“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Six, titled Seventeenth-Century Calvinism.

 

The sixth chapter is a bit longer than the previous chapters. The subheadings are Reformed Scholasticism, The Dutch Further Reformation, Covenant Theology, Jansenism, Cyril Lucaris, Calvin and Calvinism, and Conclusion.

“By the year 1600, Calvinism had spread far and wide in Europe. But in the new century, it underwent new developments and controversies. We have seen the debate over Arminianism; the debates over Amyraldism and antinomianism would follow. But several others bear mentioning, including two outside Protestantism.”

Reformed Scholasticism. Mention is made of the Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most well-known of the Catholic scholastics. Scholasticism is essentially the blending together by Roman Catholic theologians of theology and Greek philosophy. Noting that Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected scholasticism, for the most part, the author discusses subsequent Reformers and scholasticism. “There is no doubt that Calvin frequently castigated medieval scholasticism in strong terms … My opinion is that Calvin detested Catholic scholasticism, for when he refers to the medieval scholastics, it is usually to disagree with them … His theological method is best described as biblicist rather than scholastic, humanist, or experimental. Remember his frequent cautions against prying into God’s secrets.”

The Dutch Further Reformation. This began at the end of the 16^th century along similar lines to Puritanism in England and Pietism in Germany. In this portion of the chapter, the author discusses the pros and cons of this period and favorably mentions Joel Beeke, who wrote one of the forwards to this book.

Covenant Theology. Although the author introduces Covenant Theology in this chapter, he reserves a full discussion in a later chapter. He ends this portion of the chapter, “Seminaries and churches need to teach and preach systematic theology, biblical exegesis, and true spirituality.” I could not agree more.

Jansenism. This interesting subsection deals with a movement inside Roman Catholicism following the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church’s reaction with the Council of Trent. He shows how Jansenism was much like Calvinism in many respects and how aggressively the Jesuit order (the Society of Jesus) has strenuously labored to quash any returning to a Catholic kind of Augustinian theology of grace.

Cyril Lucaris. (Pictured) An utterly unknown figure to me before reading this chapter (1570-1638), this Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople showed sympathy for Protestantism in general and Calvinism. He was strongly opposed to the Jesuits, was influenced by the Swiss, Dutch, and English Reformers approved of new translations of the Bible such as the Geneva Bible. He showed his appreciation of the English Puritans by donating the ancient Codex Alexandrinus Bible manuscript to King Charles I of England. He published his Confession of Faith in Geneva in 1629, which was Reformed in tone and content. In it, he affirmed that the church is subject to Scripture, that the elect are eternally and unconditionally predestined by grace alone, that sinners are justified by faith alone, and that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are the only two sacraments. Unfortunately, the Greek Orthodox hierarchy reacted strongly to Lucaris. He was formally condemned and defrocked by several synods. There were rumors that he was assassinated.

Calvin and Calvinism. Here the author discusses the controversy centered on Calvin and 17^th century Calvinists, sometimes referred to as the “Calvin versus the Calvinists” debates. On one side of the debate, the author lists Karl Barth, Holmes Ralston III, Jack Rogers, Brian Armstrong, Alan Clifford, R. T. Kendall, and modern-day “Free Grace” movement figures such as Zane Hodges. On the other side of the debate are Richard Muller, Paul Helm, and Joel Beeke. A central point of the discussion is whether Calvin taught limited atonement. The author writes, “My own view is that there are some good points made on both sides, but in general there was basic continuity rather than discontinuity. I tend to agree that Calvin taught universal atonement (or at least an atonement with more universal aspects than strict libertarian such as John Owen). Likewise, I think his method was not as scholastic as Beza and others … Whether Calvin was infralapsarian or supralapsarian, he certainly taught the mainline Reformed view of election as opposed to the Lutheran, Anabaptist, Arminian, or Barthian views. Contrary to Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, Calvin most certainly did teach biblical inerrancy.”

Conclusion. “Reformed theology was at its high-water mark in the seventeenth century.”