Prof. Herman C. Hanko
For many years after the Protestant Reformation of
the sixteenth century scholars generally assumed that theology as it developed on
the continent of Europe and in England was wholly in the tradition of the great
reformer of Geneva, John Calvin. The church was confident that one straight
line could he drawn from the theology of Calvin through Beza, Zanchius,
Maccovius, the theologians of Dordt, Turretin, Witsius, and subsequent
continental theologians to the church today which remained faithful to the
heritage of Calvin. The same could be said of Puritan theology. Perkins, the
Westminster Assembly, other notable Puritan divines, and Presbyterianism in
general could trace their heritage back, without deviation, to the genius of
Geneva.
This is not to say, of course, that variations did
not exist. It is not a difficult task to point out differences between
continental theology and Puritan thought. Nor would anyone with even a passing
acquaintance with theology in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries ever be so bold and foolish as to deny differences between the
theologians who engaged in a theological enterprise. But the differences were
minor and relatively insignificant, due to development within differing ecclesiastical
and cultural situations, mainly variations of emphasis, and could be expected to
appear as the rich heritage of Calvin was explored and the truth developed
further. All could claim, without fear of contradiction, the name “Calvinist”;
and all could insist that their theological position differed in no significant
respect from the lines drawn with such brilliance in the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the other voluminous writings
of their spiritual and theological mentor.
Within the last forty or fifty years all this has
changed. While distant echoes of opposing voices could be heard faintly from
earlier years, only recently has Calvin scholarship undergone considerable
change. Now, increasingly, voices are heard that one can find very few men who
were truly faithful to Calvin. Already during Calvin’s own lifetime, under the influence
of Calvin’s personal friend and successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, significant
and important changes were made in Calvin’s theology. Not Calvin himself was
the guiding light in subsequent development of doctrine, but Beza, Calvin’s
heir; and the changes made were significant and important. In a recently published
book, Paul Helm,1 e.g., writing particularly of English Puritanism,
says:
However, in recent years
several attempts have been made to discredit this doctrinal and spiritual
continuity reaching from John Calvin and other early Reformers to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Various
arguments have been used by different writers, but what they all come down to
is something like the following. Whereas Calvin’s presentation of the Christian
gospel was warm, exuberant and thoroughly evangelical, his so-called
Calvinistic followers presented what was in effect another gospel, a gospel
that was formal, introspective and legalistic. Sometimes it is held that the
later Calvinists distorted the teaching of Calvin by, for example, giving a
greater prominence to predestination than he did. At other times the much
stronger and more serious claim is made, that the Puritans, supposedly
followers of Calvin were actually opposed
to the teaching of Calvin in its central emphases. On this view, after Calvin’s
death the tradition is broken, and is replaced by another, nominally Calvinistic,
but which was in fact a repudiation of much that Calvin stood for.
R.T. Kendall’s
monograph, Calvin and English Calvinism
to 1649, defends the more extreme view. He claims that the central figures
of Puritanism such as William Perkins and William Ames derived their theology
not from Calvin but from Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva. He holds
that there is a fundamental shift in outlook between Calvin and Beza, and
consequently that the whole of the Puritan tradition, from Perkins to the Westminster C0nfessi0n of Faith, was set
on the wrong, anti-Calvinistic track. According to Kendall, the Westminster
divines, without realizing it, became virtually Arminian in many respects. “The
architectural mind of Westminster theology, is Beza” (Kendall, p. 210). Ames’
theology is Arminian “in every way but in the theoretical explanation that lies
behind the actual practice of the believer (or unbeliever)” (Kendall, p. 157).
A “crypto-Arminian doctrine of faith ... pervades Westminster theology”
(Kendall, p. 209). “Calvin’s thought, save for the decrees of predestination,
is hardly to be found in Westminster Theology” (Kendall, p. 208). “For Calvin
faith as an instrument is God’s act,
opening blind eyes; for the Westminster divines, even though in the context of
God’s prevenient grace, faith is man’s
act” (Kendall, p. 201).
Not everyone who believes that Beza
altered significantly Calvin’s views would, of course, agree with Kendall’s
position on the nature of these changes. But many are convinced that what
Kendall maintains is indeed true, not only in Puritan theology, but also in
continental thought. And in almost every case, Beza is the culprit.
The changes which Beza was supposed to
have brought about are of different sorts. Helm, writing further concerning
Kendall’s view, says:2
What, in more
detail, is Kendall’s case? Although in the monograph he develops his views
historically, by considering the sequence of theological development from
Calvin to the Westminster Assembly, and not systematically, the following
over-all picture emerges. A vital place is occupied by two supposed doctrinal
changes. From these changes many other important consequences are alleged to
follow.
In the first place, Kendall holds, the “followers
of Calvin from Beza onwards developed the doctrine of limited atonement, the
idea that Christ did not die for all, but only for the elect. Kendall claims
that Calvin did not teach limited atonement. He taught what is clearly
incompatible with it, namely, general or universal atonement.
In the second place Kendall believes that Calvin’s
doctrine of faith came to be modified beyond recognition. His view that faith
is a passive persuasion of the mind is replaced, gradually but unmistakably, by
the view that faith is an act of the will. On Kendall’s view, whereas for
Calvin faith is something that is given, for his “Calvinistic” followers, from
Perkins onwards, faith is something that is solely a matter of the will.
While other differences have been
suggested by other scholars of Calvin, most who want to set Beza over against
Calvin do not so much speak of what Kendall concentrates on, but point the
finger at the doctrine of predestination. It is here, in the opinion of many,
that Beza did the most harm to Calvin’s view. And because this is a doctrine of
utmost importance, because it formed a significant (if not central) position in
the theology of Calvin and Beza, and because it continued to be a fundamental truth
of the theology of subsequent theologians both on the continent and in England,
it is on this doctrine that we intend to concentrate our attention in this
paper. It is, in fact, our conviction that if it can be shown, as we believe it
can, that charges of fundamental alteration in the doctrine of predestination
are false and unjust, other charges concerning other doctrines will, of
themselves, fall by the way.
As we hope to show in the paper, by no
means all students of Calvin agree with these charges, not even students of
more recent times. And, among those who do aim such charges against Beza, no
agreement can be found concerning the precise way in which Beza made these
alterations. Some say the changes were minor and insignificant; others insist
they were fundamental and basic. Some say changes of significance were made in one
area; others point to different areas. A consensus is impossible to find. And
this in itself ought to be a caution sign that these theories are by no means
to be accepted at face value.
Further, it becomes increasingly clear
that among some who insist on the position that Beza really did untold harm to
Calvin’s views, the reason for such a position is a dislike for the truth of
sovereign reprobation. In an effort to maintain what is essentially an Arminian
conception of reprobation while at the same time seeking the support of Calvin,
Beza is made an antagonist of Calvin on this doctrine. And, because Beza had
more influence on subsequent theology than Calvin himself, Reformed and Puritan
theologians who made sovereign and double predestination an integral part of
their theology are charged with being unfaithful to Calvin, while, either
consciously or unconsciously, adopting the position of Calvin’s successor. This
too will have to be examined.
We propose, therefore, in Chapter II
to examine this position and these charges as they concentrate on Calvin’s own
views, learn what they entail, and come to some clarification on their meaning.
In Chapter III we shall examine the alleged differences between Calvin and
Beza. In Chapter IV we shall attempt to define the issues involved and evaluate
these issues. In Chapter V we shall examine the views of Calvin and Beza and
come to some judgments whether these views are in any significant respect
different. And in Chapter VI we shall formulate conclusions which can properly be
drawn from our study.
-----------------
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTES
1. Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982),
pp. 5, 6.
2. Ibid.,
pp. 6, 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment