Meet The Puritans

“A Habitual Sight of Him” for $5

Posted on 12. Feb, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

Mark Jones

Reformation Heritage Books has offered a coupon code for a book that our own Mark Jones has edited and introduced, A Habitual Sight of Him: The Christ-Centered Piety of Thomas Goodwin. If you listen to the aforementioned Covenant Radio interview with Mark Jones there will be a coupon code offered that drops the price down from $7.50 to only $5.

Continue Reading

Puritan Reformed Journal 2:1

Posted on 02. Feb, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

The latest Puritan Reformed Journal 2:1 (January 2010) is now in-print and available for $10 through Reformation Heritage Books. This volume is 396 pages and contains the following (not including book reviews and notices):

Biblical Studies

The Jews’ View of the Old Testament—David Murray

An Everlasting House: An Exegesis of 2 Samuel 7—Maarten Kuivenhoven

Applying Christ’s Supremacy: Learning from Hebrews—Gerald M. Bilkes

Systematic and Historical Theology

“Hot Protestants”: A Taxonomy of English Puritanism—Ian Hugh Clary

John Bunyan and His Relevance for Today—Pieter Devries

Samuel Petto (c. 1624 –1711): A Portrait of a Puritan Pastor Theologian—Michael G.Brown

James Durham (1622–1658) and the Free Offer of the Gospel—Donald John MaClean

The Ceremonial or Moral Law: Jonathan Edwards’s Old Perspective on an Old Error—Craig Biehl

Experiential Theology

The Theological Foundation and Goal of Piety in Calvin and Erasmus—Timothy J.Gwin

Thomas Watson: The Necessity of Meditation Jennifer C.Neimeyer

Was Samuel Rutherford a Mystic?—Robert Arnold

The “Sense of the Heart”: Edwards’s Public Expression of His Pietistic Understanding of Religious Experience—Karin Spiecker Stetina

Pastoral Theology and Missions

John Owen and the Third Mark of the Church— Stephen Yuille

Jeremiah Burroughs on Worship—James Davison

Samuel Davies: One of America’s Greatest Revival Preachers—John E. Skidmore

A Pastor’s Analysis of Emphases in Preaching: Two False Dichotomies and Three Conclusions—Ryan M. McGraw

“For God’s Glory (and) for the Good of Precious Souls”: Calvinism and Missions in the Piety of Samuel Pearce (1766–1799)—Michael A. G. Haykin

Contemporary and Cultural Issues

Handling Error in the Church: Martin Downes Interviewing Joel R. Beeke

Interview with Geoff Thomas

Practical Lessons from the Life of Idelette Calvin— Joel R. Beeke

The “Little Church”: Raising a Spiritual Family with Jonathan Edwards—Peter Beck

Continue Reading

Sermons of a “German Puritan” on the Apostles’ Creed

Posted on 27. Jan, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

My friend and colleague, R. Scott Clark, is general editor of what is going to be a great series of books, “Classic Reformed Theology,” published by Reformation Heritage Books (Grand Rapids, Mich.).

Volume 1 came out last year: William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, trans. Todd M. Rester, introduced by Joel R. Beeke and Todd M. Rester. In this volume we have a fascinating series of sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism from an Englishman exiled to the Netherlands. For those of us who are required to preach catechetical sermons this is a treasure trove. For those with scruples about this practice, Ames shows how the doctrines of the Catechism can be responsibly preached via an exposition and application of Scripture.

I am excited to announce that Volume 2 is now in-print: Caspar Olevianus, An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Lyle D. Bierma, introduced by R. Scott Clark. This volume is a series of sermons Olevianus, one of the key contributors to the Heidelberg Catechism, preached on the Apostles’ Creed. Here are a couple of snippets to whet your appetite:

From the “Introduction”

It is certain that there are two spiritual kingdoms, even in this world: the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. Every person necessarily belongs to one or the other here in this life . . . there are two spiritual kingdoms even in this world. The one is the kingdom of Christ, made up of all who repent, believe in Christ, and are baptized in His name. It also includes their children, unless, when they are grown, through unbelief they reject the benefit that is offered. But the other is the kingdom of Satan and darkness, made up of all who do not repent and do not believe in Christ. Some of them are not baptized but hold baptism in contempt, like the Turks and Jews. Others are baptized but are nevertheless impenitent and unbelievers. Although they are baptized and join themselves to the visible church, nevertheless they remain in the kingdom and power of darkness until such time as they are converted and believe (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. 6:8–10, 12; 2 Cor. 12:21) . . . Let us then see what the kingdom of Christ is, which begins in the faithful in this world and is also called, with the same meaning, “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 3:2; Luke 4:43; 7:28). The kingdom of Christ in this world is the administration of salvation by which Christ the King Him- self outwardly, through the gospel and baptism, gathers to Himself and calls to salvation a people or visible church (in which many hypocrites are mixed). To those in this congregation who have always been His elect, He Himself admin- isters and bestows that salvation to which He calls them. He makes the outward call efficacious, granting them the repentance and faith by which they respond to the One calling them. Those He calls in this way He also justifies, not imputing their sins to them. And those He justifies He also glorifies, purging them daily more and more of their sins, and training, forming, and perfecting them in all godliness, righteousness, and eternal life so that the glory of Christ the King may shine in them (pp. 9, 10).

On “I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth”

The purpose of this description is that once the nature of God is known, we might embrace Him through faith as our only and greatest good, and be afraid to offend Him, so that through this true faith and fear, or repentance, God might be glorified in us. For when we hear, first of all, that God, who by an eternal covenant has promised to be our God, is intelligent, wise, eternal, good, righteous, merciful, etc., we rightly conclude from the form of this gracious covenant that He not only is this way by nature but also wishes to show Himself as such to us believers—and to do so by an eternal covenant, even though all creatures might seem to convince us otherwise. Whoever knows this nature of God, by whom one is received into the covenant, has ample basis for believing in Him and for living by faith according to the will of God (p. 24).

On “He Descended Into Hell”

The true meaning of the article “He descended into hell”

There is no doubt that the descent of Christ into hell is the lowest and most extreme degree of His humiliation, by which He humbled himself for us and, indeed, emptied Himself completely (Acts 2). We should now look at what kind of humiliation this is by examining several meanings of the descent into hell. These are the various meanings: Hell can mean grave; second, it can be translated as “place of the damned”; third, it can mean extreme anguish (Ps. 18[:4–6]; 1 Sam. 2[:6]); fourth, it can be taken for the condition in burial and what follows burial—that state of complete disgrace, as those who have been buried lie oppressed and, as it were, swallowed up by death (Isa. 14:11, 15–17). With respect to the first meaning, we have already said why the descent into hell ought not to be taken simply as burial in this article. We have also shown that the second meaning, descent to the place of the damned, does not agree with this article. That leaves two meanings, anguish of soul and that state or condition that follows both that anguish and the burial itself (p. 88).

The fruit of Christ’s descent into hell

The summary, therefore, of both meanings of Christ’s descent into hell (the latter of which better fits the order of the articles of faith) is that Christ had to be utterly humbled, or forsaken by God, so that we would not be forsaken by God ourselves. We see that, first, in that His divine nature did not exercise its power, so that He might experience the pains of death not only in body but also in soul.

Second, that same Word, or divine nature, rested and for a time did not energize the lump [of flesh] that it had assumed, but allowed the body to be divided from the soul for three days while it was in the hands or power of the grave. This was so that in every way Christ might be truly humbled for us, to the end that we might be certain that not only are our souls delivered from the pains of death, but also all disgrace is expelled from our bodies through this Christ and by His merit. It is also by His efficacy that it will be finally and fully taken away, even though for a time our bodies are kept enclosed by the grave, seemingly conquered by death.

Finally, believing minds have so much more trust in the love of God and in the complete expiation made by the Son when they see how humble and abject (yet without sin) Christ became, and when they see more clearly what their salvation cost Him (p. 91).

Continue Reading

New Book

Posted on 06. Jan, 2010 by Danny Hyde.

Just a shameless plug for a friend, David VanDrunen, whose book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Eerdmans, 2010), traces these themes in various thinkers including the “Puritans.”

Now back to our normal programming (or lack thereof).

Continue Reading

Confusing “Law” and “Gospel”?

Posted on 07. Dec, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Perhaps you have heard people speak of the law and the gospel in different ways? Some are rather dogmatic about their opinion being the only right opinion.  In connection with this, I often hear the law-gospel distinction described in the following way:  indicative = gospel & imperative = law.  Or, the gospel = justification; it is an announcement that our sins have been forgiven and that we stand accepted before God through the death and resurrection of Christ; the gospel is totally outside of us, so the argument goes.  Or, again, “done” (gospel) and “do” (law).  I want to offer some comments on this type of thinking because I’m becoming increasingly persuaded that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding this issue.

In the first place, I am not comfortable with how some use the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Some admit that they use these terms not in their precise biblical sense, but rather as “systematic” categories.  A few may even be so bold to agree that the Torah contains both “law” and “gospel”.  To insist that the “gospel” equals “done” and the “law” equals “do” invites confusion for any serious student of the Bible.  This antithesis causes a host of problems when read back into Scripture, particularly since Paul has a version of law-gospel that bears little resemblance to the  “Lutheran” antithesis.

The Reformed have historically taught that the gospel both promises and commands.  To say that all imperatives are strictly law reflects an Antinomian position, at least historically.  Samuel Rutherford’s work, “Spirituall Antichrist”, highlights the various tendencies among Antinomian writers of the seventeenth century.  One way to explain what’s at stake in this debate would be to evaluate the contention that the gospel persuades rather than commands.  Rutherford was adamant that the gospel persuades and commands.  Consider the following:

“The Gospel (according to Robert Towne) perswades rather then commands.  But say we, it both commands, (as the Law doth) and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ…so here be no differences at all” (Spirituall Antichrist, II.122).

Elsewhere Rutherford argues that the law and the gospel require the same obedience (Pt. II.7).  Indeed, “positively”, they are not contrary to one another.  “Perfect obedience, which the Law requireth, and imperfect obedience which the Gospel accepteth are but graduall differences” (II.8).  Moreover, “the Gospel abateth nothing of the height of perfection, in commanding what ever the law commandeth in the same perfection….In acceptation of grace, the Gospel accepteth lesse than the law, but commandeth no lesse” (Pt. II.8).  Incidentally, Rutherford, like Turretin, affirms that good works are necessary for salvation.

Of course, Rutherford was aware of a common cry of the Antinomians, a cry that one often hears today:

(Antinomian): “Yee confound Law and Gospel, and runne on that common error, that the Gospel is conditionall …”

Answer: “It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditionall Gospel….2. Remission is but one of the promised mercies of the Gospel” (II.63).

I should note that Rutherford was not extreme in his day and William Perkins (see his commentary on Galatians) and John Owen (see Works, III.604-10) echoed similar sentiments.  It is one thing to find authors that speak about distinguishing between law and gospel, but it is quite another thing to understand how these concepts function within their system of thought.

Now, one has to applaud the intentions of the Lutherans and those who agree with how they commonly distinguish between law and gospel.  We should always be zealous to protect justification by faith alone.  My contentions have not so much to do with how this concept relates to justification, but what we mean by the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Sure, the law drives the unconverted to find salvation in Christ, but what about those who are in Christ?

Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises.  Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses.  For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis.  Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners.  But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit.  So, when we come to Romans 8:13 do we call it “law” or “gospel”.  I think the answer is obvious.  But, I’m not so sure some of my Reformed brothers would come to the same conclusion as I would!

I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis (1 Cor. 7:19).  The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4).

Rutherford realized, as did his contemporaries, that command and promise are sometimes inextricably intertwined with one another (see again Rom. 8:13; life is promised to those who mortify the sinful nature by the Spirit).  But, whatever the case, the promises, as well as the commands, fall under the rubric of Paul’s “gospel”.

All of this is to suggest that I do not view the biblical gospel as synonymous with justification.  It certainly includes justification, but it is not limited to justification.  Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3), which includes not only its illegal character (Rom. 1-3), but also its enslaving power (Rom. 6).

Thus, I would say that the gospel includes not only what Christ has done for us, but also what Christ does in us, namely, by forming us into the image of God (Rom. 8:29).  This seems to be a central concern of Paul’s throughout his letters.  Thankfully, the gospel includes God’s work in me (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:12-13).

The antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself.  This antithesis entered because of sin.  But, as Richard Gaffin has noted,

“The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer.  How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me.  Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me.  But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.  Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God” (By Faith, Not by Sight, 103).

I think Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p. 105), illustrates just how problematic certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis can be when he considers whether a commandment belongs to the gospel.  He writes:

“Objection. There is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel, but to the law. The preaching of repentance is a precept. Therefore the preaching of repentance does not belong to the gospel, but to the law.

Answer. We deny the major, if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.”

Some time ago I spoke with a Seminarian who had a rather wooden view of the “law-gospel” antithesis and asked him what he thought about the Sermon on the Mount.  It appeared, to use a phrase from T. David Gordon, “that he was entirely flummoxed by it”; indeed, “I would like to think that he was, at some level, aware of his incapacity to make any sense of it.”  This student used the law-gospel antithesis as a pedagogical tool that he brought to every text; but, when he came to Rom. 8:13 he wasn’t quite sure how to divide the text up given his hermeneutical assumptions.

I understand that many have been zealous to protect the graciousness of God’s saving purposes towards his people, but I am not entirely convinced that narrowing the meaning of “gospel” will prove helpful in the long run.  Many good men in our tradition make this clear; and I’d like to think – in fact, I’m sure this is the case – that this is because God’s Word makes this clear.

Besides that which I’ve mentioned above, let me emphasize the importance of maintaining the indicative-imperative structure of theology, which we see clearly delineated in Scripture (Ex. 20; Rom. 1ff.; Eph. 1-6; 1 Peter 1ff.).  But this structure falls within the context of “gospel” preaching.  To preach the gospel is to preach of Christ’s death and resurrection as the basis/ground for both our justification and our Spirit-wrought obedience.  Some might admit that they distinguish between the broader and narrower uses of the term, but, as I said above, this can be very confusing, and the emphasis among some today seems to be on the “narrow” understanding of the terms, which happens to be the less biblical way of looking at the law and the gospel (terms that in the NT are generally used to speak of redemptive-historical contrasts).

The final word from William Perkins:

“The Gospel, as it teacheth what is to be done, so it hath also the efficacy of the Holy Ghost adjoined to it, by whom being regenerated we have strength both to believe the Gospel and to perform those things which it commandeth” (Art of Prophesying VII, [Abingdon, 1970], 341-342).

Continue Reading

Westminster Theological Journal 71:2

Posted on 07. Nov, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Last night I received Westminster Theological Journal 71:2 (Fall 2009) in the mail. There are several pieces worth mentioning for the purposes of this blog:

• The Pneumatology of the “Lost” Image in John Owen—Suzanne McDonald
• A Practical Scholasticism? Edward Leigh’s Theological Method—James E. Dolezal
• Samuel Rutherford and Liberty of Conscience—Crawford Gribben
• Marrow Theology and Secession Church History—William VanDoodewaard
• Review of Stephen Hampton, Anti-Arminian: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I—Kenneth J. Stewart

Tolle Lege.

Continue Reading

Goodwin (d. 2009)

Posted on 03. Nov, 2009 by Mark Jones.

I had some emails asking what had happened to thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com.  I ended up restricting access to myself, which meant, of course, the end of the blog.  If you care for an explanation, well, here goes:

1. I remember Richard Muller’s expression on his face when I mentioned blogging … that’s not actually a reason, but, I’ll never forget the expression.

2. Besides Muller, Trueman’s latest piece at the Ref. 21 site has confirmed a number of thoughts I’ve been having for some time. You really should read his latest article. I did notice that he doesn’t seem to be blogging anymore!

3. All of the fuss over Frame’s review over Horton’s book, “Christless Christianity”, drove me nuts.

4. Blogging is a huge temptation for lazy/careless scholarship. I’ve posted some things in the past that I regret.  And, as a Pastor, I have enough trouble keeping my mouth in check, never mind my “pen”.

As far as this blog goes, I hope to share information from time to time that may be particularly helpful.  Nonetheless, my academic obligations will prevent me from saying anything of substance, which is probably a (very) good thing.

Thanks, Richard; thanks, Carl; thanks, Hunter Powell (who, of the three, might read this!)  And thanks to thomasgoodwin.wordpress.com for all the friends and acquaintances I made over its two years of existence. I think I made more friends than enemies, but one never knows!

MJ

Continue Reading

Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the “TULIP”?

Posted on 03. Nov, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

The text of an insightful and important recent lecture by Dr. Richard Muller is available here.

Continue Reading

William Ames’ Exhortation to Students of Theology

Posted on 26. Oct, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Since the good Doctor, Mark Jones, posted recently about John Owens’ advice to theological students, I thought it would be a fun exercise to write a post on “the learned Doctor” William Ames’ advice to theological students. William Ames (1576–1633) was an Englishman who was “exiled” to the Netherlands for the end of his life and ministry. If any of you know much about the Dutch, you’ll understand the great blessing Ames had in teaching at the University of Franeker in the province of Friesland (laugh if you get the tongue-in-cheek joke). On May 23, 1622, the independent-minded, some would say stubborn, Frieslanders’ installed Ames at their small but “gracious academy of Friesland.” A little over  year later he gave a lecture entitled, Parenesis ad studios theologiae, habita Franekerae, Aug. 22, anno 1623, “An Exhortation to the Students of Theology, Dwelling in Franeker, August 22, the Year 1623.” This lecture was translated in 1958 by Douglas Horton and is available through Inter-Library Loan or through sending me a few guilders (alright, just e-mail me for the .pdf).

Ames begins by defining the nature of theology as he did in his Medulla theologica, also published in 1623, in which Ames said so famously, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God.” In his exhortation, Ames said it was necessary for the University to “call theology away from questions and controversies, obscure, confused, and not very essential, and introduce it to life and practice so that students would begin to think seriously of conscience and its concerns.” No doubt Ames’ definition and populist concern reflects his relationship towards Johannes Maccovius, whom he considered too speculative.

First among Ames’ concerns was to counter what he perceived as a lack of understanding by students of “the proper end of theology.” He discussed this using 1 Timothy 4:16 as his text, which says the minister must be aware of his teaching since it saves himself and his hearers. This meant that students need to know that they were to be devoted to the glory of God and the edification of the church. Contrary to this concern for the proper end of theology were those who entered the ministry for financial gain or just like they would enter a business. God help us from this attitude in ourselves and for us so privileged, in purging this attitude from those we are shepherding towards the ministry as seminary students.  While these were “useless weights to the church,” Ames said “the greater marvel is the grace and providence of God, by which it has come about that up till now the church has lived on, although burdened to an unhappy degree by men of this hireling kind.” Amen! Ames also linked his concern for the proper end of theology with the conscience, saying, “The mirror in which the image of eternal truth is reflected must be pure and clean. As far as possible there ought to be no stains of vice or flaws of selfishness in that heart in which the divine wisdom is to tabernacle.” How important a godly character is to the preparation for the ministry! Cleanse your mind, seminary students, of greed, pride, arrogance, anger, envy, and contentiousness, to name a few areas. I remember those seminary days well.

Ames’ second concern was to impress upon his students the high calling of the ministry: “What can be thought more important or useful than the profession of the ministry? Here one does not treat of lands and estates and similar earthly matters, as in civil law, but of the supremest good and the highest heaven, not of temporal bodily health, as in medicine, but of salvation and eternal life. Not here, as elsewhere, do they enquire into the sentiments, orders, decisions, and rulings of men, but into the eternal wisdom of God and His perfect will.” I don’t know if I’ve ever read it better than this.

Ames’ third concern was to show that the ministry concerned not only doctrine, but method and practice, using the illustration of physicians of old who divided their discipline into these three areas. This was important, because, as Ames said, “Our ministers, however, think themselves to be quite prepared for all the parts of their office if they know only the doctrines—and would they knew them!” It is for this reason that the Scriptures were to be studied for doctrine and for the practice of godliness. What does this mean for us? It means that just because you like to read, just because you like theology, and just because you are able to cite a few passages of Scripture, from Calvin, or from the Confessions to make a point does not mean you are being called into the ministry.

In conclusion, like a good Ramist, Ames ended his exhortation with the use of his word concerning the end of theology, the high calling of the ministry, and the need to study for purposes of doctrine and godliness. Here Ames spoke to his students about “theological exercises,” which were the ways the things they learned were sharpened and put into practice. Ames’ exhortation to his students was that they participated in disputations, that is, formal theological debate. They needed to engage in rehearsing their sermons so that they would benefit their hearers; they need to pray; they needed to engage in holy meditation; and as fellow students, they needed to exhort, admonish, and console each other as brothers in the Lord. May God help us to do so.

Continue Reading

The Meaning of “Regeneration” (16th Century)

Posted on 16. Oct, 2009 by Mark Jones.

Translating Latin works from the sixteenth century Protestant scholastics will prove to be invaluable to Reformed Christians (I’m toying with the idea of translating a work, perhaps Heidegger or Polanus).  Translations into English will help us to better understand the growth and development of Reformed theology and the different ways terms were used over the centuries.  “Regeneration” has a fairly tricky history, and our ideas of what the term means today may not in fact reflect the way sixteenth and seventeenth-century theologians used the term.  It appears that the term was narrowed in meaning during the debates between the Remonstrants and the Gomarists.  There’s a big debate going on right now in the Netherlands concerning whether Arminius was Reformed or not, especially with the recent publication of William den Boer’s work on Arminius.  Many of the questions at my promotion had to do with Arminius and why I believed he was not Reformed.  A lot can be said on this matter, but one of the problems was that Arminius agreed with Calvin’s use of the word “regeneration”. (I’m not convinced he could agree entirely, however).

Amandus Polanus’ (1561-1610) work called The Substance of Christian Religion is a practical body of divinity.  Regarding the term “regeneration” Polanus writes the following:

“Regeneration is a benefit of God, by which our corrupted nature is renewed to the image of God by the Holy Spirit …. That same is also called sanctification and the gift of grace. Also of schoolmen it is called infused grace … Regeneration is either begun or perfected” (103).

As I alluded to above, Calvin certainly understood regeneration to signify more than an aspect of the ordo salutis.  For him, it incorporated many aspects of the whole Christian life (Institutes, III.iii.9).  Hodge remarked that “Calvin gives the term its widest scope” (Systematic Theology, 3.3).  Calvin affirms that the Spirit makes alive what was once dead: “[The Spirit] regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures” (Institutes, II.ii.27).  But he was not content with such a narrow view of the doctrine.  Before Polanus, Calvin argues that regeneration is akin to sanctification insofar as “it is a renewal of the divine image in us” (III.xvii.5).

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

Maccovius spends a good deal of time on regeneration in his work on theological and philosophical distinctions and rules.  He does not abandon Calvin’s use of the term, but he makes finer distinctions relative to the Remonstrant and counter-Remonstrant debates.  For example, Maccovius writes:

Regeneratio aliter se habet ratione primi moment, aliter ratione progressus (In respect of its first moment regeneration comes about in another way than in respect of its progression).  Ratione primi moment homo se habet mere passive, ratione progressus cooperatur cum Deo (Regarding the first moment of regeneration man is purely passive; regarding its progression man cooperates with God).

Elsewhere he argues:

Regenerationis gradus dantur in hac vita, non tatntum in se, verum etiam in subjectis (In this life regeneration is by degrees: these degrees do not only concern regeneration by itself but also the subjects).  Magis regignitur unus quam alter, hinc magis adulti quam infantes (Some people are more regenerate than others; hence older prople are more regenerated than the young ones).

Notice, then, that Maccovius uses, like Calvin and Polanus, the term “regeneration” to include what we now call sanctification.  Incidentally, Maccovius viewed Paul as “regenerate” in Romans 7.  Indeed, he had to since the turning point for Arminius, I believe, was when he began his lectures in Romans 7 and decided that Romans 7 described Paul in his unconverted state.  Many think Arminius went wrong at Romans 9 – he did, of course – but his problem started earlier!

* On Maccovius’ distinctiones see “Scholastic Discourse” (Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek), pp. 239ff.

Continue Reading