Here is how Brian Armstrong frames and asks the question on a continuity between John Calvin and “Calvinism” — remember now, Richard Muller has reframed this question, and thus discussion, to broadening Armstrong’s question by arguing that the question of ‘continuity’ shouldn’t be delimited to John Calvin’s teaching; but instead we should read whether or not high/late ‘post-Reformed orthodoxy’ captures the complex of themes of which Calvin was only one voice upstream from the “multi-faceted movement” known as the “Reformed tradition” — here is Armstrong:

. . . In larger context, does the historical movement known as Calvinism represent a generally uniform intellectual tradition, and how faithfully does this movement represent the teachings of John Calvin? Perhaps the most overlooked problem in research having to do with the thought of Calvinism concerns the relationship of the thought of Calvin himself to that of his followers. It is axiomatic that thought does not remain static and that most great thinkers have been but imperfectly understood by their successors. Interestingly, these principles seem never to have been applied with rigor and care in order to determine the precise relationship of Calvin’s thought to the expression of faith known as Calvinism. Since the Calvinist thinkers of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rarely even take the trouble to refer to Calvin himself, the interest evolves into surprise. The question then arises whether these orthodox Calvinists can in fact be regarded as proper representatives of Calvin’s thought, an assumption which until very recent times seems to have remained unquestioned by historians of Calvinism. I believe that Calvin’s religious thought is still commonly judged in the light of what eventuated in Calvinism, and that a careful comparison of his writings with those of representative Calvinists of the seventeenth century reveals a radical change of emphasis. In fact, this change of emphasis is so pronounced that at many points the whole structure of Calvin’s thought is seriously compromised. (Brian Armstrong, “Calvinism And The Amyraut Heresy [1969],” xvii)

Richard Muller is too broad, and Armstrong too narrow; I don’t think either one of their theses has to be framed as polar opposites from eachother or in competitive terms, whatsoever! In other words, I think that Armstrong’s thesis of discontinuity between Calvin and the Calvinists can be fitted into Muller’s thesis of complexity-yet continuity between Calvin and the Calvinists. Let me digress a moment though; Muller wants to marginalize Calvin as THE voice of what in fact “Calvinism” came to be known for, nevertheless, he also wants to maintain that Calvin is in accord with the Calvinists relative to their doctrinal loci (just a difference of method for the two, versus any kind of material difference)  — I see this as a methodological and categorical problem in Muller’s approach. Nevertheless, with this digression aside, like I said, I think Armstrong and Muller can be read in complement to eachother; rightly understood, that is (which means that we need to take Muller’s thesis about the complexity of the ‘Reformed movement’ prima facie, and not follow him all the way to the breaking point of saying that we have complexity (early Reformed orthodoxy) and then non-complexity (high/late Reformed orthodoxy). If we say this, then Armstrong’s point is well taken; and really, actually, illustrates Muller’s thesis on complexity. That is to say, that given the complex thought-world and milieu that Calvin inhabited, and given the various complexities of Calvin’s own thought (i.e. various threads of dogmatic foci) it makes sense to question whether anyone can consistently be called a “Calvinist” or even “Calvinian;” and at the same time, it also makes sense then to posit that any tradition which self-consciously sought to develop Calvin’s thought could conceivably be called “Calvinist” or “Calvinian.”

To summarize then: There is both continuity and discontinuity when it comes to interpreting the issue of Calvin and Calvinism. There is continuity between the themes articulated by the early Reformed and the high/late Reformed, of whom Calvin is associated (Muller’s thesis); and then there is potential discontinuity between Calvin’s developers [Armstrong’s thesis] (e.g.  Beza, Amyraut, Knox, Binning, Fraser of Brea, Perkins, Aames, Turretin, Sibbes, Cotton, Rutherford, et al) relative to the various emphases that each respective developer of Calvin chose to highlight within their particular “system of development.”  In short: Muller is right and Armstrong is right, each to a degree. It is best to assume the complexity that Muller does, but at the same time also notice the nuance that actually makes up the complexity known as the “Reformed tradition,” or more popularly known as Calvinism.

I am not suggesting that there is a “middle way” between Muller and Armstrong on dogmatic points; but that in fact, methodologically there does seem to be. As a voice within the “Reformed tradition,” and the symbol by which this movement is known today, anyone who works out of the themes that Calvin provided should de facto be included within the discussion of who can be called “Calvinist,” indeed, Reformed.

Major premise: The Reformed tradition is a complex stream of thought — also known as “Calvinism” — anyone associated with this complex can be called “Reformed.”

Minor premise A: John Calvin was associated with this complex stream of thought.

Minor premise B: Evangelical Calvinists are associated with John Calvin’s stream of thought.

Conclusion: Therefore John Calvin and Evangelical Calvinists can be called “Reformed.”

PS. Remember now, my blog is more of notepad, often times, wherein I burp out my toughts in very seminal and unpolished ways; that’s what my thinking here . . . so be gentle 🙂 !