I just came across this great little quote from Bruce Gordon’s book, “Calvin:”
. . . Terms like ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Zwinglian’ were not badges worn with pride so much as insults used by opponents to indicate that the people were not Christians.” (p. 185)
The time frame this is referring to, is at least Calvin’s life time.
I suppose this is true today, as well; it all depends on what direction your looking at it from.
Hi there,Gordon's point is now pretty much standard fare in Reformation and Post Reformation Studies – see Muller's work or Carl Trueman's essay in McKim (ed.) Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. I think Trueman says the term is of no value to intellectual history or the like. Your site is interesting and I've enjoyed browsing but I wonder if because of the above, your 'evangelical' adjective short-circuits on your adoption of the noun i.e. you don't like traditional Calvinism but you're still happy to adopt the pejorative title. It's like calling yourself a certain type of bigot – I'm not like those bigots over there, I'm an evangelical bigot. Your aim is to put distance between yourself and trad Calvinists but you work with your opponents terms, never mind the trad ones.Just some thoughts
Kenenth,Maybe we could turn this around, and say that I think the noun is better more historically served by 'my' adjective; thus I don't see the noun in pejorative ways at all. In fact part of the point of this blog is to alert folks to the rich heritage of Calvinism, so this is more than an disingenuous rhetorical move; there is "teeth" to it. Much like the language of "Catholic," I'm not really keen on letting that go either; since historically and denotatively it captures something greater than one expression of the church. So for example if we don't recognize its historical nuance we will read the Patristics and some of the ecumenical creeds and think that Roman 'catholicism' has purchase simply because the term catholic is used. This is all I'm doing with the language of Calvinist — actually, more — I'm reclaiming its richness by making sure people know that its Federal version is not it's only one; and that it most certainly is not it's best one, it's most 'Evangelical' version (at least that's what I think).I take it that you follow 'Federal theology,' then?Btw, I didn't make this language up; Dr Myk Habets didn't make it up; as far as I know T F Torrance coined this in his book: Scottish Theology, and I'm very happy that he did!
Btw, Kenenth,I hope you continue visiting the blog, and commenting; you seem to be informed about such things, so your feedback would be invaluable, and help other readers move forward in their own understanding.Bobby
Hey Bobby,Thanks for the kind comments, yes may well stick around if I can. I'm certainly closer to traditonal federalism than you are but I have my own questions too.I don't think you've grasped the force of the objection to the term 'Calvinist' … like, I'm happier with the traditional version but I want to be known as 'Reformed' rather than 'Calvinist'. I don't really know why anyone wants to adopt the slur as an acceptable title. It's not the same issue with the word c/Catholic, in that there the one word means two different things according to whether the c is upper case or not, and neither are pejorative … not the case with Calvinist. Even if the term today doesn't carry the C16/17 intentional abuse that it had then, to still adopt it nevertheless accepts the charge that you are following the teachings of one person rather than a wider tradition. You can't really say you're reclaiming the richness of the term Calvinist as there wasn't ever a richness about it other than that of a very bad smell. In other words, if you want to follow Calvin then do what his first followers did and refuse to call yourself a Calvinist!The fact that Torrance might have coined the term says to me – I'm sorry to say on this blog! – more about his own theological sensibilities than a properly historical grasp of the terminology.
Kenneth,Great points! On Catholic/catholic: Yes, but w/o the historical clarification that you assume on this distinction one would be pejorative (if you're a Prot.) and the other not. I.e. the "little 'c'" distinction would have no force.As far as using the label "Calvinist," I've never used it until recently; but, within the "tradition of Calvinism" there indeed is a richness that has been muted. So while I see the negative connotations of claiming "Calvinist," I also see that, historically there are positive ones.It doesn't really bother me to use the label "Calvinist" vs. "Lutheran" for example since both have become monikers of a broader traditional stream. What in fact I am presupposing is that Calvin does serve as an important, distinct, (even fountain head of sorts) personage in establishing and/or articulating themes that have since been developed in various ways (much like Barth has, i.e. the Yoderian [ana-baptist] appropriation vs. the Torrancian [reformed]).Of course Calvin wouldn't be a Calvinist, and per the quote (from Gordon) it was considered a slam and negative because of the socio/ecclesio context, not because being a Calvinist itself was negative (i.e. if that meant to follow some of the impulses that Calvin himself was articulating). In the end, I don't think using the label "Calvinist" is necessarily as you say. It's no different than saying I'm a Scotist vs. a Thomist; it says that this "person" (Calvin for example) identified with a broader tradition in ways that are more commensurate with scripture than another, and so I'm going to identify with this person insofar as he/she has become representative of these broader themes. What might you suggest as a "better" 'label'? I.e. instead of 'Calvinist'.And who are you? Email me, if you want (icor22@hotmail.com).
What about Reformed rather than Calvinist? I think calling yourself (and that's the key issue) a Calvinist is like a theological form of protest against the Reformer's insistence that he be buried in an unmarked grave.
Kenneth,I totally appreciate your point; I've been calling myself 'Reformed' for quite some time now, but I just don't think that it is that helpful of a designation (e.g. the whole Protestant 'schism' could take that 'label'). We have Lutherans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc., etc.; all could bear the name of 'Reformed' — it's all of our heritage. In our American society, though (Western), certainly 'Reformed' has been pretty much associated with Calvinists; so why not just say so?The way I view traditions (like Calvinism, Lutheranism, Barthianism, etc.) is that they are more a product of sociology vs. theology. Either way, like it or not, there is a whole histoy of thought out there known as "Calvinism" (I don't really like it either); my goal is to underscore/highlight/alert folks to the fact that Calvinism is a multi-faceted, nuanced, non-monolithic, variegated, full blossomed reality that should not be "dead-headed" down to one petal of its expression. If I were to do that this would be to ignore its history, to blunt its sharp edges, and lie about the multi-colored tapestry that is painted when we look at the full picture.I just think what *we* are calling Evangelical Calvinism here actually, instead of serving as the picture; should really be the "frame" to the picture known as Calvinism.I'm sorry you don't like this, Kenneth; I hope this will not cause you to stumble to the point of not reading, and/or interacting here at the blog.I really do appreciate your feedback, I wish I could get a little more "round" picture of who you are (one of the drawbacks of blogging, esp. if particular commenters don't have a blog of their own); but either way, I do appreciate the comments.
I appreciate the interaction too, thanks Bobby.If I may say so, I think your opening paragraph above is symptomatic of some of your general revisionist tendencies on the blog. I don't mean that harshly, I can see you don't write with malice or ill-intent. But the fact is that you have not drunk deeply enough at the wells of the tradition you are aiming to reclaim/revise/critique in some way. An example: "We have Lutherans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, etc., etc.; all could bear the name of 'Reformed' — it's all of our heritage." The problem here is that you confuse Reformation traditon with Reformed tradition. Out of your list, only Presbyterians are actually Reformed even while they are all Reformation theologies – and that's because Reformed theology is creedally/confessionally based, not simply on one person or an electic pick and mix of doctrines. That's just a historical fact of terminology, before we start asking any evaluative questions. Any Lutheran in the C17 would NOT want to be called Reformed! This is one example of your revisonism (I think it's unintended rather than deliberate?). Elsewhere, conversely, in other instances on this blog you draw lines of discontinuity within the tradition which are far too premature.I'm not sure why you would like more info about me, not sure how that helps as we interact over ideas. I'm not keen to do autobiography, and on the internet of all places. But if it helps at all, I was once where you are (or similar), with all the criticims of traditional 'Calvinism', although my influences were largely JB rather TF Torrance (TF doesn't seem to have been as bad on this as JB was, although I posted on Der Evangelische Theologe some queries about some of TF on Calvin – don't know what you make of that. His comments there seem to be a mixture of penetrating – naturally – and idiosyncratic). However, I had my view of trad Calvinism systematically dismantled by, first, discovering some articles by Richard Muller on the myths of decretal theology and the place of predestination in Reformed theology, and then secondly and dominantly by (as Barth with Herrmann) 'absorbing through every pore' Muller's 4 volumes on Post Ref Reformed Dogmatics. His 'Unaccommodated Calvin' and 'After Calvin' also helped. These tomes changed my thinking substantially. My interests now centre on the nature of doctrinal development across different socio-cultural settings in post-Reformation continental Europe i.e. the shape of development in the various types of early modernity. I think the evidence supports organic theological models in fluid socio-cultural contexts, whereas you seem to often posit static doctrinal antitheses: Calvin was this, but the Reformed orthodox were that, etc.Anyhows, just some more thoughts. My holiday ends today and I may be around less … you'll be glad to know!Blessings Bobby!KP
Kenneth,True, there is Reformation tradition and Reformed; but the fact that you want to deny the validity of at least the moniker of "Calvinism," and then also assert that we should just call it "Reformed" seems like smoke and mirrors to me. What is it? I don't think the history supports your claim of some sort of flattened movement of thought so that we just end up with this evolving whole known as your 'Reformed' tradition. This certainly is the way that Muller paints things in his work, and what Janice Knight rightly tears to shreds. I don't see things statically, at all, this is to presume too much. I see all of this on a continuum, wherein distinctions need to be made. It is these distinctions (Knight's Spiritual Brethren/Intellectual Fathers, TFT's "Scottish Theology," Perkins' "Federal Theology"), those instanciations on this continuum that I see as setting trajectories of their own — albeit within your 'Reformed tradition', my 'Calvinist tradition'. So I see fluidity within the Calvinist tradition, with its own set of distinctive movements of thought that provide substantial variance amongst those who would self-identify as "Calvinist." The problem is, is that Calvin died, and when he died he actually did believe certain things. To say that one strand of post-Reformation development is self-same with Calvin's thinking is anachronistic, and really an argument from silence. "Calvin was this," the 'Calvinist orthodox' are that. It is reader response to engage in the kind of histiorigraphy that Muller, and I guess now you are engaging . . . it is to put words in Calvins mouth, fill in the "gaps" as it were (so scholastic methodology). You're not saying, Kenneth, that you see no substantial difference between the Scotist appropriation of Calvin from the Thomist are you? If so, which so far it does seem that you are, this really throws your analysis and methodology into highly suspect light. Within Calvinism, despite your apparent aversion to the Torrances, there is substantial divergence at this juncture; of course Muller won't accept this thesis, he baptizes your 'Reformed tradition' (Calvinism), in full-blossomed Thomism (and admits that, defends that, you know that). So while you've apparently been around the block a few more times than me — which btw provides nice rhetorical purchase to your comments [i.e. I'm just the young upstart, you're the wise sage] — your thesis, materially, IMO, is flawed. If you've accepted Muller's thesis about Calv (that its Thomist, or nothing) is just way too self serving; and does not deal with the history. If I recall correctly this was Perry Miller's thesis (the popular one), which, again Janice Knight tumbles.I do thank you for your points, Kenneth; obviously your a scholar of some sort, European at that ("holiday"). Who you are does matter to me, would you want to enter into disputation with someone who is anonymous (not that we're disputating per se) . . . not me. You're obviously a trained theologian/historian/scholar of some kind; who I just think has accepted some wrong-headed presuppositions on how we should approach the issue under consideration at the blog, here.Btw, I haven't read what you said at WTM's, I'll have to do that. Hope you had a good holiday, also I hope you'll visit more; you can hold my feet to the fire, I need it!In Christ,Bobby
Btw, Kenneth,How's the weather in Connecticut today ;-)?
One more point, Kenneth,If you are who I think you are (99.9% sure), then relatively speaking, I am most certainly an 'upstart'. Nevertheless, I still disagree with you π . . .
I have just come across this exchange – good stuff guys π One point to add really and that is this: 'Calvinist' and 'Calvinism' have entered into general discourse as idenitifiers of the Reformed tradition regardless of what the term first meant. While Trueman and others think the term is useless based on historical lines they really do need to just lift their heads out of the books for a second and listen to their students, their pastors, and their denominations – all of which are using this title. Now I agree, Reformed is better, clearly, but I don't think there is anything wrong with Calvinist. At the Calvin 500 confernece in Geneva everyone from Lillback to Ligon Duncan, Joel Beeke to Henry Blocher used the term willingly, even if not exclusively. One last point – it is the same issue but let me ask you a question Kenneth – what do you call the Puritans? You can't call them 'Puritans' given the historical context of thus slur – so whenever you refer to this group how would/do you do so? Blessings,
Thanks, Myk!Yeah, I obviously agree with you on the language of Calvinist.Calvinist has become code for 'Reformed', and vice versa; and both of these have become code for 'Federal Theology' . . . well in some circles.I would be curious about the Puritan question too.Bozeman calls the Puritans, Precianists, which is interesting, and historical, as I recall.