CALVIN AND LEWIS ON THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

by Robert A. Lotzer

May 09, 1997

Everything that is known of God is ultimately grounded upon the authority of Scripture.  Truly, God has revealed Himself in the realm of nature, however, because of his depravity man is blind.  In order to see God, man is in need of assistance.  God has given the Spirit and the Word to assist man.  Without these holy means all knowledge of God would be impossible.  If one were to remove one of these means the other would be useless to sinful man.  For instance, without the Word the Spirit would be unintelligible.  Without the Spirit, the Word would not be understood.  It is absolutely crucial that these be held together.  Some usually emphasize one of these almost to the exclusion of the other.  There is always a temptation to be unbalanced in doing theology.  It continues to be popular to emphasize the Spirit to the point of neglecting the full authority of the Word.  Ultimately, the authority of the Word is rooted in the view of inspiration held by the Church.  Normally, a low view of inspiration will lead to placing something else in authority above the Word.

The purpose of this paper is to present two views of the nature of Scripture from two very influential people.  In the process of the paper, C. S. Lewis' view of the nature of Scripture will be presented followed by a presentation of John Calvin's.  The purpose of the paper will not be to give a developed critique of each position, but rather to compare and contrast the two views.

C. S. Lewis

Lewis wrote for the laymen, so anything that can be stated about his views in theology must be stated generally and not with technical precision.  In other words, Lewis did not write as a Protestant scholastic but rather as a modern day story teller.  No where does he treat systematically his personal belief in the nature of Scripture.  Michael J. Christensen stated, "Though he addressed countless theological subjects, Lewis never offered a systematic appraisal of the nature of Scripture.  By his own admission in a personal letter (already discussed) he had only 'tentative' thoughts on the subject."   Rather, his view must be gleaned from his many writings.  This should also remind the reader to be careful in his analysis of Lewis remembering that many of his thoughts on this subject were only tentative.  With all of this said, it is possible to uncover a basic theological statement on Lewis' view of the nature of Scripture.  According to Christensen, Lewis' beliefs on Scripture must be preceded by a discussion on his work as a literary critic and an understanding of his view of myth.  So before his view on inspiration is presented, these two subjects will be touched on briefly.

Because Lewis writes for the populace and does not pen his beliefs in a scholastic fashion it is very difficult to know just what his belief is.  It is even more difficult to make fair and helpful criticisms of his understanding.  When one reads Lewis it is almost as he speaks "with forked tongue."  He believes that the Bible is in "some sense inspired."  But just to what sense becomes difficult as we peruse his writings.  On the one hand, it seems that he flies the flag of liberalism or neoorthodoxy when he writes to Corbin Carnell on April 4, 1953:

The point of the whole Book of Jonah as to me the air of being a moral romance, a quite different kind of thing from, say the account of King David or the New Testament narratives, not pegged, like them, into any historical situation.  In what sense does the Bible "present" the Jonah story "as historical"?  Of course, it doesn't say "This is fiction," but then neither does our Lord say that the Unjust Judge, Good Samaritan, or Prodigal Son are fiction.  (I would put Esther in the same category as Jonah for the same reason.)

In another letter, this one to Clyde S. Kilby on May 7, 1959, he writes:

Whatever view we hold of the divine authority of Scripture must make room for the following facts . . . .  2.  The apparent inconsistencies between the genealogies in Matt I and Luke iii; with the accounts of the death of Judas in Matt. xxvii 5 and Acts i. 18-19. . . .  4.  The universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of at least some narratives in Scripture (the parables), which may well extend also to Jonah and Job . . . .  It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth . . . .  The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients. 

In Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis contrast his view with the one that states "that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical and scientific truth."  He boldly says, "But this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation 'after the manner of a popular poet' (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction."   He summarizes his understanding when he writes:

The total result is not "the Word of God" in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science and history.  It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.

Probably one of the most controversial examples of Lewis understanding of the nature of Scripture is how he uses the narrative of Genesis 1-3 as in The Problem of Pain as a mythical story to explain the origin of humanity. 

On the other hand, Lewis says that he does not deny the historicity of these passages because of the presence of a miracle in the text.  He writes, "Where I doubt the historicity of an Old Testament narrative I never do so on the ground that the miraculous as such is incredible."   In Reflections on the Psalms he even states that some consider him to be a Fundamentalist because "I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous."   He accuses the liberal, literary critic of misreading the Bible.  He writes, "If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on that Gospel."

Lewis on Literary Criticism.   Many times in Lewis' writings he makes the claim that he is not a theologian and does not write as a specialist.  However, Lewis was a master literary critic and he applied his skills in this area to the Scriptures.  Christensen divides Lewis' approach to literature into four essential parts:  good reading, good writing, a "baptized imagination," and language and reality. 

First, he states that the good reader is distinguished by three qualities.    The first quality says that the good reader is able to receive a literary work as an end in itself rather than using it for some use beyond it.  To receive literature for itself is to embrace the work as the author intended.  To use it is to treat the work as a means to bring forth one's own preconceived philosophies.  The good reader immerses himself in what is read and is absorbed in the magic of the literary moment.  The poor reader comes to the work to prostitute and rape it for its own personal needs and then casts it aside as a worn out, old pair of shoes. 

Second, a good reader seeks to enlarge his being by entering into the perspective of the writer, submitting himself to a new way of seeing the world.  For a brief journey in life, the reader sees the world through someone else's eyes.  He feels the emotions through someone else's heart.  In the process he looses himself.  He lays aside his presuppositions and preconceived interests and looks intently until he sees through the eyes of the author.  As Lewis writes, "I become a thousand men and yet remain myself.  Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see.  Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do."  

Third, the good reader uses a vivid imagination to allow the writer's own images to reveal their particular purport and to solicit the appropriate emotional responses.  The poor reader reads when all else fails, while the good reader can not help but read and reread.  The good reader is affected by what is read and he allows it to work its magic on his life. 

Lewis' second approach to literature focuses on good writing in its artistic ability to imitate reality.  Lewis points out that the personal heresy in criticism is to see a work of literature as the expression of the writer's personality.  Rather, the work of the author is to point to eternal realities beyond himself.  He writes, "The poet is not a man who asks me to look at him; he is a man who says 'look at that' and points:  the more I follow the pointing of his finger the less I can possibly see of him."   Because Lewis believes that there are absolutes and an Absolute then no one writer should focus on his own mind, but rather, on drawing the reader to the Absolute.  Therefore, the purpose of good writing is to move the reader to the supernatural realm through the medium of language rather than focusing on the natural realm for its own end.

The third approach to literature is what Lewis calls a "baptized imagination."  How does one come into contact with the supernatural realm?  How are those realities brought to bear in this world?  Lewis answers through the use of imagination.  Lewis distinguished between two kinds of knowledge:  savoir and connaitre.  Savoir is descriptive knowledge about the Reality.  It is abstract knowledge that is presented with logical statements and proportional truths.  Connaitre is the knowledge of the Reality gained by familiarity and acquaintance with the Reality.  Science focuses on savoir, while connaitre becomes necessary in religion.  For Lewis, a "baptized imagination" is necessary to obtain knowledge of the Reality.  Lewis thought that the complexity of theories about the Reality hinders the process of knowing the Reality.  He did not think that all theories about the Reality were wrong, according to Paul Holmer in his study, C. S. Lewis:  The Shape of His Faith and Thought, only that no theory was adequate in expressing the Reality.  Lewis wanted an approach to the Reality that was more existential than scientific.  This is where imaginative literature comes into play.  Scientific literature focuses on abstract, objective knowledge whereas imaginative literature brings the reader into contact with the Reality.  It is through the "baptized imagination" that the reader can bypass all the theories about the Reality to come into contact with the reality itself. 

The fourth approach to literature is the nature of human language and Reality.  It is difficult to put the Reality in human language.  The use of human language in the ordinary way will never convey our experiences with the Reality.  Therefore, this language must be used in an unordinary way such as in poetry, analogy, and metaphor.  The language of religion is not the language of science but in between the language of ordinary conversation and poetry.  Lewis explains that language has three ways of being used.  One way is scientific, which relays the facts with precise accuracy.  Ordinary language is the mundane pronouncement of a fact.  But poetry expresses the fact in such a way that the reader feels the feelings of the author. 

Even the use of poetic language, however, falls way short of expressing the Reality.  It is only that poetry expresses it better than the other two.  Lewis states, "The very essence of our life as conscious beings, all day and every day, consists of something which cannot be communicated except by hints, similes, metaphors, and the use of those emotions (themselves not very important) which are pointers to it."    Therefore, according to Lewis, language can only point to the Reality.  The reality must be experienced.  However, man is limited by both his own rational faculties to know and by the inability of language in communicating meaning.   So, how does man come into contact with the Reality?  By the use of metaphor or analogy.  Lewis is quick to point out that the metaphor has an objective Reality to which it points.  Lewis shows his neo-Platonic colors at this point.  If man tries to grasp the Reality through abstract language he gets only abstraction not real knowledge.  Only real knowledge of the Reality (that is truly there) can be experienced.  So how does man relieve this tension?  Lewis says that through myth man comes closest to a solution.  He writes, "In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as abstraction."    

Lewis on Myth.  Christensen points out that according to Thomas Aquinas God can only be spoken of in one of two ways.  Either negatively by describing what God is not (ie. infinite, immutable, unchangeable, etc.)  The second way is by metaphor or analogy (ie. good shepherd, heavenly Father, the Lamb of God).  In the second method, knowledge of God comes through these images.  God reveals Himself through the use of myths, says Lewis.  Myth does not mean that it is not true.  It can be based on historical fact or it may not.  But to what it points is the Reality.  Myth is not the end in itself.  There is a Reality to which it points.  Myth only conveys and introduces the reader to the Reality, otherwise it cannot be known, only described. 

Christensen points out six characteristics of Lewis' view of myth:  myth can be distinguished from allegory, is fundamentally extraliteral, has elements of fantasy, embodies universal Reality, has a unifying effect on the receiver, and functions to bridge between worlds.    Rather than develop each of these, for the purpose of this paper two will need to be explained.  First, myth embodies the universal Reality.  Lewis, following Platonic idealism, argues that there is a universal Reality.  Myth embodies this Reality.  Only by entering into the Myth does one experience the Reality.  Lewis writes, "It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the [universal] principle concretely."   Lewis stresses that the Reality embodied in the myth cannot be described with scientific language, It has to be experienced through the imagination.  Second, myth functions as a bridge between worlds.  Lewis explains, "Myth is the mountain whence all the different streams arise which become truths down here in the valley; in hac valle abstractionis [in this valley of separation].  Or, if you prefer, myth is the isthmus which connects the peninsular world of thought with that vast continent we really belong to."   It is through the medium of myth that humans come into contact with the Reality.

Lewis on Inspiration.  It is clear that Lewis believed in the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture.  He clearly writes, "If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired."   It is difficult to box Lewis into a specific group of those holding to particular theories on inspiration.  One author describes, "Both liberals and conservatives claim that Lewis belongs to them, but it is the opinion of this writer that Lewis almost always articulates the traditional position of the Anglo-Catholic church, which stands nearer to the Roman Catholic church than to any other."    Christensen points out that Lewis comes close to the neoorthodox position however "Lewis differs with neoorthodoxy in recognizing that these are real spiritual truths being conveyed through the words of Scripture."  

If one were to ask Lewis, "In what way is the Bible inspired?"  he would say, "mythically."  However, as stated above, Lewis does not mean that it is therefore untrue.  In fact, he makes clear that in Christianity, myth became fact.  This is what distinguishes Christianity from all other pagan religions.  Christensen says that because most people misunderstand Lewis' concept of myth, as spelled out above, that it would be better to refer to Lewis' understanding as "literary inspiration."  Christensen means by this that, "The Bible is to be approached as inspired literature.  Its literary elements--images, symbols, myths and metaphors--are actual embodiments of spiritual reality, vehicles of divine revelation."   Where Lewis differs from others who use this type of language is that he affirms that the spiritual reality to which the myth points is actually there.  Bultmann would want to demythologize Scripture because he thinks the myths are false and only by stripping them away does the reader safely find the "historical Jesus."  Lewis uses the same language but rather teaches that because God is at a different level He must accommodate humanity by using the language which best suits His purpose.  For Lewis, this language is mythical and imaginary language.  To the extent that humanity looses himself into the mythical story is the extent to which he experiences God. 

To answer the question, "Was Lewis an inerrantist?" is a much easier than it will be for Calvin.  In Lewis' day the terminology had become popular and if Lewis held to this position he could have easily applied the label to himself.  This language was not being used in Calvin's day, although it will be clear that the concept was.  Lewis chose not to label himself an inerrantist because it is clear that he was not one.  However, it is equally clear that he was by no means a liberal either.  The label of neoorthodox would come closest to his position.  He did not think that the Scriptures were "the Word of God" but rather "the Word of God" comes through the medium of human experience.  As was pointed out above, where he differs from this position is that he finds a spiritual reality standing behind the myth.  The literary work carries the spiritual reality to the reader who is willing to fully loose himself and enter into the story.  Lewis would not view the world as a closed universe.  He believes that there is Reality and that It can enter into the present world.  The Reality enters into the experience of the man through the medium of the mythical story.  So as a whole the Bible, as a collection of myths and historical facts, can be a trustworthy medium to bring man into contact with the Reality.    

John Calvin

Calvin wrote in a time when most did not question the inspiration of Scripture.  They were not as "enlightened" as the church today and argued that since the Scriptures came from God then it could be assumed that they were inspired.   Calvin's position was carefully thought out and was presented in various places.  Most of what is said is scattered through out his vast corpus of writings.  A more concentrated discussion on Scripture is found in the Institutes  I. vi-ix, III. ii, and in IV. viii.  Also a very clear and concise statement is found in his commentary on II Tim. 3:16.   A discussion on Calvin's view of Scripture will be divided into four sections:  the necessity of Scripture, the nature of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, and the inspiration of Scripture.    

The Necessity of Scripture.  The proper place to begin Calvin's view on the necessity of Scripture is a discussion on his view of the knowledge of God.  Calvin said that God reveals Himself in one of two ways:  Creator and Redeemer.  It is not that these are two separate ways, it is really only one revelation.  Calvin begins the Institutes in Book one explaining that God reveals Himself as Creator.  All men have this knowledge.  All humans are born with an "a seed of religion."  He says, "Yet there is, as the eminent pagan says, no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God" (1.3.1).  And again he says, "God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty" (1.3.1).  Calvin believed in an innate knowledge of God, however "they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will" (1.3.1).  The problem was not with the knowledge of God but with how sinful man responds to it.  Rather than worship and give honor to God they refashioned the true knowledge of God into their own corrupt image.  He writes, "They do not therefore apprehend God as he offers himself, but imagine him as they have fashioned him in their own presumption" (1.4.1).  Calvin calls this idolatry and says that man is a "perpetual factory of idols" (1.11.8).  Calvin said that piety is requisite to have a knowledge of God which is "that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces" (1.2.1). 

Calvin believed in the doctrine of total depravity.  Rather than respond to the innate knowledge of God with piety, because of the pervasive nature of sin within the heart of man, he rejects the knowledge of God.  There is no spot in the universe that man can cast his eyes that he does not see some spark of God's glory says Calvin.  He writes, "They have within themselves a workshop graced with God's unnumbered works and, at the same time, a storehouse overflowing with inestimable riches.  They ought, then, to break forth into praises of him but are actually puffed up and swollen with all the more pride" (1.5.4).  For Calvin the problem is not with the creation itself and its ability to reveal God.  In fact, had man not fallen it would be all that is necessary.  The problem is within man who has chosen to worship the creation rather than the Creator.  A natural theology is not sufficient because man rebels against such knowledge. 

Man is not without excuse for rebelling against this knowledge.  Calvin writes, "But although we lack the natural ability to mount up unto the pure and clear knowledge of God, all excuse is cut off because the fault of dullness is within us" (1.5.15).  Yet, God has not left us in this predicament but because of "his fatherly love" has given us a more exacting knowledge of himself in the Scriptures.  Calvin writes, "Despite this, it is needful that another and better help be added to direct us aright to the very Creator of the universe" (1.6.1).  So man can see God, he must use the means of the Scriptures.  They act as eyeglasses to clear up what is blurred by sin.  He says:

Just as old and bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God (1.6.1). 

Without the Word of God, man could not see God aright.  It is absolutely necessary for man's knowledge of God and what will eventually lead him to salvation from God's wrath upon his sin.  Calvin writes:

Therefore, however fitting it may be for man seriously to turn his eyes to contemplate God's works, since he has been placed in this most glorious theater to be a spectator of them, it is fitting that he prick his ears to the Word, the better to profit . . . .  Now in order that true religion may shine upon us, we ought to hold that it must take its beginning from heavenly doctrine and that no one can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture (1.6.2).

Calvin says that Scripture is so necessary for salvation that without it we fall into error.  He says:

Suppose we ponder how slippery is the fall of the human mind into forgetfulness of God, how great the tendency to every kind of error, how great the lust to fashion constantly new and artificial religions.  Then we may perceive how necessary was such written proof of the heavenly doctrine, that it should neither perish through forgetfulness nor vanish through error nor be corrupted by the audacity of men.  It is therefore clear that God has provided the assistance of the Word for the sake of all those to whom he has been pleased to give useful instruction because he foresaw that his likeness imprinted upon the most beautiful form of the universe would be insufficiently effective . . . .  If we turn aside from the Word, as I have just now said, though we may strive with strenuous haste, yet, since we have got off track, we shall never reach the goal . . . .  For errors can never be uprooted from human hearts until true knowledge of God is planted therein (1.6.3).

Scripture is God's means of perfectly revealing Himself and keeping man from error.  Scripture communicates God's nature where creation cannot.  

The Nature of Scripture.  Because of the sinful condition of man, it was necessary for God to reveal Himself through a perfect medium.  This medium Calvin describes as being:

The sure and infallible record; the inerring standard; the pure Word of God; the infallible rule of His Holy Truth; Free from every stain or defect; the inerring certainty; the certain and unerring rule; unerring light; infallible Word of God; has nothing belonging to man mixed with it; inviolable; infallible oracles.  

Calvin also referred to the Scriptures as the "Word of God" (1.7.1) and that "we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men" (1.7.5).  It is clear from these statements that Calvin viewed the very words themselves as being the Word of God.  Calvin saw no distinction from the words on the pages of Scripture and the Word of God. 

For Calvin, the Word of God acts like a transformer between deity and humanity.  A transformer takes a higher current in a primary circuit and converts it to a lower voltage and current in a secondary circuit so that it can be used by appliances which take the lower current.  If God were to walk into the midst of man, His words and power would destroy the man.  So God "accommodates" man by using a medium that is at times a "rude and unrefined style."  Calvin does not deny the infallibility of these words by saying this, only admitting that the Spirit used the language of men to bring His infallible truth.  Calvin writes:

What wonderful confirmation ensues when, with keener study, we ponder the economy of the divine wisdom, so well ordered and disposed; the completely heavenly character of its doctrine, savoring of nothing earthly; the beautiful agreement of all the parts with one another-as well as such other qualities as can gain majesty for the writings.  But our hearts are more firmly grounded when we reflect that we are captivated with admiration for Scripture more by grandeur of subjects than by grace of language.  For it was also not without God's extraordinary providence that the sublime mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven came to be expressed largely in mean and lowly words, lest, if they had been adorned with more shining eloquence, the impious would scoffingly have claimed that its power is in the realm of eloquence alone . . . .  Consequently, it is easy to see that the Sacred Scriptures, which so far surpass all gifts and graces of human endeavor, breathe something divine (1.8.2). 

Calvin does not deny that the Scriptures were written in human language and in many cases even lowly language.  However, what ought to cause one to break into unceasing praise is that God would accommodate Himself to use such language to reveal Himself to man.  God used the very words of Scripture to bridge the mighty chasm between God and man.   

The Authority of Scripture.  The question of authority was central in the defense of the reformation "solas".  Sola Scriptura was the battle cry.  The Roman Catholic church believed that the church gave authority to the Scriptures.  Rather, the Protestants believed that it was the authority of the Scriptures that gave the Scriptures authority.  Calvin writes:

But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church.  As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!  For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask:  Who can convince us that these writings came from God?

Again Calvin states:

If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist . . . .  For if the Christian church was from the beginning founded upon the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever this doctrine is found, the acceptance of it--without which the church itself would never have existed--must certainly have preceded the church . . . .  Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste (1.7.2).

Scripture, then, is its own authority.  It is authoritative solely because it is God's Word.

Some will wrongly argue that to defend the authority of Scripture based on the testimony of Scripture is circular reasoning.  So how does Calvin escape this accusation?  He does so by a clear reference to the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.  For Calvin, the Word is never to be separated from the Spirit and the Spirit is never to be separated from the Word.  To speak of the Spirit without the Word is to open up the possibility of making references to so-called "new revelations".  However, to speak of the Word without the Spirit is to speak of truth that cannot be understood by the human mind.  Both go hand in hand.  Calvin writes:

But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason.  For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.  The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded (1.7.4).

Again Calvin writes:

Let this point therefore stand:  that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated . . . and the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.  For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit (1.7.5).

Calvin stressed the necessity of both the Word and the Spirit.  Only when the Spirit asserts His influence upon the dead heart to regenerate it will the Word have affect on the sinner.  He writes, "Therefore Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit" (1.8.13).  Some modern neoorthodox theologians want to read a neoorthodox interpretation into Calvin's words.   However, Calvin is clear that God has joined the Word that is certain and infallible with the work of the Spirit to produce a pure religion.  Calvin summarizes:

For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of the Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of the Word may able in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God's face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word (1.9.3).

More will be said about the inspiration of Scripture in the following section, but suffice it to say that Calvin saw such an equal correspondence between the words of Scripture and the Word of God that he spoke of them as if they were the same thing. 

The Inspiration of Scripture.  The discussion on the authority of Scripture very naturally leads into a discussion on Calvin's view of inspiration.   There are usually two groups claiming Calvin for their personal view of inspiration.  First, is the group who denies that Calvin accepted a view of verbal inspiration.  Heinrich Heppe argues, "At the root of the original Reformed doctrine of inspiration lay the distinction between, at the root of the later church doctrine the identification of the concepts 'Word of God' and H. Scripture' . . . .  God is described not so much as the 'author' of Scripture, as rather the author of the doctrine attested in it, which He Himself has announced to men."   Ronald Wallace points out several times (15) where Calvin was careless about details and therefore he would not rank Calvin "alongside that which is called today 'fundamentalism.'"   Rogers and McKim stress the fact that Calvin was a humanist scholar and therefore treated the Bible as he would most other literature.  Therefore, "Calvin did not think it inconsistent to affirm that the apostles were secretaries of the Holy Spirit and at the same time to note grammatical weaknesses or historical inaccuracies in their writings."   And Wilhelm Niesel could not have summarized this position any clearer when he stated:

Calvin does not confuse but distinguishes the one Word and the words of Scripture, Jesus Christ the soul of the Bible and the extant written message which bears witness to Him . . . .  Calvin neither championed the idea of the demonstrable mechanical inspiration of the Bible nor did he believe in its inspired literal inerrancy.

Therefore, Calvin separated the Word of God from the words of Scripture.  He believed that the Word of God is inerrant and infallible but God uses fallible means (the Scriptures) to reveal Himself, says this position.

Second, there are many who claim that Calvin held to verbal inspiration.  Kenneth Kantzer, who completed a Ph.D. thesis at Harvard on this very topic, stated:

Calvin's loyalty to the written Scripture knows no bounds.  For him the words of the Bible are the very words of God spoken through the prophets and apostles of long ago and now bringing unerringly to the souls of men the immediate voice of the living God with all the authority of the supreme Sovereign of the universe.

Richard Muller states clearly, "Calvin would have agreed with later doctrines of verbal inspiration but would have questioned the advisability of grounding the authority of Scripture solely on an objective statement of its divine origin which must remain forever external to the believer."   Edward Dowey says clearly:

There is no hint anywhere is Calvin's writings that the original text contained any flaws at all . . . .  To Calvin the theologian an error in Scripture is unthinkable.  Hence the endless harmonizing, the explaining and interpreting of passages that seem to contradict or to be inaccurate . . . .  It is not, however, any given, specific and sacrosanct edition or translation of the Bible, but a hypothetical original document that is inerrantly inspired.

Bryan Gerrish argues:

For Calvin, in fact the whole Bible is the "Word of God" . . . .  Calvin is obliged by his view of inspiration to think of the Scriptures as inerrant . . . .  the authority of the Bible then, according to Calvin, rests upon its character as the verbally-inspired "Word of God", dictated by the Holy Spirit.

According to this view, Calvin would have found a haven among the original fundamentalist view of inspiration.  However, Calvin would not have stated this view on rational grounds alone, but on the basis of the Holy Spirit's work through the authority of the Word of God.

Those who claim that Calvin would not have held to the doctrine of verbal inspiration do so on several issues.  The primary point of contention is over Calvin's treatment of two particular texts: Matthew 27:9 and Acts 7:16.  However, others have shown clearly that these comments were textual critical remarks rather than corrections of the autographs.   Rather, to best summarize Calvin's view of the inspiration of Scripture an extensive quote from his commentary on II Tim. 3:16 should suffice.  Calvin writes:

This is a principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.  Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.  If it be objected, "How can this be known?"  I answer, both to disciples and to teachers, God is made known to be the author of it by the revelation of the same Spirit.  Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake.  The same Spirit, therefore, who mad Moses and the prophets certain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that he has employed them as his servants to instruct us . . . .  This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.

Calvin could not have made a clearer statement of verbal inspiration.  Clearly, those who claim that Calvin was a defender of Biblical inerrancy were correct. 

Comparison and Contrast

It is not within the scope of this paper to give a detailed critique of both positions.  Rather, a few brief comments will be made concerning the similarities and differences between Lewis' and Calvin's views on the nature of Scripture.

Both Lewis and Calvin had a very high view of Scripture.  Clearly, Calvin had a much higher view than Lewis, but Lewis is no liberal.  Calvin leaves no room for truth coming through a fallible means.  In fact, it would not make sense how God can reveal Himself apart from a perfect medium.  The medium cannot be separated from the message.  The very words on the page is in fact the message.  Without the words, there is no message.  If there are errors in the Words, then there are errors in the message.  There is no way around this.  Lewis clearly denies this but somehow retains a high view of the Scriptures.  His use of the Scriptures have been much more beneficial to the Church than many works produced by "flaming fundamentalists."  In his view of Scripture, he is inconsistent by being so dependent upon it.  This inconsistency has been to the advantage of the church. 

Both Calvin and Lewis understand that God is wholly transcendent.  If man is to know anything about God, He must take the initiative.  Lewis stresses the need for myth, Calvin points to God's accommodation of using ordinary, even crude, language.  Each of them understand God as having to use a medium that is lower than Himself to reveal Himself.  In this, both have a very high view of God.  Man cannot know God on his own, he must have help.  Both see that this help is to be found in the Scriptures.

Lewis is not speaking as a liberal when he says that the Word of God records things that are not models of Christian character or when he claims the unhistoricity of a story.  Clearly, Calvin would agree with much that Lewis states.  Obviously, Scripture records such events as the advice of Job's "friends," however, no good expositor of Scripture would follow their counsel.  Rather, Scripture faithfully records what is said, even if it is not to be followed.  Also, certain parables were clearly spoken as stories that were not true and were not meant to be taken that way.  Where Calvin would disagree with Lewis may have been on just what is to be understood as unhistorical.     

A major contrast between the two positions is a discussion of the Spirit in connection with the Word.  Calvin, sometimes referred to as the "Theologian of the Holy Spirit," gives a very healthy emphasis on the necessity of the Holy Spirit.  There is an obvious lack of discussion of the Holy Spirit in Lewis' discussion on the nature of the Scriptures.  Calvin understood the Spirit as being necessary.  Without the work of the Holy Spirit man cannot understand the Word of God.  Lewis leaves no room for this discussion at all.

Although Calvin and Lewis would have disagreed on the nature of Scripture, both have greatly benefited the Church.  Calvin amazingly steered the Church back to the Scriptures without removing all that had gone before him.  He took what was there, filtered it through the Scriptures and produced such a holy work to bring glory to God.  Lewis wrote to stir the hearts of laymen in their desire for joy and heaven.  He pointed man to God, the only source of joy.  He did so by providing an exciting journey through many mythical stories.  In each of his writings, he never pointed man away from the Scriptures but rather pointed through them to the God of Joy.  Calvin did no less in pointing all men through each of word of Scripture to the God who glorifies Himself.  Rather than seeing Lewis as a theologian with a low view of Scripture, he should be enjoyed as a creative author pointing beyond himself to the Reality which is desperately longed for.   

Endnotes

Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture (Waco: Word Books, 1979), 23.

Found in Appendix A in Christensen, 97-98.

Ibid., 98-99.

C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York:  Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), 109.

Ibid., 112.

Christensen, 98.

Reflections, 109.

C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 154.

I am almost completely dependent on Christensen, 43-56 for the following section (Lewis on Literary Criticism).  I will only give footnotes for direct quotes.  Almost every where else the thoughts and research are Christensen's.

Ibid., 44-45.

C. S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge:  University Press, 1961), 141.

C. S. Lewis and E. M. W. Tillyard, The Personal Heresy:  A Controversy (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 11.

Christian Reflections, 140.

Christensen, 54.

C. S. Lewis, "Myth Became Fact," in God in the Dock (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1970), 66.

Christensen, 61.

"Myth Became Fact," 66.

"Myth Became Fact," 66.

Christensen, 98.

John Randolph Willis, Pleasures Forevermore: The Theology of C. S. Lewis (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1983), 85.  

Christensen, 88.

Christensen, 77.

John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans, Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1960).

The following outline as well as many of the references to the Institutes were taken from Donald K. McKim, "Calvin's View of Scripture," in Readings in Calvin's Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).

Cited in John H. Gerstner, "The View of the Bible Held by the Church:  Calvin and the Westminster Divines," in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 391.

Probably the most recent and most thorough treatment from this position is found in Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1979) see esp. 89-116 on Calvin.  Also, see Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1953) see esp. 96-114.  Especially to balance Rogers and McKim's proposal see the able critique John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) see esp. 56-63.  Also, those who claim that Calvin held to verbal inspiration or what has become known as "inerrancy" should be mentioned:  Edward Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin's Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952); Bryan A. Gerrish, "Biblical Authority and the Continental Reformation," Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (1957), 337-360; and John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960).

Roger Nicole, "John Calvin and Inerrancy," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25/4 (December 1982), 425-442 was extremely helpful in finding the following quotes.  Nicole feels so strongly about his own position that he is willing to offer a reward to anyone who would prove him wrong (431). 

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics (London: Allen and Unwin, 1950), 16.

Wallace, 111.

Rogers and McKim, 116.

Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (London: Lutterworth, 1956), 35-36.

Kenneth Kantzer, "Calvin and the Holy Scripture," Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 155.

Richard A. Muller, "The Foundation of Calvin's Theology: Scripture as Revealing God's Word," Duke Divinity School Review 44/1 (Winter 1979), 22.

Gerrish, 353-355.

Murray, 11-31.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Baker, Reprinted ed. 1984), 248-9.