Calvin’s Trinitarian Theology
He has been acknowledged as a radical reformer from medieval Roman Catholic Church in worship, polity, and theology. Even though the reformer based themselves in sola scriptura, he did not reject traditional terms: ousia, hypostasis, essentia, substantia, and homoousios. Scholars debates his view in Trinity: Nicenetrinitarianism (Robert Reymond), sola scriptura (Edward Dowey, Jr., traditional, etc.
Calvin’s trinitarian theology mainly is explained in the Institutes. Calvin’s basis tendency is to emphasize the unity of God, but he devotes much space in his treatment of God to the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. His focus on the three divine persons does not undermine the unity of God because he takes it as axiomatic that God’s being is one. The three divine persons are distinct, not divided from each other.
Keeping with patristic and medieval teaching, Calvin regards God the Father as the principium. “To the Father as the fountain and well-spring of all things is attributed the beginning of activity; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition of all things; to the Holy Spirit, the power and efficacy of that activity.” The three act together in concert, but in a relational order. Father is the first; from him is the Son; and from both is the Spirit. The reason behind: the Son is said to come forth from the Father alone; the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the same time.
Calvin’s theology of the Sons was developed in the heat of his disputes with Michael Servetus and Valentine Gentile. He refers to the Son as autotheos (God of himself), against Gentile’s teaching in 1558 (the Father alone is autotheos) S, HS are different essence from the Father è Sabellian, Manichaeism. By saying autotheos, he means that one the premise that God is one and indivisible, it follows that all three persons share in the one identical and undivided being of God. Thus, the Son cannot be said to derive his divinity from the Father. “Indeed, if we hold fast to what has been sufficiently shown above from Scripture – that the essence of the one God is simple and undivided, and that it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; and on the other hand, that by a certain characteristic the Father differs from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit – the gate will be closed not only to Arius and Sabellius but to other ancient authors of errors. “Therefore, we say that deity in an absolute sense exist of itself; whence likewise we confess that the Son, since he is God, exists of himself, but not in respect of his Person; indeed, since he is the Son, we say that he exists from the Father. Thus, his essence is without beginning; while the beginning of his person is God himself.
His hypostasis is distinct from the Father while he is of the same essence as the Father, “concealed in God.” The Son is also distinct from the HS. The Son is the only-begotten in the bosom of the Father. Calvin accepts the eternal procession of the HS from the F and S (Rm 8) with regard to the full divinity of the HS.
S and HS are called by the same name, paracletos (comforter).
The whole divine nature is possessed by each divine hypostasis (john 14:10). “The Father is wholly in the Son, the Son wholly in the Father. He uses the phrase in solidum to attest the three persons’ sharing completely and equally in the one being of God. This entails their mutual indwelling. HS is the bond of the Father and the Son. He supports the church Fathers’ use of terms hypostasis and ousia in order to defend biblical teaching.
Calvin’s focus is on the economic activity of the divine persons. His basic question is what does this teaching on the Trinity have to do with our “righteousness”? It is about Christ. Our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ: indeed, with him we possess all its riches.” We when follow Christ, we receive his filial relationship with the Father. Because of Christ’s relationship with the Father, we are united in and with him.
We can say that his theological thinking reflects his Christian piety which appeal primarily to their exhibited works or powers. This is a typical mark of all reformation theology; proper evangelical theology concerns itself only with God who is pro nobis, God who acts with regard to his world and people. This character of God should not be taken as a permission to domesticate the transcendent nature of the Triune God who loves us in freedom. This may be a challenge to certain contemporary theological movements which at times tend to articulate the divine character and nature from the standpoint of sociological and psychological findings and hypotheses.
