See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262805222

Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity An Assessment

of the Eternal Generation of the Son

Article January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 545

1 author:

Philip Djung
Calvin Theological Seminary
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Djung on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Jurnal Teologi Reformed Indonesia 2/1 (Januari 2012): 34-47

Calvins Doctrine of the Trinity

An Assessment of the Eternal Generation of the Son

Philip Kheng Hong Djung

Abstract
This article will see what Calvin actually views pertaining to the eternal generation of the Son. It
will argue that Calvin does not reject the idea of the eternal generation, but interprets it
differently. For Calvin, this notion has to be understood in such a way that only the divine
person is generated, not the divine essence; and that the idea of the Fathers perpetual begetting
is speculative, therefore not worth discussing and unhelpful for the edification of a Christians
life. The problem of recent discussions on this subject is that Calvins words have often been
taken out of their context and forced to fit what he did not discuss. Thus, the solution is to look
at this matter in the context where Calvin discusses it, namely in the Institutes, and wherever it is
necessary, his commentaries will be referred to.

Introduction Calvins thought on this subject, notes five

motives which characterize Calvins doctrine
Many works have been done to explicate of the Trinity: a biblical-theological motive, an
John Calvins Calvins doctrine of the anti-speculative motive, a pastoral motive, a
Trinity. 1 Arie Baars, in his summary of relative use of traditional Trinitarian terms,

1
Arie Baars, The Trinity, in The Calvin Handbook,
trans. Gerrit Sheeres, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids,
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008), 245-257; Roger Beckwith,
The Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity, Churchman 115, no.
44 (Winter 2001): 308-315; Gerald L. Bray, The Primacy of
the Persons in God, in The Doctrine of God (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), 197-213; Philip Butin, Revelation,
Redemption, and Response: Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of
the Divine-Human Relationship (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995); David J. Engelsma, Calvins Doctrine of the
Trinity, in Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, 23
(1989): 19-37; B. Engelbrech, The Problem of the Concept
of the Personality of the Holy Spirit according to Calvin, in
Calvinus Reformator: His Contribution to Theology, Church and
Society (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom Universty, Institute for
Reformational Studies, 1982), 201-216; Allan M. Harman,
Speech about the Trinity: with Special Reference to
Novatian, Hilary, and Calvin, Scottish Journal of Theology
26 (1973): 385-400; Paul Helm, John Calvins Ideas
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 35-57; C. B.
Holdsworth, Calvins Doctrine of the Trinity: A Summary
and Evalution, A Quarterly Journal for Church Leadership 7,
no. 2 (Spring 1998): 119-128; Douglas F. Kelly, The True
and Triune God: Calvins Doctrine of the Holy Trinity:
Institutes 1.11-13, in Theological Guide to Calvins Institutes:
Essays and Analysis (Philipsburg: P & R, 2008), 65-89;
Charles J. Kinlaw, Trinitarian Theology and the Hidden
God: Determinism and the Hiddenness of God in Calvin
and Scheiermacher (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia,
1998); Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History,
Theology, and Worship (Philipsburg: P & R, 2004), 252-268;
Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise
and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca.1520 to ca.1725, 2nd
ed., vol. 4, The Triunity of God (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006), 62-73; Joseph P. Murphy, The Fountain
of Life: John Calvin, the Devotio Moderna and Metaphorical
Theology of Trinity, Word, and Sacrament (Palo Alto:
Academica Press, 2011); Wilhem Niesel, The Theology of Calvin,
trans. Harold Knight (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 54-60;
Jung Suck Rhee, A History of the Doctrine of Eternal
Generation of the Son and Its Significance in the
Trinitarianism (Th.M. thesis, Calvin Theological
Seminary, 1989), 115-142; Thomas F. Torrance, Calvins
Doctrine of the Trinity, Calvin Theological Journal 25, no. 2
(1990): 165-193; Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvins Doctrine
of the Trinity, in Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel Craig
(Philadelphia: P & R, 1956), 189-284; Francois Wendell,
Calvin: Origin and Development of His Religious Thought,
trans. Philip Mairet (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002),
165-169; Randall C. Zachman, John Calvin as Teacher,
Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and
Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).

34
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
and an anti-heretical motive. 2 The first two
motives are kept in balance. The Reformers
were, as was Calvin, biblically centered in
their theology, therefore they could not
simply restate the dogma of the Trinity
received from the Church fathers, without
reviewing it in the light of Scripture. 3 Also,
because of this biblical motive, any
speculations will be rejected. The use of
traditional Trinitarian terms is related to the
anti-heretical motive. Thus, Calvin does not
hesitate to use the traditional Trinitarian
terms, such as persons and trinity, in
order to prevent and to refute heretical views.
Pertaining to Calvins Trinitarian thought,
the responses are diverse. Some admire it;
others doubt it. Philip Butin, Thomas
Torrance, Charles Kinlaw, Randall C.
Zachman, and B. B. Warfield, see that
Calvins Trinitarian thought plays central role
in his theology. 4 Zachman pointedly says, I
attempted to account for their differences by
means of their central theological motifs:
theology of the cross for Luther and God as
the triune of every good thing in Calvin.5 In
contrast, Francois Wendell doubts that
Trinitarian thought would be Calvins
primary interest.6
As to the originality of Calvins thought on
this subject, Gerald Bray regards it as
revolutionary, for it has a profound shift of
emphasis at the level of pure theology. 7
Wendell, in contrast, says that Calvin
approached it by carefully avoiding anything
that could have considered an innovation.8
Others assessments fall in between these two
poles. Robert Letham, for instance, contends
that the root of Calvins Trinitarianism is
deeply conservative, yet he breaks
2
Baars, The Trinity, 245-246.
3
Mulller, Triunity, 21.
4 9
Butin, Revelation, 123-124; Torrance, The Trinity, 192-
193; Kinlaw, Trinitarian, 448; Zachman, John Calvin, 176;
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 192.
5 12
Zachman, John Calvin, 176.
6
Wendell, Calvin, 166.
7
Gerald Bray, Filioque in History and Theology,
Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983): 143.
8 14
Wendell, Calvin, 168.
significantly from the late medieval scholastic
approach and restores a thoroughly biblical
exposition. Thus, he cannot be considered
an innovator of the doctrine of the Trinity,
but Calvin both preserves and develops the
inheritance he receives.9 Muller, in line with
Letham, asserts that Calvin cannot be seen as
moving away from a classical doctrine, but
rather his approach to this doctrine is to
place the language of Trinity properly into the
context of the doctrine of God as the final
identification of God in the Christian
revelation. 10 Muller also points out the
dynamic of Calvins Trinitarian thought, for
Calvins Trinitarian thinking developed
quickly and polemically in the face of a series
of accusations leveled against his doctrine.11
Even more so, others deal with the
relationship between the economic and
immanent Trinity in Calvins thought. Some
point out that Calvin does not clearly
distinguish between the economic and the
ontological (or immanent) Trinity. Seung-Goo
Lee contends that the reason for this
ambiguity is that Calvins ontological Trinity
is revealed in the economic Trinity. 12
Torrance, on the other hand, prefers to say
that for Calvin the immanent Trinity is a
forbidden ground to which he would not let
his mind enter speculatively.13 Still, Joseph P.
Murphy argues that Calvins fountain is the
economic Trinity.14
Furthermore, one aspect to which Calvin
has been credited is the concept of the Sons
aseity. This means that the Sons essence is of
itself (a se ipso), not of by the Father. The same
thing is also applied to the Spirit. Therefore,
in this respect, both the Son and the Spirit
are properly called autotheos. By this, Warfied
argues that Calvins doctrine of the Trinity
Letham, The Holy Trinity, 267-268.
10
Muller, Triunity, 68.
11
Muller, Triunity, 66.
Seung-Goo Lee, The Relationship between the
Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, Journal of
Reformed Theology 3, no. 1 (2009): 93.
13
Torrance, The Trinity, 16.
Murphy, The Fountain of Life, 200.
35
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
emphasizes the equality of the Persons
sharing in the same essence. He, thus, put
away all subordinationism in the explanation
of the relations of the Persons to one
another. 15 However, for some, this creates
difficulty. David Engelsma questions whether
this teaching does justice to the Biblical truth
of the Sons being begotten of the Father,
therefore, to the threeness of God. 16 For
Engelsma, Calvins emphasis on the oneness
of God is a weak point of his thought, for he
has emphasized the oneness of God to the
extent it has minimized the threeness of
God.17
Finally, scholars have different views on
Calvins concept of the eternal generation of
the Son. The discussions involve two issues.
First, does Calvin maintain the communicat-
ion of essence18 from the Father to the Son?
To this, Warfields assessment is negative. It is
only the person that is generated, not the
divine essence.19 Helm says, [Calvin] carefully
restricts the language of begottenness, where
he uses it, to the begottenness of the person
of the Son rather than to his essential deity.20
Engelsma, though he disagrees with Calvins
view, asserts that Calvins begetting is
meagermerely the generation of a Person
within the unmoved essence.21 Benjamin W.
15
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 251.
16
Engelsma, Calvins Doctrine, 29.
17
David J. Engelsma, Trinity and Covenant (Th. M.
thesis., Calvin Theological Seminary, 1994), 31.
18
Pertaining to the notion of the communication of
essence, Reformed theologians have different opinions. Some
hold it, e.g., Zacharias Ursinus, Francis Turretin, Louis
Berkhof. Charles Hodge however doubts it. And Herman
Bavinck does not use this idea for explaining the generation of
the Son. See Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias
Ursinus on Heidelberg Catechism, trans. by G. W. Williard
(Cincinnati: Elm Street, 1888), 136; Francis Turretin, Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T.
Dennison, Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1992), III.xxix.4; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 93-94; Charles Hodge,
Systematic Theology, vol.1, Theology (Peabody: Hendrickson,
2008), 468-471; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2,
God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vried (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2008), 308-310.
19
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 276-277.
20
Helm, Calvins Ideas, 53.
21
Engelsma, The Trinity, 30.
36
Swinburnson, however, argues to the
contrary. He contends that Calvin holds on to
the communication of divine essence from
the Father to the Son.22
Second, does Calvin reject the idea of the
Fathers perpetual act of begetting?23 This issue
is particularly related to Calvins words in the
Institutes I.xiii.29, For what is the point in
disputing whether the Father always begets?
Indeed, it is foolish to imagine a continuous
act of begetting, since it is clear that the three
persons have subsisted in God from eternity.
Engelsma, Paul Helm, and Robert Reymond
answer affirmatively.24 Warfield contends that
Calvin seems to have drawn back from the
doctrine of eternal generation as it was
expounded by the Nicene Fathers.25 Calvin,
according to Warfield, holds that the act of
generation must have been completed from
all eternity. By this, Calvin does not reject
the Nicene Creed, but the Nicene
speculation of eternal generation. 26 Rhee
agrees with Warfields conclusion of Calvins
position, however disagrees with him
pertaining to Calvins rejection of the
Nicenes eternal generation.27 Paul Owen, in
22
Benjamin Swinburnson, John Calvin, Eternal
Generation, and Communication of Essence: A Reexam-
ination of His Views, Kerux 25, no. 1 (May 2010), 39.
23
This matter is discussed by Augustine, Medieval
theologians, e.g., Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, and
Reformed theologians, e.g. Francis Turretin, Herman Bavinck,
and Louis Berkhof. See Augustine, The Works of Saint
Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E.
Rotolle, trans. Edmund Hill (Brooklyn: New City Press,
1999), Sermon LXVIII; Peter Lombard, The Sentences
(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007),
I.ix.10-15; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers
of the English Dominican Province (Westminster: Christian
Classics, 1981), I.xlii.2; Turretin, Institutes, III.xxix.7; Bavinck,
Reformed Dogmatics, 308-310; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 93-
94.
24
Engelsma, Trinity, 29; Warfield, The Doctrine of the
Trinity, 247; Helm, Calvins Ideas, 55; Robert L. Reymond, A
New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 327-330.
25
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 247.
26
By Nicene speculation, Warfield seems to refer to the
doctrine of the eternal generation expounded by the Nicene
fathers. Unfortunately, he does not mention particular
individuals, nor does he give examples of their speculation.
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 247-8.
27
Rhee, The Doctrine of Eternal Generation, 110.
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
line with Rhee, insists that Calvins words
cannot be interpreted as his rejection of the
Nicene ideas of the eternal generation of the
Son. He contends that Calvin rejects the
tendency to picture the generation of the
Son as an eternal act, as opposed to an
eternally completed act. 28 Still, Douglas F.
Kelly suggests that what Calvin denies is a
sort of continuing communication of essence,
or a continuing emanation from the
Father.29
Thus, it is my intention to look further in
to this subject, to see what Calvin actually
views pertaining to the eternal generation of
the Son. I will argue that Calvin does not
reject the idea of the eternal generation, but
interprets it differently. To Calvin, this notion
has to be understood in such a way that only
the divine person is generated, not the divine
essence; and that the idea of the Fathers
perpetual begetting is speculative, therefore
not worth discussing and unhelpful for the
edification of a Christians life. The problem
of recent discussions on this subject is that
Calvins words have often been taken out of
their context and forced to fit what he did not
discuss. Thus, the solution is to look at this
matter in the context where Calvin discusses
it, namely in the Institutes,30 and wherever it is
necessary, I will refer to his commentary.31 To
develop my thesis, I will first deal with the
deity of the Son, which is central to Calvins
view on the doctrine of the Trinity. Next, I
will discuss Calvins polemic against the
Trinitarian heresies. Finally, I will look at
Calvins concept of the generation of the Son.
28
Paul Owen, Calvin and Catholic Trinitarianism: An
Examination of Robert Reymonds Understanding of the
Trinity and His Appeal to John Calvin, Calvin Theological
Journal 35 (2000): 270.
29
Kelly, The True and Triune God, 89.
30
All citations from Calvins Institutes are taken from
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559
translation edition, 2 vols., ed. by John T. McNeill, trans.
Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960).
31
All citations from Calvins commentaries are taken
from John Calvin, Commentaries of John Calvin, 22 vols.
(Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844-55. Reprint,
Grand Rapids: Baker books, 2009).
The Deity of the Son
To understand Calvins view of the
generation of the Son, we have to identify his
emphasis on the deity of the Son and
establish that Calvins emphasis on the deity
of the Son and the Spirit is apparent for two
reasons. First, he allocates a large portion of
the Institutes (1559) to demonstrate the deity
of the Son and the Spirit. 32 Second, he
emphatically asserts the necessity to
demonstrate the deity of the Son and the
Spirit prior to a fuller exposition of the
doctrine of the Trinity. He therefore says,
Yet, before I proceed farther, I must (italics
mine) demonstrate the deity of the Son and of
the Spirit.33 Calvin did not waste time and
space to prove the deity of the Father, for the
deity of the Father was not disputed in his
day. The Trinitarian polemic at that time was
against the deity of the Son and of the Spirit.
Thus, to establish the deity of the Son and the
Spirit on a Scriptural basis was necessary. For
this discussion, I will limit the references only
to the deity of the Son.
Given the Scriptural standard of the
Reformation, it was necessary for Calvin to
demonstrate the deity of the Son by the
testimonies of Scripture. 34 Scripture testifies
that the Son is the Word, the everlasting
Wisdom (Proverb 8:22), by whom the
ancient prophets spoke (1 Peter 1:11); it
follows then that he should be begotten of
the Father before time. He was not only
residing with the Father, but also at the same
time the cause of all things, together with
God the Father. Therefore, the Word could
not be understood as a bidding and
command but truly God. 35 Calvin refutes
the notion that the Word had a beginning
when God spoke at the time of creation.
Instead, the Word has no beginning in time,
for he resides and works with the Father in
32
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.7-15.
33
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.7.
34
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.7-13.
35
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.7.
37
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
eternity (John 1:1-3; 17:5), therefore by this,
his eternity, his true essence, and his divinity
are proved. 36 Again, Calvin shows that the
Old Testament testifies to the divinity of
Christ. Christ is called the Mighty God
(Isaiah 9:6) and Jehovah our Righteousness
(Jeremiah 23:6). Calvin finds that Christ is
called Jehovah, the most forceful argument,
since the Jews further teach that other names
of God are nothing but titles, but that this
one alone [Jehovah], which they speak of as
ineffable, is a substantive to express his
essence. Therefore, it can be concluded,
that the only Son is the eternal God who
elsewhere declares that he will not give his
glory to another (Isaiah 42:8).37 Later, he also
recalls this argument to affirm the equality of
the Son with the Father. He thus says, How
would this equality stand had he not been the
God whose name is Jah and Jehovah?38
Then, in the New Testament he finds that
what had been foretold concerning the
eternal God had already been revealed in
Christ or was someday to be manifested in
him. Thus, what the books of the Old
Testament, for examples, Isaiah and Psalms,
apply to the very God himself, the New
Testament writers, for examples, Paul, John,
and so on, apply to Christ. Calvin rhetorically
asks, Why should John have hesitated to
refer the majesty of God to Christ, when he
had declared that the Word was ever God?
Why should Paul have feared to place Christ
on Gods judgment seat, when he had
previously proclaimed his divinity so openly,
saying that he was God . . . blessed
forever?39
The deity of Christ is further affirmed by
his works. Scripture testifies that the Son also
performs the works which are ascribed to God
only, i.e., to create and to govern all things.40
Calvin argues that Christs miracles prove his
36
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.8.
37
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.9.
38
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.24.
39
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.11.
40
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.12.
38
deity. Though miracles could be performed by
the prophets and the apostles, Christs
miracles are very greatly different, because he
performed miracles by his own power.41
Having established the deity of the Son
scripturally, Calvin applies the same approach
to establish the deity of the Spirit.42 Once the
deity of the Son and the Spirit are established,
then Calvin concludes that the Word and
Spirit are nothing else than the very essence of
God, because, he reasons, there is one
God.43 Yet, at the same time, Scripture sets
forth a distinction of the Father from the
Word, and of the Word from the Spirit.44 By
this, Calvin wants to show, as Torrance puts
it, the oneness of the Being of the incarnate
Son with the Being of God the Father, and
thereupon also that there are three distinct
divine Persons in the unity of the
Godhead. 45 The unity of being and the
distinctions of the persons are two essential
aspects in the Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Polemic against heretical views
Again, to understand Calvins concept of
the generation of the Son, we also need to see
his polemic against the heretical views of his
day. Calvins anti-heretical motive is obvious
from a large portion of the Institutes (1559)
allocated to refute the heretical views.46 Calvin
has a twofold purpose in this polemic. One
the one hand, it is to maintain the truth
against all calumnies of the wicked and on
the other hand it is to lead by the hand those
who are teachable. 47 Therefore, the anti-
heretical and pastoral motives go hand in
hand. To edify the believers is as important as
to refute the heretics. Calvins approach is to
limit what Scripture says and to moderately
use philosophical arguments. Calvin says, we
ought to play the philosopher soberly and
with great moderation; let us use great caution
41
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.13.
42
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.14-15.
43
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.16.
44
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.17.
45
Torrance, Calvins Doctrine, 173.
46
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.21-29.
47
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.21.
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
that neither our thoughts nor our speech go
beyond the limits to which the Word of God
itself extend. 48 The right approach to this
doctrine is to deal with teachableness rather
than with subtlety.49 It is clear then, as Baars
points out, Calvins approach on this subject
is intended to refute heresies (anti-heretical),
by what Scripture says (biblical), for
edification of the believers (pastoral), but not
for indulging the curiosity of mind (anti-
speculative).50
Two strands of heretical views need to be
reviewed here: one of Michael Servetus and
the other of the Italian Anti-Trinitarians.
Servetus is particularly named in the
Institutes, 51 but not the Italian Anti-
Trinitarians. However, Calvins certain
rascals in Institutes I.xiii.23 likely refers to the
Italian Anti-Trinitarians. 52 Servetus view, as
Calvin explains, is partly tore asunder Gods
essence, partly confused the distinction that
exists between the persons. 53 Servetus views
that God is... tripartite when three persons
are said to reside in his essence and that the
Word and the Spirit do not truly subsist in
Gods essence . . . the eternal Word of God
was . . . the refulgence of [Gods] idea, and . . .
48
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.21.
49
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.21.
50
Baars, The Trinity, 245-246.
51
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
52
McNeill, Warfield, and Muller agree that in this
section Calvin refers to Valentine Gentile. David Willis-
Watkins points to George Blandrata. However, the plural
form certain rascals and they indicate that Calvin
speaks against a group of people rather than to an individual
person. Also, Trinitarian Confession of the Italian Church of
Geneva (1558), which was designed for countering the
Italian Anti-Trinitarian heresy, echoes a similar tone of the
Institutes in this section. Thus, the reference is more likely to
the Italian Anti-Trinitarians who included George Blandrata,
Matthew Gribaldi, Paul Alciati, Valentine Gentile, etc. See
Institutes, footnote 51, page 149; Warfield, The Doctrine of the
Trinity, 226; Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 253, notes 79;
David Willis-Watkins, Calvin and the Italian Anti-
Trinitarians, Archiv fur Reformationgeschichte 62, no. 2
(1971), 281. The English translation of Trinitarian
Confession of the Italian church of Geneva (1558) is found in
James T. Dennison, et al., Trinitarian Confession of the
Italian Church of Geneva (1558), Kerux 21, no. 1 (May
2006): 3-10.
53
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
the Sprit was the shadow of deity.54 Still, the
Italian Anti-Trinitarians view is even subtler
than that of Servetus. They recognized the
three persons, but added the provision that
the Father, who is truly and properly the sole
God, in forming the Son and the Spirit,
infused into them his own deity. The Father
is then called the only essence giver.55 David
Willis-Watkins identifies Servetus view with
Arianism and that of the Italian Anti-
Trinitarians with Sabellianism.55 In the case of
Servetus, he is probably right, but that of the
Italian Anti-Trinitarians is certainly different
from Sabellianism, for they do not view the
persons of the Son and the Spirit modal-
istically.
Against these heresies Calvin argues for the
unity of the divine and for the real
distinctions of the three Persons. 56 Calvin
draws arguments from biblical passages, in
which both the unity of essence and the
distinctions of the Persons are safeguarded.
There is only one God, yet Christ
commanded the disciples to baptize in the
name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit. This proves that the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit are one God. So, Calvin
concludes, that Word and Spirit are nothing
else than the very essence of God.57 However,
the Son is distinct from the Father; for
otherwise he cannot be referred to as Gods
stamp (Hebrews 1:3). 58 Again, the Son was
with God and yet at the same time he was also
called God (John 1:1). 59 Therefore, there is
one essence of God without confusing the
distinctions of the Persons. If this is the case,
then what is the mark of those personal
distinctions? Quoting Augustine, Calvin
answers, the distinction . . . is signified by
54
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
55
Willis-Watkins, Calvin and the Italian Anti-
Trinitarians, 281.
56
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
57
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.16.
58
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.2.
59
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.6.
39
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
their mutual relationships and not the very
substance by which they are one.60
Moreover, the errors of Servetus and the
Italian Anti-Trinitarians stem from their
erroneous concept of the generation of the
Son. Calvin summarizes Servetus errors as
follows:
. . . for Servetus, the Son of God was from the
beginning an idea, and even then was
preordained to be the man who would become
the essential image of God. He recognizes no
other Word of God than one of outward
splendor. He interprets the begetting of Christ
thus: the will to beget the Son was begotten in
God from the beginning, and extended itself by
act to the creation itself.61
So, for Servetus, there is no eternal
generation of the Son, for the Son was
begotten of the Holy Spirit in the virgins
womb.62 Before that moment, the Logos was
nothing but Gods idea. Again, Servetus
asserts that the Son was not God by himself,
but was made into the Son of God by Gods
eternal decree.63 If he was called the Son of
God before the incarnation, then it is in a
figurative sense, not in a real sense.64 And for
the Italian Anti-Trinitarians, their error lies in
making the Father as the sole God. To them,
in the generation of the Son, the Father is the
Sons deifier. They contend that since Christ
is commonly called the Son of God, he could
not be God by himself, but the divinity of
the Son is something abstracted from Gods
essence, or a part derived from the whole.65
Accordingly, the Father is the only essence
giver.66 The deity of the Son and the Spirit
are thus given by the Father; therefore, both
the Son and the Spirit cannot be God in the
real sense. Consequently, in both views, the
deity of the Son and the Spirit are
annihilated.
60
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.19.
61
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.8.
62
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.5.
63
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
64
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.7.
65
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
66
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
40
The Eternal Generation of the Son
To refute the heretical views, Calvin
explains the biblical concept of the generation
of the Son which maintains the deity of the
Son. While the heretics claim that Christ
could not be the Son of God at the same time
that he is the Son of man, Calvin on the
contrary maintains that both are true: that is,
he is the Son of God, because the Word was
begotten by the Father before all ages. 67
Christ was the Son of God even before he
became the Son of man. The generation of
the Son took place in eternity, not at the time
of his manifestation in the flesh. He is the
Son of God, not by Gods decree, but by
virtue of eternal generation; therefore, he
always possesses sonship. 68 Calvin thus
refutes Servetus temporal generation of the
Son, and maintains the eternal generation of
the Son. He rejects Servetus theory that
Christ is the Son of God by divine decree,
and upholds Christ as being the Son of God
by nature. Christ is properly called the only-
begotten Son of God. He was the eternal
Word begotten before all ages from the Father
[italics mine]. 69 The fact that he is the only
begotten Son from the Father proves that he
was the Son of God by nature not by
adoption.70 Additionally, the fact that he was
also called the Son of man does not
contravene his being eternal Son of God.
Indeed, Christ has both naturesdivine and
human. Calvin argues that he is called the
Son of God by virtue of his deity and eternal
essence; and he is called the Son of man in
respect to his human nature.71 So far, what
is clear from Calvin is that by the eternal
generation of the Son, Calvin contends that
the Son was begotten in eternity, not at the
time of his incarnation, that he was the Son
of God by nature, not by adoption; and that
67
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
68
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.5.
69
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.24.
70
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.6.
71
Calvin, Institutes, II.xiv.6.
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
this generation is in the real sense, not in the
figurative sense.
Having refuted Servetus errors, Calvin
continues to deal with the errors of the Italian
Anti-Trinitarians. 72 The Trinitarian Confession
of the Italian church of Geneva summarizes their
errors as follows:
Therefore we condemn and detest the error of
those who say that the Father simply, as far as his
essence, and as He is the one true God (as they
say), generated [generato] his Son: as if the
Divine Majesty, Glory, essence, and in sum the
true Divinity, belonged to the Father only, and
that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were divine
beings proceeding from Him, and that hence the
unity of the divine essence were divided or
separate.73
So, their main arguments are that the
Father is the sole God and that the Father is
the deifier of the Son and the Spirit. In the
generation of the Son, the essence of the Son
is generated from the Father, or the Father
infused into [the Son] his own deity.74
Calvins first counter argument is that the
Father is not the sole God, for the Son is also
called God. The name of God is properly
applied to the Father and the Son. Quoting
various passages of Scripture, Calvin reasons
that whom the prophets in the Old
Testament proclaim as the true and only God,
the apostles in the New Testament affirm to
have been Christ.75
Next, Calvin counters their argument
saying that the Father is not the essence giver,
for the Son is God of himself, not of the
Father. Three lines of arguments are given to
substantiate this notion. First, Christ is called
Jehovah, which signifies that his being is
from himself. 76 In his commentary, Calvin
explains the significance of this name, Since,
then, nothing is more peculiar to God than
72
In May 1558, Calvin helped the Italian congregation
in Geneva to draft a confession to refute this Anti-Trinitarian
heresy. Dennison, Trinitarian Confession, 3-4.
73
Dennison, Trinitarian Confession, 5.
74
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
75
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
76
Calvin, Institutes, I .xi ii .23.
eternity, He is called Jehovah, because He has
existence from Himself, and sustains all things
by His secret inspiration. 77 This peculiar
name of God, which the Old Testament
applies only to the one true God, is also
properly applied to Christ in the New
Testament. The disciples addressed him as
kurios, the Greek word for Jehovah.78 Second,
the Son of God is the Creator of all things;
therefore, it necessarily follows that his being
is himself. Calvin reasons, How will the
Creator, who gives being to all, not having
being from himself, but borrows his essence
from elsewhere? For whoever says that the
Son has been given his essence from the
Father denies that he has being from
himself.79 Third, to say that the Father is the
essence giver implies that the Spirit is from
the Father alone. However, this is contrary to
the testimony of Scripture, in which the Spirit
is rightly called the Spirit of the Son. Paul
testifies in the book of Romans that The
Spirit [is] common to Christ and the
Father.80 Thus, by filioque Calvin rejects the
notion that the Father alone is the sole God.
For Calvin, the aseity of the Son is logically
necessary, for nothing is more proper to God
than to be.81 To be God is to be of himself.
To deny the aseity of the Son is to deny him
as God or to make him a figurative God, a
God in appearance and name only, not in
reality in itself. 82 Engelsma is troubled with
Calvins emphasis on the aseity of the Son,
contending that such emphasis on the
equality with the Father tends to minimize the
distinctions among them. The aseity of the
Son tends to blur the difference between Son
and Father, as serious an error as
subordinating the Son to the Father. 83
77
Calvin, Commentary on Exodus, 6:2 (CTS Harmony of
Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy, II, 127).
78
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.13.
79
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
80
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.24.
81
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
82
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
83
David J. Engelsma, Trinity and Covenant (Th.M.
thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, 1994), 31.
41
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
However, Engelsma errs in this point.
Calvins emphasis on the unity of essence
never takes away the distinctions of the
persons. Calvin delightedly quotes Gregory of
Nazianzus: I cannot think on the one
without quickly being encircled by the
splendor of the three; nor can I discern the
three without being straightway carried back
to the one. 84 Thus, the oneness and the
threeness of God are equally emphasized.
This brings us to another aspect of Calvins
understanding of the generation of the Son,
i.e., the person as begotten, not as the essence.
Muller correctly asserts that the aseity of the
Son is very significant in understanding
Calvins generation of the Son. To Calvin,
the generation of the Son from the Father is
an origination of sonship, not of divinity.85
Calvin explains, We teach from the Scripture
that God is one essence, and hence that the
essence both of the Son and of the Spirit is
unbegotten. 86 Gods essence is unbegotten.
The person of the Father is unbegotten; only
the Person of the Son is begotten from the
Father.87 By this both the unity of essence and
the distinctions of the persons are safe-
guarded. Yet, two things need clarification.
First, it is the Trinity, not quaternity. Calvin is
aware of the charge of quaternity, that is,
that three persons came forth by derivation
from one essence.88 Thus, he emphasizes that
the persons and the essence are distinguished
but not separated. We do not separate the
persons from the essence, but we distinguish
among them while they remain within it.89
For although the essence does enter into the
distinction as a part or a member of the
Trinity, nevertheless the persons are not
without it, or outside it; because the Father,
unless he were God, could not have been the
Father; and the Son could not have been the
84
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.17.
85
Muller, Triunity, 325.
86
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
87
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
88
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
89
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
42
Son, unless he were God.90 So, the Trinity is
affirmed, and the quaternity is rejected.
Second, a certain order of the Persons of
the Trinity exists. By order, the Father is the
beginning of activity, and the fountain and
wellspring of all things; the Son is wisdom,
counsel, and the ordered disposition of all
things; and the Spirit is the power and
efficacy of that activity. 91 Calvin sees this
order for he thinks that this is the distinction
that we observe to be expressed in Scripture.
He thus substantiates his argument by
quoting Romans 8. Therefore, Beckwith s
claim that Calvin is speculative in this point is
untenable.92
So far, we have discussed Calvins concept
of the generation of the Son, by which he
refutes the erroneous views of the heretics.
Now, how does this answer our questions?
Does Calvin reject the idea of the
communication of essence? Does he reject
the perpetual act of begetting? We will first
deal with the question of the communication
of essence.
Before we proceed further, we need to
examine a definition of Reformed orthodoxy
with regard to this issue. Francis Turretin
explains it as follows:
As all generation indicates a communicat-
ion of essence on the part of the begetter to
the begotten (by which becomes like the
begetter and partakes of the same nature with
him), this wonderful generation is rightly
expressed as a communication of essence
from the Father (by which the Son possesses
indivisibly the same essence with him and is
made perfectly like him).93
Therefore, it is clear that there are
differences between what Reformed ortho-
doxy means by communication of essence and
what Calvin rejects here. In the first place,
Calvin does not use the term commun-
ication of essence. What he refutes is the
90
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
91
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.18.
92
Beckwith,The Calvinist Doctrine, 310.
93
Turretin, Institutes, III.xxix.4.
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
heretical idea that the Father is the essence
giver to the Son and the Spirit, with the
consequence that the Father is the sole God,
and that the aseity of the Son and the Spirit
are taken away. This is however different from
the idea of communication of essence in
Reformed orthodoxy, in which the Son and
the Spirit possess the same nature with the
Father. Communication of essence according
to Reformed orthodoxy, as Muller points out,
does not contravene the aseity of the Son.94
Therefore, we cannot simply say that
Calvin rejects the idea of communication of
essence, because though they may speak
differently, yet they arrive at the same
conclusion. It is very likely that they actually
speak the same truth with different
expressions and approaches. For Calvin, it is
also not possible that the Father in bestowing
essence nonetheless remains the sole God. If
then he remains the sole God, Christ then
will be a figurative God, a God in appearance
and name only, not in reality itself.95 So, in
the divine generation, the divine essence
cannot be shared from the Father to the Son.
However, when the Reformed theologians
speak about this, they speak about com-
munication of essence from the begetter to
the begotten. For them, a generation
necessarily involves communication of
essence, by which the begetter and the
begotten partake in the same nature.
Therefore, they arrive at the same conclusion
with different expressions. They answer the
same question differently yet with the same
conclusion. If it is asked, How do the Father
and the Son have the same essence? Calvin
answers,
God is in one essence . . . hence . . . the essence
of [the Father] and of the Son and of the Spirit is
unbegotten . . . the person of the Father is
94
Ursinus, Bucanus, and Perkins maintain the idea of
communication of essence, while Polanus follows more closely
to Calvins idea. Muller, Triunity, 326-327.
95
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
unbegotten . . . [only the person of the Son is
begotten from the person of the Father].96
Turretins answer is slightly different:
A person is properly said to generate a person . . . but
not an essence to generate an essence . . . essence
indeed is communicated by generating.97
Thus, it is clear that both hold that only a
person is generated (begotten) but essence is
not generated (begotten). But, at the point
where Calvin stops to explain, Turretin and
others who hold the same view, continue
explaining that essence is communicated (not
generated) in the divine generation. Given the
anti-speculative motive of Calvins approach,
we are not astonished about why he stops
here, for, as Hodge puts it, what is meant by
the term, neither the Bible nor the ancient
creeds explain.98
Next, pertaining to the issue of the Fathers
perpetual act of begetting, we need to
interpret his words in the context. In the
Institutes I.xiii.21-26, Calvin refutes the
arguments of the heretics. Then, he spends
two more chapters, Institutes I.xiii.27-28,
battling with their arguments, in which they
falsely appeal to Irenaeus and Tertullian.
Then, in the last chapter on this subject, he
affirms that the church fathers, that is, Justin,
Hilary, Ignatius, Augustine, all hold the
doctrine of the Trinity faithfully. Then he
acknowledges that he has refuted all the
chicaneries, and that the whole sum of this
doctrine has been faithfully explained.99 He
admonishes his reader to impose a limit
upon their curiosity for whatever beyond this
point is proper troublesome and perplexed
disputations. Calvin admits that he omits
unnecessary things in his discussion on this
subject, because they are things with little
profit and useless trouble. Therefore, they
are not useful for the edification of the
church. It is here then that he says,
96
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.25.
97
Turretin, Institutes, III.xxix.6.
98
Hodge, Systematic Theology, I, 468.
99
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.29.
43
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
For what is the point in disputing whether the
Father always begets? Indeed, it is foolish to
imagine a continuous act of begetting, since it is
clear that three persons have subsisted in God
from eternity.100
From the context, it is clear that to Calvin
the issue of a perpetual act of begetting is an
example of things that are unnecessary to
discuss, because it is speculative in nature,
therefore useless for the edification of the
believers. Yet, from Thomas Summa
Theologia101 and Augustines Sermon,102 the idea
of the Father as always begetting is necessary
to safeguard the generation of the Son. The
notion of the begotten Son raises an objection
about whether or not the Son has a
becoming. Thus, it is necessary that he was
always begotten in order that he will not
become. However, to Calvin this is indeed
not necessary, based on the fact that the
Father and the Son exist eternally. This fact
itself is sufficient to counter any objections.
Additionally, Calvins emphasis on the aseity
of the Son is sufficient to counter the wrong
idea. The Sons essence is of himself. To be is
the Sons essential property. He is always with
the Father eternally. Thus, the notion that the
Son has a becoming is refuted.
Again, Calvin sees this notion as
unnecessary because it does not have strong
biblical support. The traditional support of
this idea is from Psalm 2:7, quoted in Acts
13:33. Exegetically, Calvin finds no support to
interpret this day as an eternal act without
any relation to time, as Augustine suggests.
Calvin argues that Paul in Acts 13:33
interpreted this day to the manifestation of
the heavenly glory of Christ.103 Again, in his
commentary on Hebrews 1:5, he emphatically
says that the subtle reasoning of Augustine is
frivolous, when he imagines that today means
perpetuity or eternity.104
100
Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.29.
101
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.xlii .2.
102
Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermon
LXVIII.
103
Calvin, Commentary on Psalms, 2:7.
104
Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, 1:5.
44
From the above discussion, we still cannot
say that Calvin rejects the idea that the Father
always begets. Baars correctly says that though
Calvin endorses the idea of generation of the
Son, but he refuses to explain how we are to
imagine this mystery. 105 Thus to Calvin, he
sees that the idea of the perpetual act of
begetting is beyond what Scripture clearly
teaches. So, it is speculative, burdensome and
useless for the edification of the church. One
thing that is clear is that Calvin does not
reject the idea of the eternal generation of the
Son, as many think he does,106 nor does he
reject the speculations of the Nicene fathers,
as Warfield suggests.107 What is clear is that he
denies to speculate on this matter, and limits
himself to what Scripture clearly teaches,
namely that the Son and the Father exist
eternally.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have shown that in Calvins
concept of the generation of the Son, the
unity of the divine essence and the
distinctions of the Persons are safeguarded.
Calvin develop this concept in opposition to
the heretical views. Therefore, in the
generation of the Son, he emphasizes that the
Son was begotten eternally, not temporally;
that the Son is begotten from the Father, not
in respect to the essence, but in respect to the
person.
I have also shown that Calvins approach
on this matter is biblical, pastoral, and anti-
speculative. He limits his interpretation to
what Scripture clearly teaches. Though he
respects the opinions of the church fathers, he
does not hesitate to disagree with them
wherever their opinions have not been
substantiated scripturally. Therefore, he sees
that some matters of this subject are not
profitable to discuss. This holds true with
105
Baars, The Trinity, 253.
106
Engelsma, Trinity, 29; Helm, Calvins Ideas, 55;
Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 327-330.
107
Warfield, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 248.
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
regard to both questions, that is, the
communication of essence and the perpetuity
of divine generation, which Calvin does not
discuss because to him they are speculative in
nature, therefore, they are useless for the
edification of the believers. Thus, theology is
not for satisfying the curiosity of the human
mind, but intended to lead them to the
knowledge of God and the Redeemer. It is
true for all Christian doctrine, even for the
most puzzling teachings, such as the doctrine
of the Trinity. To conclude, let us remember
that
the knowledge of God does not rest in cold
speculation, but carries with it the honoring of
him . . . [and teaches us] how he is to be rightly
worshipped.108
Bibliografi
Augustine. The Works of Saint Augustine: A
Translation for the 21st Century. Edited by
John E. Rotolle. Translated by Edmund
Hill. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1999.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans.
Fathers of the English Dominican
Province. Westminster: Christian
Classics, 1981.
Baars, Arie. The Trinity, in The Calvin
Handbook. Trans. Gerrit W. Sheeres.
Ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, 245-257.
Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans,
2008.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol.2.
God and Creation. Ed. John Bolt and
trans. John Vried. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2008.
Beckwith, Roger. The Calvinist Doctrine of
the Trinity. Churchman 115, no. 4
(Winter 2001): 308- 315.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958.
108
Calvin, Institutes, I.xii.1.
Bray, Gerald L. Bray. The Primacy of the
Persons in God. In The Doctrine of God.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1993.
Butin, Philip W. Revelation, Redemption, and
Response: Calvins Trinitarian Understand-
ing of the Divine-Human Relationship.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Calvin, John. Commentaries of John Calvin. 23
vols. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation
Society, 1844-55. Reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker books, 2009.
. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1559
translation edition. 2 vols. Edited by
John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford
Lewis Battles. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1960.
Dennison, James T. et al. Trinitarian
Confession of the Italian Church of
Geneva (1558). Kerux 21, no. 1 (May
2006): 3-10.
Doyle, Robert C. Basic Expectations,
Strategies and Consequences: towards
understanding the triune God in the
company of John Calvin. Reformed
Theological Review 68, no. 3 (2009): 151-
74.
Engelsma, David J. Calvins Doctrine of the
Trinity. Protestant Reformed Theological
Journal 23 (1989): 19-37.
. Trinity and Covenant. Th. M. thesis.,
Calvin Theological Seminary, 1994.
Engelbrech B. The Problem of the Concept
of the Personality of the Holy Spirit
According to Calvin. In Calvinus
Reformator: His Contribution to Theology,
Church and Society, South African
Congress for Calvin Research 1980,
201-216. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom
Universty, Institute for Reformational
Studies, 1982.
Harman, Allan M. Speech about the Trinity:
with Special Refence to Novatian,
45
JURNAL TEOLOGI REFORMED INDONESIA
Hilary, and Calvin. Scottish Journal of
Theology 26 (1973): 385-400.
Helm, Paul. John Calvins Ideas. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1,
Theology. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
Holdsworth, C. B. Calvins Doctrine of the
Trinity: A Summary and Evalution. A
Quarterly Journal for Church Leadership 7,
no. 2 (Spring 1998): 119-128.
Kelly, Douglas F. The True and Triune God:
Calvins Doctrine of the Holy Trinity:
Institutes 1.11-13. In A Theological
Guide to Calvins Institutes: Essays and
Analysis. Philipsburg: P & R, 2008.
Kinlaw, Charles J. Trinitarian Theology and
the Hidden God: Determinism and the
Hiddenness of God in Calvin and
Scheiermacher. Ph.D. diss. University
of Virginia (1998).
Krohn, James B. The Triune God Who
Speaks: Calvin's Theological Hermeneu-
tics. Koers l.66/1 & 2 (2001): 53-70.
Lee, Seung-Goo. The Relationship between
the Ontological Trinity and the
Economic Trinity. Journal of Reformed
Theology 3, no. 1 (2009): 90-107.
Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture,
History, Theology, and Worship. Philips-
burg: P & R, 2004.
Loeschen, John R. Calvin: Neither Con-
fusion nor Separation. In The Divine
Community: Trinity, Church and Ethics in
Reformation Theologies, 129-157. Kirks-
ville: The Sixteenth Century Journal
Publishers, 1981.
Lombard, Peter. The Sentences. Toronto: Ponti-
fical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
2007.
Muller, Richard A. The Unaccommodated
Calvin. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
46
. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The
Rise and Development of Reformed
Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed.
Vol. 4, The Triunity of God. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Murphy, Joseph P. The Fountain of Life: John
Calvin, the Devotio Moderna and
Metaphorical Theology of Trinity, Word,
and Sacrament. Palo Alto: Academica
Press, 2011.
Niesel, Wilhem Niesel. The Theology of Calvin,
54-60. Translated by Harold Knight.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Owen, Paul. Calvin and Catholic Trini-
tarianism: An Examination of Robert
Reymond's Understanding of the
Trinity and His Appeal to John Calvin.
Calvin Theological Journal 35 (2000): 262-
281.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1998.
Rhee, Jung Suck. A History of the Doctrine
of Eternal Generation of the Son and
Its Significance in the Trinitarinism.
Th.M. Thesis, Calvin Theological
Seminary, 1989.
Richardson, Kurt Anders. Calvin on the
Trinity. In John Calvin and Evangelical
Theology, 32- 42. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2009.
Schwobel, Christoph. The Triune God of
Grace: The Doctrine of the Trinity in
the theology of the Reformers. In The
Christian Understanding of God Today, 49-
64. Edited by James M. Byrne. Dublin:
Columbia Press, 1993.
Smit, Dirkie. The Trinity in the Reformed
Tradition. Journal of Reformed Theology
3, no. 1 (2009): 57-76.
Swinburnson, Benjamin W. John Calvin,
Eternal Generation, and Communicat-
ion of Essence: A Reexamination of His
 CALVINS DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON

Views, Kerux Journal of Northwest

Theological Seminary 25, no. 1 (May,
2010): 26-49.
Torrance, Thomas F. Calvins Doctrine of
the Trinity. Calvin Theological Journal
25, no. 2 (1990): 165-193.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology.
Translated by George Musgrave Giger.
Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. 3 vols.
Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992.
Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Dr.
Zacharias Ursinus on Heidelberg Catechism.
Translated by Rev. G. W. Williard.
Cincinnati: Elm Street, 1888.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvins Doctrine of
the Trinity. In Calvin and Augustine,
edited by Samuel Craig, 189-284.
Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing Company, 1956.
Wendell, Francois. Calvin: Origin and
Development of His Religious Thought.
Translated by Philip Mairet. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.
Willis-Watkins, David. Calvin and the Italian
Anti-Trinitarians. Archiv fur Reforma-
tiongeschichte 62, no. 2 (1971): 279-282.
Zachman, Randall C. John Calvin as Teacher,
Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His
Writings and Thought. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2006.

47

View publication stats