# Calvin contra the Nicene Fathers? Subordinationism?



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

Hello,

I am trying to understand Calvin's view of the Trinity. He seems to dismiss the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and disagree with those who wrote the Nicene Creed. I have always liked the Nicene Creed...is there some deficiency within it where it unduly subordinates Christ to the Father? Would the Nicene Fathers have affirmed that the Son and the Spirit, too, are autotheos? What about the "eternal generation of the Son?"

Any links, books, articles on these topics? I am newly digging into this topic.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2013)

Calvin does not dismiss eternal generation. He insists that what is generated is the _person_ of the Son, who is personally from the Father; but since their essence is one, simple, and undivided, essentially the Son and the Holy Spirit are autotheos: aseity is a natural attribute, not a personal property.

Richard Muller has a good discussion in _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_, v.4, where he also shows the connection of subsequent Reformed thought with Calvin on this topic. You can also read about it from Calvin himself in his letters: volume 4 of the 7-volume set, _Select Works and Letters_ has a good explanation in the letter Calvin sent to Grynee around the time that reference the fracas with Caroli, and further discussion in various letters when people were working to effect a reconciliation with Caroli.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

> aseity is a natural attribute, not a personal property.



I don't quite understand that. Can you further explain?

Also, were the Nicene fathers guilty of a subtle subordinationism?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> > aseity is a natural attribute, not a personal property.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on what you mean by subordinationism. In _one sense_ the Son is subordinate because he is begotten of the Father. That is not a diminishing of essence or glory or anything.

As to the OP, there have been subtle shifts away from Nicene (325) throughout history. What we call the Nicene Creed (381) has a slight difference. In some mss The former said the Son is begotten of the substance of the Father. Does that imply a difference in concepts? It might, but I'm not bothered by it.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

Jacob,

Yes, the Son is sent by the Father and so obeys. But, it seems I read last week that maybe not all the Greek fathers would have said that the Son and the Spirit are also _autotheos_, and this was surprising to me (almost as if they received their divine essence from the Father instead of having it in themselves...if I understood them right). Then, reading about the early Church councils I realized that I needed to re-study this topic once more.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Yes, the Son is sent by the Father and so obeys. But, it seems I read last week that maybe not all the Greek fathers would have said that the Son and the Spirit are also _autotheos_, and this was surprising to me (almost as if they received their divine essence from the Father instead of having it in themselves...if I understood them right). Then, reading about the early Church councils I realized that I needed to re-study this topic once more.



Most would not have said the Son/Spirit are autotheos. I've always seen autotheos as a Calvinist inference from an Augustinian presupposition. The Greeks would have held to the monarchia of the Father (See Nazianzus' third theological oration). That is one of the reasons why they rejected the filioque so firmly.



> Yes, the Son is sent by the Father and so obeys.


The East would not say that _sent_ = _generation/procession_

Decent works on t his are Letham, Kelly, and Torrance.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

Jacob,

That is interesting. Can you explain further?



> I've always seen autotheos as a Calvinist inference from an Augustinian presupposition. The Greeks would have held to the monarchia of the Father (See Nazianzus' third theological oration).


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2013)

The only thing that is different from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit are their personal properties: unbegottenness, filiation, procession. Aseity is not one of those, so it is something that belongs to the divine nature as such - and each of the persons possesses wholly and entirely the numerically identical and undistributed divine nature.

At this point I wouldn't feel comfortable asserting that the Nicene fathers held to a subtle subordinationism, certainly. In general (and this is a major problem I have with Letham's book on the Trinity) it seems that some people are always looking for errors in the _trends_ or _tendencies_ of someone's language. The Trinity is the greatest mystery there is - we shouldn't expect every stab at expression to be entirely incontrovertible. As I wrote in my review of Letham's book, in the history of the mainstream church I see a succession of teachers, with more or less felicity of language, trying to hold the Scriptural facts in a coherent explanation; whereas others apparently see practically everyone falling into one error or another. But I think we ourselves would not like to be viewed with such Hegelian lenses, and so it is more prudent to see if what teachers say can be taken in an orthodox sense, as long as it does not involve ripping them out of context or loading their words with unnatural connotations.

_Autotheos_ can be taken in more than one way also. We say that the Son is from the Father; but the Father is of none. That is, of course, speaking to the personal distinctions. Along those lines, of course you couldn't call the Son _autotheos_, because he is _from the Father_. But the problem is with the _theos_ part of that: without qualification, it is going to sound like substance, divine nature, that existence which is indistinguishable from essence and vice versa. That's why, for the preservation of the testimony of the full and equal divinity of the Spirit and the Son I think it is better to speak of each of them as truly _autotheos_, and then make the distinction that there is a genuine order of genuinely equal and co-eternal persons.

Not all statements that can be made _personally_ can be made _essentially_. In sorting through what others have said, one of the things you have to do is determine to which topic they were speaking. At times that involves sorting out whether they were speaking abstractly or concretely; and of course at that point there will be differences of opinion about the interpretation of any particular writer who didn't make those distinctions explicit. Since early writers are still sorting out vocabulary, they often speak in ways that are patient of a good interpretation, but that would not have been acceptable 300 years later - or even less.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 28, 2013)

It's been a few years since I read this, but I believe that what Calvin was rejecting in "eternal generation" was that the Son *is being* eternally generated by the Father. There may be something in Calvin and Calvinism by Warfield, and T. F. Torrance, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity," Calvin Theological Journal, 1990.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2013)

Calvin _Institutes I.13,25 & 29_:



> The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each of whom possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead. Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten. For it is absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, 106 whereas it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God. This affords an answer to their futile question — whether or not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same absurdity.
> Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. *We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.* And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus — Essence, Son, and Spirit — plainly do away with the essence of the Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge into each other — a circumstance which would vitiate any distinction. In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures.
> 
> (...)
> ...



_Letter to Simon Grynee, May 1537_



> *Certainly, if the distinction between the Father and the Word be attentively considered, we shall say that the one is from the other. If, however, the essential quality of the Word be considered, in so far as he is one God with the Father, whatever can be said concerning God may also be applied to him, the second person in the glorious Trinity.* Now, what is the meaning of the name Jehovah? What did that answer imply which was spoken to Moses? I AM THAT I AM. Paul makes Christ the author of this saying. We do not take the trouble to persuade you and all the godly to approve the truth of that judgment; but we have been unwilling that the concealed malignity of this hopeless calumniator should pass unnoticed, lest rumors of any kind might reach you so as to make an impression at variance with the true state of the case. Nothing, indeed, could have been set forth more plainly than the statement in our Confession, that Christ is that eternal Word begotten of the Father before all time. Therefore, of a truth, unless we please to imagine a twofold Deity, it behoves that we speak concerning his essence no otherwise than as concerning the essence of the one God. There is no one to be found who is not satisfied with this form of expression except himself.



(Emphasis added)

In addition to the Warfield article already mentioned, you may find interesting Daniel Featley's _Sacra Nemesis_ where he comments on Calvin's formulation, if you can lay your hands on it; Francis Cheynell also remarks on the matter in _The Divine Triunity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit_, where beginning at p.230 he discusses whether it is proper to say that the Father alone is God of himself. He says,

"_The Divine Essence of the Son is not begotten, caused, produced any more than the essence of the Father_; the subsistence of the Son is _begotten_, but not _caused_; the Divine Essence is _communicated_ to the Son, but it is not _begotten_ by the Father; for the Father doth communicate that selfe same Divine and entire Essence, which is himself, by begetting the personal subsistence of the Son in the unity of the Godhead from the dayes of eternity."

(Emphasis original)

On the following page, 232, he criticizes Genebrardus for trying to tar Calvin, Beza, and others as autotheanite heretics.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

Here is a link to several articles by Sam Waldron: Waldron on the Eternal Generation of the Son | The Sovereign Logos

Here is a curious quote: 



> I believe that (1) significant problems have developed among evangelicals since the Enlightenment on the doctrine of the Trinity, (2) these problems directly contributed to an egalitarian or equivalentist view of the Trinity, (3) an understanding of the historical Trinitarianism articulated in the Nicene Creed and its massive, abiding, biblical basis supports the doctrine of eternal generation, (4) the Nicene doctrine of eternal generation is the historical and biblical basis for holding what is (perhaps a little clumsily) called by recent theologians the eternal, functional subordination of the Son, (5) the eternal functional subordination of the Son is consistent with His full and undiluted deity, and finally (6) this Nicene doctrine of Trinity undercuts the fundamental premise of Egalitarianism that equality of nature and subordination of role are inconsistent.




If the Nicene Fathers were to confront Calvin and the other Reformers (if we ever perfect a reformed time machine), I wonder how much agreement/disagreement they would come to? 

If this a disagreement in wording or emphasis or a disagreement in substantive doctrine, or merely Calvin and others' refusal to treat into areas of speculative doctrine that are not really all that clear? Is one party talking about function and role and the other about essential essence?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

I am also confused by the use of the word "substances" in R.L. Dabney's quote below:



> "In a word, the generation of the Son, and procession of the Spirit, however mysterious, are unavoidable corollaries from two facts. The essence of the Godhead is one; the persons are three. If these are both true, there must be some way, in which the Godhead multiplies its personal modes of subsistence, without multiplying or dividing its substance. The Scriptures call one of these modes a 'genesi' and the other an 'ekporeusi.' We hence learn two truths. The Second and Third substances are eternally propagated in dissimilar modes. The inscrutable mode of the Second substance bears some mysterious analogy to the generation of human sons."







Also, in the WCF:


> "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." (WCF II.3)




The phrase, "eternally proceeding" ....does this denote a continuous action occurring in the present into eternity future, or is the intent more to emphasize that from all eternity past the Spirit was proceeding from both the Father and the Son? And does this matter?


Finally, Jonathan Edwards states the following (which seems possibly troubling). Is he accepted as orthodox in his view of the Trinity?



> "The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the deity [eternally] generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's infinite love to and delight in Himself. And . . . the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct persons."


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2013)

In Mark Jones' view, Calvin's quibble with God of God in the Nicene Creed was one of form and not of content (citing Warfield). And from his own statements I think he could have found a way to get along with the Nicene Fathers while encouraging them to give clear answers to his particular concerns. In _Institutes_ I.13,27-29 he claims agreement between himself and numerous fathers.

I don't have much to say about the question of subordination, but if Waldron is trying to argue that it is since the Enlightenment that the possibility of ontological equality and economic subordination has been occluded, that clearly says very little about the _Reformed_ doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

Do you think Warfield was accurate in his assertions about Calvin?

This article: CHAPTER IV

States the following:



> However, B. B. Warfield, one of Calvin's own followers, misrepresents him when he claims that Calvin did not believe the doctrine of eternal generation. Even though it is understandable that he did this to justify his own view in the eternal generation of the Son, it is certainly unjust. In his extensive article entitled "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity," the only available discussion on the subject in English, Warfield insisted on Calvin's "definite rejection of the Nicene speculation of 'eternal generation'.
> 
> "Although he taught that the Son was begotten of the Father, and of course begotten before all time, or as we say from all eternity, he seems to have drawn back from the doctrine of "eternal generation" as it was expounded by the Nicene Fathers...Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless...he classes it among the speculations which impose unnecessary burdens on the mind." [Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity," p. 248.]


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 28, 2013)

I like Sam Waldron's series of posts on this topic:Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > Who



> The rumor has lingered in evangelical circles over the last couple of centuries that the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is “subordinationism.” One may hear this rumor already in the writings of Princeton’s B. B. Warfield and his opinion that the Nicene Creed contains remnants of subordinationism. It also comes out in Millard Erickson’s expressed fear that those who defend the eternal functional subordination of the Son are opening a path to Arianism for their spiritual descendants.
> 
> Any number of responses may be made to this rumor. The first is that the Nicene Creed affirms in the strongest possible ways the full and true deity of the Son. As we have seen, it affirms that the Son is “very God … being of one substance with the Father.”
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Jun 29, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> I am also confused by the use of the word "substances" in R.L. Dabney's quote below:
> 
> 
> 
> > "In a word, the generation of the Son, and procession of the Spirit, however mysterious, are unavoidable corollaries from two facts. The essence of the Godhead is one; the persons are three. If these are both true, there must be some way, in which the Godhead multiplies its personal modes of subsistence, without multiplying or dividing its substance. The Scriptures call one of these modes a 'genesi' and the other an 'ekporeusi.' We hence learn two truths. The Second and Third substances are eternally propagated in dissimilar modes. The inscrutable mode of the Second substance bears some mysterious analogy to the generation of human sons."



To be consistent, "Second and Third substances" and "Second substance" should be "subsistences." It took a while for the two terms to be consistently assigned (thus Boethius' famous definition of person as "an individual substance of a rational nature" has to be turned into "subsistence" for accurate contemporary discussion of it), but that had certainly been done by Dabney's time. I would surmise an editorial mistake, given the clear intent of the third sentence.



Pergamum said:


> Also, in the WCF:
> 
> 
> > "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." (WCF II.3)
> ...



I think when you are speaking of eternity you have to stop talking about past, present, and future. The Son always is; and always is the Son. Generation and spiration cannot be said to begin or to end: nor can the personal subsistence produced by them. The Father would not always have been the Father had he not always had the Son. Thus the generation is called eternal and perpetual (see _A Puritan Theology_, p.94)



Pergamum said:


> Finally, Jonathan Edwards states the following (which seems possibly troubling). Is he accepted as orthodox in his view of the Trinity?
> 
> 
> 
> > "The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the deity [eternally] generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's infinite love to and delight in Himself. And . . . the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct persons."



Edwards is reverting to the explanation of the personal distinctions which is clearly and extensively found in Aquinas, and prevailed among his successors, that generation is by way of intellect and procession by way of will (or wisdom and love). Some of the Protestant Scholastics kept this explanation, but I prefer Rijssen's take on the matter (cited in Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_):



> What the difference is between generation of the Son and the procession of the H. Spirit cannot be explained and it is safer not to know than to enquire into it. The Scholastics would look for the difference in the operation of intellectus and voluntas, so that the generation of the Son is brought about by means of intellectus, whence he is called the wisdom of God; but procession by means of voluntas, whence it is called love and charity. But as this is said without Scripture, it involves rather than explains matters. Those talk more sanely, who babbling in such a difficult matter find the distinction in three things. (1) In principle: because the Son emanates from the Father alone, but the H. Spirit from Father and Son at once. (2) In mode: because the Son emanates per vim generationis, which culminates not only in personality but also in likeness, on account of which the Son is called the image of the Father and according to which the Son receives the property of communicating the same essence to another person. But the Spirit does so by spiratio, which ends only in personality, and through which the person who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating that essence to another. (3) In order: because as the Son is the second person, but the H. Spirit the third, generation by our way of thinking, precedes spiratio, although really they are co-eternal.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 29, 2013)

Thanks.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 29, 2013)

I suppose I should add that while I haven't read Waldron's articles, the idea of coming to the doctrine of the Trinity from the standpoint of defending complementarianism makes me nervous. As Calvin and Augustine have rightly warned, when we seek for a cause higher than the will of God, we run the risk of missing what can be found in pursuit of what cannot.


----------



## PatrickTMcWilliams (Jun 29, 2013)

py3ak said:


> I suppose I should add that while I haven't read Waldron's articles, the idea of coming to the doctrine of the Trinity from the standpoint of defending complementarianism makes me nervous. As Calvin and Augustine have rightly warned, when we seek for a cause higher than the will of God, we run the risk of missing what can be found in pursuit of what cannot.



That's not Waldron's aim. He merely points out in one, maybe two, articles how egalitarians have attempted to reason from a view of the Trinity which is not creedal.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 30, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Do you think Warfield was accurate in his assertions about Calvin?



I think Warfield's article is quite valuable, but I do have a couple quibbles.

For instance, Warfield says:



> Along with this there is also manifest an equally constant and firm determination to preserve full liberty to deal with the doctrine free from all dictation from without or even prescription of traditional modes of statement.



Calvin says:



> There was some little difficulty in clearing ourselves as to the symbols; for it was certainly somewhat discreditable that we should have rejected those documents, which, since they have been received by the approving judgment of the whole Church, ought to be considered as beyond controversy. Although, therefore, it would have been easy for us to palliate that also, by replying we did not reject these symbols, far less disapprove them, but that we had only refused our subscription, in order that Caroli might not thereby find occasion of triumph in his attacks upon our ministry, there would still have remained somewhat of suspicion in regard to us.
> (...)
> There was not an individual of those of our own people who entertained a doubt about our innocence. They annoyed me, however, about the creeds, because we had been unwilling to subscribe them, when that might have been done without danger, and might have relieved us from much suspicion. Therefore they disapproved unanimously of our conduct.


(Letter to Farel, October 8, 1539)

Calvin seems more willing than Warfield will admit to own that the strategic refusal to subscribe the creeds at Caroli's demand was not as strategic as he'd thought at the time.



> This article: CHAPTER IV
> 
> States the following:
> 
> ...



That claim sounds a little overwrought: let's have more of the context in Warfield, with some emphasis added:



> There is another distinction he appears to have made, however, which is not so clear. Although he taught that the Son was begotten of the Father, and of course begotten before all time, or as we say from all eternity, *he seems to have drawn back from the doctrine of “eternal generation” as it was expounded by the Nicene Fathers*. They were accustomed to explain “eternal generation” (in accordance with its very nature as “eternal”), not as something which has occurred once for all at some point of time in the past — however far back in the past — but as something which is always occurring, a perpetual movement of the divine essence from the first Person to the second, always complete, never completed.
> 
> Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless. In the closing words of the discussion of the Trinity in the “Institutes” (I. 13:29, ad fin.) he classes it among the speculations which impose unnecessary burdens on the mind. “For what is the profit,” he asks, “of disputing whether the Father always generates (semper generet), seeing that it is fatuous to imagine a continuous act of generating (continuus actus generandi) when it is evident that three Persons have subsisted in God from eternity?” His meaning appears to be that the act of generation must have been completed from all eternity, since its product has existed complete from all eternity, and therefore it is meaningless to speak of it as continually proceeding. If this is the meaning of his remark, it is a definite rejection of the Nicene speculation of “eternal generation.” *But this is very far from saying that it is a rejection of the Nicene Creed — or even of the assertion in this Creed to the effect that the Son is “God of God.” We have just seen that Calvin explicitly teaches the “eternal generation” of the Son, in the sense that He was begotten by the Father before all time. It manifestly was a matter of fixed belief with him.* He does indeed refuse to find proof texts for it in many of the passages which it had been the custom to cite in evidence of it. But he does not therefore feel that he lacks adequate proof of it. There is one argument for it, he tells us, which seems to him worth a thousand distorted texts. “It is certain that God is not a Father to men except through the intercession of that only begotten Son, who alone rightly vindicates to Himself this prerogative, and by whose beneficence it derives to us. But God always wished to be called upon by His people by His name of Father: whence it follows that there was already then in existence the Son through whom that relationship was established.” *That the Son is” God of God” he is therefore as fully convinced as the Nicene Fathers themselves. When, then, he criticises the formulas of the Nicene Creed, “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,” as repetitious, this is a criticism of the form, not of the content of this statement.* And when he speaks of the “Deus de Deo” of the Creed as a “hard saying” (dura locutio), he by no means denies that it is “true and useful,” in the sense its framers put on it, in the sense, that is, that the Son has His principium merely as Son in the Father, but only means that the form of the statement is inexact — the term “Deus” requiring to be taken in each case of its occurrence in a non-natural personal sense — and that, being inexact, it is liable to be misused in the interests of a created God, in the sense of Gentilis, and must therefore be carefully explained. *His position is, in a word, that of one who affirms the eternal generation of the Son, but who rejects the speculations of the Nicene Fathers respecting the nature of the act which they called “eternal generation.” It is enough, he says in effect, to believe that the Son derives from the Father, the Spirit from the Father and the Son, without encumbering ourselves with a speculation upon the nature of the eternally generating act to which these hypostases are referred.* It is interesting to observe that Calvin’s attitude upon these matters is precisely repeated by Dr. Charles Hodge in his discussion in his “Systematic Theology.” It seems to be exactly Calvin’s point of view to which Dr. Hodge gives expression when he writes: “A distinction must be made between the Nicene Creed (as amplified in that of Constantinople) and the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers. The creeds are nothing more than the well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son and Spirit; their mutual relation as expressed by these terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense that they have been accepted by the Church Universal. But the Nicene Fathers did undertake in a greater or less degree to explain these facts. These explanations relate principally to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and to what is meant by generation, or the relation between the Father and the Son … As in reference to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, as asserted in the ancient creeds, it is not to the fact that exception is taken, but to the explanation of that fact, as given by the Nicene Fathers, the same is true with regard to the doctrine of Eternal Generation.”
> 
> The circumstance that Dr. Charles Hodge, writing three centuries afterwards (1559-1871), reproduces precisely Calvin’s position may intimate to us something of the historical significance of Calvin’s discussion of the Trinity.



It is clear from Warfield's whole approach and from his significant article, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity" that he is no fan of subordination in anything other than the order of working, and in the covenant of redemption. But the claim made above is far less cautious towards Warfield than Warfield was in his treatment of Calvin.

I agree with Warfield that Calvin's proclamation of Christ as _autotheos_ was valuable; I'm not sure I agree with his interpretation of what Calvin meant in the close of _Institutes_ I.13 (not that I have an alternate theory, just that I don't know); and I'm not sure I agree with him in his view of the Nicene Fathers. In the words below, I find things to agree with, things to wonder about, and things to disagree with:



> Indeed, despite the influence of Calvin, the great body of the Reformed teachers remained good Nicenists. But they were none the less, as they were fully entitled to be, good “Autotheanites” also. *[Amen! -RZ]* They saw clearly that a relation within the Godhead between Persons to each of whom the entire Godhead belongs, cannot deprive any of these Persons of any essential quality of the Godhead common to them all. And they were determined to assert the full and complete Godhead of them all. Of course, there have been others, on the other hand, who have followed Calvin in sitting rather loosely to the Nicene tradition. Examples of this class are furnished by Trelcatius, Keckermann, Maccovius. Keckermann, for example, while not denying that many have preferred to say that “the Son has His essence communicated from the Father,” yet considers that this can be said only in a modified sense and must be accompanied by certain important explanations — for, says he, “it is false if spoken of the essence considered absolutely, since the Son (as also the Holy Spirit) has this a se ipso.” For himself he prefers, therefore, to say that “the second mode of existence in the Trinity, which is called the Son,… is communicated from the Father.” This is, as we have seen, apparently Calvin’s own view, while the more advanced position *[Boo! -RZ]* still which rejects, or at least neglects, the conception of “communication” altogether, whether of essence or of mode of existence, although it cannot find an example in Calvin, may yet be said to have had its way prepared for it by him. The direct Scriptural proof which had been customarily relied upon for its establishment he destroyed, refusing to rest a doctrinal determination on “distorted texts.” He left, therefore, little Biblical basis for the doctrine of “eternal generation” except what might be inferred from the mere terms “Father,” “Son” and “Spirit,” and the general consideration that our own adoption into the relation of sons of God in Christ implies for Him a Sonship of a higher and more immanent character, which is His by nature and into participation in the relation of which we are admitted only by grace. Certainly other explanations of these facts are possible; and the possibility — or preferability — of other explanations was certain sooner or later to commend itself to some. Nothing, meanwhile, could illustrate more strikingly the vitality of the ecclesiastical tradition than that in such a state of the case the Nicene construction of the Trinity held its ground: held its ground with Calvin himself in its substantial core, and with the majority of his followers in its complete speculative elaboration. We are astonished at the persistence of so large an infusion of the Nicene phraseology in the expositions of Augustine, after that phraseology had really been antiquated by his fundamental principle of equalization in his construction of the Trinitarian relations: we are more astonished at the effort which Calvin made to adduce Nicene support for his own conceptions: and we are more astonished still at the tenacity with which his followers cling to all the old speculations. *[Perhaps the most astonishing thing in all of this is Warfield's astonishment? -RZ]*


----------



## py3ak (Jun 30, 2013)

PatrickTMcWilliams said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose I should add that while I haven't read Waldron's articles, the idea of coming to the doctrine of the Trinity from the standpoint of defending complementarianism makes me nervous. As Calvin and Augustine have rightly warned, when we seek for a cause higher than the will of God, we run the risk of missing what can be found in pursuit of what cannot.
> ...



Thank you, Patrick. I will keep that in mind when I am able to get around to Waldron's articles.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2013)

Thanks Ruben for the quotes. And thanks for the comments in brackets, too).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2013)

I am very interested in Bellermine and how he interacts with Calvin. Any links to his original writings against Calvin?



> The attack has been especially sharp naturally where the assailants were predisposed to criticism of Calvin on other grounds, as was the case, for example, with Romanists, Lutherans and afterward with Arminians. As was to be expected, it is found in its most decisive form among the Romanists, and we are afraid we must say with Gomarus that with them it seems to have been urged in the first instance, rather because of a desire to disparage Calvin and the Calvinists than in any distinct doctrinal interest.91 The beginning of the assault seems to have been made by Genebrardus, who "in the first book of his treatise on the Trinity, refutes what he calls the heresy of those denominated Autotheanites, that is of those who say that Christ is God of Himself (a se ipso), not of the Father, attributing this heresy to Calvin and Beza and in the Preface to his work [mistakenly] surmising that Francis Stancarus was the originator of it."92 The way thus opened, however, was largely followed by the whole crowd of Romish controversialists, the most notable of whom in the first age were probably Anthony Possevinus, Alphonsus Salmeron, William Lindanus, Peter Canisius, Dionysius Petavius,93 all of whom exhaust the resources of dialectics in the endeavor to fix upon Calvin and his followers a stigma of heresy in the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity. A more honorable course was pursued by probably the two greatest Romish theologians of the time, Gregory of Valentia and Robert Bellarmine. Although in no way disinclined to find error in the teaching of Calvin and the Calvinists, these more cautious writers feel compelled to allow that Calvin in his zeal to do full justice to the deity of Christ has not passed beyond Catholic truth, and blame him therefore only for inaccuracy of phrase. Gregory of Valentia, whom Gomarus calls "the Coryphaeus of Papal theologians," speaking of the error of the Autotheanites, remarks: "Genebrardus has attributed this error to Calvin (Inst., I. xiii), but, in point of fact, if he be read attentively, it will be seen that he [Calvin] meant merely that the Son, as He is indeed essentially God, is ex se, and is ex Patre only as He is a Person: and that is true. For although the Fathers and Councils assert that He is Deus ex Deo most truly, by taking the term [God] personally, so that it signifies the Person itself at once of the Father and of the Son;94 nevertheless the Son, as He is essentially God, that is, as He is that one, most simple Being which is God, is not from another, because as such He is an absolute somewhat. If this were all that were meant by the other heretics who are called 'Autotheanites,' there would be no occasion for contending with them. For it was in this sense that Epiphanius, Haer. 69, seems to have called the Son auvtoqeo,j."95 Bellarmine's candor scarcely stretches so far as Gregory's. While he too feels compelled to allow that Calvin's meaning is catholic, he yet very strongly reprobates his mode of stating that meaning and declares that it gives fair occasion for the strictures which have been passed upon him. "When," says he, "I narrowly look into the matter itself, and carefully consider Calvin's opinions, I find it difficult to declare that he was in this error. For he teaches that the Son is of Himself (a se), in respect of essence, not in respect of Person, and seems to wish to say that the Person is begotten by the Father [but] the essence is not begotten or produced, but is of itself (a se ipsa); so that if you abstract from the Person of the Son the relation to the Father, the essence alone remains, and that is of itself (a se ipsa)." But on the other hand Bellarmine thinks "that Calvin has undoubtedly erred in his manner of expressing himself, and given occasion to be spoken of as he has been spoken of by our [the Romish] writers." This judgment is supported by the following specifications: "For he [Calvin] says, Inst., I. xiii. 19: 'The ecclesiastical writers now teach that the Father is the principium of the Son, now assert that the Son has both divinity and essence of Himself (a se ipso).' And below this: 'Accordingly, when we speak of the Son simpliciter without respect to the Father, we may well and properly assert that He is of Himself (a se).' And in the twenty-third section, speaking of the Son, 'How,' he asks, 'shall the creator who gives being to all things not be of Himself (a se ipso), but derive His essence from another?' And in his letter to the Poles and in his work against Gentilis, Calvin frequently asserts that the Son is auvto,qeoj, that is, God of Himself (a se ipso), and [declares] the expression in the Creed 'God of God, Light of Light' an improper and hard saying."96
> 
> The gravamen of Bellarmine's charges we see from a later passage (p. 334b, near bottom) turns on Calvin's assertion that "the Son has [His] essence from Himself (a se)." This, Bellarmine declares, is to be "repudiated simpliciter," as he undertakes to demonstrate, on the grounds that it is repugnant to Scripture, the definitions of the Councils, the teaching of the Fathers, and reason itself, and as well to Calvin's own opinions; and is not established by the arguments which Calvin adduces in its behalf. In Bellarmine's view, however, in so speaking Calvin merely expressed himself badly: he really meant nothing more than that the Son with respect to His essence, which is His as truly as it is the Father's, is of Himself (a se ipso). He thinks this is proved by the fact that Calvin elsewhere speaks in terms which infer his orthodoxy in the point at issue. He speaks of the Son, for example, as begotten of the Father, which would be meaningless, if He does not receive His nature, or essence, from the Father, since "it is not a mere relation which is called the Son, but a real somewhat subsisting in the divine nature," and the Son is "not a mere propriety but an integra hypostasis." He even plainly says in so many words (I. xiii. 28) that the essence is communicated from the Father to the Son: "If the difference is in the essence, let them reply whether He has not shared it (communicaverit) with the Son. . . . It follows that it is wholly and altogether (tota et in solidum) common to the Father and Son." And he does not embrace the errors which would flow from ascribing to the Son His essence of Himself: for example, he ascribes but a single essence to the Persons of the Trinity, and he does not distinguish the essence from the Persons realiter but only ratione.




Also, I am interested in this statement, "


> ....the heresy of those denominated Autotheanites


. Was this a term that Catholic apologists gave to Calvin and others?

When we think of the Reformation it is easy to think that the disagreement was only over soteriology, but reading this (plus the transubstantiation issue) makes me realize the several differences as well regarding the doctrine of the Trinity of Theology Proper. I would like to hear more of those differences because I have never really researched this area well and I admit my ignorance.


----------



## louis_jp (Jul 1, 2013)

I found these articles helpful, and they both point to other sources:

Is There a Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity? - The Calvinist International

John Calvin, Eternal Generation, and Communication of Essence: A Reexamination of His Views - Benjamin W. Swinburnson - Kerux 25:1 - May 2010


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Also, I am interested in this statement, "
> 
> 
> > ....the heresy of those denominated Autotheanites
> ...



Yes, that is what many Lutherans and Catholics called followers of Calvin. One of my biggest pet peeves is that pop-Calvinist apologists reduce Reformed theology to a mere five points, not realizing that Reformed theology (I hate the term "Calvinism" with all my heart) impinges upon the Lord's Supper, Christology, and others. Lutherans, by contrast, are generally aware of this.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 1, 2013)

Jacob,

Yes, I have been guilty of that as well. I had always assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity was settled early in the history of the Church and that the doctrine never grew/developed/improved after those big councils.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> I am very interested in Bellermine and how he interacts with Calvin. Any links to his original writings against Calvin?
> 
> Also, I am interested in this statement, "
> 
> ...



Most of Bellarmine has not been translated: you can find his commentary on the Psalms and some of his other devotional writings, but the polemical writings which are probably most interesting to us aren't accessible in English.

It is true that Catholics, Lutherans, and Arminians took up this charge of "autotheanite" to attack Calvin, and others; but Bellarmine recognized that Calvin was orthodox. This charge savors to me more of animosity than of difference: in other words, they will take any occasion to criticize Calvin, even when the more rational and moderate spirits among them recognize that a particular occasion is invalid. Although in the case of the Arminians, who had a number of Socinian influences and tendencies, their criticism is more likely to have been sincere, since they started from a platform of unorthodoxy.

But there are quite substantial differences in Christology between Lutherans, Catholic, and Reformed, partly driven by disagreements over the Lord's Supper; and on that topic, Calvin was not the end of development.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2013)

louis_jp said:


> I found these articles helpful, and they both point to other sources:
> 
> Is There a Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity? - The Calvinist International
> 
> John Calvin, Eternal Generation, and Communication of Essence: A Reexamination of His Views - Benjamin W. Swinburnson - Kerux 25:1 - May 2010



Thanks for the links, Louis. Wedgeworth's article is certainly a fairer use of Calvin and Warfield than some others have made. Though Warfield has a definite theological position, he is quite careful to keep that position from contaminating his history, even if he is not entirely successful. 

It was a little amusing to read this train of reasoning showing that Calvin was conversant with Peter Lombard:



> That Calvin would be naturally thinking within this tradition seems clear. Lombard was a major sourcebook for accessing the Church Fathers.[26] Bonaventure, like most medievals, wrote a commentary on the Sentences, of which Calvin would have been aware.



I call it amusing because the last page of Institutes I.13 mentions him by name. And having now had an opportunity to review _Sentences_ I.9,4 I can add that Warfield's suggestion that Calvin is referring to the speculation of the Nicene Fathers concerning eternal generation may be a little more vague than necessary: knowing that Calvin had Lombard in mind, we can look at the sources Lombard drew from and see who Calvin most probably referred to. Those sources are: Gregory the Great; Augustine; Chrysostom; Origen; Hilary.

After hitting a bit of a thicket in trying to make Origen and Gregory speak compatibly, Lombard comes to this conclusion:



> And so let us say that the Son was born from the Father before all time, and is forever being born from the Father, but, more fittingly, is forever born.



Gregory takes the phrase _forever born_ to be the best expression of the concept because _forever being born_ might be taken to imply that the birth is imperfect. 

Against that background, one can understand Calvin's impatience, given his opposition to logomachy, his cheerful willingness to say that someone is wrong rather than trying to save the appearances, and the refusal to rabbit-trail so characteristic of him.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jul 11, 2013)

John Murray on Calvin and Nicene Creed, Collected Writings, vol. 4, esp. pp. 7-9 in loc.
I possess a letter by T F Torrance that attacks Murray - who I believe did NOT misconstrue Calvin!


----------

