So, Calvin goes to great pains to show that both the Old and New Testaments are actually part of one overarching Gospel. To Calvin, the Bible is flat. I doubt Calvinists would appreciate the characterization, but I think it is accurate. The Old Testament is just as authoritative as the New. It is all inspired revelation.
He wrote the previous chapter primarily to combat the rival perspectives of Servetus, and a cartoonized version of Anabaptist theology. He moves from the unity of Scripture to a consideration of the differences between the Old and the New. There are obviously differences or what he calls 'contrasts.' So, do we go with the Anabaptists and just see the NT as trump?
Calvin points out areas of contrast, but explains that the differences are only differences in 'administration,' not a difference of substance. In other words, scripture is still flat, we just have to go through a few intellectual/theological tricks to see it as such.
I readily object to this flat Bible concept, and have to echo the Anabaptists. For a good explanation of this, see Greg Boyd's post. To get to the meat of the issue: Jesus himself claimed that Scripture was not flat. Some teachings are interpretive of others, and thus authoritative. Whenever two passages conflict, then we must go with the authoritative text. So, when Jesus says eye for an eye is no longer applicable, reading Deuteronomy 25 must be revised thus. Simple. It makes sense. Calvin hated it.
No comments:
Post a Comment