in accordance with the injunctions which can be read out of Scripture’s proclamation of the Law. Society too is to organize itself according to the principles of Biblical law. To a certain extent, therefore, the Mosaic law was ascribed a permanent validity in Calvin’s thinking.
In spite of his attitude toward the Law, Calvin emphasized with great incisiveness that our righteousness before God does not consist of works of the Law, nor in the regeneration which is effected through the Spirit. He criticized both Augustine and Osiander on this point. In his own theology Calvin strongly emphasized the forensic or imputative form of justification.
There was a tendency in Calvin to make sanctification the purpose of justification. Sanctification, in turn, was thought of as a means to increase the glory of God. Man is to live in strict agreement with divine law and thus to testify to his faith and strengthen the certainty that he is one of the elect. It is the Law, therefore, which is the norm of the sanctified life. God’s law is eternal and a direct expression of His will. It must therefore concern even those who have been born again, and serve as the norm for their lives. Conformity to God’s will is the goal of sanctification.
Calvinistic piety is characterized by strict temperance and by hard work in one’s earthly calling. This regimen has been called a “this-worldly asceticism,” which has replaced the medieval monastic asceticism for Protestants. In Calvinism a practical, responsible, down-to-earth attitude has been combined with a strong emphasis on the fact that Christians are aliens in this world and that the life beyond is the goal of human existence and the “one thing needful.”
Calvin distinguished between a visible and an invisible church. The latter is made up of the elect. The visible church is constituted by the Word, the sacraments, and church discipline. Congregational order is to follow certain instructions derived from the Bible (including the four offices, pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon). The church also has a spiritualis jurisdictio, a careful control of morals and customs. The secular authorities are expected to assist with church discipline. Their task is not only to maintain public order but also to support the interests of true religion. The authorities are God’s servants and are subject to the teaching office in all matters relating to religion and morals.
The model church polity which Calvin devised for use in Geneva was characterized by strong organization and a scrupulous supervision of morals and customs. The implacable manner in which those in authority proceeded against heresy was not the result of any despotic will to power on Calvin’s part, but rather the result of his uncompromising zeal for evangelical truth. The best known (but by no means the only) heresy trial in Calvin’s Geneva was the one which condemned Michael Servetus to death because of his refusal to accept the church’s confession concerning the Trinity.
Next to predestination, the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper has been the most controversial issue between Calvinism and Lutheranism. What Calvin objected to in the Lutheran position was above all that the bread is thought of as the body of Christ in a substantial sense, without permitting a figurative mode of expression in the words of institution. Calvin also rejected the idea that the body of Christ is infinite and everywhere present, without local limitations.
At the same time, however, Calvin by no means represented a purely symbolic concept of the Lord’s Supper. To him it was actually a matter of participating in the body and blood of Christ. But in view of the fact that the body of Christ is in heaven, locally restricted, it cannot be present in the elements in a physical, “substantial” manner. Nor is a physical presence necessary in the Sacrament. The Spirit of Christ is able to unite the faithful with Christ in heaven. For the Spirit is not limited, and He can bring together that which is widely separated with respect to space. Through the mediation of the Spirit, therefore, the faithful partake of the Lord’s flesh and blood, and are thereby brought to life. This communio takes place in the Lord’s Supper under the symbols of the bread and wine.
As we have already noted, Calvin’s basic outlook with respect to the Lord’s Supper was different from Luther’s. He thought of heaven, where the body of Christ has been since the Ascension, as a definite, restricted place beyond the earthly sphere. The body of Christ cannot partake of the infinity which distinguishes divinity; it is locally restricted. When men speak of the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, or of the participation of the faithful in the same, this cannot therefore refer to a physical presence or a physical eating of Christ’s body and blood, but only to a spiritual presence or a spiritual eating. It is a matter of the fellowship of faith or the Spirit with the Christ who ascended to heaven.
On the basis of Calvin’s assumptions it must be supposed that only the faithful receive the gifts provided in the Lord’s Supper (manducatio fidelium). And this partaking occurs through a spiritual eating, i.e., through the fellowship of faith with Christ, symbolized by the sacramental meal (manducatio spiritualis).
Finally, Calvin objected to a literal interpretation of the words of institution. In his own way, Calvin certainly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but the elements themselves were thought of only as symbols of the spiritual fellowship or communion which belongs exclusively to the realm of faith.
A sharp distinction between the spiritual and the physical therefore characterizes the Calvinistic point of view, a position which was later expressed in the formula Finitum non capax infiniti (“The finite cannot contain the infinite”).
One of Calvin’s predecessors was the previously mentioned Martin Bucer, the Strasbourg reformer, who combined elements from Luther as well as from the Biblical humanism of Erasmus in his theology. In the dispute over the Lord’s Supper between Luther and Zwingli he took a mediating position. In many respects Bucer foreshadowed the Calvinistic point of view. This was true, for example, of what he taught about predestination and about the glory of God as the purpose of world history. The congregational order he formulated in Strasbourg also reminds us of the one Calvin later developed. Calvin sojourned in Strasbourg during the years 1538–41 and was deeply impressed by Bucer’s theology and church polity. Some time later Bucer was in exile in England, and his influence was felt there in the reorganization of the Anglican Church under King Edward VI.
John Calvin, who was born in France in 1509, received a broad education, including studies in the field of law. As far as evangelical theology is concerned, Calvin was largely self-taught; he became acquainted with Luther’s ideas chiefly by literary means. Because of his beliefs Calvin was forced to flee from France in 1534; he went to Basel, where in 1536 he brought out a doctrinal manual, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in part designed to defend his brothers in the faith in France. He went to Geneva in that same year and took charge of the Reformation there. Often using harsh measures, Calvin imposed a strict form of discipline on the church in Geneva. He also designed a new congregational order, based on a college of presbyters working in close cooperation with the secular authorities. He died in Geneva in 1564.
Calvin’s position was largely completed in the Institutes of 1536. But in later editions (1543 and 1559) he expanded the original work into a comprehensive dogmatic presentation, comparable to Melanchthon’s Loci, but arranged in a more strictly systematic manner. The third edition of 1559 (the last to be edited by Calvin) divided the doctrinal material into four books, which dealt successively with God as Creator, God as Savior, the manner of receiving Christ’s grace, and the external means whereby God invites us to and preserves us in the fellowship of Christ (church and sacraments). Besides the Institutes Calvin wrote many lesser works, sermons and letters and commentaries on nearly all the books of the Bible.
Although Calvin did in some respects perpetuate the tradition begun by Zwingli and Bucer (not least of all in the field of church polity), we must not disregard the fact that Calvin thought of himself above all as a faithful follower of Luther, as one who represented basically the same point of view as that held by Luther. But as is true of Melanchthon, Calvin’s theology bears a stamp different from Luther’s and reveals contributions from other sources as well. Some of Calvin’s basic concepts will be sketched in what follows.
The idea of God’s glory (la gloire de Dieu) occupies a central place in Calvin’s theology. As he saw it, the glory of God is the goal of all God’s plans for the world and for salvation, as well as of human activity. “[God] has established the whole world to this end, that it might be the scene of His glory” (C. R., 36, 294). The lives of Christian people are to serve to increase the glow of God. Absolute subjection to the will of God and obedience to His law are the foundations of the Calvinist faith. The Christian is to demonstrate his faith, and at the same time promote the glow of God, by working industriously at the task to which he has been called and actively cooperating in matters pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Closely associated to the idea of God’s glory (gloria Dei) in Calvin’s mind was the doctrine of God’s providence (providentia Dei): all that happens is impelled by God’s almighty will and by His active cooperation. God’s omnipotence also includes human activity, even that which is evil. Is any kind of freedom possible then? Calvin answered by saying that God’s providence does not work as external coercion (coactio externa); it only means that all that happens stands under a higher necessity. He did not therefore exclude psychological freedom in human activity.
That God is active in evil things that happen must not, according to Calvin, simply be understood as permissio; it rather goes back to God’s active will, which we are not able to comprehend. God has therefore willed Adam’s fall, just as He decides that some men shall be lost and deprives them of His Spirit.
With that we have already touched upon Calvin’s concept of predestination, which is often referred to as Calvinism’s “central doctrine.” Just as the entire course of the world stands under God’s providence, so also does every man’s salvation or damnation depend on God’s almighty will and predestination. Or in Calvin’s own words: “We call predestination God’s eternal decree, whereby He has decided what He will have happen to every man. For not all have been created under the same conditions: some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. And inasmuch as a man is created to reach the one goal or the other, we say that he is predestined to life or to death.” (C. R., 29, 864 f.—Institutes, III, 21, 5)
This, then, is double predestination—both to salvation and to damnation. Calvin emphasized that rejection also depends on God’s eternal predestination, a fact which is not to be ignored from the pulpit. Even the damnation and the eternal punishment of evil men serve to glorify God. God is not the source of evil, but He has His secret, inscrutable uses for it. God remains just even in rejecting, but this justice transcends all human norms. For this reason it is incomprehensible; it is a part of God’s hidden nature.
Calvin felt that this concept of predestination ought to support rather than destroy one’s certainty of his salvation. It becomes clear, in this way, said Calvin, that man’s salvation is based not on what he himself does but on an eternal decree. In other words, double predestination in Calvin’s thinking (as in Augustine’s) is the ultimate guarantee of salvation by grace alone. Furthermore, the eternal decree must be intimately associated with the order of salvation which has been carried into effect in time. The call and justification are definite signs that a man is one of the elect. In a corresponding manner, the rejected have a sign of their condition in the fact that they are excluded from knowledge of Christ or from sanctification.
Calvin’s concept of predestination presupposes a divine justice which goes beyond all that man conceives of as just. The divine order cannot be measured by the same gauge as can the order of creation; neither can it be fathomed by human reason. But Calvin at the same time asserted that there is a distinct connection between divine and human justice. In the work of creation man has a witness to God, and by rational means he can attain to some knowledge of Him—the so called natural knowledge of God. Similarly, the law which rules in creation is a copy of God’s eternal justice. By knowledge of this law, then, man has an insight into God’s eternal law and His justice.
At one and the same time, therefore, there is a similarity and a contrast or dissimilarity between the divine and that which is created. This trend of thought, which corresponds to the medieval, Thomist concept of the analogy of being (analogia entis), also contributed to Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. The justice which is expressed by the fact that God rejects on the basis of His eternal decree is inscrutable to man and is in opposition to what we otherwise call justice. Nevertheless, this same rejection expresses divine justice and is in agreement with the righteousness of God. That God should stand outside of law altogether (and thus be exlex), or that predestination should be decreed in a blindly arbitrary way, is out of the question.
In assigning Calvin his position in the history of theology, the transition between the ideas here presented is an important point to remember. The teaching of double predestination associates Calvin with Luther’s theology, while the analogy concept strongly reminds us of the Middle Ages, and above all of the Thomist tradition.
The influence of the analogy concept was responsible for the fact that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was different from Luther’s. Calvin also used this doctrine in a different way. He related it to the acquisition of salvation itself, while Luther, in the corresponding situation, emphasized that one should turn away from the hidden God and hold fast to God’s revealed will, to the atonement wrought by Christ, which is valid for all.
It is on this point that the Lutheran tradition rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination: in opposition to Calvin’s concept of double predestination, Luther referred to the Bible passages which speak of God’s universal will to save, or of the reconciliation of the entire world. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 1 John 2:2)
In his doctrine of predestination, as elsewhere, Calvin proceeded above all on the Scriptural principle: theology must set forth what is set down in the Bible. His concept of Biblical inspiration was set forth in terms of the Holy Spirit’s dictation, infallibly transmitted through those who wrote down the words of Scripture. Calvin used to be referred to as the originator of the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. This is hardly correct, inasmuch as similar theories were already propounded in the early church. In the later Calvinist tradition the doctrine of inspiration was given a different, more mechanical form than in Lutheran orthodoxy. Whether or not this mechanical doctrine of inspiration can be traced back to Calvin is a disputed question.
The Old Testament had a different position for Calvin than it has in Lutheran theology. Calvin held that the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic law was abolished in and with the appearance of Christ. But, on the other hand, he taught that the moral law of the Old Testament applies also to Christians. They stand under its obligations and are to arrange their lives in accordance with the injunctions which can be read out of Scripture’s proclamation of the Law. Society too is to organize itself according to the principles of Biblical law. To a certain extent, therefore, the Mosaic law was ascribed a permanent validity in Calvin’s thinking.
In spite of his attitude toward the Law, Calvin emphasized with great incisiveness that our righteousness before God does not consist of works of the Law, nor in the regeneration which is effected through the Spirit. He criticized both Augustine and Osiander on this point. In his own theology Calvin strongly emphasized the forensic or imputative form of justification.
There was a tendency in Calvin to make sanctification the purpose of justification. Sanctification, in turn, was thought of as a means to increase the glory of God. Man is to live in strict agreement with divine law and thus to testify to his faith and strengthen the certainty that he is one of the elect. It is the Law, therefore, which is the norm of the sanctified life. God’s law is eternal and a direct expression of His will. It must therefore concern even those who have been born again, and serve as the norm for their lives. Conformity to God’s will is the goal of sanctification.
Calvinistic piety is characterized by strict temperance and by hard work in one’s earthly calling. This regimen has been called a “this-worldly asceticism,” which has replaced the medieval monastic asceticism for Protestants. In Calvinism a practical, responsible, down-to-earth attitude has been combined with a strong emphasis on the fact that Christians are aliens in this world and that the life beyond is the goal of human existence and the “one thing needful.”
Calvin distinguished between a visible and an invisible church. The latter is made up of the elect. The visible church is constituted by the Word, the sacraments, and church discipline. Congregational order is to follow certain instructions derived from the Bible (including the four offices, pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon). The church also has a spiritualis jurisdictio, a careful control of morals and customs. The secular authorities are expected to assist with church discipline. Their task is not only to maintain public order but also to support the interests of true religion. The authorities are God’s servants and are subject to the teaching office in all matters relating to religion and morals.
The model church polity which Calvin devised for use in Geneva was characterized by strong organization and a scrupulous supervision of morals and customs. The implacable manner in which those in authority proceeded against heresy was not the result of any despotic will to power on Calvin’s part, but rather the result of his uncompromising zeal for evangelical truth. The best known (but by no means the only) heresy trial in Calvin’s Geneva was the one which condemned Michael Servetus to death because of his refusal to accept the church’s confession concerning the Trinity.
Next to predestination, the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper has been the most controversial issue between Calvinism and Lutheranism. What Calvin objected to in the Lutheran position was above all that the bread is thought of as the body of Christ in a substantial sense, without permitting a figurative mode of expression in the words of institution. Calvin also rejected the idea that the body of Christ is infinite and everywhere present, without local limitations.
At the same time, however, Calvin by no means represented a purely symbolic concept of the Lord’s Supper. To him it was actually a matter of participating in the body and blood of Christ. But in view of the fact that the body of Christ is in heaven, locally restricted, it cannot be present in the elements in a physical, “substantial” manner. Nor is a physical presence necessary in the Sacrament. The Spirit of Christ is able to unite the faithful with Christ in heaven. For the Spirit is not limited, and He can bring together that which is widely separated with respect to space. Through the mediation of the Spirit, therefore, the faithful partake of the Lord’s flesh and blood, and are thereby brought to life. This communio takes place in the Lord’s Supper under the symbols of the bread and wine.
As we have already noted, Calvin’s basic outlook with respect to the Lord’s Supper was different from Luther’s. He thought of heaven, where the body of Christ has been since the Ascension, as a definite, restricted place beyond the earthly sphere. The body of Christ cannot partake of the infinity which distinguishes divinity; it is locally restricted. When men speak of the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, or of the participation of the faithful in the same, this cannot therefore refer to a physical presence or a physical eating of Christ’s body and blood, but only to a spiritual presence or a spiritual eating. It is a matter of the fellowship of faith or the Spirit with the Christ who ascended to heaven.
On the basis of Calvin’s assumptions it must be supposed that only the faithful receive the gifts provided in the Lord’s Supper (manducatio fidelium). And this partaking occurs through a spiritual eating, i.e., through the fellowship of faith with Christ, symbolized by the sacramental meal (manducatio spiritualis).
Finally, Calvin objected to a literal interpretation of the words of institution. In his own way, Calvin certainly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but the elements themselves were thought of only as symbols of the spiritual fellowship or communion which belongs exclusively to the realm of faith.
A sharp distinction between the spiritual and the physical therefore characterizes the Calvinistic point of view, a position which was later expressed in the formula Finitum non capax infiniti (“The finite cannot contain the infinite”).
No comments:
Post a Comment