A Return to the Heart: St. Bernard of Clairvaux and John Calvin on the Knowledge of God and Self

By Frank L. Bartoe IV and Michael A. G. Haykin

When we approach such men as St. Bernard of Clairvaux and John Calvin, we are approaching two men who were not only significant figures of their time but figures standing on opposite shorelines of the influence and impact of Scholasticism, as well as a tumultuous decline in orthodoxy. Despite this reality, what is most compelling about these two men is the continuity of their developed thought, even though they were worlds apart, separated by time. This continuity is most assuredly grounded in their historical sources, and, more importantly, their faithful handling of God's word. That continuity, although not point for point, was rather for the significant part of the structure and content--sum and substance--of the twofold knowledge of God and self. For both of these men, this doctrine was fundamental, permeating the whole of their world and life philosophy. Bernard and Calvin clearly saw the implications of this twofold knowledge. These implications manifest in the realm of various doctrines and the network of their system of thought. This book seeks to explore those various components of their twofold knowledge of God and self, as well as the implications in the realm of experiential Christianity.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jul 21, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666756371

Frank L. Bartoe IV

Frank L. Bartoe IV is an ordained Reformed Presbyterian minister. He is the author of Approaching a Heavenly Reality in a Temporal Realm: Robert Bruce’s Theology of the Sacrament (2019).

Book preview

Introduction

In the last thirty years, scholars have devoted a great deal of time to researching medieval thought and its potential relationship, connection, as well as influence, upon men of the Reformation. There appears to be an incessant need to trace and track down the threads of the reformer’s thoughts in hopes to determine if they are original or if they have their source rooted in men before them. In some sense, it has become a challenge to trace back a potential connection in thought between one and the other. The complexity of thought does not make this process easy. There is such a broad net to be cast, all in hope to gather and identify something of a relational connection in their thought that is something more than coincidental or even speculative.

To home in on one figure, history is replete with numerous writings that convey the fact that an inordinate amount of time has been spent attempting to hunt down the incipient elements of John Calvin’s thinking and the multitude of strands that so define it—both theologically and philosophically. The number of dissertations, research papers, articles, and books that have been produced on Calvin is staggering.¹ John T. McNeill called it an enlarging field of research.² This claim serves to demonstrate the ongoing interest in locating those items that constitute the system of thought presented in Calvin’s Institutes, letters, commentaries, and sermons. In a short period of time, Calvin has become the hinge point whereby, at a rapid rate, denominations have carved out some facet of his theology in order to label themselves, uniquely, as Calvinistic in their theology, liturgy, philosophy, or piety of life. In light of this reality, Charles Partee rightfully concludes that such efforts have produced a bewildering variety of their relations to their progenitor (even for those who so regarded John Calvin) makes the subject immensely difficult and finally extremely speculative.³ There is no question that Calvin has captured the attention of historians and theologians from various backgrounds—whether of a Calvinistic persuasion or outright disagreement with his theology. In an effort to get our bearing about us and with some degree of semblance in regard to this reformer, we seem pressed to pause and ask, Will the real John Calvin please stand up?

Perhaps it is the aforementioned question that has motivated researchers in their efforts to identify the intellectual pedigree of Calvin and created an incessant pursuit which is easily illustrated when one considers the numerous attempts to make connections with the reformer’s theology and those that preceded him. Nonetheless, there are several cautions to be issued in these efforts of thought association and locating a particular aspect of thought in another’s system of thought. First, there is an inherent danger of an either/or subjectivity error that manifests and clouds the mind of the research in deciphering the data; in other words, the tendency for researchers to either reject certain influences on Calvin’s thinking, or move in the opposite direction and place an undue emphasis on certain influences.⁴ Second, related to the speculative aspect mentioned earlier, is an ambiguous relation—a straining the gnat, if you will—to the degree that much of what passes for Calvinism and Calvinistic philosophy is at best only tangentially related to Calvin’s own thought.⁵

The ‘real Calvin’, asserts B. J. van der Walt, was not only the non-conformist reformer, who challenged the prevalent notions of his day, striking out a new path, but also the Calvin who could not free himself fully from past and contemporary—even unbiblical—influences."⁶ What van der Walt expresses really speaks to the dynamic nature of Calvin’s thinking; more specifically, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5) and seek after truth. It should be kept in mind that the following only serves to demonstrate the diversity of influence and research as it relates to Calvin; however, it is by no means exhaustive, nor remotely touching the extensive depth of work that has been written in reference to Calvin and his system of thought.⁷ Any notion of reaching a projection as to what depth and to what extent this research will reach is not easily placated when one reviews and compares two bibliographies published in Calvin Theological Journal by Peter De Klerk in 1985 and again in 1993, entitled Calvin Bibliography 1985 and Calvin Bibliography 1993. In roughly eight years these bibliographies show a jump in research from twelve pages in 1985 to twenty-seven pages in 1993; at this rate, if one were published today it would be over sixty pages in length. Nevertheless, the following paragraph offers a minute sampling of that range of influence being considered in the academic realm.

A documented influence by Calvin himself is one of Rome’s greatest orators—Cicero (106 BC–43 BC)—and his work On the Nature of Gods which provided Calvin with the fundamental language he would employ in his discussion of the sensus divinitatis. The essence of what caught Calvin’s attention and had a profound impact on his epistemology is captured in Cicero’s—a Roman statesman—assessment of what was the core issue for all of mankind. The crux of the matter, Cicero writes, is known to all men everywhere. From their birth it is inscribed upon their minds that gods exist.⁸ This would function as an integral part of the whole of Calvin’s covenantal theology, doctrine of sin, and the reality of accountability, because all men and women—all of mankind—are accountable to God as the apostle Paul declared in the opening chapters of Romans. In B. B. Warfield’s appraisal:

It is therefore mere detestable madness to deny that God exists [negantes Deum esse] (I. iv.

2

). In all these passages Calvin is dealing explicitly, not with the knowledge of what God is, but with the knowledge that God is. It is quite incontrovertible, therefore, that he grounds an argument—or rather the argument—for the existence of God in the very constitution of man. The existence of God is, in other words, with him an intuition, and he makes this quite as plain as if he had devoted a separate section to its exposition.⁹

In so many ways, the degree of studies and influences on Calvin is much like a kaleidoscope—depending on which part of Calvin you are researching, you might come across others who were considered in the development of this thought. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato is another direct reference on the part of Calvin in his development of his understanding of the soul and its immortality.¹⁰ In addition to Plato, yet less unknown, is the degree of influence of Aristotle on Calvin’s thinking in the realm of ethics—more specifically, virtue ethics. This association in thought between Aristotle and Calvin is an example of the either/or caution mentioned above; that is, there are those who are adamant that Calvin had a number of references to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in his works. Nonetheless, they lack substance and are more of a literary nature than anything. Partee concurs: the direct Aristotelian influence on Calvin is slight.¹¹

There is ongoing research on what degree of impact Thomas Aquinas might have had on Calvin’s thought,¹² preaching,¹³ and specifically, his understanding of the doctrine of justification.¹⁴ There are studies that draw out the sources for Calvin’s philosophical thought.¹⁵ There are also studies on Calvin and Karl Barth: Calvin and Barth on Justification and Sanctification¹⁶ or Calvin and Barth on Christology.¹⁷ And more recently, there was an interesting study conducted by Iain Paul, Knowledge of God: Calvin, Einstein, and Polanyi, where he sought to draw out the correlation of the knowledge of God in the writings of Calvin, Einstein, and Polanyi.¹⁸ The interest in what has influenced the thought of Calvin is not unique to Calvin; rather, there is a similar degree of interest, although not as extensive, in identifying the influential threads that define the Abbott of Clairvaux’s system of thought as well—Bernard of Clairvaux (1091–1153). For example, consider Bernard and William of Saint Thierry,¹⁹ Peter Abelard,²⁰ Martin Luther,²¹ and not surprisingly, there are a number of other writings investigating the various threads of thought between Bernard and Calvin.

As to research relating to Bernard and Calvin, Philip Butin suggests that it is clear that Calvin had a conscious affinity for the thought of Bernard.²² And this conscious affinity is explored in more detail, for example, by Dennis A Tamburello in his published comparative analysis between Bernard and Calvin entitled Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard.²³ In this book Tamburello offers up a consideration of the influence of Bernard on Calvin in such doctrines as anthropology and justification. More specifically, he explores in particular the relationship between Calvin’s notion of ‘union with Christ’ and notions of the mystical union between believers and Christ that were prominent in the medieval period as explicated in the writings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.²⁴ Nevertheless, the primary point that Tamburello is making is that for both Bernard and Calvin, mysticism embraces more than just contemplation.²⁵ For Tamburello, it is the role of contemplation that is a defining point in mysticism, and as a result, it might be suggested that their [Bernard and Calvin] differences on the role of contemplation explain why we would continue to call Bernard a mystic while withholding the title from Calvin.²⁶

In his comparative study of Bernard and Calvin, Anthony N. S. Lane notes that because of Calvin’s clear and apparently increasing attraction to him, Bernard of Clairvaux has been the mystical figure most analyzed for possible influence on Calvin’s thought.²⁷ It would seem that this conscious affinity is what the late professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, Cornelius Van Til, identified in a paper written in 1922 entitled, Medieval Scholasticism and Mysticism with a View to the Comprehension of the Genius of Both in Calvin’s Theology. It is in Van Til’s analysis that he concludes Calvin indeed adopted much of practical mysticism for to him religion is not only a question of the intellect but all of the heart.²⁸ Is this not a pulling back of the curtain to reveal that dynamic nature of the dual theory of knowledge that both Bernard and Calvin establish as a significant aspect of their thought?

As of the writing of this book there are more than thirty publications that explore the potential relationship between the last church father and forerunner to the Reformation, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and the French reformer John Calvin. This mounting interest of Bernard’s influence on Calvin is expressed by Lane, who notes that since he first began to work on Calvin’s relationship to Bernard, in 1970, not much had been written on that subject. Since then there has been a steady stream of studies, exceeded in volume only by the studies of his relationship to Augustine and to Thomas Aquinas.²⁹ There is a substantial range of agreement and disagreement within these thirty different publications in reference to whether or not Bernard’s influence on Calvin is real or suggestive, as well as the degree, if any, that Bernard’s mysticism found its way into Calvin’s thinking.

No doubt, caution needs to be exercised in venturing into the minds of men of the past. This caution is especially needed when we find ourselves caught up in an endless loop of chasing elusive frays of thought, all in hopes to anchor them to some historical figure, even if the attempt is sometimes strained in its connection. However, the ability to draw out these connections—various parallels in their system of thought—with any degree of certainty, other than direct references, makes this process more than challenging.

I do find it rather remarkable that despite all the research that has been conducted on these two men that there has been no real unearthing of a vital foundational/structural component that defined, in an essential way, both of these men’s system of thought. That is, there has been no connection made between Bernard and Calvin on the twofold theory of knowledge. I suspect this is due in part to a sort of tunnel vision when approaching Bernard’s mysticism and his influence on Calvin. I am convinced that the remote entertainment of mysticism in relation to Calvin will cause certain members of the Reformed faith to have heart palpitations. However, as has been well demonstrated by Tamburello, there many connecting points/similarities between Bernard and Calvin as it relates to mysticism, and as he rightfully points out, the difficulty of such categories is untethering the meaning of the concept of mysticism—it is either defined in too narrow of a sense or too broadly, and the result is that everyone or no one is a mystic.³⁰

It is my contention that the continuity of thought in the doctrine of the twofold knowledge of God and ourselves between Bernard and Calvin is properly identified, not in Calvin’s direct references.³¹ Rather, more substantially, the continuity is seen in the fact that both men were faithfully mining rich truths taught throughout the scriptures, and consequently developing their own vantage points. That is, they capitalized on the shoulders that they were standing on when they received, scrutinized, and advanced this doctrine.

It was these scriptural truths that formed the foundation which they—Bernard and Calvin—built upon, and they worked out the implications of these truths in reference to the creature’s realm of knowledge and relation to the triune God. These truths that Bernard and Calvin found themselves extracting and weaving together were scriptural truths; they were carried forward, like a treasure bin containing precious items that has been protected and handed down from generation to generation. In other words, this is an epistemic testimony³²— taught by such men as Clement of Alexandria, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and more, who made their contributions to the development of Christian thought prior to the forerunner of the Reformation, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, as well as the reformer, John Calvin.

Therefore, my goal is twofold in this study. First, that through the process of this comparative investigation to determine the relating factors, these fundamental components of this twofold knowledge of God and ourselves that functioned as a structural element for both Bernard and Calvin, will be seen. Second, to provide insight into, not just the structural components, but the substance and content of Bernard’s and Calvin’s twofold knowledge of God and self—that is, insofar as it is possible, unearth the spiritual reality that is laced throughout this doctrine, which is a return to the heart.

At the end of the study, I hope you will see how this dynamic doctrine of the twofold knowledge of God is a substantive aspect of both Bernard’s and Calvin’s theological content and structure. More importantly, my hope would be an appreciation for how even this doctrine that is perhaps less known, played a vital role in the development of the totality of the system of thought for Bernard and Calvin. However, the greater significance of what they accomplished in exploring this important doctrine with its rich history was confronting the heart with the truth of the gospel. The twofold knowledge of God and ourselves, as they employed it, was a kneading of the truth that St. Augustine perceived in Isaiah 46:8: Return to your heart! See there what perhaps you perceive about God because the image of God is there.³³ This phrase encapsulates the totality of this twofold knowledge, and this book will seek to unpack this truth: See there what perhaps you perceive about God because the image of God is there. We will explore from the perspective of Bernard of Clairvaux and John Calvin what they identified in one returning to their heart, which is nothing short of a true self-knowledge.

1

. See De Klerk, "Calvin Bibliography

1985

."

2

. McNeill, Thirty Years of Calvin Study,

207

–

40

.

3

. Partee, Calvin, Calvinism, and Philosophy: A Prolusion,

129

.

4

. This either/or subjectivity error is depicted in an article written by David S. Sytsma. See Sytsma, John Calvin and Virtue Ethics. In the opening section of this article Sytsma provides a good picture of the either/or scenario in certain concepts that are accepted or rejected in the context of Calvin’s though development.

5

. Partee, Calvin, Calvinism, and Philosophy: A Prolusion,

129

. See also Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy; Bray, Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination; Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace; Donnelly, Calvinist Thomism.

6

. Van der Walt, Philosophical and theological influences in John Calvin’s thought,

108

. Van der Walt’s article is centered upon the following questions: The main question about foreign influences in Calvin’s thinking may be divided in the following three sub-questions: Was Calvin influenced by extra-biblical ideas?; If so, to what extent?; How did Calvin employ non-biblical insights in his own thinking? See van der Walt, Philosophical and theological influences in John Calvin’s thought,

109

.

7

. Peter De Klerk compiled a "Calvin Bibliography

1993

and it consists of thirty-six pages of works pertaining to Calvin. See De Klerk, Calvin Bibliography

1985

; De Klerk, Calvin Bibliography,

1993

."

8

. Cicero, The Nature of Gods,

128

. This connection is undeniable since Calvin himself explicitly refers to Cicero’s book in Institutes, I.

3

. It is suggested by Lucien Joseph Richard that the influence of Cicero was more than just epistemological; rather, according to Richards, "It would seem that Calvin possessed a remarkable knowledge of Cicero the homo religious as well as Cicero the orator. In defining the concept of religion, it is not Augustine that he has recourse to but Cicero (Inst. I,

12

,

1

). He is also influenced by Cicero in defining such terms as pietas, cultus, and cognitio Dei: ". . .ut intelligent lectores, quid vere sit pietas, subiicimus verba Ciceronis ex Topcis." (OC,

5

,

102

)." See Richard, The Spirituality of John Calvin,

147

.

9

. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism,

145

.

10

. Calvin, Institutes, I.

15

.

6

.

11

. Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy,

99

. The marginal note to the

1559

Institutes reads "Arist.lib.

1

./Ethi.cap.ult./Item lib.

6

./cap.

2

." See Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, I.xv.

6

. The Battles/McNeill edition (

1

:

193

n

23

) contains various errors: (

1

) it omits this reference to Aristotle’s Ethics with respect to the appetites; (

2

) it inaccurately cites Themistius, whom Calvin does not cite until later; and (

3

) it translates vim concupiscendi as the capacity to desire inordinately rather than the neutral (and correct) power of desiring. The sixteenth-century editions avoid these problems, including Thomas Norton’s translation, which correctly translates vim concupiscendi as power of Desiryng. See The Institution of Christian Religion, fol.

55

r. For Calvin’s relation to medieval Aristotelian faculty psychology, see Muller, UC,

159

–

73

; for problems with the Battles/McNeill edition, see Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin,

67

–

78

. See Sytsma, John Calvin and Virtue Ethics; McLelland, Calvin and Philosophy.

12

. Vos, Contemporary Protestant Thought.

13

. Thomas, Proclaiming the Incomprehensible God.

14

. Raith II, Aquinas and Calvin on Romans. More recently, Raith has further expounded upon the potential connections between the thought of Aquinas and Calvin in considering the notion of works in Calvin’s writings. See Raith II, After Merit: John Calvin. As the author notes in the preface to this work: The focus of this study is John Calvin’s theology of works and reward, and the approach is to contextualize his thought in light of both medieval theological developments surrounding the doctrine of ‘merit’ and his polemics against the doctrine as he understood it in his day.

15

. Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy.

16

. Hunsinger, A Tale of Two Simultaneities.

17

. Gibson, Reading the Decree.

18

. Paul, Knowledge of God. What is the significance of this potential connection? What does it say for the God that is presented by Paul?