Muller on Calvin, the Calvinists, and Calvinism

If you are interested in Calvin or “Calvinism”, then you should read this paper. It is by Richard Muller, professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. Muller has written a number of books on Calvin, the Reformed tradition, and theology. He has also written many articles. I have read a few of his articles myself, and I would highly recommend them to others. Muller is a great scholar, and his work on the Reformed tradition is well-researched, analytically rigorous, and profoundly interesting. He also writes well. Alright, enough about Muller. What’s the story with the paper?

The paper is called “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” As the title implies, the paper is concerned with the relationship between Calvin and the so-called Calvinists, or between Calvin and the later thinkers of the Reformed tradition. Muller argues for a number of interesting claims. I don’t want to give too much away in advance, but here are a few highlights.

First, Muller argues that the terms “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” are ambiguous, and that they have been used by scholars in different ways. Thus, one cannot attempt to answer the question whether Calvin was a Calvinist, or the question whether the so-called Calvinists were really Calvinists, until one clarifies what one means by these terms.

Second, the terms “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” are often used today in confusing and erroneous ways. For example, the term “Calvinism” is often identified today with the doctrine of predestination, and the term “Calvinist” is often used for someone who accepts that doctrine. However, this usage is reductionist and misleading, if not plain wrong – Calvin did not originate the doctrine of predestination, and predestination was neither the only nor even the central tenet of Calvin’s thought. Furthermore, the term “Calvinism” is often applied today to versions of predestination that Calvin did not defend. (Incidentally, Muller says that the term “Arminianism” is often applied today to positions that Arminius did not defend.)

Third, Calvin was not a very original theologian, at least in the following sense: most of Calvin’s major theological positions, such as the doctrines of depravity, providence, justification by faith alone through grace alone, and predestination, were taught by many of his predecessors, including Luther and Zwingli, who in turn were influenced by various Catholic theologians. Calvin may have defended some of these doctrines in unique ways, and he may have developed some of them in ways that distinguished him from other theologians of his time. But, as Muller notes, if one were to subtract from Calvin’s Institutes everything that was defended by his immediate predecessors, there wouldn’t be much left, and the leftovers wouldn’t form a coherent body of thought. (Although Muller doesn’t discuss this in the paper, I am personally amazed by how frequently Calvin cites Augustine in parts of the Institutes.)

Fourth, Calvin did not seek to be a highly original theologian. Rather, he desired to be a faithful expositor of Scripture, and he deplored the term “Calvinist”.

Fifth, many Reformed thinkers after Calvin also deplored the term “Calvinist”. Most of these thinkers did not consider themselves disciples of Calvin, and many of them simply called themselves “Reformed Catholics”. (And no, I wasn’t aware of this when I chose the web address for my blog.) Reformed thinkers after Calvin certainly respected Calvin’s work, and many of them were greatly influenced by it; but, they definitely didn’t regard him as infallible, and they generally didn’t regard his work as either a model to be reproduced or a guide to be followed. We should remember a few things here: Calvin was a second generation Reformer; the first generation of Reformers was fairly large, and it was full of competent thinkers like Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer; and, the second and later generations were even larger, and they were also full of competent thinkers.

Sixth, just as Calvin’s thought cannot be reduced to the doctrine of predestination, neither Calvin’s thought nor the Canons of Dort can be reduced to TULIP. At best, TULIP represents only a part of the thought of Calvin and the Canons of Dort. However, there are a number of problems with the claim that TULIP is faithful to Calvin and the Canons. As Muller explains, Calvin and the Canons did not embrace total depravity or limited atonement as those doctrines are often understood today. And, while they both embraced unconditional election, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints, these doctrines can hardly be said to exhaust Calvin’s thought or the Canons of Dort, even if one adds to them what Calvin and the Canons really taught about depravity and the nature of the atonement.

So then, has Calvin been dethroned as the leader of the Reformed tradition? No, for he was never its leader. And this is no insult to Calvin.

Calvin was a brilliant thinker, and the Institutes is an unparalleled work of Christian devotion and biblical exposition. I often wish that the Institutes were a good deal shorter, and that the language of the Institutes were far less polemical. Nonetheless, the Institutes faithfully draws out the core theology of the Bible and sets it forth in a way that is thoughtfully organized and clearly expressed. Calvin brings the Bible alive, and he is one of its greatest spokesmen. Who on reading the Institutes doesn’t feel the power, wonder, and beauty of Scripture? And the devotional aspect of the Institutes doesn’t extend to Scripture alone – Calvin’s ability to invoke the beauty, power, goodness, and mystery of God is astounding, and it has few rivals. I often find myself entering into a state of prayer when reading the Institutes. It’s hard not to. Moreover, Calvin’s description of the Christian life in the Institutes is certainly one of the greatest treasures of Christian devotional literature.

Much more can be said about the Institutes, and there is also much to say about Calvin’s biblical commentaries, his other writings, and his place in the Protestant Reformation. We all owe him a great debt, and his legacy isn’t threatened in the slightest by close scrutiny of the historical record. Muller can help us to understand the historical record better. We should hear what he has to say. It’s important.