Ironically, Ignatius Loyola (1491–1

Ironically, Ignatius Loyola (1491–1556)—founder of the Jesuits, who led the Counter-Reformation— and the early Reformers were contemporaries. Both Ignatius and John Calvin, as well as Desiderius Erasmus, studied at the Collège de Montaigu in Paris under the principalship of the influential Jan Standonck, who had received his early education with the Brethren of the Common Life at Gouda. Erasmus became the great symbol of the Christian humanism of the Renaissance, and the Greek text he published of the New Testament provided the basis for the vernacular translations of the sixteenth century, beginning with Luther’s German version in 1522. As we noted above, humanists reacted against the Scholasticism of the previous centuries and were not uncritical of the church. The critical question was how far their criticism would go. Erasmus backed off from Luther’s stand against the medieval church and took umbrage at Luther over the question of the freedom of the will. Calvin followed on from Luther and used the resources of humanism to shape the Reformation in a major way, not least with his monumental Institutes. Ignatius provided the troops for the CounterReformation. We must acknowledge the Reformation to have been a thoroughly Christian renewal, recovering many dimensions of the gospel that had become obscured. The Reformers reaffirmed the goodness of creation. Reacting against the dualism that had placed monks and priests on a higher, “sacred” plane, the Reformers Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–64) insisted that in all cultural callings we serve God by serving our neighbors. Thus Luther imagines that Mary, immediately after her visit by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:26–38), simply returns to her household duties—milking, cooking, washing, and sweeping. For Luther every human responsibility is a sacred vocation—and equally sacred whether one is called to bear the Christ child or to put supper on the table. The Reformers also insisted on the scope and depth of sin, a concept they believed had been neglected in the euphoric reemergence of humanism. Furthermore, the Reformers taught (though not always consistently) that salvation was the renewal of human creational life. The Reformers concentrated on theology, and their immediate legacy philosophically is limited. With his view of sin, Luther railed against not just Scholasticism but also the unaided view of reason that dominated philosophy. Notoriously, he declared that philosophy is a whore; she will sleep with whoever pays the highest price. Calvin was more moderate in his critique of philosophy, and in practice Lutherans and Calvinists made use of Aristotle in the educational programs they set up, as well as in their own scholarship. It is thus important to distinguish between the Reformers’ rhetoric and practice when it comes to philosophy. Like many of the Renaissance thinkers, the Reformers reacted strongly against medieval Scholasticism and thus against Aristotle. Luther and Calvin argued against the use of philosophical concepts in theology and ruled out any explicit use of models such as the Christian Aristotelian worldview. They were wary of metaphysical discussions of the divine essence and attributes but did
not deny the truth of the traditional attributes of God of simplicity, infinity, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and so on. Some scholarship discerns a firm break between the Reformers and the Reformed orthodoxy that followed them, not least with respect to philosophy. With other scholars, Richard Muller has demonstrated that this is not as pronounced as is sometimes stated, particularly once one attends to the universities and academies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In a reform between 1520 and 1523 in the Lutheran world, courses on Aristotle’s Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics were discontinued, but courses on his Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetics were retained.[189] The tools of logic and rhetoric were seen as necessary for the teaching of theology and preaching. The Praeceptor Germaniae (Teacher of Germany), as Philipp Melanchthon was called, published a commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics in 1529 and soon thereafter introduced the study of physics and natural theology into the curriculum. As Windelband notes, Little as the theoretico-aesthetical and religiously indifferent nature of the Humanists might accord with the mighty power of Luther’s soul with his profound faith, he was nevertheless, obliged, when he would give his work scientific form, to accommodate himself to the necessity of borrowing from philosophy the conceptions with which to lay his foundations. Here, however, Melanchthon’s harmonizing nature came in, and while Luther had passionately rejected scholastic Aristotelianism, his learned associate introduced humanistic Aristotelianism as the philosophy of Protestantism, here, too, opposing the older tradition to the remodeled tradition. . . . The Peripatetic system was in this instance treated as but a supplement to theology in the department of profane science . . . and as such was taught at the Protestant universities for two centuries.[190] Colossians 2:8 was central to Tertullian’s rejection of philosophy as incompatible with the gospel. The Reformer’s exegesis of this verse manifests no such rejection of philosophy.[191] Calvin rightly notes the relationship of 2:8 to its context, which exhorts the reader to be rooted and built up in Christ. According to Calvin, “As many have mistakenly imagined that Paul here condemns philosophy, we must define what he means by that word. In my opinion, he means everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise in their own understanding—and that not without the specious pretext of reason and apparent probability.”[192] Christ has been appointed by the Father as our sole teacher, and Calvin is concerned to maintain the simplicity of the gospel. Colossians 2:9 alerts us to why certain philosophy is to be rejected; it seeks to supply a deficiency. “But in Christ is a perfection to which nothing can be added.”[193] Calvin declares Plato to be the most religious of the ancients and lauds him for his understanding of the immortality of the soul. He criticizes Aristotle because of his association with Scholasticism, but in his view of the world order and causality, Calvin clearly reveals his dependence on Aristotle. Calvin’s view of philosophy is thus complex, and his precise view of philosophy is contested, and this not least in the different Reformed traditions that lay claim to his ancestry. Abraham Kuyper and the different strands of neocalvinism that have come to emphasize the importance of distinctively Christian philosophy trace their roots back to Calvin. Herman Dooyeweerd, for example, stresses that a “radical Christian philosophy can only develop in the line of Calvin’s religious starting point.”[194] This is because Calvin stresses the corruption of reason by the fall. However, Calvin’s theology is by no means so clear as such a statement suggests. After a detailed examination of Calvin’s view of our knowledge of God, Dewey Hoitenga concludes that Calvin does not, however, incorporate into his position or into his thinking the Augustinian formula, faith seeks understanding. This is because he fails to spell out the noetic effects of grace on human reason and because he tends to cast doubt on the possibility of pious philosophical inquiry in the midst of his vigorous rejection of “idle speculation.” . . . The heart of Calvin’s religious epistemology is the immediacy and vitality of human knowledge of God, in believer and unbeliever alike.[195]
Calvin teaches that humans are created with a sensus divinitatis: by our nature we know that there is a God, that he is our Maker, and that he is majestic. This knowledge is immediate and vital, or, as we might say today, existential. One source of this knowledge is the universe, which bears all the marks of God’s craftsmanship. As John Baillie notes, “Nature is not an argument for God, but it is a sacrament of Him.”[196] Human beings are thus always responding to God, but the nature of this response is determined by the presence or absence of Christian faith. Apart from such faith, humans fly off into empty speculations and idolatry. Christian faith, however, restores our fallen natural knowledge of God into the properly worship-full knowledge of God that characterized humans prior to the fall. From the outset of the Institutes Calvin holds our knowledge of God and self-knowledge inseparably together. And he is clear that the fall corrupts such good gifts in us as reason, but for Calvin this corruption manifests itself primarily in relation to “heavenly things.”[197] For “earthly things” like the liberal arts, government, household management, and mechanical skills, “no man is without the light of reason.”[198] On one reading of Calvin, therefore, he can be construed as embracing an epistemological dualism whereby the corruption of reason affects spiritual knowledge, whereas unaided human reason is perceived to function perfectly well in nonspiritual areas. Not surprisingly, therefore, a writer such as Arvin Vos argues that Calvin and Thomas Aquinas are much closer philosophically than is often recognized.[199] Similarly Benjamin B. Warfield and much Princeton Reformed theology has assumed it is working in Calvin’s line by arguing that science done properly and objectively will agree with God’s written revelation. A softer, more “generous” reading of Calvin might argue, as does Hoitenga, that Calvin fails to develop his view of how grace affects reason. And there is certainly something to be said for this view. As Europe split into Protestant and Catholic nations, political philosophy emerged into prominence, and the importance of Calvin’s thought in this respect has recently been acknowledged. Calvin’s political, social, and economic thought is deeply affected

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Ironisnya, Ignatius Loyola (1491 – 1556) — pendiri Jesuit, yang memimpin reformasi — dan reformator awal sejaman. Ignatius dan John Calvin, maupun Desiderius Erasmus, belajar di Collège de Montaigu di Paris di bawah principalship berpengaruh Jan Standonck, yang telah menerima pendidikan awal dengan saudara-saudara kehidupan umum di Gouda. Erasmus menjadi simbol besar humanisme Kristen Renaisans, dan teks Yunani yang ia menerbitkan Perjanjian Baru menyediakan dasar untuk terjemahan bahasa abad keenam belas, dimulai dengan versi Jerman Luther pada tahun 1522. Seperti yang kita perhatikan di atas, budayawan bereaksi terhadap Scholasticism berabad-abad sebelumnya dan tidak tidak kritis dari gereja. Pertanyaan kritis adalah seberapa jauh kritik mereka akan pergi. Erasmus mundur dari Luther melawan gereja abad pertengahan dan meraih umbrage di Luther atas pertanyaan kebebasan kehendak. Calvin mengikuti dari Luther dan menggunakan sumber daya humanisme untuk membentuk reformasi secara besar-besaran, paling tidak dengan lembaga nya monumental. Ignatius disediakan pasukan untuk CounterReformation. Kita harus mengakui reformasi telah benar-benar Kristen pembaruan, memulihkan banyak dimensi dari Injil yang telah menjadi dikaburkan. Reformator menegaskan kembali kebaikan penciptaan. Bereaksi terhadap dualisme yang telah ditempatkan biksu dan imam pada pesawat lebih tinggi, "suci", para reformator Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) dan John Calvin (1509-64) menegaskan bahwa dalam semua budaya pemanggilan kita melayani Jahweh dengan melayani sesama manusia. Dengan demikian Luther membayangkan bahwa Maria, segera setelah kunjungannya oleh malaikat Gabriel (Lukas 1:26-38), hanya kembali ke tugasnya rumah tangga — memerah susu, memasak, mencuci dan menyapu. Luther tanggung jawab setiap manusia adalah panggilan Suci- dan sama-sama Suci Apakah salah satu disebut melahirkan anak Kristus atau untuk menempatkan Perjamuan Suci di atas meja. Reformator juga bersikeras pada lingkup dan kedalaman dosa, sebuah konsep yang mereka percaya telah diabaikan dalam kebangkitan kembali euforia humanisme. Selain itu, reformator mengajar (meskipun tidak selalu konsisten) bahwa keselamatan adalah pembaharuan kehidupan manusia yang berdedikasi. Reformator berkonsentrasi pada teologi, dan warisan mereka segera filosofis terbatas. Dengan pandangan dosa, Luther mencecar tidak hanya Scholasticism tetapi juga pandangan telanjang alasan yang didominasi filsafat. Terkenal, ia menyatakan bahwa filsafat adalah pelacur; Dia akan tidur dengan siapa saja membayar harga tertinggi. Calvin adalah lebih moderat dalam kritik filsafat, dan praktek Lutheran dan Calvinists dibuat menggunakan Aristoteles dalam program pendidikan yang mereka mendirikan, juga seperti beasiswa mereka sendiri. Jadi penting untuk membedakan antara reformator retorika dan praktek ketika datang ke filsafat. Seperti banyak dari para pemikir Renaissance, reformator bereaksi sangat terhadap Scholasticism abad pertengahan, dan dengan demikian terhadap Aristoteles. Luther dan Calvin menentang penggunaan konsep-konsep falsafah dalam teologi dan mengesampingkan penggunaan eksplisit model seperti Christian Aristoteles pandangan dunia. Mereka waspada metafisik diskusi hakikat ilahiah dan atribut tetapi menurut not deny the truth of the traditional attributes of God of simplicity, infinity, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, and so on. Some scholarship discerns a firm break between the Reformers and the Reformed orthodoxy that followed them, not least with respect to philosophy. With other scholars, Richard Muller has demonstrated that this is not as pronounced as is sometimes stated, particularly once one attends to the universities and academies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In a reform between 1520 and 1523 in the Lutheran world, courses on Aristotle’s Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics were discontinued, but courses on his Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetics were retained.[189] The tools of logic and rhetoric were seen as necessary for the teaching of theology and preaching. The Praeceptor Germaniae (Teacher of Germany), as Philipp Melanchthon was called, published a commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics in 1529 and soon thereafter introduced the study of physics and natural theology into the curriculum. As Windelband notes, Little as the theoretico-aesthetical and religiously indifferent nature of the Humanists might accord with the mighty power of Luther’s soul with his profound faith, he was nevertheless, obliged, when he would give his work scientific form, to accommodate himself to the necessity of borrowing from philosophy the conceptions with which to lay his foundations. Here, however, Melanchthon’s harmonizing nature came in, and while Luther had passionately rejected scholastic Aristotelianism, his learned associate introduced humanistic Aristotelianism as the philosophy of Protestantism, here, too, opposing the older tradition to the remodeled tradition. . . . The Peripatetic system was in this instance treated as but a supplement to theology in the department of profane science . . . and as such was taught at the Protestant universities for two centuries.[190] Colossians 2:8 was central to Tertullian’s rejection of philosophy as incompatible with the gospel. The Reformer’s exegesis of this verse manifests no such rejection of philosophy.[191] Calvin rightly notes the relationship of 2:8 to its context, which exhorts the reader to be rooted and built up in Christ. According to Calvin, “As many have mistakenly imagined that Paul here condemns philosophy, we must define what he means by that word. In my opinion, he means everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise in their own understanding—and that not without the specious pretext of reason and apparent probability.”[192] Christ has been appointed by the Father as our sole teacher, and Calvin is concerned to maintain the simplicity of the gospel. Colossians 2:9 alerts us to why certain philosophy is to be rejected; it seeks to supply a deficiency. “But in Christ is a perfection to which nothing can be added.”[193] Calvin declares Plato to be the most religious of the ancients and lauds him for his understanding of the immortality of the soul. He criticizes Aristotle because of his association with Scholasticism, but in his view of the world order and causality, Calvin clearly reveals his dependence on Aristotle. Calvin’s view of philosophy is thus complex, and his precise view of philosophy is contested, and this not least in the different Reformed traditions that lay claim to his ancestry. Abraham Kuyper and the different strands of neocalvinism that have come to emphasize the importance of distinctively Christian philosophy trace their roots back to Calvin. Herman Dooyeweerd, for example, stresses that a “radical Christian philosophy can only develop in the line of Calvin’s religious starting point.”[194] This is because Calvin stresses the corruption of reason by the fall. However, Calvin’s theology is by no means so clear as such a statement suggests. After a detailed examination of Calvin’s view of our knowledge of God, Dewey Hoitenga concludes that Calvin does not, however, incorporate into his position or into his thinking the Augustinian formula, faith seeks understanding. This is because he fails to spell out the noetic effects of grace on human reason and because he tends to cast doubt on the possibility of pious philosophical inquiry in the midst of his vigorous rejection of “idle speculation.” . . . The heart of Calvin’s religious epistemology is the immediacy and vitality of human knowledge of God, in believer and unbeliever alike.[195]Calvin teaches that humans are created with a sensus divinitatis: by our nature we know that there is a God, that he is our Maker, and that he is majestic. This knowledge is immediate and vital, or, as we might say today, existential. One source of this knowledge is the universe, which bears all the marks of God’s craftsmanship. As John Baillie notes, “Nature is not an argument for God, but it is a sacrament of Him.”[196] Human beings are thus always responding to God, but the nature of this response is determined by the presence or absence of Christian faith. Apart from such faith, humans fly off into empty speculations and idolatry. Christian faith, however, restores our fallen natural knowledge of God into the properly worship-full knowledge of God that characterized humans prior to the fall. From the outset of the Institutes Calvin holds our knowledge of God and self-knowledge inseparably together. And he is clear that the fall corrupts such good gifts in us as reason, but for Calvin this corruption manifests itself primarily in relation to “heavenly things.”[197] For “earthly things” like the liberal arts, government, household management, and mechanical skills, “no man is without the light of reason.”[198] On one reading of Calvin, therefore, he can be construed as embracing an epistemological dualism whereby the corruption of reason affects spiritual knowledge, whereas unaided human reason is perceived to function perfectly well in nonspiritual areas. Not surprisingly, therefore, a writer such as Arvin Vos argues that Calvin and Thomas Aquinas are much closer philosophically than is often recognized.[199] Similarly Benjamin B. Warfield and much Princeton Reformed theology has assumed it is working in Calvin’s line by arguing that science done properly and objectively will agree with God’s written revelation. A softer, more “generous” reading of Calvin might argue, as does Hoitenga, that Calvin fails to develop his view of how grace affects reason. And there is certainly something to be said for this view. As Europe split into Protestant and Catholic nations, political philosophy emerged into prominence, and the importance of Calvin’s thought in this respect has recently been acknowledged. Calvin’s political, social, and economic thought is deeply affected

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Ironisnya, Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) -founder Yesuit, yang memimpin Counter-Reformation- dan Reformis awal yang sezaman. Kedua Ignatius dan John Calvin, serta Desiderius Erasmus, belajar di College de Montaigu di Paris bawah principalship dari berpengaruh Jan Standonck, yang telah menerima pendidikan awal dengan para Pemimpin Kehidupan umum di Gouda. Erasmus menjadi simbol besar dari humanisme Kristen Renaissance, dan teks Yunani ia menerbitkan Perjanjian Baru memberikan dasar untuk terjemahan vernakular abad keenam belas, dimulai dengan versi Jerman Luther di 1522. Seperti disebutkan di atas, humanis bereaksi terhadap Skolastik dari abad sebelumnya dan tidak kritis gereja. Pertanyaan penting adalah seberapa jauh kritik mereka akan pergi. Erasmus mundur dari berdiri Luther terhadap Gereja abad pertengahan dan tersinggung pada Luther atas pertanyaan tentang kebebasan kehendak. Calvin kelanjutan dari Luther dan menggunakan sumber daya humanisme untuk membentuk Reformasi dengan cara yang besar, paling tidak dengan Institutes monumental. Ignatius disediakan pasukan untuk CounterReformation tersebut. Kita harus mengakui Reformasi telah pembaharuan secara menyeluruh Kristen, memulihkan banyak dimensi Injil yang telah menjadi dikaburkan. Para reformator menegaskan kebaikan ciptaan. Bereaksi terhadap dualisme yang ditempatkan biarawan dan imam pada lebih tinggi, "suci" pesawat, para reformator Martin Luther (1483-1546) dan John Calvin (1509-1564) menegaskan bahwa dalam semua pemanggilan budaya kita melayani Tuhan dengan melayani sesama kita. Jadi Luther membayangkan bahwa Maria, segera setelah kunjungannya oleh malaikat Gabriel (Lukas 1: 26-38), hanya kembali ke rumah tangganya tugas-memerah susu, memasak, mencuci, dan menyapu. Untuk Luther setiap tanggung jawab manusia adalah panggilan-dan sakral sama suci apakah seseorang dipanggil untuk menanggung anak Kristus atau untuk menempatkan makan malam di atas meja. Reformis juga bersikeras pada ruang lingkup dan kedalaman dosa, konsep mereka percaya telah diabaikan dalam munculnya kembali euforia humanisme. Selanjutnya, para reformator diajarkan (meskipun tidak selalu konsisten) bahwa keselamatan adalah pembaruan hidup penciptaan manusia. Reformis berkonsentrasi pada teologi, dan warisan langsung mereka filosofis terbatas. Dengan pandangannya tentang dosa, Luther mencerca terhadap tidak hanya SKOLASTIK tetapi juga pandangan tanpa bantuan dari alasan yang mendominasi filsafat. Terkenal, ia menyatakan bahwa filsafat adalah pelacur; dia akan tidur dengan siapa pun membayar harga tertinggi. Calvin lebih moderat dalam kritiknya filsafat, dan dalam praktek Lutheran dan Calvinis memanfaatkan Aristoteles dalam program pendidikan mereka mendirikan, serta beasiswa mereka sendiri. Dengan demikian penting untuk membedakan antara retorika dan praktek Reformis 'ketika datang ke filsafat. Seperti banyak pemikir Renaissance, para reformator bereaksi keras terhadap SKOLASTIK abad pertengahan dan dengan demikian terhadap Aristoteles. Luther dan Calvin menentang penggunaan konsep filosofis dalam teologi dan mengesampingkan penggunaan eksplisit setiap model seperti pandangan dunia Aristotelian Kristen. Mereka mewaspadai diskusi metafisik dari esensi ilahi dan atribut tetapi
tidak menyangkal kebenaran atribut tradisional Allah kesederhanaan, infinity, keabadian, mahahadir, kemahatahuan, dan sebagainya. Beberapa beasiswa discerns istirahat tegas antara para reformator dan ortodoksi Reformed yang mengikuti mereka, paling tidak terhadap filsafat. Dengan ulama lainnya, Richard Muller telah menunjukkan bahwa ini tidak diucapkan sebagai kadang-kadang menyatakan, terutama sekali satu menghadiri ke universitas dan akademi dari abad XVI dan XVII. Dalam reformasi antara 1520 dan 1523 di dunia Lutheran, kursus Aristoteles Fisika, Metafisika, dan Etika dihentikan, tetapi program pada Logika nya, Retorika, dan Poetics dipertahankan. [189] The alat logika dan retorika yang dipandang perlu untuk mengajar teologi dan berkhotbah. The Praeceptor Germaniae (Guru dari Jerman), sebagai Philipp Melanchthon disebut, menerbitkan sebuah komentar tentang Etika Aristoteles pada tahun 1529 dan segera setelah itu diperkenalkan studi fisika dan teologi alam ke dalam kurikulum. Sebagai catatan Windelband, Little sebagai sifat theoretico-estetis dan religius acuh tak acuh dari humanis mungkin selaras dengan kekuatan kuasa jiwa Luther dengan iman yang mendalam, ia tetap, wajib, ketika ia akan memberikan bentuk karya ilmiah, untuk mengakomodasi dirinya perlunya meminjam dari filsafat konsepsi yang dapat digunakan untuk meletakkan dasar-dasar nya. Namun, di sini alam harmonisasi Melanchthon datang di, dan sementara Luther telah penuh semangat menolak Aristotelianisme skolastik, rekannya belajar diperkenalkan Aristotelianisme humanistik sebagai filsafat Protestan, di sini juga, menentang tradisi yang lebih tua dengan tradisi direnovasi. . . . Sistem Peripatetik adalah dalam hal ini diperlakukan sebagai tetapi suplemen teologi di departemen ilmu profan. . . dan dengan demikian diajarkan di universitas Protestan selama dua abad [190] Kolose 2:. 8 adalah pusat penolakan Tertullian tentang filsafat sebagai tidak sesuai dengan Injil. Eksegesis Reformer tentang ayat ini memanifestasikan ada penolakan seperti filsafat [191] Calvin benar mencatat hubungan 2:. 8 dengan konteksnya, yang mendesak pembaca untuk berakar dan dibangun di dalam Kristus. Menurut Calvin, "Seperti banyak yang keliru membayangkan bahwa Paulus di sini mengutuk filsafat, kita harus mendefinisikan apa yang dimaksud dengan kata itu. Menurut pendapat saya, ia berarti segala sesuatu yang orang merancang diri ketika ingin menjadi bijaksana dalam mereka sendiri pemahaman-dan yang tidak tanpa alasan munafik akal dan probabilitas jelas. "[192] Kristus telah ditunjuk oleh Bapa sebagai guru tunggal kami , dan Calvin yang bersangkutan untuk mempertahankan kesederhanaan Injil. Kolose 2: 9 alert kita untuk mengapa filsafat tertentu harus ditolak; berusaha untuk memasok kekurangan. "Tapi di dalam Kristus adalah kesempurnaan yang tidak dapat ditambahkan." [193] Calvin menyatakan Plato yang paling religius dari orang dahulu dan memuji dia untuk pemahamannya tentang keabadian jiwa. Dia mengkritik Aristoteles karena hubungannya dengan SKOLASTIK, tapi dalam pandangannya dari tatanan dunia dan kausalitas, Calvin jelas mengungkapkan ketergantungannya pada Aristoteles. Pandangan Calvin filsafat demikian kompleks, dan melihat tepat nya filsafat yang dilombakan, dan ini tidak sedikit dalam tradisi Reformed berbeda yang mengklaim nenek moyangnya. Abraham Kuyper dan untaian yang berbeda dari neocalvinism yang telah datang untuk menekankan pentingnya filosofi khas Kristen menelusuri akar mereka kembali ke Calvin. Herman Dooyeweerd, misalnya, menekankan bahwa "filsafat Kristen radikal hanya dapat berkembang di garis titik awal agama Calvin." [194] ini karena Calvin menekankan korupsi alasan oleh musim gugur. Namun, teologi Calvin tidak berarti begitu jelas sebagai pernyataan seperti menunjukkan. Setelah pemeriksaan rinci dari pandangan Calvin pengetahuan kita tentang Allah, Dewey Hoitenga menyimpulkan bahwa Calvin tidak, bagaimanapun, memasukkan ke dalam posisinya atau ke nya berpikir rumus Augustinian, iman mencari pengertian. Hal ini karena ia gagal untuk menguraikan efek niskala rahmat pada akal manusia dan karena dia cenderung meragukan kemungkinan penyelidikan filosofis saleh di tengah-tengah penolakan kuat dari "spekulasi menganggur.". . . Jantung epistemologi agama Calvin adalah kedekatan dan vitalitas pengetahuan manusia Allah, di percaya dan tidak percaya sama [195].
Calvin mengajarkan bahwa manusia diciptakan dengan divinitatis sensus: oleh alam kita tahu bahwa ada Allah, bahwa ia adalah Pencipta kita, dan bahwa ia adalah megah. Pengetahuan ini segera dan penting, atau, seperti yang kita mungkin mengatakan hari ini, eksistensial. Salah satu sumber pengetahuan ini adalah alam semesta, yang menanggung semua tanda-tanda pengerjaan Allah. Sebagai catatan John Baillie, "Alam adalah bukan argumen untuk Tuhan, tetapi merupakan sakramen-Nya." [196] Manusia sehingga selalu menanggapi Tuhan, tetapi sifat respon ini ditentukan oleh ada atau tidak adanya Kristen iman. Terlepas dari iman tersebut, manusia terbang ke spekulasi kosong dan penyembahan berhala. Iman Kristen, bagaimanapun, mengembalikan pengetahuan alam kita jatuh Allah ke dalam pengetahuan benar-ibadah penuh Allah yang ditandai manusia sebelum musim gugur. Dari awal Institutes Calvin memegang pengetahuan kita tentang Allah dan pengetahuan diri tak terpisahkan bersama. Dan dia adalah jelas bahwa korup jatuh hadiah yang baik seperti di kita sebagai alasan, tapi untuk Calvin korupsi ini memanifestasikan dirinya terutama dalam kaitannya dengan "hal-hal sorgawi." [197] Untuk "hal-hal duniawi" seperti seni liberal, pemerintah, manajemen rumah tangga, dan keterampilan mekanik, "tidak ada manusia yang tanpa cahaya alasan." [198] Di satu pembacaan Calvin, oleh karena itu, ia dapat ditafsirkan sebagai merangkul dualisme epistemologis dimana korupsi alasan mempengaruhi pengetahuan spiritual, sedangkan akal manusia tanpa bantuan dirasakan berfungsi dengan baik di daerah nonspiritual. Tidak mengherankan, karena itu, penulis seperti Arvin Vos berpendapat bahwa Calvin dan Thomas Aquinas lebih dekat filosofis daripada sering diakui. [199] Demikian pula Benjamin B. Warfield dan banyak teologi Princeton Reformed telah diasumsikan itu bekerja sejalan Calvin dengan menyatakan bahwa ilmu dilakukan dengan benar dan obyektif akan setuju dengan wahyu Allah yang tertulis. A lebih lembut, lebih "murah hati" pembacaan Calvin mungkin berpendapat, seperti halnya Hoitenga, bahwa Calvin gagal untuk mengembangkan pandangannya tentang bagaimana kasih karunia mempengaruhi alasan. Dan pasti ada sesuatu yang bisa dikatakan untuk pandangan ini. Eropa terpecah menjadi negara-negara Protestan dan Katolik, filsafat politik muncul ke menonjol, dan pentingnya pemikiran Calvin dalam hal ini baru-baru ini diakui. Pemikiran politik, sosial, dan ekonomi Calvin adalah sangat terpengaruh