The book of Acts presents an informative view of the Church, as well as an informative view of the way in which the Church read the Scriptures. As they saw that all things spoke of Jesus Christ, they also went on to apply those things to themselves. They lived the life of Christ.

This can be seen in Acts 4. Peter and John get in trouble for healing a lame man and preaching on the resurrection at Solomon’s portico, and so they are hauled before the Sanhedrin. When they return to the fellowship of the believers and relay their story, the group begins to pray Psalm 2 (vs. 23-31). They explicitly connect the characters in Psalm 2 to the characters at Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus is the Annointed. Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles are the heathens, nations, and kings and rulers. This much is clear.

What is often missed, however, is that the actual application of this Psalm is not simply to the death of Christ, but to the events that just occurred. The ones gathered against were Peter and John. The “threats” which the Church calls for the Lord to look on in vs. 29 are those threats of vs. 21.

Thus it is quite appropriate for this incident to be followed with the description of the believers holding all things in common. They are of one heart and one soul precisely because they are the one Body of Christ. The giving of the land is the inheritance of the nations, and that they are laid at the apostles’ feet is Christological imagery (Gen. 3:15, Psalm 110).

So the anointed who was conspired against by the rulers and the nations was indeed Jesus, but it is also the Church. We, as the baptized, are all anointed ones, and as we dwell together, we are the one Body of Christ. Our life is Christ’s life, and what is done to us, and in turn what we do to one another, is done to Jesus.

The Reformed faith has traditionally spoken of God condescending to reveal himself in creation. Presupposed in this assertion is that God is infinite in his own essence, both qualitatively and quantitatively. God is of a different type of “being” altogether, existing wholly within himself, outside of our plane of space and time. He is outside of our scale of being. In order for us to have knowledge of this wholly other God, God has revealed himself in an appropriate fashion. Calvin referred to this as accommodation, and this has given some occasion for question. It is very easy to interpret this accommodating as a less desirable way of relating, as if in the best of all possible worlds man could overcome this situation. However well-intentioned such a desire may be, it is indeed quite fatal, for what is called “accommodation” is really just one attempt at the larger Christian doctrine of analogy, that is, the relationship between the infinite and the finite.

This concept is indeed not free from controversy. I do not wish to touch on Aquinas’s use of the analogia entis, nor will I tread upon Eastern Orthodoxy’s distinction between God’s essence and his energies. These are all attempts to get at the same thing, and postmodernity has given a new popularity to questions of “being.” For our purposes, I would like to examine what the Reformed faith’s doctrine of the covenant has to offer on this question.

There is some diversity within the Reformed tradition as we well know. Everyone remembers the Van Til/Clark controversy, though few understand it still. Calvin scholarship is also divided on just what he meant “accommodation” and “condescension” to achieve. Was it specifically aimed at salvation or was it simply the relationship between Creator and creation? In order to get beyond some of these disputes and to the point of interaction with the topic at hand, I am basically assuming Van Til’s position, and I am assuming Van Til’s position to be basically consistent with Reformed Orthodoxy. Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics supports this, and as I proceed, I will interact with Scott Oliphint’s Reasons {for Faith}, which will also substantiate this point. And in doing all of this, I believe that I will interact with a few points mentioned elsewhere concerning the sacraments and the covenant.

The 7^th chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with this statement:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Initially this statement could appear to be teaching that God begins as transcendent and condescends to an immanent relationship with creation as he makes covenant. This would presuppose some sort of space which could be used to measure “distance” between God and man and thus betray other Reformed commitments, namely God’s infinity. I’m not sure if Westminster has some particular Creator/blessedness dichotomy in mind when it makes its somewhat strange distinction, but Oliphint interprets it in a better fashion, stating that “covenant” just is the relationship between God and creation. He writes, “The very fact that God brings something into existence to which he himself is in some way related entails, automatically, an act of condescension” (Reasons, 233). Oliphint goes on to use the covenant concept, which is the means by which God condescends to creation, as a way to understand how God’s infinite nature can genuinely interact with our finite plane of being without thereby becoming constricted or limited. The covenant concept allows for true communion between God and man all the while preserving the Creator/creature distinction as well. God is as much not like us as he is like us.

That this “ontological otherness” has been taught by Reformed theology can be seen by consulting any of the so-called scholastics, and I shall go to a scholastic of scholastics to show it. Williams Ames, in his Marrow, writes, “God, as he is in himself, cannot be understood by any save himself” (Baker edition, 83). He adds, “many things are spoken of God according to our own conceiving rather than according to his real nature” and “we cannot know him otherwise as we live now, nor do we need to know him otherwise to live well.” A few pages later, Ames says, “Those [attributes of God] that are said to be communicated to creatures apply by analogy, not in the same mode nor with the same meaning as they are said to exist in God.” He immediately adds, “The attributes of God tell what he is and who he is” (85).

So, according to Ames God is incomprehensible in himself, yet he is known truly by his attributes. Man is an analogue of God, and thus man and creation analogously teach us of God’s character. There is a distinction, but the relationship is, nevertheless, true.

Oliphint describes this relationship as the Eimi/eikon. God is the Eimi (being), and man is the eikon (likeness). God’s condescension reveals the Eimi through the eikon, most prominently through the incarnation. Oliphint writes, “God has come down climactically in the person of Jesus Christ; Christ is the Eimi/eikon, in one supreme person. He is the principle of the covenant” (238). Oliphint continues:

This union by God, in God, and for us, of the Eimi/eikon principle is, in one sense, the most basic truth for us to understand if we want to know who God is; it is basic to a proper understanding of God, creation, and all of Scripture. It is the principle that we must use to understand how God can remain who he is while at the same time interacting with his creation. (240)

He concludes, “And here is the central truth of it all: The unified Eimi/eikon principle of the exodus becomes the Emmanuel principle of the new exodus, the deliverance of the Lord’s people from bondage to sin” (ibid).

To this we should add the various BH guys who have written on the Trinity. Ralph Smith has written an introduction to the Trinitarian thought of James B. Jordan, which is quite helpful, and from this position one can start to see Trinitarian applications in various other areas of thought. The covenant, which accommodates the infinite to the finite, just is a description of God’s nature.

Thus, the covenant is reflective of who God is. It is a description of the way he relates to all of creation precisely because it is also a description of his nature. God is a God who lives in communion, the perichoresis between the Father, Son, and the Spirit, and thus when he brings creation into this communion, we see it in the form of covenant. Condescension or accommodation, understood in this light, is not something to be overcome. What is revealed is true, even as it remains analogous to the infinite, and as analogues, we are to appropriate what is given. We are not to attempt to ascend into the heavens, nor to drag Christ back down to earth, but rather we should live and dwell in covenant, for that is the means by which both Christ comes “down” to earth and we go “up” to heaven. Covenant is the means by which the finite communes with the infinite.

This is a better way of understanding the sacraments and the incarnation as condescension. There is no preferable reality in which we would not have them, but rather they just are the way God relates to us. Just as Jesus will not set aside his human nature, the Church shall not set aside the historical means of grace. We can understand covenant better as well, now that we allow various systematic commitments to mutually inform one another. A covenant is not simply a “deal” that two parties strike up, but rather, as John Murray taught us, it is the relationship God enjoys with all others.

I’m not sure how consistently every Reformed theologian has used this understanding of condescension. I can think of at least one view of creation that employs the term “analogical” in the exact opposite direction, using it to take away the truth of the relationship. I also imagine that many a  discussion about the decree (ie. lapsarianism) fails to take infinity into account as it proposes an “order” (whether it be logical or temporal) in God’s mind.

In fact, a right understanding of analogy would have us relate to God through the revealed means, that is, through the covenant. The secret things remain on the other side of the Eimi/eikon divide, but this does not mean they are unknowable. Rather, it is precisely through the covenant that they are known.

In denying the efficacy of human works in our justification before God, Calvin makes this passing, but nevertheless interesting, remark about angels:

Although he refers to that spotless righteousness of God, before which even angels are not clean, he however shows, that when brought to the bar of Gods all that mortals can do is to stand dumb. He does not merely mean that he chooses rather to give way spontaneously than to risk a contest with the divine severity, but that he was not conscious of possessing any righteousness that would not fall the very first moment it was brought into the presence of God. Confidence being banished, all glorying must necessarily cease. For who can attribute any merit of righteousness to works, which instead of giving confidence, only make us tremble in the presence of God? We must, therefore, come to what Isaiah invites us: “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory,” (Isaiah 45:25); for it is most true, as he elsewhere says, that we are “the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified,” (Isaiah 61:3). Our soul, therefore, will not be duly purified until it ceases to have any confidence, or feel any exultation in works. Foolish men are puffed up to this false and lying confidence by the erroneous idea that the cause of their salvation is in works.

Institutes III.14.16

It is tempting to assume this is but an exaggeration or rhetorical move, but I think it sheds light on a bigger issue. You see, for Calvin, the question of man’s standing before God was not merely a moral one. It was also an ontological question.

No creature could obtain life from his own efforts because life comes from the Lord and Giver, God himself. Assuming that the natural man could obtain life simply as man, yes even morally upright man, is to attribute to him an amount of autonomy. That Calvin is thinking in this direction can be seen in a few other statements.

In his commentary on John’s gospel, Calvin states:

What he formerly called the bread of heaven, he now calls the bread of God; not that the bread which supports us in the present life comes from any other than God, but because that alone can be reckoned the bread of God which quickens souls to a blessed immortality. This passage teaches that the whole world is dead to God, except so far as Christ quickens it, because life will be found nowhere else than in him.

Which hath come down from heaven. In the coming down from heaven two things are worthy of observation; first, that we have a Divine life in Christ, because he has come from God to be the Author of life to us; secondly, that the heavenly life is near us, so that we do not need to fly above the clouds or to cross the sea, for the reason why Christ descended to us was, that no man could ascend above.

Commentary on the Gospel of John, chapter 6, verse 33

And also:

Having formerly called himself the bread of life, he now calls himself the living bread, but in the same sense, namely, life-giving bread. — Which have come down from heaven He frequently mentions his coming down from heaven, because spiritual and incorruptible life will not be found in this world, the fashion of which passes away and vanishes, but only in the heavenly kingdom of God.

Commentary on John 6:51

So, life comes from heaven. Jesus comes from heaven and gives us eternal life. But how does this work? Calvin further explains:

The bread which I shall give is my flesh. As this secret power to bestow life, of which he has spoken, might be referred to his Divine essence, he now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in his flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. It is, undoubtedly, a wonderful purpose of God that he has exhibited life to us in that flesh, where formerly there was nothing but the cause of death. And thus he provides for our weakness, when he does not call us above the clouds to enjoy life, but displays it on earth, in the same manner as if he were exalting us to the secrets of his kingdom. And yet, while he corrects the pride of our mind, he tries the humility and obedience of our faith, when he enjoins those who would seek life to place reliance on his flesh, which is contemptible in its appearance.

But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, though this power comes from another source than from the flesh, still this is no reason why the designation may not accurately apply to it; for as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, so his flesh, as a channel, conveys to us that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in his Divinity. And in this sense it is called life-giving, because it conveys to us that life which it borrows for us from another quarter. This will not be difficult to understand, if we consider what is the cause of life, namely, righteousness. And though righteousness flows from God alone, still we shall not attain the full manifestation of it any where else than in the flesh of Christ; for in it was accomplished the redemption of man, in it a sacrifice was offered to atone for sins, and an obedience yielded to God, to reconcile him to us; it was also filled with the sanctification of the Spirit, and at length, having vanquished death, it was received into the heavenly glory. It follows, therefore that all the parts of life have been placed in it, that no man may have reason to complain that he is deprived of life, as if it were placed in concealment, or at a distance.

ibid

Now I find this to be a really remarkable passage from Calvin. It is also one that I have heard precious little explanation of in subsequent Calvinistic thought. Zanchi uses deification language, as does Polhill, but for the most part, the concept has not taken root in Reformed theology. If, as seems to be the case, this is an aspect of Calvin’s understanding of justification, then I suggest we seek to take up the topic afresh.

Calvin is clear that life comes from the Divine essence. It is given to the flesh of Christ in the incarnation, and then that flesh is given to us. “Righteousness” is the “cause” of that life, but as Calvin has said several times now, this is a heavenly righteousness.

With this in mind, we can read Calvin on Romans 1:17 with an eye for detail:

For the righteousness of God, etc. This is an explanation and a confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God, righteousness must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we may, through him being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists only in his favor; for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous, since he regards unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore intimates, that we cannot obtain salvation otherwise than from the gospel, since nowhere else does God reveal to us his righteousness, which alone delivers us from perdition. Now this righteousness, which is the groundwork of our salvation, is revealed in the gospel: hence the gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation. Thus he reasons from the cause to the effect. Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his tribunal; as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it be only vapor. Paul, however, I doubt not, alludes to the many prophecies in which the Spirit makes known everywhere the righteousness of God in the future kingdom of Christ.

Again we see mention that man’s righteousness is only vapor, and that it is God’s own righteousness which we should look to. It is tempting to suppose that Calvin means that man’s righteousness is a vapor because of its sinful imperfections, but this is not what he means. He continues to explain his understanding of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ:

Some explain it as the righteousness which is freely given us by God: and I indeed confess that the words will bear this sense; for God justifies us by the gospel, and thus saves us: yet the former view [that it means God's own righteousness] seems to me more suitable, though it is not what I make much of. Of greater moment is what some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration. But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place.

So, to the question of whether “the righteousness of God” means God’s own righteousness or a righteousness that God gives, Calvin answers “Yes.” This both/and answer to the dilemma makes sense given all that Calvin has elsewhere said about righteousness coming from the divine nature.

Another interesting observation would be the editorial note from Pareus, which says:

The causative, γὰρ, indicates a connection with the preceding, that the gospel is the power of God: the reason is, because by the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God, that is, made known by it is a way of righteousness and of obtaining life before God, which neither the law, nor philosophy, nor any other doctrine, was able to show.

The gospel makes known a new way because it makes known the God who has become man.

The significance of this way of reading Calvin is difficult to exaggerate. Rather than “active” and “passive” obedience, Calvin mentions reconciliation with God, which is to say, renewed union between the God and man. This new birth is a divine one, for we are living, through the human flesh of Christ, the divine life of God. Calvin is not working with only a forensic paradigm, but one that includes ontological reconciliation as well.

Mankind is advanced in Christ to a position that it never before, not even in pre-fallen Adam, enjoyed. This heavenization of earth is possible because the bread of heaven came down to earth and offered himself as food for the world.

Needless to say, this has to inform our use of “union with Christ,” as well as our formulation of the way in which Christ carried out his mediation. For Calvin, Jesus isn’t simply a perfect man, he is the heavenly man, and thus his accomplishment was something that could never before have happened in history. This understanding also allows for a harmony between the old and new perspectives when it comes to “the righteousness of God,” and that issue itself informs our theology proper, as salvation reflects God’s own nature. God’s righteousness is himself, for each attribute of God is God. This produces a Christo-eschatological soteriology that integrates the various loci of our dogmatic thought.

The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel of the incarnate Word.

Our own Steven thinks that he has the freedom to post BH quality insights on his own blog.  So I’m linking him.  Let us comment here and teach Steven a lesson.  OK?

(I originally posted this at my personal blog.)

John Davenant was perhaps the single most influential delegate at the Synod of Dort (particularly for what he kept out of the final Canons). Much of his influence was examined in my previous post on the subject, but it is certainly the case that he remains a neglected figure. I had never heard of him until I began my studies on Dort, and as I survey some of the secondary literature, I see that a few commentators have questioned whether or not he ought to be considered a Calvinist. G Michael Thomas addressed Robert Godfrey’s claims on Davenant in his book The Extent of the Atonement, but I would like to address this issue a little myself by contrasting Davenant with John Overall, a man who had great influence on Davenant, but also a man whose historical point of view was quite different from Davenant’s.

Davenant wrote an extended treatise on the extent of the atonement, partly meant to explain the Canons of Dort. This is his A Dissertation on the Death of Christ. It was originally included within his Colossians commentary, but some modern reprints have removed it. In this treatise, Davenant affirms that Christ’s death established the new covenant and that the death of Christ is sufficient for all men, but for the elect alone effectually. Davenant’s two-fold approach to the death of Christ, allowing for a general universal atonement and a particular effectual atonement, was not original to him, however, and as Peter White has noted, Davenant was directly influenced by Bishop John Overall (Predestination, Policy and Polemic, pg. 191). Overall’s treatises on the atonement can all be found in Anthony Milton’s The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (pg. 64- 92).

Bishop Overall was certainly not considered a staunch Calvinist. White shows in his book that Archbishop Abbott would have certainly been less supportive of Davenant, had he known of Overall’s influence upon him. It is also clear in Overall’s letters that he does not himself embrace the title “Calvinist,” but rather prefers to describe himself as a member of the Church of England, which, according to him, charts a middle way between the long-standing tradition of the catholic church and the new developments of the Reformation. A good example can be seen in his On the Five Articles disputed in the Low Countries. In regard to the extent of the atonement, he writes:

The Contra-Remonstrants, by excluding a general and conditional decree, maintain a single, particular and absolute decree, pertaining to certain individuals selected out of the human race, who are alone, and through the efficacious and irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit, all the rest being rejected and damned by an absolute decree. This is the judgment of Zwingli, Calvin, and the puritans, unknown to all of the ancient Fathers, even to Augustine and his followers, and rejected by most papists, all Lutherans, and many others. The Church of England, holding a middle way, joins a particular absolute decree (not from foreknowledge of human faith or will, but from the purpose of the divine will and grace) to free and save those whom God has chosen in Christ, with a general and conditional will, or with a general evangelical promise: teaching that the divine promises are to be embraced in the manner in which they are generally set forth to us in the holy scriptures, and that that will of God is to be followed by us which we have clearly revealed to us in the word, namely: that God gave his son for the world or the whole human race; that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for all the sins of the whole world; that Christ redeemed the whole human race; that Christ ordered the Gospel to be preached to all; that God wills and orders that all should hear Christ and believe in him, and that he has set forth grace and salvation for all in him; that this is an infallible truth in which there can be no error; and that otherwise the Apostles and other ministers of the Gospel who preach this are false witnesses of God, and make God a liar.

(quoted from Milton pg. 64-65)

This selection is complex, as it makes at least two claims. Overall’s doctrinal affirmation is actually quite good and represents nearly exactly Davenant’s position, as well as the British delegation’s interpretation of the Canons of Dort found in their Collegiat Suffrage (see Milton pg. 226-293). This sort of teaching can be seen in the Heidelberg theologians, as well as the 19th century Americans. It is certainly within the bounds of “Calvinism.”

However, Overall misses exactly this historical point. He has stated that “the judgment of Zwingli, Calvin and the puritans” is the single particular aspect of the atonement, thus putting them in the camp of the high Calvinists among the Contra-Remonstrants and opposing the Church of England. Overall also states that this position was “unknown to all of the ancient Fathers, even Augustine.” Thus, even as his actual doctrinal content falls within the scope of Reformed thought, Overall’s self-identification is clearly outside of it.

This is where Davenant is distinct, and thus it is an area which can shed some light on how to classify him, as well as English Calvinism in general. While in basic agreement with Overall’s dual approach to the atonement, Davenant always maintains that the position is in fact that of Calvin as well. In fact, Davenant goes even further and proclaims that this position is the mainstream position of the catholic church throughout the ages. This is not Overall’s “middle way,” but rather an affirmation of agreement and continuity between Calvin, the Church of England, and the Christian Church throughout the centuries.

Davenant begins his Dissertation on the Death of Christ (hereafter DDC) with a chapter entitled “On the Origin of the Controversy.” He does not begin with Arminius or Gomarus, but rather the Church Fathers. He explains Prosper’s response to the Gallicans who opposed Augustine, and shows that “Prosper meets these objections, not by maintaining that Christ suffered only for the elect, but by shewing whence it arises that the passion of Christ is profitable and saving to the elect alone; namely, because these only through the benefit of special grace obtain persevering faith, whereby they are enabled to apply to themselves the death of Christ” (DDC pg. 321).

Davenant also takes a moment to refute Grevinchovius and William Ames in regards to their use of Faustus of Ries in order to teach that Augustine opposed a general atonement. He does not say that these men are the true Augustinians, and that he will instead plot a middle course, but rather that they are mistaken. “Grevinchovius committed a gross error when he thought that the above-mentioned opinion was to be attributed to Pelagius. If he had ever looked into the books of Faustus, he might easily have perceived that in that place he was not writing against the Pelagians, but against those who attribute all to Divine grace and mercy, that is, against Augustine, Prosper, and the rest of the orthodox, whom he babbles against, as unlike the race of sectaries, but like to the Pelagians in impiety (Faustus, lib. i. cap. 3 and 6)” (DDC 325). Here we have Davenant opposing William Ames on a point, but he does not simply say that Ames is a bit too Calvinistic, but rather that Ames is wrong about history. Davenant will stand with Augustine, Prosper, and, as we will see, Calvin and the Reformed tradition.

On pg. 334 of DDC, Davenant begins to show the continuity between the Magisterial Reformers and the medieval tradition. He mentions the Synods of Mentz and Valence and their taking up the dispute between Gottschalk and Hincmar. Unlike certain historical presentation of Gottschalk as a proto-Calvinist, Davenant maintains that the Church disagreed with both Hincmar and Gottschalk, preferring instead to allow the distinction between universal sufficiency and particular efficiency. Davenant states that this continued through the Schoolmen, and finally that, “The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a manner on the death of Christ, that they afforded no occasion for reviving the contest” (pg. 336). He adds, “For they taught, That it was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life, only by those that believe.”

After drawing this line of continuity from the patristics, the medievals, and the Reformed Church, Davenant goes on to begin citing individuals. On pg. 337 we find the names of Melancthon, Calvin, and Bullinger. As we read on we see Musculus (338), Zanchius (339), Pareus (355-356), and Bucer (547). It could perhaps be argued that Davenant was incorrect in his interpretation of these authors, but it should be clear that he did not hold Overall’s opinion. Rather he saw his own views as in harmony with Calvin and the Reformed. Davenant affirms that his position is that of the Church of England, represented in the 39 Articles, and that this position is harmonious both with the Reformed Church as well as the catholic church and the apostles.

A strong illustration of Davenant’s reliance on Reformed authorities in seen in his citation of David Pareus, a widely-known student of Ursinus. Davenant writes:

Lastly, they cannot deny this who are most accustomed to limit the death of Christ. The reverend and most learned Paraeus, in his judgment of the second article of the Remonstrants, which he transmitted to the Synod of Dort, has these words, The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race; whence it arises, that the whole of sin and of the wrath of God against it was endured by Christ, but the whole of reconciliation was not obtained or restored to all. Act. Synod. Dordrect. pg. 217. The force of the argument is, He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race, He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret pleasure of his will.

DDC pg. 355-356

Davenant here teaches the universal saving will of God in sending Christ, as well as the secret will to apply the benefits of the atonement to the elect. In order to so, he does not content himself to disputed passages of Scripture, nor even Calvin, though he does use both elsewhere, but rather Davenant employs a clear and direct statement by David Pareus, widely-respected among all Calvinists, and even more, the quote comes from a letter that Pareus wrote to the Synod of Dort expressly concerning the question of the extent of the atonement. There is no room to object that Davenant is taking the quotation out of context or that he is wrongly interpreting it. If Davenant is not Reformed, then neither is Pareus, thus opening a frightening regress, as Pareus was quite representative of the teachers at Heidelberg. Pareus even makes it into Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, which was recently reprinted by P&R. Observing this connection between Davenant and Pareus is essential to understanding Davenant’s place in the theological spectrum.

We see that one can apply the titles “Calvinist” and “Reformed” to John Davenant in good conscious and with confidence in the historical record. His writings thus serve as a testimony to the legitimacy of the moderate position, as well as a powerful defense of Calvinism’s agreement with the catholic tradition. In this latter regard Davenant is especially important for modern times.

When I was first introduced to Reformed theology, I encountered “the five points of Calvinism” and “TULIP.” I was told that these came from the Synod of Dort, which essentially decided that Calvinism would be the accepted religion of the Reformed churches in Europe. Calvinism and TULIP were for the most part equivalent.

As I moved from a Reformed Baptist to a Presbyterian, I began to hear pastors mention that Calvinism was more than the five points. I began to learn about “covenant theology,” which served as the basis for baptizing infants. Calvinism now included the TULIP as well as covenant theology and infant baptism. Still later in my studies, I began to learn about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. My understanding of Calvinism broadened, but I still had a tendency to think of Dort when I heard the term Calvinist.

Given the central place of Dort in the history of Calvinism, I was surprised when I began to read R. L. Dabney’s Systematic Theology and his book The Five Points of Calvinism. He nearly dismissed the five points saying, “Historically, this title is of little accuracy or worth.”[1] As I continued to read in Dabney, I began to discover there were various schools within Calvinism, some of which disagreed in key places. Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[2] These 19^th century Presbyterians were neither Arminians, nor Amyraldians though, but rather they represent what is called, for better or for worse, moderate Calvinism.[3]

How is it, I wondered, that I had never heard of this distinction before? Why have I been taught that the Five Points of Calvinism are the summary of Reformed theology? What is limited atonement? This brought on a bit of theological dizziness, and I was eager to learn more about the true history of Calvinism and the Synod of Dort. What did it teach concerning these matters, and what is its place in the larger Reformed church history?

At this point the reader must be warned. This discussion quickly becomes dangerous territory in the eyes of many contemporary Reformed thinkers. Indeed it is a sort of “read at your own risk” move. There are very few moderate Calvinists today, and the current of high Calvinism has become so strong that deviations will most certainly be condemned as Amyraldianism from the outset. Part of my intent is to alleviate this reaction and to shed some light on the facts of history. I think it will be shown that the actual history of Calvinism was always a variegated one, and the five points represented a heavily contextualized debate within one period of the larger Reformed tradition.

One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1^st and 2^nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19^th century.

This fairly self-evident historical review is necessary today because of subsequent history’s tendency to divide theological groups between “Anglicans,” “Puritans,” “separatists,” “non-conformists,” and still others, and then to simply give the title of “Calvinist” to the more extreme parties. Many within the Church of England also felt no need to apply the title of what they viewed to be a subset of Protestantism to themselves, opting instead to simply refer to the doctrine of the Church. Many conservative and “Reformed” English Churchmen valued the names of Augustine and Prosper as much or more than that of Calvin, and thus they did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. Further complicating maters is the tendency for the moderate Calvinists to criticize “rigid Calvinism.” Such a reference should not be interpreted as a slight against Calvin. “Rigid Calvinist” was the name given to the supralapsarians. It was not uncommon for a moderately Calvinistic Anglican (who never referred to himself as such) to seem antagonistic towards “Calvinism” when in reality it is the supralapsarians (or perhaps some of the Presbyterian-minded Puritans) he specifically had in mind. Sorting some of these matters out can be admittedly difficult, and our lack of familiarity with the pre-Puritan Protestant Church of England further handicaps us. Figures like Archbishop George Abbott, George Carleton, Samuel Ward, and John Davenant are not familiar to modern Presbyterians, but they should not therefore be categorized as simply sub-Reformed.

The controversy in the Netherlands was ignited by the writings of Arminius and his students, but it should also be noted that the phenomena of suprlapsarianism was just as novel. Arminius’s early writings were directed towards William Perkins and Francis Gomarus[6], and Morris Fuller, writing in 1897, can state that the origins of the controversy really began with the introduction of supralapsarianism into the Dutch academies.[7] Though it is certainly anachronistic to use such a label, the twelfth article of the French confession, the fifth chapter of the Scots Confession, the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, and the seventeenth article of the English 39 articles all present an infralapsarian doctrine. This is quite significant given Dort’s stated task of defending the Reformed tradition against destructive innovations.

The followers of Arminius presented their Remonstrance at The Hague in 1610, and the issues gained international notoriety. In England, Robert Abbot and George Carleton began refuting the Arminians. Grotius and Vorstius achieved some audience in England; however, both were eventually deemed heretics. Even King James I was vocal in opposing Arminianism. He called the Arminian preachers “seditious and heretical” and wrote that their doctrine was a “corrupt seed which that Enemy of God had sown.”[8] Some of the English Churchmen were eager to side with the contra-Remonstrants, but others, most notably James Ussher, Lancelot Andrewes, and John Overall argued for a middle course. Overall wrote three significant treatises on the Dutch controversy, and he proved especially influential on John Davenant. Peter White notes, “Davenant had gone to Dort armed with a four-page memorandum headed ‘Dr Overall. De Praedestinatione Divinea, De Morte Christi’.”[9] One of the most distinctive points in Overall’s treatise that reappears in Davenant’s writings at Dort is the combination of a universal and conditional atonement with a particular and efficacious atonement. According to this teaching, one could say that Christ died for all in one sense and that he did not die for all in another sense. This position, which was held in suspicion by the high Calvinists, is essentially the same as David Pareus’s additions to Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.[10]

During the proceedings of Dort, certain significant differences among the divines became evident. Most famous perhaps is the dispute between Gomarus and Martinius,[11] but there were quite a few issues that proved controversial, including the place of the Apocrypha, the order of the decree of predestination, the foundation of election, the extent of the atonement, the universality of grace, the free offer of the gospel, and the temporary operations of the Spirit enjoyed by the Reprobate. By the end of the numerous debates and resolutions, Gomarus, who had been heading up the contra-remonstrant cause, would actually find himself in the minority.

The diversity at Dort, of course, is true of both tendencies. The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism. The delegates from Friesland and Gelderland argued against the free offer of the gospel.[12] At the close of the Synod, the delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen all requested that certain contra-Remonstrant positions be condemned, particularly statements found in the writings of Piscator.[13] Earlier in the proceedings, Gomarus had greatly disturbed the British when he stated, “As He predestinated man to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way to death.” Of this John Hales remarked, “And so he mended the question as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse than before.”[14]

The British delegates at Dort are often portrayed as softer Calvinists. This description needs to be questioned for several reasons. The first is that the Remonstrants were originally invited to Dort. With their presence, the British and Bremen delegates are actually in the middle of the spectrum, with the Gomarists at the other extreme. When we compare the positions of the University of Heidelberg in the previous generation, as well as the broader English theological landscape, the British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. They were committed to absolute predestination, and could call upon citations from Calvin, Zanchius, Pareus, and their own James Ussher for support for their views on the atonement. There was even some division among the British delegates on these issues. Carleton, Balcanquall, and Goad were known for teaching a more restricted doctrine of the atonement, while Davenant and Ward were known for teaching a broader doctrine.[15] Initially Carleton and Balcanquall both sympathized with Gomarus, asking Martinius to modify his position, however through the persuasive arguments of Davenant, as well as the intemperate behavior of Gomarus, the British eventually agreed among themselves to support Martinius’s position affirming that election is founded in the person of Christ.[16] The official British position on the canons of Dort can be found in their Collegiat Suffrage,[17] and while it is true that Davenant and Ward were successful in obtaining a majority of their views, Anthony Milton notes, “Some of the points initially desired by Ward and Davenant were excluded from the final Suffrage.”[18]

In considering the place of the British and their views, we should also note the impression that they were able to make upon the final version of the Canons of Dort. The Canons are infralapsarian. In fact, the opposition to supralapsarianism was so strong that at one point, Bishop Carleton requested that supralapsarianism be included among the rejected errors. To avoid this decision, Gomarus appealed to the authority of English theologians like William Perkins and upon their reputation was able to avoid condemnation.[19] The canons of Dort also emphasize the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice and the free offer of the gospel. The British were unsuccessful in persuading Dort to ground the gospel offer in the worth of the atonement, however, and thus this point has to be understood as a bit of a compromise. Certain high Calvinists opposed the free offer, and others defended it solely as a Christian duty, not having a necessary implication on the particulars regarding the extent of the atonement.[20]

One of the most striking achievements of the British at Dort is seen in what they were able to keep from being listed among the rejected errors. Initially a proposal had been made to reject as an error the teaching that the reprobate could attain a state of temporary justification. The British protested and were, amazingly, successful in keeping this position from being considered heretical. Their reasons for doing so are worth quoting in full:

We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scriptures, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear

1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestinated can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.

2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.

3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, many learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life. Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without great probability.[21]

The British were concerned about the interest of the Lutheran churches because James I had explicitly instructed them not to give undue offense towards them. James still hoped for a future union between all Reformation churches. The British delegates even asked that the Lutherans not be excluded from the title “Reformed,” since, they argued, the Lutherans began the Reformation.[22]

This information is fascinating for a number of reasons. It shows the breadth of the Reformed tradition, at least according to the British, as well as their understanding of the function of the Canons of Dort. Obviously if the success of removing a rejection held value, then it was understood that positions which were neither promoted nor condemned were allowable to be held by Reformed ministers. The interest in the Lutheran churches also shows that the British did not desire to use their confessions to mark off the limits of the Christian Church. They instead only wanted to condemn clear error and the precise points under dispute at the time.

Another angle at understanding where the British delegates at Dort fall within the larger Reformed spectrum is by noting the appearance of views similar to theirs in subsequent years. Many of the English Puritans promoted a broad view of the atonement, among them being Ussher, Baxter, Seaman, Arrowsmith, Preston, Marshall, Howe, Scudder, and Polhill. Curt Daniel has stated that one third of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly could be classified among the moderate position.[23] Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the fact that such moderate views nearly obtained the status of the majority view among 19^th century American theologians, the most well-known being, as mentioned before, R. L. Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd. With the larger lens of history, the British delegates at Dort, as well as the Bremenese, are well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.

One other point that should be noted is that the Canons of Dort never held confessional status over the English churches. The British delegates were sent by King James I, not by the Church of England, and thus served as private citizens. They gave their approval to the content of the Canons of Dort, however, their opinions, as found in the Collegiat Suffrage, include many more qualifications, creating a manuscript that is much larger than the Dutch Canons. The British were also asked to grant their approval to the Three Forms of Unity, which they did with certain significant reservations. The British clearly disagreed with the Dutch over polity, as well as the interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell in the Apostles’ Creed. The British also held to a stronger view of baptismal grace than the typical Dutch thinker, and they expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness among subscriptional standards.[24] After returning to England, Samuel Ward stringently defended the decisions of Dort, all the while maintaining that the Church of England’s confessional documents had not been departed from and that they remained the rule of England’s faith.

This historical inquiry ought to instruct us now, living in the 21^st century, about how to understand the theology of the Synod of Dort and its place in the larger Reformed tradition. I do not at all intent my thoughts as criticisms of Dort. On the contrary, as I study the historical complexity surrounding Dort, I grow in my appreciation of its balance and moderation. Contrary to many a foe, Dort does not represent a cold and excessive Calvinism. One will not find any one particular formulation of limited atonement at Dort. It is deliberately open, only rejecting the Arminian viewpoint. And of course, we will all have to finally admit that the acronym TULIP doesn’t even work in Dutch! The order of Dort does not begin with depravity and move into election and then on to the atonement. Dort’s order is: divine election from the fallen mass of humanity, Christ’s death, effectual calling, and perseverance. One will notice that the third and fourth head of doctrine are combined, leaving four main points. Without trying to insinuate any particular amount of agreement or disagreement, we still should familiarize ourselves with the fact that the Canons of Dort are not the same as the popular TULIP.

Dort is also one specific piece within the larger Reformed tradition. It does not itself dictate the fullest bounds of that tradition. As we have seen, it is often that case that Dort says less, rather than more, leaving many positions open for further dialogue. With this diversity in mind, we must also be careful not to plot certain trajectories and logical implications of the Canons of Dort. It may very well be the case that no single delegate present would have himself articulated the specific theses as they are in the final form. Instead, they worked together to produce a document that each could approve of, with varying amounts of personal qualifications.

In order to grow into mature Reformed thinkers, it ought to be one of our top priorities to become acquainted with this historical information. I have found myself quite surprised at what lies smack in the middle of my own tradition. Famous names, of which I’ve never heard, often sit on library shelves nearby. Entire schools of thought can be forgotten within a few generations, and the majority position of one century can become the minority position of the next. Learning to form our identities in light of the complexities of history is essential for maintaining the stabilities of our religious communities, and an eye towards the future is equally as essential for their well being. The easiest way to begin this process, if I may quote Reading Rainbow, is to take a look; it’s in a book!

This is an exploratory attempt to plot the structure of the Jacob narrative. I have been working through the book of Genesis for a Sunday School class, and this section was inspired by the Biblical Horizons Newsletter 109, Crisis Time: Patriarchal Prologue, Part 1.

A. Naming of Jacob (25:19-28)
  B. Esau Despises his Birthright (25:29-34)
    C. Abimelech (26)
      D. Jacob is blessed and incites Esau to Murder (27-28:9)
        E. Vision of God at Bethel (28:10-22)
          F. Jacob vs. Laban (29:1-30)
            G. Leah vs. Rachel (29:31-24)
              H. God opens Rachel’s womb – Joseph (30:22-24)
            ’G. Speckled vs. White Goats (30:25-34)
          ’F. Jacob vs. Laban (31)
        ’E. Vision of God at Peniel (32:22-32)
      ’D. Esau turns from his anger and Jacob blesses Esau (33)
    ’C. Dinah (34)
  ’B. Jacob casts out the idols (35:1-8)
’A. Renaming of Jacob (35:9-15)

A- Jacob is originally named for his heel-grabbing. He takes Esau’s place. Later, after having his own leg grabbed by God, Jacob is renamed Israel. He is now named “He who fights for God.”

B- Esau’s despising his birthright is a sort of rejection of his God. Jacob throws out all other gods out of allegiance to the true God.

C- The Abimelech story appears in the midst of the Jacob and Esau narrative. It is almost parenthetical, and is the only place where the adult Isaac takes a central role. He recapitulates Abraham’s deception of Abimelech, as Abimelech once again seeks to attack the bride. The bride is again attacked in the Dinah incident, however, Shechem seeks to make things right, and when Jacob’s sons take out vengeance through deception, they make him obnoxious to all the other tribes of the land. This is an anti-deception scene, as rather than resulting in the usual spoils principle, it creates an opportunity for future harm.

D- Jacob’s receiving of the blessing incites Esau to anger. He swears to kill Jacob. Later it appears that Esau has had a change of mind, as he forgives Jacob and Jacob blesses Esau. This resolves the brother-brother strife and sets things aright.

E- While fleeing Esau, Jacob meets God as a friend at Bethel. While fleeing Laban and just prior to meeting Esau again, Jacob meets God as a foe at Peniel.

F- Jacob meets Laban but is deceived by him into marrying Leah and thus owing seven more years of labor for Rachel. In chapter 31, Jacob and Rachel deceive Laban, and Jacob rebukes Laban and strikes up an agreement for his safe passage.

G- Leah and Rachel compete for Jacob’s affection by producing children. Jacob competes with Laban through Laban’s flocks. The speckled goats represent Leah, who looked sickly, but Jacob has arranged it so that they are actually the stronger. While looking like Leah, they are actually like Rachel.

H- Amidst the competition between Leah and Rachel, God remembers Rachel and removes her reproach. Joseph is the promised child who will carry on the Seed of the woman.