Calvin, Adam, and Evolution: How Far is Too Far?

Chris Eakin

Religion 343 Professor McDonald 2 May 2011

Eakin 1 Calvin College has been engrossed in a heated discussion over how to read the book of Genesis in the light of modern scientific knowledge, while still remaining true to both the biblical message and the Reformed confessions. This discussion has caught not only the attention of the faculty, staff, and students, but it has also garnered attention from the Christian Reformed Church as well as other Christian groups and individuals outside of the denomination. While many voices have already expressed their opinions, which vary on a wide spectrum from outrage to support, one important voice seems to be missing. At the outset it should be emphasized that John Calvin, the man after whom Calvin College is named, obviously cannot provide us with definitive answers as to how science and religion should interact, but he does provide us with some insight into how he approached science, religion, and the interplay between the two. The purpose of this research has been to examine what substantial information he can possibly offer us.1 It is the authors opinion that Calvin has supplied Christians with a means by which it is possible for one to hold both a high view of Scripture and a high view of science, compromising on trivial things while remaining steadfast in foundational truths. This research asked two questions: (1) What grounds are there for saying that Calvin would consider chiming into todays discussion? and (2) If he was to join in such a conversation, what fundamental truths would he be unwilling to move away from? It is here conceded that this research was both objective and subjective in nature. However, it is hoped that this research will provide as accurate a portrayal of Calvin and his view on the relationship between science and religion as possible, while still imagining what he might have to add to todays discussion.2

It has been duly noted that the theory of evolution and all the scientific knowledge that we now have at our disposal was not available to Calvin during his time, but this should not keep us from engaging him in the places where he can provide relevant insight. 2 On another note, I also wish to be transparent and say that there is somewhat of a self-centered motivation to engaging in this research topic. It was my hope that through my research on Calvin that I could use his thoughts as a means by which I could determine what I believe concerning the relationship between science and Scripture.

Eakin 2 GROUNDS There are essentially two general grounds from which it is plausible to deduce that Calvin would enter into todays discussion: his view of Scripture and his view of science. These might seem obviousand they most certainly are. However, Calvin is interesting in the fact that he holds both a high view of Scripture and a high view of science simultaneously. View of Scripture Orthodox Trinitarian theology has always identified the Greek term Logos (Word) with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. At the same time, the anthological work known as the Holy Bible, or the Holy Scriptures, in Christianity is also referred to as the Word. This bears the question: is there a difference? According to John T. McNeill, one editor of many of Calvins translated works, there was a difference for Calvin. He says that in Calvins thinking, even though he did not always make this distinction clear, Scripture is Gods Word and Gods Word is contained in Scripture but Gods Word is not only found in Scripture. Thus, Gods Word and the Bible are not convertible for Calvin.3 The Word, the Son of God, and the message of salvation that He brings is proclaimed in the Scriptures, but to confine the Word solely to Scripture is unthinkable. It is in light of the Word by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit that everything in the Scriptures should be interpreted. Jack B. Rogers and Daniel K. McKim state that for Calvin, as well as all orthodox Christians, [t]he central theme of the Bible was Jesus Christ. He was the object of the Christians faith.4 This piece of information may seem irrelevant but it is important to keep in mind when examining Calvins view of Scripture. Long ago the Holy Spirit revealed the Word of God to the authors of what would one day be canonized as Scripture. In his magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin says that these revelations were written down in tangible form in order that truth might abide

John T. McNeill, The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin, Church History 28, no. 2 (1959): 133, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 4 Jack B. Rogers and Daniel K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 106.

Eakin 3 forever in the world with a continuing succession of teaching and survive through all ages God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, implanted into [the authors] minds what they should then hand down to their posterity.5 On the surface, this is agreed upon by orthodox Christians. The question now shifts from Who inspired Scripture? to How involved was this Inspirer? There has been disagreement throughout the history of Christianity as to how intimately involved the Spirit was in the writing of Scripture. On one end some have viewed the Holy Spirit as the chief author, using the authors as automatons, devoid of all personal influences on the text; on the other end, others have viewed the Holy Spirit as indirectly involved, enabling men to write down whatever they saw fit. It is not inappropriate at this point to ask where Calvin falls on this spectrum, because the view one holds about the inspiration of Scripture has direct implications for how one interprets it. In reference to the short quote above about the implantation of the Word into the authors minds, McNeill says that it is clear that Calvin did not hold the authors to have been merely the physical means by which the Word was written down.6 Rogers and McKim agree with this interpretation: Any assumption that the authors full human personality was overwhelmed, or that the products of human writing were somehow exempted from human error in their form was totally foreign to Calvins thoughtGod used the biblical writers precisely so that His Word might come to us in truly human language and forms of thought.7 How then does Calvin respond to 2 Timothy 3:16, which says, All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (NRSV)? McNeill says that Calvin understands this verse to mean that God revealed what teaching or doctrina He wanted included in the Scriptures, but He did not dictate this doctrina ad verbum, or word-for-word.8

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 1960), 71 (I.vi.2). 6 McNeill, The Significance of the Word, 140. 7 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 113-14. 8 McNeill, The Significance of the Word, 141.

Eakin 4 This view of the inspiration of Scripture colored how Calvin interpreted Scripture. Just as the Word was revealed to the authors by the Holy Spirit, so must the Holy Spirit must also reveal the Word to those who read it in order that they will understand it.9 Without the Spirit, man would be unable to truly understand what is in the Scriptures, much less enter into a right relationship with God on their own through the Word. A huge chasm exists between man and God that no bridge can be built and crossed by manonly God alone can build and cross such a bridge. This bridge metaphor symbolizes the ultimate accommodation of God to man. Calvin says that the Father, himself infinite, becomes finite in the Son, for he has accommodated himself to our little measure lest our minds be overwhelmed by the immensity of his glory.10 However, not only did God ultimately accommodate himself to us in the incarnate form of His Son Jesus Christ, but He also accommodated himself to us in the Scriptures.11 In Scripture, Calvin saw God as expressing the sublime mysteries of the Kingdom of Heavenin mean and lowly words.12 God, in all His glory, cannot be fully expressed in imperfect human language; however, that was the means by which He chose to communicate Himself in relation to His creatures. Rogers and McKim succinctly state what Calvin believed about this divine accommodation in Scripture: For Calvin, it was not the style [language] but the content [form] of the Bible that was decisive for us. The variety of forms of writing in Scripture, crude and unrefined as they were, paled into insignificance for Calvin in light of the biblical message itself. The form of human language did nothing to inhibit the communication of the divine message. Human, imperfect language was the divinely chosen vehicle by which God had revealed the knowledge of himself. God chose to use human forms of thought and speech out of love for his children.13

Ibid., 133. Calvin, Institutes, 347 (II.vi.4). 11 Ford Lewis Battles, God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity, Interpretation 31, no. 1 (1977): 21, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 12 Calvin, Institutes, 82 (I.viii.1). 13 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 99.
10

Eakin 5 Because God used humans and their language, as a workman uses a tool,14 to do his work, Calvin did not expect the Bible to be perfect in language or contain perfectly accurate scientific or technical information.15 It was not necessary for Scripture to have been written in divine language in order for Gods message of salvation and redemption to be effective and advanced. In fact, Calvin sees this accommodation, or God showing forth His grace by descending to our low estate and using our imperfect language, as a means which makes the message of the Gospel all that more persuasive.16 In providing an exegesis of Scripture, Calvin was always interested in paying close attention to the relationship between a particular text and its historical context. He declared, There are many statements in Scripture the meaning of which depends upon their context.17 Lest one should fear, this short quote should not accuse Calvin of being a scriptural relativist, for he most certainly was not. In the Institutes, Calvin effectively says that the meaning of Scriptural statements may depend upon their context; however, this does not give us license to twist such statements whichever way we please. He knew this was inevitably going to happen so he offered this advice: We mustinquire how far interpretation ought to overstep the limits of the words themselves so that it may be seen to be, not an appendix added to the divine law from mens glosses, but the Lawgivers pure and authentic meaning faithfully rendered.18 He did not espouse a liberal, relativist reading of Scripture, nor did he espouse a conservative, literalist reading. In fact, a literal reading, taking the words at face value, resulted in legalism. This led to incorrect interpretations of Scripture and what Calvin called syllable-snatching.19

14 15

Calvin, Institutes, 1053 (IV.iii.4). Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 111-112. 16 Ibid., 111. 17 Calvin, Institutes, 1346 (IV.xvi.23). 18 Ibid., 374 (II.viii.8). 19 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 97.

Eakin 6 Calvin also held to a view that linguistic errors20 did, in fact, exist in the Bible, thus making it technically errant. This, however, in no way affected or detracted from its message, its relevance, or its authority for Calvin. Rogers and McKim say, The divine character of the biblical message was absolutely unaffected for Calvin the believer when Calvin the scholar discerned technical inaccuracies in the humanly written texts.21 These technical errors were nothing more than human slips of memory, limited knowledge, or the use of texts for different proposes than the original. It should be strongly emphasized that Calvin in no way believed or would even allow the idea that the authors of Scripture deliberately lied, or knowingly told an untruth. The Holy Spirit so guided and consecrated their work that the message, not the language, passed on by these authors was kept pure.22 It is worth emphasizing again that for Calvin it is not the language of the message that saves ones soul but its content. All the imperfect language that was used is translated into perfect content in the mind of those to whom the Spirit has been given. This principle of accommodation was not new for Calvin. Many men prior to Calvins time (Origen, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Tertullian, and Aquinas) made use of this principle. What set Calvin apart, however, was that [he] consistently used this principle to explain Scripture.23 Accommodation allowed him to effectively deal with perceived inconsistencies in Scripture24, thus preserving the integrity of Scripture in a time of advancing scientific inquiry.25 More than that though, Calvin saw accommodation in Scripture to parallel that of a teacherstudent relationship. Davis Young offers a rich yet concise summary of the principle of accommodation for Calvin in terms of this teacher-student relationship:

20 21

Most famous technical error is found in comparing Genesis 47:31 and Hebrews 11:21. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 110. 22 Ibid., 111. 23 Davis A. Young, John Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), 163. 24 Battles, God Was Accommodating, 20. 25 McNeill, The Significance of the Word, 137.

Eakin 7 The effective teacher adjusts to the students level, explains things in terms suited to the student, and often tolerates mistakes that are peripheral to the main point being taught. God, in effect, plays the role of a wise and effective teacher because he accommodates himself to our limited spiritual and intellectual capacities by revealing himself and by communicating to us in ways that we can comprehend. Moreover, God also tolerates many of our own deficient understandings about the world and does not always attempt to correct them in the interests of achieving the infinitely higher goal of leading us to Christ.26 In summary, Scripture is the revelation of the Word, the Son of God, written down by imperfect human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The content of the biblical message is more important than the particular language used, because in Calvins view, the gospel is revealed through the Word by the Holy Spirit. In this manner, it is important to remember that the Word and the Spirit are inseparable. Any imperfection in human language is made perfect in content by the Spirit of God. View of Science Having sufficiently examined Calvins high view of Scripture, it is now time to examine his high view of science. This seems to be a rather inconceivable for those of us in the 21st century. We often perceive that one must choose between science and Scripture. But as we shall see, this was not the case for Calvin. Calvin believed that God is revealed in the majesty and beauty of creation.27 To provide a proof from his writing, he says in the Institutes: [W]herever you cast your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at least some sparks of his glory. You cannot in one glance survey this most vast and beautifully system of the university, in its wide expanse, without being completely overwhelmed by the boundless force of its brightness.28 The entrance of sin and the subsequent total corruption of everything in creation, however, closes mans mind from recognizing God via nature. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit in Scripture that a mans mind is opened and can recognize Gods revelation of Himself to him. McNeill, using a familiar analogy found through Calvins writings, says,
26 27

Young, John Calvin, 164. McNeill, The Significance of the Word, 138. 28 Calvin, Institutes, 52 (I.v.1).

Eakin 8 At best we are like old people who can scarcely read two consecutive words even of the most beautiful book until they are provided with spectacles, whereupon they read distinctly. The Scripture fulfils this function, and so plays an indispensable role in dispelling our spiritual darkness.29 Even though man does not profit eternal life from exploring God in nature, Calvin embraces the use of science in order that, as W. Stanford Reid says, man should investigate and study nature in order to understand [his] Maker.30 Science in Calvins day does not share the same meaning in contemporary society. Today we often equate science to the natural sciencesbiology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. Calvin held to a more general view of science. For him, science was the pursuit of genuine knowledge obtained by a variety of methods.31 Science is thus synonymous to learninglearning about everything that has been created, all of which comes from Gods providential hand. Young points out that Calvin believed the Triune God to be the ultimate source and giver of all true knowledge and of the ability to seek and discover knowledge, including knowledge of the natural world.32 As has been established above, Calvin does not believe that Scripture alone is the source of all knowledge. The Bible is the sole means by which the Spirit reveals the good news of salvation, but this does not make Scripture the final authority on science. Rogers and McKim say that Calvin did not feel that the Bibles teaching had to be harmonized with science. The purpose of Scripture was to bring persons into a right relationship with God and their fellow creatures. Science was in another sphere and was to be judged by its own criteria.33 Flowing from his principle of accommodation, Calvin says of Moses in his commentary on Genesis 1:16: Moses wrote in a popular style, things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense are able to understand; but astronomers [one could say
29 30

McNeill, The Significance of the Word, 138. Quoted by W. Stanford Reid in Young, John Calvin, 6. 31 Young, John Calvin, 3. 32 Ibid., 3. 33 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 111-112.

Eakin 9 science in general] investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemnedFor astronomy [or again, science] is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be knownNor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuitHad he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity.34 This excerpt shows that Calvin believed that Moses was not concerned with imparting lofty scientific knowledge to his audience; rather he was concerned in sharing with his audience the absolute essentials of Gods relationship to man and his creation. All of what has been presented thus far now begs the question about what relationship Christians should have with science. Calvin says that science and the ability to make scientific inquiries is a gift from God that has been bestowed indiscriminately upon [the] pious and [the] impious.35 For the Christian, science was given so that man may marvel at the excellent order of creation and be overcome with a sense of awe for his Creator; for the non-Christian, science was given so that when it came time for the Final Judgment, he would not be rendered inexcusable in his punishment for his impiety.36 In effect, science and scientific inquiry, which is a free gift of God, is not the problem; the problem lies in what men do with that knowledge that has been revealed to them by God.37 In looking at the scientific discoveries that had been made up to his point in time, Calvin recognized that some of the highest intellectual attainments have been accomplished by individuals and cultures that have not experienced the light of the gospel.38 This does not diminish the authenticity or the utility of such discoveries. Calvin says, [T]he knowledge of all that is most excellent in human life is said to be communicated to us through the Spirit of God.39 Young states that in Calvins view, The validity of knowledgewas independent of its

John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John King (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1999), 41, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.pdf. 35 Calvin, Institutes, 273 (II.ii.14). 36 Young, John Calvin, 7.
37 38 39

34

Calvin, Institutes, 275 (II.ii.16).

Young, John Calvin, 4. Calvin, Institutes, 275 (II.ii.16).

Eakin 10 discoverer or of its proponent because that knowledge originated in God.40 God is absolutely free to use non-Christians to reveal true knowledge so that Christians might learn, benefit, and glorify God through this truth. In summary, Calvin held a high view of science. Science implies that a certain order exists in the natural world, and the source of this order is God.41 Therefore, in order to learn more about their Creator, men should most certainly engage in scientific inquiries. While nature itself cannot reveal the message of salvation to men, it does reveal enough about God that those to whom the Spirit has been given will glorify God, and to those to whom the Spirit has been withheld, there will be no excuse when the Final Judgment arrives. FOUNDATIONS Now that Calvins views of Scripture and science have been examined, it is time to move from the theoretical to the practical realm (or perhaps from the practical to the theoretical, depending on how one looks at the situation). Hopefully it is clear by now that Calvin was not antithetical to science nor was he irreverent of Scripture. If he were to appear miraculously on this colleges campus today, he would most likely engage in the current conversation and put forward what he is convinced of is the truth. This section will be divided into four parts: providence, the reading of the book of Genesis, the creation of man, and sin. In turn, Calvins thoughts on these will be briefly examined and an attempt will be made to relate them to the issue at hand. This will no doubt be subjective, but it is worthwhile to engage in such an exercise. Providence Current secular scientific thought today assumes that everything in the world came about through the process of evolution. In many secular scientists view, everything that we see around us has been evolving for billions of years. Evolution is caused by genetic variation,

40 41

Young, John Calvin, 6. Paraphrased from a quote by Susan Schreiner in Young, John Calvin, 202-203.

Eakin 11 which according to secular scientists, happens by random chance. Another perspective is intelligent design (ID), which seeks to explain creation in a non-religious way, by stating that some intelligent designer had to exist. Many Christians today equate this intelligent designer to be the one True God, but the movement itself has not gone so far as to say that the Christian God plays such a role. Thus, because the ID movement is non-religious, it is unclear whether this designer is still at work in creation or not. In opposition to these current positions, Calvin would be immovably firm in stating that the Triune God created, is still active in, and will continue to direct the universe with a specific purpose until the end of time. Evolution did not exist in Calvins time, but he would most certainly have a great deal to tell evolutionists. The major point of contention he would have would be the issue of random chance. In his thinking, [t]here is no such thing as fortune or chance[for] we must know that Gods providence, as it is taught in Scripture, is opposed to fortune and fortuitous happenings.42 To deists, those men who believe that some higher being created the universe but is no longer involved in it, Calvin would say that to make God a momentary Creator, who once for all finished his work, would be cold and barren. Deists may acknowledge God as Creator, but they most certainly do not recognize him as Governor and Preserver. They only use their carnal sense, which thinks there is an energy divinely bestowed from the beginning, sufficient to sustain all things. In order to have a correct knowledge of God and His providence though, a man must have faith. Transcending his carnal sense by the power of the Holy Spirit will enlighten him to realize and [assign] the whole credit for Creation to God. Creation was not only created by God, but is sustain[ed], nourish[ed],care[d] for and directed by the Triune God.43

42 43

Calvin, Institutes, 198 (I.xvi.2). Ibid., 197.

Eakin 12 Reading the Book of Genesis In light of contemporary evolutionary science, many Christians are being forced to ask the question, How should one read the book of Genesis? Some have argued that it must be read literally, for the Bible is absolutely inerrant in language and content, and it is the source of all knowledge. Other have said that it should be read merely as myth, in which it is said that Genesis does not recount historical events but explain[s] humanitys current condition and [articulates] a particular conception of the world and of the divine-human relationship.44 C. John Collins, a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, says that there are at least four possible ways to read the material in Genesis45: 1. The author intended to relay straight history, with a minimum of figurative language. 2. The author was talking about what he thought were actual events, using rhetorical and literary techniques to shape the readers attitudes towards those events. 3. The author intended to recount an imaginary history, using recognizable literary conventions to convey timeless truths about God and humans. 4. The author told a story without even caring whether the events were real or imagined; his main goal was to convey various theological and moral truths. It is interesting to pose the question, Where would Calvin fall on this spectrum? Remembering Calvins view of the inspiration of Scripture and his principle of accommodation, it is likely that option one can be ruled out. In examining options three and four, it should be remembered that those to whom God revealed himself in order that the Scriptures may be written were most certainly guided by the Holy Spirit and did not include any material which would accuse them of deliberately [lying], or knowingly [telling] an untruth.46 The authors had the freedom to write what had been revealed to them by the Holy Spirit in such a way that their audience would understand them. To say that they recounted Genesis as an imaginary history or a story in which the author did not care whether the events were real or imagined would

44

Daniel C. Harlow, After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 181, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF910Complete.pdf. 45 C. John Collins, Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 149, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Complete.pdf. 46 Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, 111.

Eakin 13 likely be incompatible with Calvins thinking. Calvins principle of accommodation does make it possible that the author of Genesis could have borrowed literary devices from other Near Eastern cultures in order that the Israelite people would understand the story of creation. Rogers and McKim say that, for Calvin, the biblical writers were limited and conditioned by their historical context,47 but to say this principle of accommodation automatically implies that the events recounted in Genesis were strictly literary entails false logic. It is plausible to affirm that a texts recounting of events as historic, while also accepting it as literary. In invoking the principle of accommodation, a Christians anxieties about how to protect Scriptures integrity in an age of science can be eased. The Creation of Man Calvin holds to the traditional view that Adam was created out of the dust of the ground by Gods creative fiat and that Eve was formed out of Adams rib. Again, whether he would still hold to this view considering modern scientific evidence is unanswerable. He does, however, offer other important points of interest in his discussion on the creation of human beings. In his commentary on Genesis 2:7, Calvin presents the question: For why did not God command [Adam] immediately to spring alive out of the earth, unless that, by a special privilege, he might outshine all the creatures which the earth produced?48 That is a rhetorical question, because for Calvin God took his time in forming man and formed him last so that man in comparison to other creatures might see just how valuable mankind is to Him.49 In the same way as a worker holds a product on which he has meticulously labored to be extremely valuable, so God holds mankind with such high value in comparison to other created things. Calvin makes an interesting point that in the creation of man there are three progressive actions that take place: first, that his dead body was formed out of the dust of the earth; second, that it was endued with a soul, whence it should receive vital motion; and third, that
Ibid., 111. Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 59. 49 Young, John Calvin, 140.
48 47

Eakin 14 on this soul God engraved his own image, to which immortality is annexed.50 How much time elapsed between each of these actions is unclear; Calvin only makes clear that God spent considerable time forming man. From this, it seems possible that this could leave the door open for theistic evolutionary thinking in Calvins mind. It also leaves unanswered the question of whether a historic Adam was either the first human being or a representative for an already existing group of human beings. Unfortunately, this means that it is unfruitful to attempt to piece together what Calvin would have said about the specifics of Adams creation in light of contemporary science. Sin When Adam and Eve were originally created, Calvin posits with the help of the apostle Paul that Gods image was visible in the light of the mind [knowledge], in the uprightness of the heart [pure righteousness], and in the soundness of all the parts [pure holiness].51 The soul of man at its creation was able to to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong; and, with the light of reason as guide, to distinguish what should be followed from what should be avoided.52 One might infer from this that Calvin saw Adam and Eve as created perfect. He would not likely go so far as to say that they were perfect. In fact, Calvinmaintained that, had Adam not sinned, he would not have remained in his originally created condition. There would ultimately have been some kind of transition or transformation to a heavenly state.53 If Adam and Eve were created perfect, there would have been no reason for Calvin to say that a further transformation was needed. All this hypothetical wrangling aside, as history shows, Adam and Eve eventually fell, thus rendering them not originally perfect. Adams will was flexible54; he was posse non pecare (able not to sin), but he was not created non posse non pecare (not able to not sin), as was Christ who was perfect.
Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 59. Calvin, Institutes, 189 (I.xv.4). 52 Ibid., 195 (I.xv.8). 53 Young, John Calvin, 144. 54 Calvin, Institutes, 195 (I.xv.8).
51 50

Eakin 15 Unfaithfulness towards God led Adam to knowingly disobey God55, creating the situation in which every human being is born into sin, also known as original sin.56 Calvin is clear in the Institutes that man sins by necessity but not by compulsion.57 The human will is so in bondage to sin, that unless the Holy Spirit frees man, he will continue to sin. Calvin quotes Bernard who says this of the will: Thus the soul, in some strange and evil way, under a certain voluntary and wrongly free necessity is at the same time enslaved and free: enslaved because of necessity; free because of will. And what is at once stranger and more deplorable, it is guilty because it is free, and enslaved because it is guilty, and as a consequence enslaved because it is free.58 The question now posed is how sin is transferred from one generation to the next. Some scholars have made the claim that evolutionary biology better explains sin than other methods by saying that humans are united in sin because we share a transtemporal and universal biological and cultural heritage that predisposes us to sin (emphasis added).59 Calvin would most certainly disagree on this point. He does not believe that sin is part of mans created physical being; rather, it has imposed itself on mans created nature. In support of this, Calvin says, We declare that man is corrupted through natural vitiation, but a vitiation that did not flow from nature.60 Elsewhere he says, For the contagion does not take its origin from the substance of the flesh or soul, but because it had been so ordained by God that the first man should at one and the same time have and lose, both for himself and for his descendants, the gifts that God had bestowed upon him.61 To state that sin is biologically passed down and is part of our intrinsic physical nature only reinforces the idea that we are not personally guilty for our own sin, for we cannot help ourselves and are compelled to sin. Humans are not responsible for Adam and Eves sin; they

Ibid., 245 (II.i.4). Ibid., 251 (II.i.8). 57 Ibid., 294 (II.iii.5). 58 Quoted by Bernard in Calvin, Institutes, 296 (II.iii.5). 59 Harlow, After Adam, 191. 60 Calvin, Institutes, 254 (II.i.11). 61 Ibid., 250 (II.i.7).
56

55

Eakin 16 are responsible for their own. However, all humans are born into sin, and as a fly caught in a spiders web, they cannot escape it. No matter how hard science tries to prove that sin is somehow part of our genetic makeup, their pursuit will be futile. Sin is a spiritual disease of the soul, not a physical one of the body. Science, though it may try, cannot explain what it cannot physically observe. CONCLUSION Christians are currently faced with having to choose a position when it comes to what they believe about the relationship between Scripture and science. Calvin College is no better example of where this is occurring. In the authors opinion, we would do well to learn from the person after whom this college is named. John Calvin, though he did not speak directly to todays controversy, does provide us with a set of tools to use in looking at both Scripture and science, as well as pointing to some foundations upon which we must stand our ground. Whether Scripture and science can or ever will be reconciled in this present earthly age is yet to be seen. God alone knows how all of the puzzle pieces of creation fit together and will reveal them as He sees fit. We should remember that the physical creation, which science examines, and Scripture, which reveals Gods Word and message of salvation, is united by the involvement of all three Persons of the Trinityfrom the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God cannot be conflict with himself, all of the puzzle pieces must interconnect in some way. We may not understand everything, but we must have faith and rest assured that everything fits together. In closing, Calvin leaves the Christian with a beautiful statement in his preface to his Commentary on Genesis, upon which we would do well to meditate: We see, indeed, the world with our eyes, we tread the earth with our feet, we touch innumerable kinds of Gods works with our hands, we inhale a sweet and pleasant fragrance from herbs and flowers, we enjoy boundless benefits; but in those very things of which we attain some knowledge, there dwells such an immensity of divine power, goodness, and wisdom, as absorbs all our senses. Therefore, let men be satisfied if [we] obtain only a moderate taste of them, suited to [our] capacity. And it [behooves] us so to press towards this mark during our whole life, that (even in extreme old age) we shall not

Eakin 17 repent of the progress we have made, if only we have advanced ever so little in our course.62

62

Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 21.

Eakin 18 Bibliography Battles, Ford Lewis. God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity. Interpretation 31, no. 1 (1977): 19-38. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Calvin, John. Commentary on Genesis. Translated by John King. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1999. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.pdf. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1 and 2. Louisville, KY: The Westminster Press, 1960. Collins, C. John. Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 147-165. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Complete.pdf. Harlow, Daniel C. After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 179-195. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Complete.pdf. McNeill, John Thomas. The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin. Church History 28, no. 2 (1959): 131-146. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Rogers, Jack B., and Daniel K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Young, Davis A. John Calvin and the Natural World. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007.