I’m currently leading the Cambridge Saturday School of Theology. Last week I did two sessions: one on Luther and the bondage of the will, and one on Calvin and union with Christ.  A friend has emailed me to say that these talks have now been posted online, so if anyone is interested, you can download the talks here.

Next up (in November) is a Saturday on “The Puritans”…

P.S. My 2009 article on Luther’s debate with Erasmus over the issue of free will has also just come online. It’s called The Manifesto of the Reformation: Luther vs. erasmus on Free Will and can downloaded here: http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_3_Gatiss.pdf.

“…and thereafter ought the minister openly to pronounce to such as sincerely repent and believe in Jesus Christ, to be absolved from all damnation, and to stand in the favor of God.”

Of course this is a debated issue in Reformed churches in terms of whether covenant children who die early in life are in heaven or not. While the Westminster Confession offers a theologically correct assessment that no Reformed believer will ever deny, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth” (10.3), we have to deal with things “below.” We do not know the eternal decree of God; we must judge things from within the covenant and visible church. The delegates to the Synod of Dort sought to provide an answer to this question from a pastoral point of view, in Canon 1.17:

“Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.”

The issue for those in churches that confess the Canons of Dort is whether the Canons describe certainty towards the children or only the attitude of the parents. An example of the former is Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, 4:724–727; Saved by Grace, 69) while of the latter is Herman Hoeksema (Believers and their Seed, 149–158). Without getting into all the historical and theological debate here, let me offer several pastoral points before offering some further reading to prepare our hearts as ministers and students to face this tearful issue.

First, we need to base our pastoral comfort upon the Word. This is why it is so important to read passages such as Psalm 139 as well as the example of David and his son (2 Sam. 12).

Second, we believe that children of believers are members of the covenant of grace, therefore, we need to speak from within that rich and comforting status as the people of God.

Third, we need to offer strong encouragement to our people. They do not need to doubt where their lost child is at. They should be assured that they are in the arms of Jesus, who blessed covenant children during his earthly ministry.

Several excellent resources on this subject are the following:

• Cornelis P. Venema, “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57–100.
• N. H. Gootjes, “Can Parents Be Sure?” Clarion 44:20 (October 6, 1995) and Clarion 44:21 (October 20, 1995).
• W. Robert Godfrey, “Election and Covenant: The Synod of Dort and Children Dying in Infancy” (unpublished essay). [my apologies for the poor quality of the scan, it's the best I can do]
• John Calvin, “Letter CCCLXIV–To a Gentleman of Provence,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, Volume 6, 71–73.
• John Owen, “Letter 83: To Lady Elizabeth Hartopp,” in The Correspondence of John Owen, ed. Peter Toon, 157–158). [Below]
• Lee Gatiss, From Life’s First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation, St.Antholin’s Lectureship Charity Lecture 2008 (London: Latimer Trust, 2008)

Deare Madam,

Every worke of God is good; the Holy One in the middest of us will do no iniquity. And all things shall work together for good unto them that love him, even those things which at present are not joyous, but grievous. Only his time is to be waited for, and his way submitted unto, that we seem not to be displeased in our hearts that he is Lord over us. Your dear infante is in the eternal enjoyment of the fruits of all our prayers; for the covenant of God is ordered in all things, and sure. We shall goe to her; she shall not returne to us. Happy she was in this above us, that she had so speedy an issue of sin and misery, being born only to exercise your faith and patience, and to glorify God’s grace in her eternal blessedness. My trouble would be great on the account of my absence at this time from you both, but that this also is the Lords doing; and I know my own uselessness wherever I am. But I will beg of God for you both, that you may not faint in this day of trial; that you may have a cleare view of those spirituall and temporall mercyes wherewith you are yet intrusted all undeserved, that sorrow of the world may not so overtake your hearts as to disenable to any duties, to grieve the Spirit, to prejudice your lives; for it tends to death. God in Christ will be better to you than ten children, and will so preserve your remnant, and so adde to them, as shall be for his glory and your comfort. Only consider that sorrow in this case is no duty; it is an effect of sin, whose cure by grace we should endeavour. Shall I say, Be cheerful? I know I may. God help you to honour grace and mercy in a compliance therewith. My heart is with you; my prayers shall be for you; and I would have seene you this day could I have borrowed a coach.

Dear Madam,

Your most affectionate and unworthy pastor,

John Owen

[May 1674?]

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.

1. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, pages 418-419. For example, Witsius writes:

Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge, being delegated to that office by the Father, Acts x.42. Acts xvii. 32. will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st. That they are truly pious, righteous and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former; for by that the ungodly is justified, Rom. iv.5. Whereas here, God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, ‘gather my saints together’ … these words refer to the last judgment …. The ground of the former is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the Spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom …

2. Thomas Goodwin. See: Works, 7:181ff. Goodwin affirms a double justification by God; the first authoritative, the second declarative or demonstrative.

3. John Owen. See: Works, 5:161ff. Similarly to Goodwin, Owen argues that while we are not justified on account of our works, God will judge all men, “and rendereth unto all men, at the last judgment, according to their works”(5:161). Furthermore, the “end of God in the last judgment is the glory of his remunerative righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:8)” (Ibid).

4. John Calvin. Institutes, III.17.10.  For example, Calvin writes: “As we ourselves, when we have been engrafted into Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christ’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified” (Institutes. III.17.10).

5. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened. Actually, this work is more frustrating than enjoyable for me; it’s way too verbose.

6. Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p. 94ff.

7. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 261-287.

8. Herman Ridderbos, Paul …, pp. 178-81 (“Judgment According to Works”)

9. John Murray, Commentary on Romans, pp. 78-79.

10. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, pp. 181-86.

John Knox’s (ca. 1505–1572) Liturgy of 1556, reflecting the practice of the congregation of English exiles in Geneva, includes a rubric, ‘The Lord’s Supper is commonly administered once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient.’ However, the First Book of Discipline of 1560, while recognising the sufficiency of the order of Geneva (II.2), added more specific instruction: ‘Four times a year we think sufficient for the administration of the Lord’s table, which we desire to be distincted [distinguished/specified], that the superstitions of times may be avoided as far as may be…’ (XI.5). Anxious to avoid the observance of the Supper at Easter, which many thought gave special virtue to it, the Book of Discipline specified the first Sunday in each of March, June, September and December. [This is what is common in most Australian Presbyterian churches to this day.] It added, ‘We do not deny but any several kirk for reasonable causes may change the time, and may minister more often, but we study to repress superstition.’

In 1562 the Scottish General Assembly ordained that the Communion be celebrated four times in the year within towns, and twice in the year in the country. Even so, with the shortage of ministers, frequency was often far less, even once a year, sometimes spread over several Sundays if the population was large.

The usage of the Independents of the 1640s of a weekly or monthly communion was one which did not impact in Scotland, and frequency in Scotland was commonly annual for a considerable period. [There was also the factor of cost. Wine, a good mouthful per person, was expensive for a poor country like Scotland given the congregation might number many hundreds.]

Practice in the Church of England could accommodate a greater frequency. The Prayer Book (1559) and Canons (1603) were for at least three times a year, but in practice few communicated more than once, and then at Easter. William Pemble (1591–1623) wrote: “…Satan hath done much by his malicious policy to corrupt men’s hearts in the observance of it: when the Sacrament was administered often he brought it into contempt by the commonness of it; now that it is administered seldom through ignorance, it is abused and neglected as unnecessary.”

Pemble lamented that if there had been no civil law requiring attendance at least once a year, the Lord’s Table would be left without guests. Communion practice declined with the ejection of non-conformists to the new order of 1662, as they were often the more committed people, and monthly communion was found among them.

In the Directory of the Westminster Assembly the term “frequently” has enough elasticity to allow for the quarterly or half yearly practice of the Scots, and the more frequent practice in (some) English Puritan circles. George Gillespie (1613–1648) records: “But the Committee went through in order; and first, objection was made against that first section, which leaves to the discretion of the pastor and elders of each congregation how oft the communion is to be celebrated. It was desired that they might be tied, at least, to four times a-year, since the Apostle and Christ speak of often celebration. I said, There is no ground from Scripture or otherwise to determine four times a year, for this should resolve in the arbitrement of men. If congregations abuse this liberty, the presbytery at visitation of churches can help it. Mr Newcomen declared that all the new gathered churches have the sacrament every Lord’s day in the afternoon. To avoid this debate of the time, it was added in the beginning, The Lord’s Supper is to be administered frequently.” [Notes of Proceedings of the Assembly, 102.]

In the recent Volume 3 of Ligon Duncan (ed.), Westminster Confession into the 21st Century (2009), Wayne Spear has two interesting articles that suggest the general mind of the Assembly was not quite along Calvin’s line where Cavin seems to suggest a Real Presence of a nature that means we get something extra that we do not have in the ordinary preaching. A more general Reformed view would be that we receive in the Supper what we receive in the ordinary ministry but in a different way that stoops to our weak capacity.

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.

You can read some of my thoughts on this in the comments on Hart’s post, but suffice it to say it is a complicated question (isn’t all history this way?). Sure, Calvin and Owen lived at different times and under different circumstances, which answers some of the question. Yet, was Owen against all “liturgy?” Depends on what you mean, whose liturgy, and the necessity of such liturgy. Was Owen against all forms of prayer? Again, it depends on what treatise you are reading, when it was written, and for what purpose a form of prayer is offered.

I hope my ThM thesis on The Liturgical Theology of John Owen sheds some light. I think the answer is that there is essential continuity in terms of the principles of Reformed worship but legitimate discontinuity in terms of the practice of liturgical prayer. This discontinuity is more than just a result of their historical circumstances, but a deeply held theological principle for Owen regardless of when and where he ministered.

So far my thesis revolves around five key principles for Owen, found in such writings as “A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Imposition,” “A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God,” “A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” and his massive Hebrews exposition. These principles are 1) the sufficiency of Scripture, 2) the freedom won for the Church by Christ, 3) the work of the Holy Spirit, 4) the catholicity of the Reformation, and 5) the heavenly priesthood of Christ. I pray my thesis holds water academically and also helps the Reformed churches practically in our time and place.