Mark Horne has posted a quotation from Calvin on Deuteronomy. I reproduce the quote below, but the comments on Mark’s blog are worth reading also.
For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it. Consequently the Church is called God’s work and creation, in two senses, i.e., generally with respect to its outward calling, and specially with respect to spiritual regeneration, as far as regards the elect; for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers. On this ground all whom God gathers into His Church, are indiscriminately said to be renewed and regenerated: but the internal renovation belongs to believers only; whom Paul, therefore, calls God’s “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath prepared, etc.” (Ephesians 2:10.). Calvin, Deut 32:6
I want to draw attention to a number of things here, and then follow up with an observation on the authority of Calvin for Calvinists.
Notice first that Calvin says that the grace of renewal is effaced in some. It is effaced in those who have afterwards profaned that grace of renewal. In order to profane something you have to come into some sort of contact with it. As a result of this profanation of renewing grace, it is proper to speak of the Church as God’s work and creation in two different ways. The first is general, and has to do with outward calling. The second is special, and has regard to spiritual regeneration of the elect. Calvin goes on to say that the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers, and both kinds of people in the covenant are appropriately said to be renewed and regenerated. Internal renovation, however, belongs only to genuine believers.
In case anybody missed this, Calvin says here:
1. The grace of renewal can be effaced;
2. It is effaced by those who profane it;
3. God’s work and creation in the Church can properly be spoken of two ways: general and special;
4. The general work is the outward call;
5. The special work is the spiritual rebirth of the elect;
6. The covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers both;
7. Both hypocrites and true believers can be said to be renewed and regenerated;
8. And heart renovation belongs only to genuine believers.
Now this is all straight from Calvin, and I guess we all know who will not be speaking at Westminster West conferences any time soon. In fact, Calvin hasn’t been invited to speak there in years. We shouldn’t make too much out of that though — I think it is an internal faculty/politics thing.
Now a comment on the authority of Calvin for Calvinists. The fact that Calvin said it doesn’t make it right, and I think it is fair to say that a man could be a conscientious Calvinist and think that Calvin got a lot of things wrong. But that is not the point. I think it should be safe to say that for Reformed, Presbyterian, and Reformed Baptist believers, Calvin’s errors, whatever they were (take paedocommunion, for example) were not the kind of errors that should get him labeled as a flaming heretic at RTS Jackson.
But here is the kick in the teeth. The sentiments above, run through a syntax scrubber to hide the 16th century origins, and advanced to Waters, Clark, Duncan, et al. in the name of Lusk or Leithart would get labeled that way. There is no better way to illustrate how out of touch with the reformational tradition these men have become.
Note, the point is not that Calvin is right and these men are wrong. Their revivalistic version of the Reformed faith might be the Reformed faith come into its own. They could be right on all points, but if they want to consider themselves Reformed, they can’t be saying that they are “Calvinists except for those parts where Calvin is always denying the gospel.”
Calvin might be talking through his hat on this point. But if he is talking through his hat, he is obviously saying the same kind of thing that the FV people are saying. And that means we are talking through our hats as well. The fact that “Calvin said it” should not be followed with “I believe it, that settles it.” If Calvin was silly for saying it, so are we. But it is a bit thick for the “heirs of the Reformation” to be drumming John Calvin out of the corps of the orthodox like this. If this is an error, it is an error within the Reformed pale — we share the error with no less than ol’ Jean himself. If it not an error, then certain schoolmarm librarians at the John Calvin Memorial Archives and Book Stacks need to do a little less shushing and a little more reading.
The ancient pagans had their myths of the gods coming down incognito, and finding out how everybody treated them that way. The Messiah of Israel did something similar to the custodians of the Torah, and found out what they actually thought of Moses, who had warned them that this would be happening.
This leads to an edifying thought experiment. Bring Calvin back, shave his beard, get rid of that kamikaze hat, make him a young man in his twenties, and send him before classis (or presbytery would do just as well) to get his little French hinder parts examined.
RSC: What do you understand by regeneration?
JC: The word can be used differently . . .
[Whispering on the panel]
RSC: What do you mean ‘differently?”
JC: Well, in one sense both the hypocrite and the true believer can be properly said to be renewed and regenerated, but . . . excuse me?
RSC: I said what?
JC: The covenant of grace encompasses both kinds of covenant members, but regeneration can only be used in a special sense if we are talking about the internal grace that belongs only to the elect.
RSC: Where did you go to seminary?
JC: Well, actually I went to law school.
RSC: Have you ever been to Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church?
JC: No, sir.
RSC: Have you listened to the CDs?
JC: What’s a CD?
MH: Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting off the point . . .
RSC: Quite right. You say that the covenant of grace includes the reprobate?
JC: Yes, with regard to the outward call. So they are truly members of that which they profane, and the renewing grace that comes to them is something they really efface. But there is a qualitative difference between them and the . . .
RSC: Do you really want us to vote on you?
JC: I really wish you would. I was warned what would happen, but I had to come see for myself.
Enough fun. I am on the road right now, but just before leaving I got my copy of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, edited by Scott Clark. I have only had a chance to look it over, and haven’t gotten grace or time enough to read it yet. But to show you what we are dealing with, the somewhat breathless copy written on the cover says that the gospel today is “under assault.” Heavy word, assault, especially if you are talking about language like what Calvin uses above.
All modern and educated Calvinists know various places where they take issue with Calvin. But leave it to Westminster West to develop the line of thought that makes Calvin a heretic, assaulting the gospel. Land of Goshen.