Meet The Puritans

The Two Parts of Seminary Education

Posted on 29. Oct, 2009 by Danny Hyde.

Quick. What should be the two constituent parts of a Reformed theological education? Theology and exegesis? Philosophy and theology? Systematic and practical theology? Good guesses. On July 2, 1651 the Commissioners of the University of Dublin sent a letter to John Owen addressing this issue. Their desire was for Owen and Thomas Goodwin to review the University’s laws, rules, orders, and constitutions and give their advice on how to better the institution.

Here is where this short letter gets interesting. The Commissioners described their desire for their University and the training of men for the ministry in these words:

Wherein we desire that the educating of youth in the knowledge of God and the principles of piety may be in the first place promoted, experience having taught that where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness (The Correspondence of John Owen, ed. Peter Toon, 50–51).

The two constituent parts that these Commissioners desired for a thoroughly Reformed and Puritan education were theology and piety. That sounded so odd to me as I read this letter, since I have been conditioned by our current theological training system in which what is emphasized is the school you go to (Westminster CA v. Westminster PA, RTS–Jackson v. Covenant, etc.), the degree you earn, the GPA you receive, your GRE score if you desire to go to grad school in a University, and the amount of reading you have done. Our current system is utterly focused on knowledge—systematics, biblical theology, exegesis, history, etc.

The Commissioners of the University of Dublin were on to something, though. Their experience taught them the necessity of piety in training students. What is interesting is how they qualify what they meant by piety: “where learning is attained before the work of grace upon the heart, it serves only to make a sharper opposition against the power of godliness.” Seminary students need to be born again, they need to be converted, and they need to have experienced the power of grace in their souls. Is it any different today?

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