Meet The Puritans

Re-thinking Calvin and the “Calvinists”

Posted on 02. Sep, 2009 by Mark Jones in Westminster Assembly

Assessing Calvin’s relationship to the so-called “Calvinists” is not easy to determine.  Methodological, historical, and theological matters need to be appreciated and understood if we are to move forward in this much-vexed debate.

This may surprise some, but it needs to be said that for the most part Calvin’s theology was not original.  At least, he did not wish to view himself that way.  On some doctrines he did make unique contributions, namely, the Son’s aseity and Christ’s “descent” into Hell. Interestingly, both of these contributions produced a firestorm of debate among his successors in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, particularly at the Westminster Assembly.

The Protestant scholastic, Johannes Maccovius, used more careful scholastic language to speak about the Son as autotheos than Calvin.  Not only, then, did Roman Catholics take serious issue with Calvin on the Son’s aseity, but even Reformed theologians.  Of course, Maccovius preserved Calvin’s teaching, but he used language that would overcome the objections of those who denied Calvin’s position.

The “Calvin versus the Calvinists” debate has received a lot of attention in recent historiography.  Several scholars have recently argued that one of the problems concerning the “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis was the error of making Calvin the norm for reading the later Reformed tradition.  This methodology had disastrous consequences for the conclusions of scholars like Alan Clifford and R.T. Kendall.

We might even argue that the response to Clifford and Kendall was wrong-headed.  The answer was not to posit a “Calvin for the Calvinists”.  In fact, not even a “Calvin for and against the Calvinists”.  The truth is that scholarship has given Calvin a prominence that almost reduces men like Vermigli to the status of Calvin’s inferior.  That was just not the case.

In connection with this, the Dutch theologian, Gisbertus Voetius, disliked the term “Calvinist”.  He preferred the term “Reformed Catholic.”  The same could be said for William Perkins.  From what I am told, Jonathan Edwards only used the term grudgingly.

An interesting way of rectifying the sorts of problems that I’ve highlighted would be to discuss the issue of how variegated Reformed orthodoxy was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.  What their differences were remains as important as what their commonalities were.

Besides jettisoning the term “Calvinism”, I believe we should do-away with notion of making the “five points” synonymous with Calvinism or Reformed theology.  As Richard Muller has argued: “How Many Points?”

Related to this, many think one can only be a Calvinist if they hold to the “five points of Calvinism”.  However, Reformed theology was more complex than the “five points” suggest.  As several scholars have noted, the Hypothetical Universalists – e.g. the brilliant, John Preston – represented a trajectory within Reformed orthodoxy.  The real question about the atonement has to do with its nature.  As you know, the Arminians ended up changing the nature of the atonement so that it was consistent with their views of its extent.  Substitution was jettisoned in favor of versions of the Grotian theory (or versions of what we call the governmental theory).

Today we simply make it a question of “limited atonement” versus “unlimited atonement”.  This is a stupid (and annoying) way of formulating the debate.  First, what was the precise nature of the atonement? How does the atonement relate to God’s decree or the pactum salutis.  What about the inseparable relation of the Spirit to the death of Christ?

Finally, as an example of theological development and terminological change, we might look at the doctrine of regeneration.  Calvin had a broader understanding of the term than later Reformed theologians.  The narrowing of the term took place in reaction to the claims of Arminius and his followers; hence, we see in the Canons of Dordt a particular emphasis on the “one-time” monergistic work of the Spirit in order to combat the Arminians who were happy with much of Calvin’s language, but not happy with the irresistibility of the Spirit which had been a hallmark of Reformed orthodoxy.

Calvin certainly understood the idea to signify more than an aspect of the ordo salutis.  For him, it incorporated many aspects of the whole Christian life (Institutes, III.3.9).  Hodge remarked that “Calvin gives the term its widest scope” (Systematic Theology, 3.3).  That is not to say, of course, that Calvin denies the doctrine as it has been typically understood, that is, as an instantaneous “bringing to life from the dead”.  For example, Calvin writes:  “[The Spirit] regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures” (Institutes, II.2.27).  But he was not content with such a narrow view of the doctrine.  Regeneration is akin to sanctification insofar as “it is a renewal of the divine image in us” (Ibid, III.17.5).  Importantly, though he understands regeneration to encompass sanctification, “God only regenerates the elect with incorruptible seed forever” (Ibid, II.13.2).

There is also a good deal of evidence that the early English Puritans (I’m using this term very loosely) had a very elastic view of regeneration.  Perkins, for example, understood John 3:5 to incorporate sanctification (Foundation of Christian Religion, 278).

The narrowing of the term was a result of the theological controversies that led up to the Synod of Dordt in the early seventeenth century.  The Arminians used Reformed language in describing their views, but they denied explicitly the irresistibility of the Spirit’s work; rather, it was “a gentle advising”.  They were happy with Calvin’s language regarding regeneration as it pertained to the Christian life, but they were not happy with the Reformed view of “irresistibility”.

Maccovius was responsible for restricting the term regeneration, which had hitherto been more elastic in meaning, in order to uphold a monergistic view of the Spirit’s working (see Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 293).  From this point on, the Reformed doctrine of regeneration was, in a sense, distinguished from sanctification while at the same time it was understood that one necessarily led to the other.

Tags: Calvin, historiography, Westminster Assembly