SOUTHWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

PLATONIC THEMES IN THE THOUGHT OF CALVIN

SUBMITTED TO
DR. JOHN J. KIWIET
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
FAITH AND ORDER 471-761

WM. BRUCE PRESCOTT

NOVEMBER 23, 1982
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PLATONIC THEMES IN THE THOUGHT OF CALVIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Theme of the Prison of the Body and Immortality of the Soul . . . 3

The Theme of Peace Before Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Theme of the Two Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Theme of Contemplation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The Theme of Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Theme of Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The Relation of Images and Points of View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 20
 INTRODUCTION

There are two opposing tendencies in interpreting the thought of John

Calvin. Traditional “Calvinism” contends that the reformer created a philosophy
founded on the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. Writers such a A. Kuyper, H.
Bavinck, and B. B. Warfield suggest that Calvin offered an insight which leads to the
development of a total world view. The world view that they unfold proceeds from
necessary deductions from the principle of sovereignty, and particularly from the idea
of predestination.

Some recent interpreters, especially those influenced by Karl Barth, deny

or ignore Calvin’s concern with philosophy and prefer to classify him as an exegete of
scripture. The thought of this brand of Calvinism is represented by A. M. Hunter, T.
F. Torrance, and T. H. L. Parker.

Between these two extremes, at varying stages in the theological

spectrum, lies the majority of recent scholarship. Influential in modern studies has
been the research of Jean Boisset. 1 This paper shall examine Boisset’s chapter
entitled “Les thèmes platoniciens dans la pensée de Calvin” and the reactions of other
interpreters to this thesis. An attempt will then be made to answer the following
questions: 1) Was Calvin directly influenced by the philosophy of Plato? 2) How
many, if any, Platonic themes are to be found in the thought of Calvin? 3) Did
philosophical modes of thought help to structure Calvin’s thinking and influence his
scriptural exegesis or was his exegesis free of philosophical input?

1
Jean Boisset, Sagesse et sainteté dans La penseé de Jean Calvin (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959).
Boisset’s book is in the French language and, as of this date, has not been translated into English. All quotations
from Boisset in this paper are this writer’s own translation.

2
 PLATONIC THEMES IN THE THOUGHT OF CALVIN

Boisset finds seven Platonic themes in the thought of John Calvin. These
shall be discussed in the order he presents them.

The Theme of the Prison of the Body and the Immortality of the Soul

Characteristic of Platonic philosophy is the notion that the soul has an

independent existence above the order of sensible change and that it is dragged down
to the sensible world when it uses the body in sensation. 2 Such thought bifurcates
man and exalts his soul at the expense of his body. The body is denigrated to the level
of a prison:

Every seeker after wisdom knows that up to the time when philosophy takes it
over his soul is a helpless prisoner, chained hand and foot in the body,
compelled to view reality not directly but only through its prison bars, and
wallowing in utter ignorance. 3

While Plato deprecates the body because of its dissolubility, he affirms the immortality
of the soul:

The soul is most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform,
indissoluble, and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas the body is most
like that which is human, mortal, unintelligible, dissoluble, and never self-
consistent. 4

Plato encourages philosophers to despise the body, to avoid it and desire

to become independent of it. 5 They are to live ascetic lives purifying their souls 6 and
“preparing themselves for dying and death.” 7 Death separates the soul from the body,

2
Phaedo 79de. This and all other citations from Plato are from The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. Edith
Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961).
3
Ibid., 82de.
4
Ibid., 80b; cf. 105e.
5
Ibid., 65d.
6
Ibid., 67cd.
7
Ibid., 64a.

3
but it only the soul of the philosopher that is thereby released to enter the presence of
“divine masters who are supremely good.” 8 The soul of the common man and the
wicked is subjected to metempsychosis at death:

They are compelled to wander about these places as a punishment for their bad
conduct in the past. They continue wandering until at last, through craving for
the corporeal, which unceasingly pursues them, they are imprisoned once more
in a body. And as you might expect, they are attached to the same sort of
character or nature which they developed during life. 9

The reformer of Geneva was peculiarly fond of the philosopher of the

Academy and described Plato as one of the “sounder class of philosophers.” 10 Boisset
maintains that “for Calvin Plato is, as a philosopher, what Augustine is as a
theologian.” 11 Calvin, however, did not follow Plato uncritically. He contends that,
“Plato, the most religious of all and the most circumspect, also vanishes in his round
globe” 12 and he refuses to allow Lutherans to classify him as a Platonist. 13 Calvin’s
method, as described by Boisset, was to borrow “Platonic formulations and utilize
Platonic molds to inform biblical revelation.” 14

The direct influence of Platonism on Calvin concerning the immortality of

the soul is undisputed. 15 The reformer himself assets that, “It would be foolish to seek
a definition of ‘soul’ from the philosophers. Of them hardly one, except Plato, has
rightly affirmed its immortal substance.” 16

8
Ibid., 63c.
9
Ibid., 81de; cf. Phaedrus 248c-249a.
10
Commentary on Genesis 2:18. This and all other citations of Calvin’s commentaries are from Calvin’s
Commentaries ed. by The Calvin Translation Society 1843-51, Reprint Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse,
1979).
11
Boisset, p. 221. Even Partee, who is generally critical of Boisset’s understanding of Calvin’s Platonism, admits
that this characterization is “probably correct.” Charles Partee, “The Revitalization of the Concept of ‘The Christian
Philosophy’ in Renaissance Humanism,” Christian Scholar’s Review 3 (Fall 1974); 366.
12
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975);
I,5,11.
13
“Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal,” Tracts Relating to the Reformation trans. Henry Beveredge, vol. II
(Edinburg: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), p. 456.
14
Boisset, p. 254.
15
Partee concurs, p. 366.
16
Institutes I, 15, 6.

4
 Calvin accepts the Platonic dualism between mind and body and views
the body as a prison:

Now I understand by the term “soul” an immortal yet created essence, which is
his nobler part. Sometimes it is called “spirit” . . . when the soul is freed from
the prison house of the body, God is its perpetual guardian. 17

There is also an ascetic element in the reformer’s thought:

Accordingly, so long as we dwell on the prison house of our body, we must

continually contend with the defects of our nature, indeed with our own natural
soul. Plato sometimes says that the life of the philosopher is a meditation upon
death, but we may more truly say that the life of a Christian man is a continual
effort and exercise in the mortification of the flesh, till it is utterly slain, and
God’s Spirit reigns in us. 18

Moreover, like Plato, Calvin views death as a separation of the soul and
the body:

Now, unless the soul were something essential, separate from the body,
Scripture would not teach that we dwell in houses of clay and at death leave the
tabernacle of flesh, putting off what is corruptible so that at the Last Day we
may finally receive our reward, according as each of us has done in the body. 19

Unlike Plato, however, the theologian of Geneva does not exhort the Christian to hate
the body and despise it. “The Lord,” Calvin contends, “. . . forbids you to despise your
own flesh.” 20 Rather, the body is to be respected because it is the creation of God, it
participates in the redemption of creation, and it is the beneficiary of the promise of
resurrection. 21

The chief contrast between Calvin and Plato can be traced to the
theologian’s acceptance of the biblical doctrine of resurrection. “Although many of the
philosophers declared souls immortal,” asserts the reformer, “few approved the
resurrection of the flesh.” 22

17
Ibid., I,5,2; cf. III,9,4.
18
Ibid., III,3,20.
19
Ibid., I,15,2.
20
Ibid., III,7,6.
21
See Boisset, p. 257.
22
Institutes III,25,3.

5
 While scholarly opinion concurs that Plato’s influence is evident in
Calvin’s doctrine of the soul, there are differing judgments concerning the
incompatibility between Platonic thought and the teachings of scripture. Contemp-
orary theology, since the work of Oscar Cullmann, 23 makes a sharper distinction
between the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body than does Calvin.
Ray Battenhouse criticizes Calvin pointedly:

The conclusion toward which the evidence seems to point is that Calvin’s so-
called Biblical theology is not quite so Biblical as its nuggets of quotations
would like to impress upon us. The mortar of his edifice is possibly more
Plotinian, actually, than Augustinian; and the details of his architecture more
indebted to classical culture than Calvin realizes. 24

Heinrich Quistorp arrives at a similar conclusion:

The question nevertheless remains whether in fact Calvin, in spite of his

fundamental rejection of philosophy, does not develop a doctrine of the soul
which is more philosophical than theological and which does not accord with
Biblical anthropology. 25

Challenging these conclusions is Charles Partee who asserts that,

Whatever philosophical affinities there may be to Plato’s view of immortality and

the relation of body and soul, Calvin’s doctrine is basically Christian. . . . the
source of Calvin’s view of soul and body is the Scripture. 26

Boisset’s opinion is closest to that of Partee. While affirming a strong philosophical

influence, Boisset writes:

It is not from Plato that Calvin demands a criterion: he calls upon the Bible for
the judgment of revelation and on the affirmations of the philosopher as well as
of the Fathers. But he found that, on the soul, Plato spoke often as the Bible
spoke and Calvin repossessed the Platonic images and terms. 27

23
Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (London: Epworth Press, 1958).
24
Roy W. Battenhouse, “The Doctrine of Man in Calvin and in Renaissance Platonism” Journal of the History of
Ideas IX (1948); 469.
25
Heinrich Quistorp, Calvin’s Doctrine of Last Things, trans. by Harold Knight (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1955),
p. 73.
26
Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), p. 63. Cf. C. Partee “The Soul in Plato,
Platonism and Calvin,” Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (Sept 1969); 291.
27
Boisset, p. 256.

6
 Considering the similarity of their conclusions, it is unusual to find that
Boisset’s most ardent critic is Partee. This is because Partee attempts to exonerate
Calvin of a strong Platonic influence. He does this by presenting a careful analysis of
the development of Plato’s doctrine of the soul. Partee discerns that while Plato’s view
changes, the consistent thread throughout all the Dialogues is that the soul remains a
mediator between the world of ideas and the world of sense. Partee contends that,
“This view of soul as an immortal intermediary, with additions taken from Aristotle, is
developed in the Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Ficino, but not in Calvin.” 28

This writer perceives at least three flaws in Partee’s analysis. First,

Partee caricaturizes Boisset and others and then demolishes a straw man. His
statement that, “Calvin’s Biblical concerns forbid an identification of his view as
entirely philosophical.” 29 leaves the impression that Boisset and others overemphasize
the Platonic influence on Calvin while neglecting the input of biblical revelation. This
writer did not find a single author who contended that Calvin’s view was “entirely
philosophical.” On the contrary, Boisset emphasizes that Calvin is not a “Plato
redivivus.” 30 and that “the climates of Platonism are of different shades, that of Plato is
characterized by concern with . . . a non-Christian philosophy; that of Calvin by a
concern with . . . a biblical theology.” 31

Second, much of Partee’s analysis of Plato’s doctrine of the soul is based

on a distinction between Platonism and Neoplatonism which was unknown to Calvin.
Partee himself observes that, “Only within the last 150 years have scholars attempted
to distinguish between Plato and the diffuse Platonic tradition.” 32 For the study of
Calvin it is far more important to discover what he and his contemporaries understood
of Plato.

Third, Partee’s crucial criticism is based his failure to recognize that

Calvin made a Christian modification of a basically Platonic epistemology. It is true
that for Calvin the soul is not an immortal intermediary. His epistemological
framework, however, remains Platonic. For Calvin it is not man’s soul but rather the
Holy Spirit that serves as an immortal intermediary binding the two worlds together:

28
Calvin and Classical Philosophy, p. 57.
29
Ibid., p. 65.
30
Boisset, p. 253.
31
Ibid., p. 255.
32
Calvin and Classical Philosophy, p. 108.

7
 Also, we ought to know that he is called the “Spirit of Christ” not only because
Christ, as eternal Word of God, is joined in the same Spirit with the Father, but
also from his character as the Mediator. For he would have come to us in vain
if he had not been furnished with this power. In this sense he is called the
“Second Adam,” given from heaven as “a life-giving spirit.” 33

It is concluded, therefore, that Boisset is correct in seeing a strong

Platonic influence on Calvin’s doctrine of the soul.

The Theme of Peace Before Death

In the perspectives of both the philosopher and the theologian death is

not considered as an annihilation, but as a passage to another life. The Platonic
philosopher is to be cheerful in the face of death:

It seems to me natural that a man who has really devoted his life to philosophy
should be cheerful in the face of death, and confident of finding the greatest
blessing in the next world when his life is finished. 34

For Calvin the Christian should await death joyfully:

For if we deem this unstable, defective, corruptible, fleeting, wasting, rotting

tabernacle of our body to be so dissolved that it is soon renewed unto a firm,
perfect, incorruptible, and finally heavenly glory, will not faith compel us
ardently to seek what nature dreads? . . . let us, however, consider this settled:
that no one has made progress in the school of Christ who does not joyfully
await the day of death and final resurrection. 35

The primary difference between the two views is that for Plato certitude
in the face of death comes from reason while for Calvin it comes from revelation.
Boisset remarks, “One has the impression that Plato is the formulator and developer of
his affirmation while Calvin is given his.” 36

Partee contends that, with the exception of the concept of the immortality
of the soul, all of Boisset’s themes are “speculative if not fanciful.” 37 This writer must

33
Institutes, III, 1, 2.
34
Phaedo 63e; 64a.
35
Institutes III, 9, 5.
36
Boisset, p. 264.
37
Calvin and Classical Philosophy, p. 112.

8
concur with Partee in reference to this theme while denying the veracity of his
statement in reference to other themes.

The Theme of the Two Worlds

Plato distinguishes between the sensible world which is transitory and

the ideal world which is permanent. This distinction led Plato to develop an epistemo-
logy in which knowledge of the sense world is opinion while knowledge of the ideal
world is science. 38 True knowledge is gained in an ascending process starting with
conjecture, adding faith and reasoning and leading to pure intelligence. “Faith is a
human step of elevation toward the intelligible.” 39

Calvin also distinguishes between opinion and science. For him,

however, science is fully possessed by God alone. Man’s knowledge is limited to
“belief” about “phantoms” (conjectures) until God gives man faith. 40 Faith sparks
man’s reasoning and produces a measure of certain knowledge:

Our faith does not point us to uncertainty, it does not point us to opinion, or to
belief; but it must impart science with it. . . . Yes this is completely certain,
indeed by science, which renders testimony to the truth in our hearts. 41

For Calvin, as for Plato, faith is involved in knowing. It is not, however,

man’s step of elevation but God’s gift of revelation. Boisset concludes that,

The general climate of the thought of Plato is one of elevation in which the
philosopher is master moving toward God; the climate of thought of Calvin is
one of the abasement of salvation from God towards man. 42

Apart from this difference of perspective, Boisset finds the epistemology

of Plato and Calvin to be remarkably alike. This similitude is especially evident in the
idea of participation. Plato’s doctrine of participation is an attempt to describe the
relation between the two worlds. The sense world is made in the image of the ideal
world:

38
Gorgias 454ff.
39
Boisset, p. 265.
40
Ibid.
41
Sermon LXXIX sur le Deutéronome, Calvin Opera XXVII, Col. 144-145 in Corpus Reformatorum (New York:
Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1964).
42
Boisset, p. 266.

9
 Forms are as it were patterns fixed in the nature of things. The other things are
made in their image and likeness, and this participation they come to have in
the forms is nothing but their being made in their image. 43

It is the idea of the good, sometimes described as a creator, 44 which produces the
relation between the worlds:

This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the
power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of the good, and you
must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge, and of truth in so far as
known. Yet, fair as both are, knowledge and truth, in supposing it to be
something fairer still than these you will think rightly of it. 45

Killian McDonnell, who bases his research on Boisset’s conclusions, 46

maintains that, “Calvin transposes Plato’s doctrine of the sensible world as the image
of the intelligible into creation as the image of the Creator.” 47 The evidence seems to
support such an assertion:

God . . . revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship
of the universe. . . . upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable
marks of his glory, . . . this skillful ordering of the universe is for us a sort of
mirror in which we can contemplate God, who is otherwise invisible. 48

Man himself, for Calvin, is a “microcosm” of the universe and a “rare example of God’s
power, goodness and wisdom.” 49 Man is the sensible image which participates most in
divine likeness.

Boisset finds the idea of participation particularly apparent in Calvin’s

doctrines of the church and the sacraments. The distinction between the two worlds
and the concept of participation can be discerned in Calvin’s doctrine of the visible
and invisible church:

43
Parmenides 132d.
44
Timaeus 30b; Republic X, 601b.
45
Republic VI, 508e.
46
Killian McDonnell, John Calvin, The Church and The Eucharist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), p.
32.
47
Ibid., p. 35.
48
Institutes I, 4, 1.
49
Ibid., I, 5, 3.

10
 Yet to embrace the unity of the church in this way, we need not (as we have
said) see the church with the eyes or touch it with the hands. Rather, the fact
that it belongs to the realm of faith should warn us to regard it no less since it
passes our understanding than if it were clearly visible. And our faith is no
worse because it recognizes a church beyond our ken. For here we are not
bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not
for us, to do –- but to establish with certainty in our hearts that all those who,
by the kindness of God the Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, have
entered into fellowship (participation) with Christ. 50

For Calvin the mark of the true visible church is the pure preaching of the Word of
God and the correct administration of the sacraments. In pure preaching the word of
the preacher is joined with and “participates” in the Word of God. 51 In the sacraments
“an apology is expressed between the thing (rem) and the sign (signum).” 52 Calvin
maintains that the sacraments make us participants in Jesus Christ: “The promises
of the sacraments are not naked but clothed with the exhibition of the things, seeing
they make us truly partakers (participes) of Christ.” 53 The significance of baptism is
that, “through baptism Christ makes us sharers in his death, that we may be
ingrafted in it.” 54 For Calvin baptism so unites us to Christ that, “we become sharers
(participes) in all his blessings.” 55

Boisset maintains that the above quotations should be understood in the

light of Platonic participation. He asserts that for Calvin baptism is the visible mark of
an invisible quality. It is the visible sign of incorporation into Jesus Christ and his
body (the invisible church). The purification of the body by water participates in the
purification of the soul by the Holy Spirit. This participation and the validity of such
an analogy is not generated by the matter of the sacrament, but by the reality signified
in the sacrament. This reality is the person of Jesus Christ who confers to baptism its
signification and validity.

Participation is also the key to understanding Calvin’s view of the Lord’s

Supper. The supper is spiritual nourishment for the soul effected by participation in
the body and blood of Christ:

50
Ibid., IV, 1, 3.
51
Sermon LXIV sur le Deuternonome, Calvin Opera XXVI, col. 673.
52
Ultima admonition ad Joachim Westphal, Calvini Opera IX, col. 184. Translated in Calvin’s Tracts, II, p. 403.
53
Ibid., IX, col. 181. Calvin’s Tracts, II, p. 399.
54
Institutes IV, 15, 5. Of this McNeill says in a footnote: “The mortification of sin in baptism is not only an
imitation of Christ’s dying but a participation in it.”
55
Ibid., IV, 15, 6. Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 2, col. 965.

11
 Hence we acknowledge that his Spirit is the bond of our participation (partici-
pationis) in him, but in such manner that he really feeds us with the substance
of the body and blood of the Lord to everlasting life, and vivifies us by
participation (participatione) in them. This communion of his own body and
blood Christ offers in his blessed Supper under the symbols of bread and
wine. 56

The supper is a sensible (visible) sign of a spiritual (invisible) communion. These signs
have a dual significance and a two-fold participation. The physical bread and wine
signify man’s need for physical nourishment and when celebrated according to
Christ’s “own proper institution” 57 it signifies the soul’s spiritual nourishment. The
material bread participates in Christ’s spiritual body and those who receive the supper
in faith participate in Christ’s substance:

Therefore I do not doubt that, as testified by words and signs, he thus also
makes us partakers (participes) of his substance, by which we are joined in one
life with him. 58

Those who receive the supper must penetrate beyond the sensible to the intelligible:

In order to enjoy the reality of the signs our minds must be raised to heaven
where Christ is and whence we expect him to come as judge and redeemer. But
in these earthly elements it is improper and vain to seek him. 59

Partee also investigates the place of Platonic participation in Calvin’s

thought. He criticizes Boisset and McDonnel at length and concludes that,

It would be extremely wayward to assert that this discussion of Plato’s

regarding participation had any direct influence on Calvin’s doctrine of the
church and sacraments. The only similarity between Calvin and Plato on
participation appears to be the word. 60

This writer discerns at least four objections to Partee’s argument. First,

Partee’s understanding of Platonic participation is dependent upon the research of F.
M. Cornford and Gregory Vlastos. Partee agrees with their conclusion that Plato could
56
Confession Fidei de Eucharistia, Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 9, col. 711-12. Translated in Calvin:
Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 168.
57
Ibid.
58
Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Theological Treatises, p. 137. Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 6,
col. 128.
59
Ibid.
60
Calvin and Classical Philosophy, p. 115.

12
never solve the problem of participation to his satisfaction. Cornford’s and Valstos’s
conclusions, however, have been vigorously challenged by Charles Bigger who
contends that these scholars have “failed to see the point of his [Plato’s] arguments
concerning participation and have neglected as a consequence the positive grounds for
a solution to the problem which is implicit therein.” 61 If Bigger’s analysis is correct,
then Partee’s discussion is undermined.

Second, Partee’s contention that the only similarity between Plato and
Calvin is the word “participation” is patently false. Plato wrote in Greek and never
used the word participatio which is the Latin word most frequently employed to
translate the variety of terms Plato used to express the idea of an intermediary
principle between ideas and things. When Calvin used the word participatio he
undoubtedly expected it to carry the philosophical connotations that had accrued to
the word in the long Neoplatonic heritage that began with Augustine.

Third, Partee totally neglects to explore the one area of philological

comparison that could prove or invalidate his opinion. He discusses Plato’s use of
parousia, koinōnia, mimĕsis, and metechō. Each of these words is also found in the
Greek New Testament. Partee, however, ignores the interpretation of these Greek
words in Calvin’s commentaries.

Fourth, Partee’s error when he denies the role of participation in Calvin’s

thought is clearly evident in a passage which shows that Calvin solved the problem of
participation by making the Holy Spirit an intermediary who guarantees the union of
the two worlds:

It is no contradiction with this that our Lord is exalted in heaven, and so has
withdrawn the local presence of his body from us, which is not here required.
For though we as pilgrims in mortality are neither included nor contained in the
same space with him, yet the efficacy of his Spirit is limited by no bounds, but
is able really to unite and bring together into one things that are disjoined in
local space. Hence we acknowledge that his Spirit is the bond of our
participation in him, but in such manner that he really feeds us with the
substance of the body and blood of the Lord to everlasting life, and vivifies us by
participation in them. 62

It is therefore concluded that Boisset’s understanding of Platonic

participation in Calvin’s thought is to be sustained.

61
Charles P. Bigger, Participation: A Platonic Inquiry (Baten Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968), pp. viii-
ix.
62
Theological Treatises, p. 168.

13
 The Theme of Contemplation

Plato teaches that by catharsis the soul ascends to contemplation of the

divine:

We shall continue closest to knowledge if we avoid as much as we can all

contact and association with the body, . . . purifying (katharsis) ourselves from
it . . . In this way . . . we shall . . . gain direct knowledge of all that is pure and
uncontaminated – that is, presumably, of truth. 63

Boisset maintains that Calvin’s concept of the contemplation of God is

parallel to Plato’s idea of the contemplation of the truths of the intelligible world. For
Calvin the believer “sees” God with a “new eye” given to him by the Holy Spirit:

Therefore, as we cannot come to Christ unless we be drawn by the Spirit of

God, so when we are drawn we are lifted up in mind and heart above our
understanding. For the soul illumined by him, takes on a new keenness (un
oeil nouveau), as it were, to contemplate the heavenly mysteries, whose
mysteries, whose splendor had previously blinded it. 64

Calvin diverges from Plato by making the process of ascent one of

regeneration rather than purification. Their thought converges in affirming that man,
in his earthly life is unable to know the divine fully. Plato states that, “The wisdom
which we desire and upon which we profess to have set our hearts will be attainable
only when we are dead, and not in our lifetime.” 65 Calvin reserves full knowledge for
the eschaton by saying that, “the manifestation and full exhibition” of knowledge is
“deferred to another life.” 66

Both Plato and Calvin defer full knowledge to another life because of a
fall. The two, however, have different views of the fall. For Plato the soul individually
falls to an earthly body and salvation is realized in degrees by successive reincarn-

63
Phaedo 67a; cf. 84a.
64
Institutes III, 2, 34. A statement by Bigger concerning Platonic philosophy is peculiarly apt here: “Let us bear in
mind that idea has the root ‘to see.’ Speculative demonstration, or the early Socratic dialectic, is a method of
vision.” Participation, p. 21; cf. p. 17.
65
Phaedo 66d.
66
Institutes I, 5, 10.

14
ations. 67 For Calvin the fall involved the entire person of the first man and the
consequences of his fall are transmitted hereditarily to the descendants of Adam. 68

Though Partee says the parallels between Calvin and Plato are
speculative on this theme, this writer finds enough similarity to maintain Boisset’s
conclusion.

The Theme of Return

Both Plato and Calvin understand man to have a nostalgic remembrance

of a previous state of purity that proves man’s need to return to such a state. For
Plato the nostalgia is a happy remembrance:

Such a one, as soon as he beholds the beauty of this world, is reminded of true
beauty, and his wings begin to grow; then is he fain to lift his wings and fly
upward. 69

Calvin denies that the nostalgia is a reminiscence or “recollection,” rather, he calls it

“a universal apprehension of reason and understanding by nature implanted in
men.” 70 This apprehension is sparked by the biblical revelation of Adam’s lost
integrity and causes the Christian to groan and aspire “for his lost dignity.” 71

Boisset’s assertion of this theme is supported by the influence of

Platonism and Neoplatonism on Renaissance Humanism which promoted a concern
for human individuality and the recovery of a sense of human dignity. 72

67
Phaedrus 248c.
68
Institutes II, 1, 4-7.
69
Phaedrus 249e.
70
Institutes II, 2, 14.
71
Ibid., III, 1, 3.
72
See Ernst Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy, trans. Mario Domandi
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963, pp. 84-87; The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, ed. Ernst
Cassirer, Paul Oscar Kristeller, and John Herman Randall, Jr. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 185-
254; and Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York:
Harper Torchbooks, 1961), pp. 120-39.

15
 The Theme of Politics

For Plato the philosopher is the ideal ruler of a city:

Either philosophers become kings in our states or those who we now call our
kings and ruler take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and
there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophical
intelligence. 73

The philosopher, according to Plato, will structure his city according to the will of God
(reason):

When a community is ruled not by God but by man, its members have no
refuge from evil or misery. We should do our utmost . . . and therefore should
order our private households and our public societies alike in obedience to the
immortal element within us, giving the name of law to the appointment of
understanding. 74

For Calvin the Christian magistrate is the ideal ruler, who, having
received his calling from God, rules according to God’s will. He advises magistrates
that,

If they remember that they are vicars of God, they should watch with all care,
earnestness, and diligence, to represent in themselves to men some image of
divine providence, protection, goodness, benevolence, and justice. 75

Both Plato and Calvin united civil and religious power. Boisset states
that Plato’s rulers named the city’s priests. The passage he cites, however, indicates
that priests are chosen by lots and their election is reviewed by the rulers:

We must allow God to effect his own good pleasure by just leaving
appointments to the inspired decision of the lot, but every man on whom the lot
may fall must be subjected to a scrutiny, first as to his freedom from blemishes
and legitimate birth, next as to his provenance from houses pure of all
pollution, and the cleanliness of his own life, and likewise of those of his father
and mother from bloodguiltiness and all such offenses against religion. 76

The procedure for the election of ministers in Calvin’s Geneva is not

entirely dissimilar:

73
Republic V, 473d.
74
Laws IV, 713e-714a.
75
Institutes IV, 20, 6.
76
Laws IV, 759c.

16
 The order is that ministers first elect such as ought to hold office; afterwards
that he be presented to the Council; and if he is found worthy of the Council
receive and accept him. 77

Boisset maintains, without citing references, that for both Calvin and
Plato the divine will is embodied in the positive law. To uphold this law and to protect
the purity of the city, Plato codified definite punishments: admonition, imprisonment,
deportation from the colony, and death. 78 Calvin provided for and applied similar
measures to protect his city’s purity: he admonished, imprisoned, banished,
executed, and, in addition, he excommunicated. 79

Boisset notes that both thinkers preferred an aristocratic form of

government and had similar understandings of the purpose of government. For Calvin
government is to provide equity and justice. 80 For Plato, according to Boisset,
government is to conduce the triumph of good over evil. The passage he cites to
support this, however, refers more to military preparedness than it does to justice:

In fact, the peace of which most men talk . . . is no more than a name; in real
fact, the normal attitude of a city to all other cities is one of undeclared warfare.
. . . there is no benefit to be got from any other possessions or associations,
when there is a failure to maintain supremacy in the field; all the advantages of
the vanquished pass to the victors. 81

After noting the similarities between Calvin and Plato on the theme of
politics, Boisset records some differences. Plato’s society is built on reason and the
fruit of the meditation of the philosopher. Calvin’s society is built on revelation and
the Decalogue. Plato’s city is only an idea. Calvin’s city was a concrete reality.
Boisset nevertheless concludes:

It is otherwise much more remarkable that, in practice, a city wishing to be

Christian, should exist in the constitutional structure that Greek philosophy
constructed for the model city. 82

Despite the discrepancies detected in Boisset’s discussion of this theme,

enough parallels between Calvin’s and Plato’s thought are evident to affirm the validity
of this motif.

77
Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances, Theological Treatises, p. 59.
78
Laws V, 735-736.
79
Institutes, IV, 12, 10.
80
Institutes IV, 20, 15.
81
Laws 626ab.
82
Boisset, p. 281.

17
 The Relation of Images and Points of View

Boisset identifies several similarities in the images used by Plato and

Calvin: shadow and light, sun and obscurity, purity and impurity of heart. One
passage in Calvin’s Institutes has remarkable affinities with Plato’s analogy of the
cave: 83

It is like a man who, shut up in a prison into which the sun’s rays shine
obliquely and half obscured through a rather narrow window, is indeed
deprived of the full sight of the sun. Yet his eyes dwell on its steadfast
brightness, and he receives its benefits. Thus, bound with the fetters of an
earthly body, however much we are shadowed on every side with great darkness
we are nevertheless illumined as much as need be for firm assurance when, to
show forth his mercy, the light of God sheds even a little of its radiance. 84

Other affinities in points of view between Calvin and Plato which are
listed by Boisset include: the concept of true and false wisdom, the application of true
wisdom to the knowledge of being, the necessity of interiority, the idea that God
appeases the inquietudes of man, and the affirmation of the absolute transcendence of
God.

Boisset also finds it significant that Calvin called the school he founded
at Geneva an Academy, like Plato’s school, rather than a gymnasium or college. He
concludes that, “One can truly say that Calvin recognizes a master in the philosopher
of the Academy.” 85

Some of the parallel images Boisset presents under this theme do appear
to be speculative and fanciful. The image of the cave and the title of the school at
Geneva, however, can legitimately be seen to reflect Platonic influence.

83
Republic VII.
84
Institutes III, 2, 19.
85
Boisset, p. 284.

18
 CONCLUSION

The questions with which this study began have now been answered.
First, was Calvin directly influenced by the philosophy of Plato? Undoubtedly, Calvin
was directly influenced by Plato’s writings. He mentions him by name and discusses
his opinions on several occasions.

Second, how many, if any, Platonic themes are to be found in the

thought of Calvin? Of the seven Platonic themes that Boisset discerns in Calvin, only
the theme peace before death was questioned by this writer.

Third, did philosophical modes of thought help to structure Calvin’s

thinking and influence his exegesis or was his exegesis free of philosophical input? It
was concluded that the structure of Platonic epistemology and particularly the concept
of participation exerted considerable influence on Calvin’s thinking. In at least one
instance, concerning the immortality of the soul, Calvin attempted to harmonize an
incompatible element of Platonic philosophy with scriptural revelation.

19
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Calvin, Jean. Calvini Opera. 59 Vols. Corpus Reformatorum. New York: Johnson
Reprint Corporation, 1964.

_________. Calvin’s Commentaries. Edited by The Calvin Translation Society. Reprint

Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1981.

_________. Calvin: Theological Treatises. Edited by J.K.S. Reid. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1954.

_________. Tracts Relating to the Reformation. 2 Vols. Translated by Henry

Beveredge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844.

_________. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols. Edited by John T.

McNeill. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

Plato. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington
Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

The Renaissance Philosophy of Man. Edited by Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar

Kristeller, and John Herman Randall, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1948.

Secondary Sources

Books

Bigger, Charles P. Participation: A Platonic Inquiry. Baten Rouge: Louisiana State

Univesity Press, 1968.

Boisset, Jean. Sagesse et sainteté dans la penseé de Jean Calvin. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1959.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy.

Translated by Mario Domandi. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1963.

Kirsteller, Paul Oskar. Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist
Strains. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

McDonnell, Kilian. John Calvin, The Church and the Eucharist. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1967.

Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.

20
Quistorp, Heinrich. Calvin’s Doctrine of Last Things. Translated by Harold Knight.
Richmond: John Knox Press, 1955.

Periodicals

Battenhouse, Roy W. “The Doctrine of Man in Calvin and in Renaissance Platonism.”

Journal of the History of Ideas IX (1948): 447-471.

McClelland, Joseph C. “Calvin and Philosophy.” The Canadian Journal of Theology

22 (January 1965): 45-53.

Partee, Charles. “Calvin, Calvinism, and Philosophy: A Prolusion.” Reformed Review

33 (Spring 1980): 129-135.

_________. “The Revitalization of the Concept of ‘The Christian Philosophy’ in

Renaissance Humanism.” Christian Scholar’s Review 3 (Fall 1974): 360-
369.

_________. “The Soul in Plato, Platonism and Calvin.” Scottish Journal of Theology 22
(September 1969): 278-295.

21