Nagging questions

Calvin’s comments on Scripture have put me in two minds. On the one hand, his emphasis on the Bible as the basis for all faith and authority is sweet music to my ears. Calvin has clearly thought deeply about the importance of Scripture to the church. He’s right, and this renewed biblical emphasis was one of the most glorious results of the Reformation.

And yet, I can’t help but feel nagging questions. What does Calvin mean by “Scripture”? The Westminster Confession similarly begins with a discussion of the Scriptures, but those divines felt it important to clarify terms at the outset with a list of canonical books. What is Calvin’s canon? Would he include the Apocrypha? Why or why not? He is doubtless aware of the issue, so can we safely assume he has a reason for not bringing it up?

My other nagging question is related. When we proclaim sola scriptura (as we should), we often get reminded that each book of the Bible was voted on by church councils. Some use this to argue that church tradition has the final authority over Scripture. I don’t want to get into the weeds of the canonical issue, but I have been disappointed not to see Calvin address it. What is the proper relationship between the cultivation of the canon by the early church and a robust doctrine of sola scriptura?

Calvin may address these issues elsewhere, perhaps even in the Institutes. I must admit to a general ignorance of what other topics he plans to cover. In the meantime, I’ll keep reading daily and enjoying the daily does of Calvinistic wisdom.