On Studying John Calvin

The theological and exegetical “conversation” in which Calvin was involved is far more specified than the issue of “context.”  It is, at times, exceedingly clear – from Calvin’s prefaces and from references in the text of his letters, as well as his printed works – that his theology was constructed in dialogue with certain thinkers and certain books.  Calvin sought advice and counsel from Farel, Viret, and Bucer.  He engaged in extended discussions with Bullinger and Melanchthon.  He framed his exegetical method with specific reference to the alternative approaches of Bucer, Melanchthon, Bullinger, and others.  As I hope to show, there is also a mass of evidence that Calvin engaged in an ongoing methodological dialogue with Melanchthon’s theology, quite distinct from their major disagreement on the issue of human free choice and election.  This conversation included, moreover, not only living authors: Calvin’s exegetical and rhetorical work engaged the medieval tradition and classical rhetorical texts like Cicero and Quintillian, whose writings he had ready to hand.  The point of identifying this relationship to other authors as a “conversation” is to emphasize that Calvin did not merely cite, use, and agree or disagree with these thinkers but, rather, developed his thought in an ongoing exercise of learning from and, in some cases, with them.

From: The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition by Richard A. Muller; Oxford Studies in Historical Theology series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 13-14.

Richard A. Muller (born in 1948) is the premier Reformed historical theologian working in the United States today.  His magnum opus is: Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725; 4 volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).

 

The Reformed Order of Salvation

In Reformed theology, the ordo salutis acquired a somewhat different form.  This is due to the fact that Calvin consistently took his starting point in an eternal election and in the mystical union established in the pactum salutis.  His fundamental position is that there is no participation in the blessings of Christ except through a living union with the Savior.  And, if even the very first of the blessings of saving grace already presupposes a union with Christ, then the gift of Christ to the Church and the imputation of His righteousness precedes all else.  In the Council of Peace, a union was already established between Him and those who were given unto Him by the Father and, in virtue of that union, which is both legal and mystical, all the blessings of salvation are, ideally, already the portion of those who are of Christ.  They are ready for distribution and are appropriated by them through faith.

From this fundamental position, several particulars follow.  The salvation of the elect is not conceived atomistically since they are all eternally in Christ and are born out of Him, who is the Head, as members of His mystical body.  Regeneration, repentance, and faith are not regarded as mere preparations, altogether apart from any union with Christ, nor as conditions to be fulfilled by man, either wholly or in part, in his own strength.  They are blessings of the covenant of grace which already flow from the mystical union and the grant of Christ to the Church.  Penitence assumes a different place and character than in the Lutheran order.  Calvin recognized a repentance preceding faith, but saw in it merely an initial fear, a legal repentance that does not necessarily lead to faith and cannot be regarded as an absolutely essential preparation for it.  He stresses the repentance that flows from faith that is possible only in communion with Christ and that continues throughout life.  Moreover, he does not regard it as consisting of contritio and fides.  He recognized the close connection between repentance and faith and did not consider the former possible without the latter, but also pointed out that Scripture clearly distinguishes the two and, therefore, ascribed to each of them a more independent significance in the order of salvation.

But, however Calvin may have differed from Luther as to the order of salvation, he quite agreed with him on the nature and importance of the doctrine of justification by faith.  In their common opposition to Rome, they both describe it as an act of free grace and as a forensic act which does not change the inner life of man but only the judicial relationship in which he stands to God.  They do not find the ground for it in the inherent righteousness of the believer, but only in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, which the sinner appropriates by faith.  Moreover, they deny that it is a progressive work of God, asserting that it is instantaneous and, at once, complete, and hold that the believer can be absolutely sure that he is forever translated from a state of wrath and condemnation to one of favor and acceptance.

Lutheran theology did not always remain entirely true to this position.  Faith is, sometimes, represented as a work that is basic for regeneration; and the mediating theologians base justification on the infused righteousness of Jesus Christ.

From: Reformed Dogmatics: Historical (History of Dogma) by Louis Berkhof (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1937), pp. 224-226.