Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T03:17:24.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language, Logic and Reason in Calvin's Institutes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Robert H. Ayers
Robert H. Ayers
Affiliation:
Professor of Philosophy and Religion, The University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of fundamental importance for any epistemology is what philosophers today call ‘semiotics’ which entails a consideration of the issues of semantics, logical syntax, and pragmatics. Semantics has to do with the significations or meanings of the terms or expressions in any particular language. It concentrates on the expressions and their designata. Syntactical analysis is concerned with the rules governing the formal relations among the signs of the language such as in inference or the relation of derivability. And pragmatics is concerned with the meanings the speaker intends to convey by his use of language.Obviously, linguistic and logical nonsense and/or failure to take into account the context of the concrete world, especially that of human interests and intentions, and the issue of applicability would produce a death blow for any attempt at an epistemology.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 283 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 283 note 1 Cf. Carnap, Rudolf, Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications (New York: Dover Publications, 1958), PP. 78–80.Google Scholar

page 283 note 2 Unless otherwise indicated references to the Institutes will be placed in the text immediately following a quote or a claim which requires referential support. Quotations will he taken from Calvin: Institutes of The Christian Religion, volumes xx and XXIGoogle Scholar, The Library of Christian Classics, edited by McNeill, John T., translated by Battles, Ford Lewis (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960).Google Scholar

page 284 note 1 David Ray Griffin has clearly shown that Calvin is unable to escape this contradiction. See Griffin's, God, Power and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), chapter 10, pp. 116–30.Google Scholar

page 284 note 2 Ibid. p. 123.

page 284 note 3 Ibid. pp. 116–30.

page 284 note 4 See my work, Language, Logic and Reason in the Church Fathers: A Study of Tertullian, Augustine and Aquinas. Georg Olms Press, Hildesheim, West Germany, 1979.Google Scholar

page 285 note 1 Ibid., also see my articles ‘Tertullian's “Paradox” and “Contempt for Reason” Reconsidered’, Expository Times, LXXXVII, no. 10 (July 1996), 308–11Google Scholar, and ‘Language Theory and Analysis in Augustine’, Scottish journal of Theology, XXIX, 1–12Google Scholar. In these works, I attempt to provide evidence for the claim that what today we call semiotics was an integral part of classical rhetoric. Thus, one trained in rhetoric would know something of semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics.

page 286 note 1 Haroutunian, Joseph, ‘Introduction’, Calvin's Commentaries, XXIIIGoogle Scholar, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press), p. 35.Google Scholar

page 287 note 1 Butler, Samuel, ‘Thought and Language’, The Importance of Language, edited by Black, Max (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 13.Google Scholar

page 289 note 1 Cf. Edwards, Paul, ‘Professor Tillich's Confusions’, Mind, LXXXIV (April 1965), no. 294, p. 213Google Scholar; Austin, J. L., How to Do Things With Words (Oxford University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

page 289 note 2 Cf. Fearnside, W. Ward and Holther, William B., Fallacy, The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959Google Scholar). The discussion in this book provided a helpful base in light of which to analyse Calvin's specific charges of fallacies in his opponents' arguments. I have used the terminology found in this book in listing the fallacies which Calvin mentions. While he does not use contemporary technical terms to designate these fallacies, his arguments against opponents demonstrate his familiarity with these fallacies.

page 289 note 3 Higman, Francis M., The Style of John Calvin (Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 28.Google Scholar

page 291 note 1 In my judgment, Breen's, Quirinus discussion in ‘John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition’, Church History, XXVI, 13Google Scholar, is misleading. First, Aristotle's categorical syllogistic logic was deductive, not inductive. Secondly, it is misleading to call Calvin's logic a ‘rhetorical logic’ because at places he uses enthymemes. Both the categorical syllogism and the propositional logic of inference schemas were integral to the Confirmatio and Reprehensio patterns in classical rhetoric. Calvin's Institutes presents copious evidence that he knew and used both of these types of valid argument forms. See my works listed under note I on p. 285 above and Partee, Charles, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

page 292 note 1 Cf. Mates, Benson, Stoic Logic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961), p. 80Google Scholar; Gould, Joseph B., The Philosophy of Chrysippus (Leiden: Brill, E. J., 1970), pp. 82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 293 note 1 Cf. Carnap, Rudolf, op. cit.Google Scholar

page 295 note 1 Cf. Noss, John B., Man's Religions, Fourth Edition (New York: Macmillan Company, 1969), p. 288.Google Scholar

page 295 note 2 Calvin favours the distribution of power in both church and state (IV.iv.10–11, IV. XX. 8).Only Christ is the head of the church (IV.vi.8), not the Pope. Also, Calvin shows his knowledge of Lorezo Valla's proof that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery.