Home Papers Sermons Creative Devotional Links About Me

...Other Papers

How Trinitarian is the theology of John Calvin?

“In the better formulation of the doctrine [of the Trinity] or the better commendation of it to the people, three names stand out in high relief, as marking epochs in the advance towards the end in view. These three names are those of Tertullian, Augustine and Calvin.”[1]

B.B. Warfield here looks back over a decidedly western tradition and pronounces Calvin the rightful heir and interpreter of Augustinian trinitarianism. More than this, Warfield considers Calvin to be a significant ‘advance’ along the same trajectory. In many respects this is true, and much of Augustine’s trinity has passed into Protestant theology through Calvin. We would also agree that Calvin has advanced some of Augustine’s thinking, yet we would suggest not always for the better. Rather, it is when Calvin leaves aside his dependence on Augustine that he is freed to pursue a trinitarian account of theology which gives full weight to the particular Persons in relationship.

In this paper we will assess the trinitarian structure of Calvin’s theology[2] before examining his explicit treatment in the Institutes (I.xiii). Finally, and more briefly, we will trace from this some negative and positive implications for the rest of his theology.

The Triune Structure of Calvin’s Theology

It is worth remembering the full title for the Institutes: ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion Embracing almost the whole sum of piety & whatever is necessary to know of the doctrine of salvation: a work most worthy to be read by all persons zealous for piety, and recently published.’[3] Calvin was not, as so many medieval theologians were[4], interested in the speculative debates of the schoolmen.[5] His was a theology forged in the fires of the reformation and therefore concerned above all else to articulate and defend the Gospel of free salvation and its implications for practical Christian living. This places Calvin in complete continuity with the Church Fathers who had also defended doctrinal orthodoxy, not for the sake of intellectual intrigue, but as a matter of saving significance[6].

It is therefore no wonder that he found the basic credal structure of their theology to be such a useful blueprint for his own. Both the Institutes and his 1560 catechism follow the ancient lines of the Apostles creed. First (book I), we are presented with God the Creator[7]. Second (book II) we meet the Son in His work of redemption. Third (book III) comes the Spirit and His application of the work of salvation. Lastly (book IV) we examine the Church in its constitution by and appropriation of the Triune work of salvation. Therefore, it could be said (though not without qualification)[8] that, for Calvin, explaining the Christian faith is a matter of explaining the triune economy of salvation.

One benefit of this trajectory in Calvin’s theology is that it radically reduces the tolerance of his system to philosophical speculation concerning the divine essence. Besides his distaste for abstract conjecture[9], his belief in the unfathomable immensity of God’s nature[10],and his justified distrust of our fallen faculties[11], it is Calvin’s soteriological concern which shapes his theology along the contours of the triune economy. It is the God of creedal faith, the God who has acted in history, the God of Jesus Christ with Whom we must deal or else we are left with an open abyss[12], foul superstition[13] and the worship of demons[14]. Hence in the Institutes there is no lengthy consideration of the divine essence. A classical theist would search in vain for a conventional discussion of divine attributes. Unlike the dogmatic manuals of the west since Augustine, Calvin has apparently[15] avoided the tendency to treat De Deo Uno prior to a consideration of De Deo Trino.[16] Rather, as he claims in chapter 13, to consider ‘the One God’ we must encounter the Three Persons who are that One God “unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge.”[17]

Is Book I consistent with this?

Having said this, we must immediately qualify it. The whole project of Book I has been to speak of the knowledge of God the Creator available (though not appropriated) prior to saving knowledge in the Mediator, Christ.[18] Thus we must question how ‘bare and empty’ Calvin considers this ‘name of Deity’ to be, given he has devoted 12 chapters to the subject (and a further 5 afterwards).

While he is thorough-going in his insistence that such knowledge in creation could only be properly received ‘si integer stetisset Adam’ (if Adam had remained upright), he is equally clear that such knowledge of the Creator simpliciter is actually given in non-triune terms. On this, see for e.g. Institutes I.x.1 where it is clear that Calvin does not consider knowledge of God in the creation to concern the Mediator. Given his beliefs about the link between knowledge of the Mediator and of the Trinity (e.g.” But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons.” I.xiii.16) we presume that Calvin therefore believes the revelation in creation to be non-trinitarian.

Thus there is, for Calvin, real knowledge at least offered in the creation which apparently speaks of God apart from any reference to Persons. Given that Book I is attempting to expound the primary stage of the duplex cognitio (the twofold (two-stage) knowledge of God), we must conclude that, for Calvin, the One and the Three are not of equal ultimacy. Indeed the unity of God clearly takes priority.

On this, it’s interesting to note in I.x.3 that Calvin quotes favourably from Justin Martyr: “the unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all”. Yet he never thinks to argue that the ‘diversity’ or ‘triplicity’ of God is likewise revealed.

From this it follows that the ‘unity’ which is brought into the trinitarian discussion of chapter 13 is not the unity of the Three but is rather a unity conceived prior to and in isolation from the Persons. De Deo Uno has preceded and shaped De Deo Trino in a non-symmetrical dialectic. We note briefly two consequences for his trinitarian formulations. First, it is the simple, uncompounded, indivisible One that will be foundational to any discussion of ‘three-ness’ in chapter 13. For Calvin, the only allowable account of the Persons – their difference and mutual communion – is one that respects the absolute and unassailable simplicity. Second, it is a self-existent[19]simple essence that has defined deity for Calvin prior to chapter 13. We will see shortly how this affects his view of Christ, our ‘God from God.’

The Placement of Trinitarian Discussion

In a footnote to the Battles translation, he records that all editions of the Institutes prior to 1559 presented the doctrine of the Trinity prior to an analysis of the first article of the creed (i.e. God the Creator). However, ‘up to 1559 it followed immediately the discussion of Christ as the sole object (scopus) of faith. Here, with faith deferred to III.ii, under the redeeming work of the Spirit, the doctrine is presented without full epistemological preparation.’[20] We can discern here at least two important inclinations in Calvin’s thought: the first is to speak of the Trinity as revealed in the Mediator (hence its placement pre-1559)[21]; the second is to make the Tri-unity of God a (perhaps the) defining mark of the true Creator God as against the idols of men (hence its placement in 1559).[22] Calvin does not resolve this tension until Book III where he maintains that genuine knowledge of the Creator God is only had by a Triune faith fixed on the Father’s one true Image.[23]

Given that this is Calvin’s position we must ask why he had not ‘revealed his hand’ at the beginning. Had he done so, there would need to be a further revision of the layout of the Institutes – the Mediator being expounded from the outset and in Him, a Triune Revelation of the Triune Creator-Redeemer. The duplex cognitio would not then be two stages in the basic content of God’s revelation but a two-fold way in which the Triune revelation is appropriated. The development of such an approach had to wait 400 years, yet it can be claimed that Karl Barth’s methodology in Church Dogmatics was a valid development of this Calvinistic trajectory.[24]

Book I, chapter 13

The title of this chapter shows Calvin’s concern: “The unity of the divine essence in Three Persons taught, in Scripture, from the foundation of the world.” The second half of the title shows Calvin’s belief that Trinitarian discussion really does belong in Book I – the Creator God really is the Triune God revealed in Scripture. Yet the first half of the title takes up most of Calvin’s energies in the 1559 edition. We will discuss the key terms in our own order:

The divine essence

Calvin declares very early his belief in divine simplicity.[25] The simple essence is that in which God’s deity consists[26] , and, as it is the deity of the sovereign Creator, it exhibits the property of aseity – that is, it has existence from itself.[27] As noted above, this doctrine has partly resulted from his prior discussion of God as the uncreated Creator and partly, we suggest, from a dependence on Augustine.[28]

This uncompounded essence admits of no multiplicity, division, transfusion or diminution.[29] Thus, whatever it means for ‘three persons to subsist in one divine essence’, divine simplicity will insist that the Persons in their relations of begetting-begotten, sending-sent etc do not constitute that essence. Their distinct properties are not proper to the essence, which it is impious to multiply. Their deity resides in their full possession of the entire essence, their differences exist only at a hypostatic (Personal) level – being viewed relative to the other Persons.[30] Given simplicity, Calvin can even say “the simple name God admits not of relation.” [31] - an extraordinary statement for a trinitarian theologian!

Yet, is this all that Calvin says of the essence? Does he not also speak of the Father as ‘the fountainhead and beginning of deity’?[32] Has he not proven the divine essence of the Son because He has been eternally begotten of the Father?[33] And does he not also view the unity of essence as conceivable only because the Father is the principium totias deitas?[34] Thus Calvin does seem to have room for particularity and mutual relations as expressive of the divine nature. If one were to ask philosophically how these concepts of eventful differentiation and communion fit with the divine simplicity we would have to answer ‘very poorly!’ Yet in Calvin they do co-exist, as can be seen in the following quotation:

“Moreover, this distinction [between Persons as discussed in section 18] is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares, (John 14: 10,) "I am in the Father, and the Father in me;" nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. "By those names which denote distinctions" says Augustine "is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one." (I.xiii.19, italics mine)

In the first italicised statement, Calvin views the ‘perfect unity of God’ in terms of the Persons in communion. The Father and Son are one by the Spirit and in their mutually-indwelling relationships. The Spirit is one with the Father and Son in that He belongs to both. To ask how the three are one in this context is to receive the answer: they are bound in mutually constitutive relations of belonging. Here is a unity of the three – a compound unity. Yet, immediately Calvin invokes Augustine and the discussion is drawn back to a unity consisting in the non-compound substance. To ask Augustine how the three are one is to receive the reply: by participation in the simple divine essence. We do not have time to pursue this further, but there seems to be a sense in which Calvin’s more economically driven trinitarian instincts are strait-jacketed by an Augustinian model founded on simplicty. This will have to be pursued at another time.

The Three Persons

Calvin’s discussion of three-ness (sect. 17) and the difference of the Persons (sect. 18) has a far more Cappodocian feel to that which we have discussed above. He quotes Gregory Nanzianzen’s famous statement on the trinity:

"I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity. " (Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.) from I.xiii.17

and the triune economy is expounded:

“…to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit.” (I.xiii.18)

In this we see the distinct operation of the Persons in the work of God: from the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. As we will discuss shortly, this dynamic economy of Persons explains for Calvin many key doctrines including revelation, redemption, faith and the sacraments. In these areas we will see Calvin at his trinitarian best.

Yet, given Calvin’s view of essence there is not much ‘latitude’ (i.e. none) for the distinct properties of the Persons to be considered as essentially divine. The Son is begotten when viewed relative to the Father, yet un-begotten – of Himself – when considered as God.[35] The Son’s deity is therefore an unbegotten deity. This is not an unforseen consequence of Calvin’s theology but an insistence by him in line with his adherence to divine simplicity.[36] He defends it by saying that “to have included the essence in the distinction [between Father and Son], would not only have been an absurd error, but gross impiety.”

Yet this seems to be an ‘impiety’ shared by the Nicene fathers when they presented the Son’s being as ‘ek tes ousia tw patri’ ((out) of the essence of the Father)[37]. It is clear that the fathers considered such ‘essentiation’ to be proper to His Godhead (and not simply His hypostasis) since this is followed immediately by: ‘God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.’ The Son is God, not when considered apart from, but in His begotten-ness. The Son’s deity is a begotten deity according to credal orthodoxy.

Calvin’s dislike of these phrases from Nicea is famous (yet often glossed over in Reformed portraits of him). He called these words from Nicea ‘a hard saying’ (from Warfield, quoted in Engelsma, p28) and at other times dismissed it as ‘a song, more suitable for singing than to serve as a formula of confession. (from Warfield, quoted in Engelsma, p26). Nonetheless, these ‘sayings’ should surely have given him pause for thought concerning his assumption of divine simplicity. We consider that this doctrine has kept Calvin from honouring the concrete particularity of the Persons as a divine particularity.[38] If ‘difference’ must always be referred to the hypostatic level (and denied its proper deity) and if ‘deity’ always carries with it uncompromising simplicity then it becomes impossible to conceive of the Three and the One together. The Three come into view only when we look away from the One and the One is upheld only by ignoring that which makes them Three.[39]

The unity

From this we see that Calvin is actually very far from that statement of Gregory’s which he so admired. Contemplation of the One is not at all irradiated by the Three, and contemplation of the Three does not carry him to the One. Thankfully though, Calvin does force himself to maintain both for the sake of doctrinal orthodoxy. His formulations throughout chapter 13 have in mind the heresies of Arius and Sabellius and their contemporary incarnations in Servetus and Gentilis.[40] It is largely the case in chapter 13 that Calvin insists on one-ness and three-ness not as mutually interpreting truths but as separate counter-arguments addressed, in turns, to distinct, though related, heresies.

On Calvin’s account in chapter 13 then, ‘the unity of the divine essence in three persons’ is not a perichoretic communion in which the One and the Three are reciprocally defined. Instead Calvin approaches ‘the unity of the divine essence’ as operating on one level and ‘three persons’ as operating on another. He is to be commended for his strong resistance of the heresies of his day but we question whether his formulations allow a genuine “tri-unity” or whether the ‘tri’ and the ‘unity’ have been separately considered and not genuinely related.

Negative implications

The sense in which Calvin’s doctrine of God is not a doctrine of the triune economy comes through in a number of areas:

Pre-fall and Post-consummation.

According to Book I, the first stage of the duplex cognitio reveals the majesty of the Creator in non-triune terms[41], yet Calvin is also clear that such knowledge (though available only to unfallen man) would carry with it ‘trust, reverence’[42] and ‘worship’[43] – in short, ‘the perfection of blessedness.’[44] One then wonders whether the second stage – knowledge of God in the Mediator, Christ – fills out the trust, reverence and worship of this blessed state or whether it simply returns fallen man back to the pre-fall, non-trinitarian state of worship. There is much in the Institutes to make us think it is the former[45] but we fear the possibility of the latter given Calvin’s enigmatic comments concerning 1 Corinthians 15:28.[46] At ‘the end’, Calvin thinks the veil of Christ’s humanity will be removed to give us a closer view of God, that ‘we may cleave wholly to God’. We therefore wonder whether he really believes that mediated communion with God (which is at the heart of trinitarian worship) is the ultimate in ‘the perfection of blessedness’ or whether it is an unfortunate post-fall reality to be cast off in the eschaton.

Predestination

Butin sees Calvin’s doctrine of the double decree as a force above and beyond the trinity[47]. This is to say that the Spirit’s saving revelation of the Father in the Son is limited by, or even different to, God’s higher purpose of predestination not revealed in the triune economy. Against this we note that Calvin does (though certainly not consistently) articulate the decree to save as the choice of the Father for His Son – His members being chosen in Him:

“When Paul declares that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, (Eph. 1: 4,) he certainly shows that no regard is had to our own worth; for it is just as if he had said, Since in the whole seed of Adam our heavenly Father found nothing worthy of his election, he turned his eye upon his own Anointed, that he might select as members of his body those whom he was to assume into the fellowship of life.” (III.xxii.1).

Calvin does not major on this theme as much as we may wish in the Institutes but the covenant of redemption between the Father and Son is a foundational plank of the Reformed theology that followed him.

Further, in seeking our assurance of election, Calvin counsels us to look nowhere else than in Christ to discover our election. (see footnoted quotes)[48].

However, on balance we agree with Butin that even if our assurance of election is found in Christ, Calvin’s ‘secret will’ remains the higher cause for its operation. (see footnoted quotes)[49]. The Institutes don’t then completely exhonerate Calvin from the charge of a God behind the back of Jesus.

Positive implications

Old Testament

Colin Gunton has suggested one litmus test for the trinitarian character of a theology by questioning its understanding of Old Testament theophanies.[50] On this point, Calvin’s trinitarian instincts shine through, as he regards any knowledge of God (post-fall) to be found in Christ, the eternal Word, Wisdom and Image of the Father. (see footnoted quotes)[51]. The Angel of the LORD is therefore clearly the pre-incarnate Christ (see footnoted quotes)[52] and not simply a manifestation of deity.[53] From this we see that Calvin really does believe in the concrete particularity of the Persons. The Angel cannot be for Calvin just another mask which the divine essence wears. For God to be manifest He must be manifest in Christ since the revelation of the true God is a revelation of the Persons in their distinct roles.

Revelation, Redemption and Human Response[54]

Calvin had explained the workings of the triune economy in I.xiii.18 as beginning with the Father as Source, coming through the Son as Agent and effected by the Spirit as Power. Once Calvin gets beyond stage one of the ‘two-fold knowledge’ he consistently and thoroughly applies this in books II and III to revelation. This is inseparably bound to our redemption (given the importance of knowing God for Calvin) and is appropriated by our faith. All of this – the very heart of Calvin’s theology – is explained according to the contours of the triune pattern. The Father is the source of all divine Wisdom, which He deposits in the Son.[55] The Spirit quickens and draws the believer to seek Christ, and in Him we find a generous and propitious Father. [56] Saving faith[57] is therefore a triune appropriation[58] of the triune redemptive revelation.[59]

Sacraments

The ‘fountain’ of life and blessing of which Calvin so often speaks[60] begins with the Father, is made manifest in the Word made flesh and appropriated by His people through the Spirit. This, Calvin clearly teaches regarding the sacraments. Thus baptism, in teaching and sealing upon our bodies our union with Christ, assures us of our sonship with the Father and is a pledge of our regeneration by the Spirit.[61] The Lord’s Supper is a feeding on Christ[62] Whose Father has poured into Him life[63], which is made manifest among us in His flesh, and thereby is for us life-giving food.[64] We feed on Christ really since the Spirit takes us to heaven[65] to feed on His flesh.[66]

Conclusion

Calvin’s trinitarian instincts are fully evidenced throughout the Institutes revealing a firm grasp of the triune economy as the ground for all revelation, redemption and Christian experience. Calvin’s own determination to do all theology with soteriology in view works out in a desire to speak of the God who has actually manifested Himself among us – that is, God in Christ. Ironically Calvin is weakest on the trinity when attempting trinitarian formulations according to the categories of person and essence. We attribute this to an over-reliance on Augustine and to a theological starting-point in book I that is inconsistent with the solus Christus of the rest of the Institutes. He remains though a rich and stimulating source for trinitarian enquiry.

Calvin’s Institutes can be read online at:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

Other works referred to:

David J. Engelsma, ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity’ in Protestant Reformed Theological Journal (vol. 23), 1989

Philip Walker Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response, OUP, 1995

Back to other papers

Home	The God who is...	Sermons and Bible Studies
Common Objections	Quotes from History	Extras
Not yet a Christian?	Links	Contact

[1] From B.B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity.” Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), p249. Quoted in Engelsma, 28.

[2] In our appraisal of Calvin’s theology we will be almost wholly dependent on the 1559 edition of the Institutes – Calvin’s most mature and thorough work. Most quotations will be from the Henry Beveridge translation as made available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html. I have checked this translation against Battles’ translation at key points. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ed: J. McNeill, Westminster Press, 1960

[3] Quoted in Engelsma, p34. Italics mine.

[4] See Butin, p12ff

[5] Calvin will often break off from debate with the ‘schoolmen’ largely because their concerns have become divorced from soteriology. See for e.g. I.xiii.29 on discussion of ‘eternal generation’ or II.xvii.6 or III.iv.1

[6] ‘For us men and for our salvation’ lies at the heart of Nicea and Chalcedon.

[7] We will discuss below whether this is, for Calvin, a doctrine of the Father per se.

[8] The qualification will come below under ‘Is Book I consistent with this?’

[9] “The knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries worship along with it.” (I.xii.1)

[10] “His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him.” (I.xiii.1)

[11] “Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them.” (I.v.11)

[12] I.iv.4

[13] I.vi.4

[14] I.v.13

[15] See the qualifications regarding Book I below.

[16] We will see below however that Augustine’s doctrine of simplicity is a major theological assumption which does in fact function for Calvin as a prior consideration to the doctrine of the three.

[17] I.xiii.2

[18] “I am not now referring to that species of knowledge by which men, in themselves lost and under curse, apprehend God as a Redeemer in Christ the Mediator. I speak only of that simple and primitive knowledge, to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood upright (si integer stetisset Adam). For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ. Since, then, the Lord first appears, as well in the creation of the world as in the general doctrine of Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a Redeemer in Christ, - a twofold knowledge of him hence arises (duplex… cognitio) : of these the former is now to be considered, the latter will afterwards follow in its order.” (I.ii.1). “At present, however, we are employed in considering that knowledge which stops short at the creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator.” (I.x.1) See also for e.g. I.xi 1-2

[19] ‘He from whom all things draw their origin must be eternal and have beginning from himself.’ (I.v.6)

[20] J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Ed: J. McNeill, Westminster Press, 1960, p120.

[21] Calvin clearly still believes in this important insight in 1559, see I.xiii.16

[22] This is explicit in, for e.g., I.xiii.2: “But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons.”

[23] We will discuss III.ii.1 below

[24] Note for e.g. the Three Person’d explanation of revelation in Church Dogmatics I.i – ‘Revealer, Revealdness and Revelation.’

[25] “For the essence of God [is] simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution.”I.xiii.2

[26] “…no property can be more peculiar to God than essence, according to the words, "I AM has sent me unto you," (Ex. 3:4.).” (I.xiii.23) We would note that it is the Angel of the LORD who says these words – the One who is of the LORD and yet in that mode He also is the LORD. ‘God from God’ is the great I AM therefore whatever these words mean in Exodus 3 they cannot be given the interpretation implied by Calvin. Section 23 continues “… divinity cannot exist without essence, and indeed without entire essence.”

[27] “And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives to all should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from another?” (I.xiii.23)

[28] See for e.g. De Trinitate VII.v.10 and Calvin’s use of Augustine quoted shortly

[29] “For the essence of God [is] simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, (I.xiii.2); “There is no ‘distinction of essence, which it were impious to multiply” (I.xiii.2)

[30] See Calvin’s response to the tritheist Gentilis: “What, then, do these men show as the mark of distinction? If it is in the essence, let them tell whether or not he communicated essence to the Son. This he could not do in part merely, for it were impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this supposition, there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole entire essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them.”

[31] I.xiii.20

[32] I.xiii.23, Battles

[33] “We, therefore, again conclude, that the Word was eternally begotten by God, and dwelt with him from everlasting. In this way, his true essence, his eternity, and divinity, are established.” (I.xiii.8 ‘On the Eternity of the Word’)

[34] “…unless the beginning were from him [the Father], the simple unity of essence could not be conceived.” (Battles, I.xiii.29)

[35] See for example,“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.” (I.xiii.25)

[36] The doctrine of autoousia or the aseity of the Son is asserted repeatedly in sections 19,25 and 26.

[37] The creed of 325

[38] We admit that such an acknowledgement requires a revolution in our divine ontology, yet such a revolution is surely demanded by the reality of God in Christ.

[39] See for e.g. (I.xiii.20): “When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases [Battles’ trans: ‘in which we comprehend three persons…]; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons.” Given the eternal generation of the Son by the Father we must ask, when are the Persons not joined with one another?

[40] “But if we hold, what has already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient authors of error.” (I.xiii.22)

[41] Again see I.ii.1 and I.x.1

[42] I.ii.1

[43] I.xii.1

[44] I.v.1

[45] see especially our discussion of ‘faith’ below

[46] See I.xiii.26 but especially from his 1 Corinthians commentary: “Christ will then restore the kingdom, which he has received, that we may cleave wholly to God. Nor will he in this way resign the kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity, because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our infirmity now keeps us back. Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father, because the vail [sic] being then removed, we shall openly behold God reigning in his majesty, and Christ’s humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God.” John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol 2. Trans. John Pringle, Eerdmans, 1948, p32-33

[47] “His commitment to the doctrine of the ‘double decree’ (cf III.21.1ff) leads to the a priori exclusion of the reprobate from this Christological access to God by faith. This results at certain points in severe tension between his otherwise Trinitarian paradigm of revelation, redemption and human response and his doctrine of election.” (Butin, 189);

“…it is difficult to avoid the impression that at a crucial level Calvin has failed to integrate his doctrine of election thoroughly with the broader Trinitarian theology of revelation, redemption and human response that we are highlighting here. For example Comm John. 17:9, Calvin asserts that Christ ‘commends to the Father only those whom the Father himself willingly loves.’ Here, as at many other points, the will of the Father is understood as something ominously arbitrary, rather than as being intrinsically and perichoretically related to the divine manifestation of grace in the Son. Examples could be multiplied. It appears that in spite of the helpful Trinitarian direction Calvin has taken in formulating his understanding of the divine-human relationship, at the point of the doctrine of election his normal emphasis on the thorough perichoresis of Father, Son and Spirit in the divine operation has been effectively and inexplicably suspended.” (Butin, p168)

[48] See the excellent III.xxiv.5: “First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God, we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased, (Matth. 3: 17.) When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality, to him also must we retake ourselves, since he alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the kingdom of heaven… Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 1: 4;) because he could love them only in him, and only as being previously made partakers with him, honor them with the inheritance of his kingdom. But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. Moreover, he admitted us to sure communion with himself, when, by the preaching of the gospel, he declared that he was given us by the Father, to be ours with all his blessings,(Rom. 8: 32.) We are said to be clothed with him, to be one with him, that we may live, because he himself lives… If we long for more than to be regarded as sons of God and heirs, we must ascend above Christ. But if this is our final goal, how infatuated is it to seek out of him what we have already obtained in him, and can only find in him? Besides, as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father, there is no room for fear that any thing which he tells us will vary in the minutest degree from that will of the Father after which we inquire. Nay, rather he faithfully discloses it to us as it was from the beginning, and always will be.”

[49] “There can be no doubt, indeed, that in regard to us [election] is so confirmed [by our faith in Christ]… It is true that we must… look [to the gospel] for its certainty, because, if we attempt to penetrate to the secret ordination of God, we shall be engulfed in that profound abyss. But when the Lord has manifested it to us, we must ascend higher in order that the effect may not bury the cause. For what can be more absurd and unbecoming, than while Scripture teaches that we are illuminated as God has chosen us, our eyes should be so dazzled with the brightness of this light, as to refuse to attend to election?” (III.xxiv.3, italics mine).

[50] Colin Gunton, The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, T&T Clark, 1991

[51] e.g. “No one sees the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” [Matt. 11:27] – surely they who would attain the knowledge of God should always be directed by that eternal Wisdom. For how could they either have comprehended God’s mysteries with the mind, or have uttered them, except by the teaching of Him to whom alone the secrets of the Father are revealed? Therefore, holy men of old knew God only by beholding Him in His Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that God has never manifested Himself to men in any other way than through the Son, that is, His sole wisdom, light and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others drank all that they had of heavenly teaching. From the same fountain, all the prophets have also drawn every heavenly oracle that they have given forth.” IV.viii.5

[52] “I am rather inclined, however, to agree with ancient writers, that in those passages wherein it is stated that the angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18:1), Jacob (Gen. 32:2,28), and Moses, Christ was that angel (Josh. 5:14; Judg. 6:14;13:10,22).” (I.xiv.5); “The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. …Hence it follows, that he is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.” (I.xiii.10)

[53] Note that similarly on Genesis 1, Calvin discusses Elohiym not in terms of bare essence: “mention is here made not of the bare essence of God, but that his eternal Wisdom and Spirit are also set before us, in order that we may not dream of any other God than Him who desires to be recognised in that express image.” (I.xiv.2) We therefore wonder why Calvin ever said ‘The simple name of Elohiym admits not of relation.’! (I.xiii.20)

[54] We use the title of Butin’s book since we also have come to see how for Calvin these branches of doctrine orbit around the triune economy.

[55] See for e.g. “First, if it is true, as Christ says, "Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," (Matth. 11: 27,) then those who wish to attain to the knowledge of God behaved always to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have comprehended the mysteries of God in their mind, or declared them to others, unless by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father are known? The only way, therefore, by which in ancient times holy men knew God, was by beholding him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that God never manifested himself to men by any other means than by his Son, that is, his own only wisdom, light, and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, drew all the heavenly doctrine which they possessed. From the same fountain all the prophets also drew all the heavenly oracles which they published.” (IV.viii.5)

[56] “God would remain far off, concealed from us, were we not irradiated by the brightness of Christ. All that the Father had, he deposited with his only begotten Son, in order that he might manifest himself in him, and thus by the communication of blessings express the true image of his glory. Since, as has been said, we must be led by the Spirit, and thus stimulated to seek Christ, so must we also remember that the invisible Father is to be sought nowhere but in this image.” (III.ii.1) And again,

[57] Faith is defined excellently in III.i.7 as “a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.”

[58] “[Paul] prays that believers may have "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God," he at the same time adds, "the communion of the Holy Ghost," without which no man shall ever taste the paternal favor of God, or the benefits of Christ.” (III.i.2)

[59] “…the efficient cause of our salvation is placed in the love of God the Father; the material cause in the obedience of the Son; the instrumental cause in the illumination of the Spirit, that is, in faith; and the final cause in the praise of the divine goodness.” (III.xiv.21)

[60] Take an example from a doctrine we haven’t had space to cover – prayer: “But after we have learned by faith to know that whatever is necessary for us or defective in us is supplied in God and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, that we may thence draw as from an inexhaustible fountain, it remains for us to seek and in prayer implore of him what we have learned to be in him.” (II.xx.1)

[61] “The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings. For he consecrated and sanctified baptism in his own body (Matt. 3:13), that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of union and fellowship which he deigned to form with us; and hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism, (Gal. 3: 26-27.) …For all the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet he who baptises into Christ cannot but at the same time invoke the name of the Father and the Spirit. For we are cleansed by his blood, just because our gracious Father, of his incomparable mercy, willing to receive us into favour, appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation with himself. Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection only, when sanctified by his Spirit we are imbued with a new and spiritual nature. Wherefore we obtain, and in a manner distinctly perceive, in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect of our purification and regeneration.” (IV.xv.6)

[62] “Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.” (IV.xvii.1)

[63] “First of all, we are taught by the Scriptures that Christ was from the beginning the living Word of the Father (John 1:1), the fountain and origin of life, from which all things should always receive life.” (IV.i.8)

[64] “…the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. "I," says he, "am that bread of life;" "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" "And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 48, 51.) By these words he declares, not only that he is life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God who came down to us from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh which he assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate.” (IV.i.8)

[65] It was Calvin’s pneumatology, a function of his grasp of the reality and particularity of the Persons in the economy, which allowed Calvin to maintain the located presence of Christ at the Father’s right hand and the real feeding on Christ in the elements. This breakthrough in sacramental theology owes a lot to Calvin’s trinitarian theology: “The Spirit truly unites things separated by space.” (IV.1.10)

[66] “the Lord by his Spirit bestows upon us the blessing of being one with him in soul, body, and spirit. The bond of that connection, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us.” (IV.i.10)