Under [J. A.] Turretin’s guidance, the Council of Geneva tellingly ruled that candidates for ordination need not subscribe to the Formula or even to the Canons of Dordt, but only to the Bible and Calvin’s Catechism, in order to facilitate union among the Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Though the younger Turretin aimed at an enlightened, moderate orthodoxy that would defeat philosophical challenges to Christianity and unite Protestantism, his efforts actually opened the gates for heterodoxy to enter into the citadel of Calvinism.

Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism, 211.

The abolition of requirements for subscription to confessional statements in the name of toleration opened the door for apostasy from essential Reformed doctrines. A watershed moment took place in Genevan theology when J. A. Turretin successfully abolished the requirement that candidates for the ministry subscribe to confessional standards; they needed merely to pledge fidelity to the Bible. Such vague commitments could not wall out heresy, heterodoxy, and apostasy.

Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism, 222.

As an advocate of natural theology, J. A. Turretin had no interest in the decrees of God. He taught that the doctrine of predestination had only led to “wild excess” in Protestant circles. . . . For J. A. Turretin, the notion of sin and man’s unworthiness of salvation did not bear any implications for the divine decree. His Fundamentals in Religion reveal how completely he had depart from his father’s theology in many cardinal doctrines of Reformed orthodoxy. His fight to abrogate the [Genevan] Formula Consensus of 1675, which he accomplished by 1706, spelled the final defeat for Reformed orthodoxy at Geneva Academy.

Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism, 210.

Around 1750 Reformed theology everywhere fell into decay. The elements responsible for this decomposition, already present in the previous century, continued to have their effect, undermining dogmatics. After Cocceianism in the Netherlands had emerged victorious came the Ear of Toleration (1740–70). The power of truth was denied; people retreated from the church’s confessions to Scripture and abandoned doctrines characteristic for the Reformed faith, such as original sin, the covenant of works, limited atonement, etc. In beautiful dress and the name of being biblical, a variety of Remonstrant and Socinian errors rose to the surface. At best, those who professed the Reformed religion accepted the theology that they had “in stock,” but they no longer had their hearts in it, nor did they any longer speak out of its content. The old dogmatics [simply] became an object of historical study.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, I:189.

In time, the Reformed movement developed into two very similar systems of theology: the Continental Reformed, represented primarily in the Netherlands by its Three Forms of Unity-the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort; and British-American Presbyterianism, expressed in the Westminster standards-the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. These two systems were not opposed to or entirely separate from each other, however. For example, British Puritans profoundly influenced the Dutch Further Reformation in the seventeenth century. Likewise, the Italian-Swiss Francis Turretin (1623-1687) profoundly affected American Presbyterianism. Turretin’s systematic theology was taught at Princeton Seminary until the 1870s, when it was replaced by that of Charles Hodge.

Both systems of Reformed theology parted ways with Lutheranism. By the end of the sixteenth century, Calvinism differed from Lutheranism in the following areas:

• Approach to the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans maintained the doctrine of consubstantiation, which holds that Christ is physically present in, with, and under the elements in the Lord’s Supper. They resisted any attempt to explain Jesus’ statement “this is my body” as a metaphor, saying that such efforts opened the door to allegorizing away the gospel itself. Furthermore, they said, if all that is offered in Communion is a spiritual Christ, the sacrament presents a truncated gospel that offers no comfort to believers whose bodies eventually will die. Lutherans would be satisfied only with a concrete, historical Christ. The Reformed leaders said that the incarnate, historical Christ is now risen and ascended, and therefore is not present in the Supper in the way He was prior to His ascension. Furthermore, the concept of Christ’s spiritual presence does not mean something less than complete; rather, it refers to His ongoing work through His Spirit. The Reformed believed they were affirming all that the Lutherans wanted to protect, but in a clearer, more biblical manner.

• The primary function of the law. Luther generally regarded the law as something thing negative and closely allied with sin, death, or the Devil. He believed that the dominant function of the law is to abase the sinner by convicting him of sin and driving him to Christ for deliverance. Calvin regarded the law more as a guide for the believer, a tool to encourage him to cling to God and to obey Him more fervently. The believer must try to follow God’s law not as an act of compulsory duty, but as a response of grateful obedience. With the help of the Spirit, the law provides a way for a believer to express his gratitude.

• Approach to salvation. Both Lutherans and Calvinists answered the question tion “What must I do to be saved?” by saying that Spirit-worked repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His substitutionary work of atonement are necessary. But Lutherans had a tendency to remain focused on the doctrine of justification, whereas Calvinists, without minimizing justification, pressed more than Lutherans toward sanctification, which asks, “Having been justified by God’s grace, how shall I live to the glory of God?” Calvinism thus became more comprehensive than Lutheranism in explaining how salvation works itself out in the life of a believer.

• Understanding of predestination. In the late sixteenth century, most Lutherans moved away from Luther and the Calvinists, who asserted the predestination of both the elect and the reprobate rather than the predestination of the elect only. Reformed theologians believed this shift in thinking was at odds with the content of Romans 9 and similar passages, as well as with the comprehensive sovereignty of God. The Calvinists were convinced that election is sovereign and gracious, and that reprobation is sovereign and just. No one who enters heaven deserves to be there; no one who enters hell deserves anything different. As Calvin said, “The praise of salvation is claimed for God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of their own accord bring it upon themselves.”

• Understanding of worship. Luther’s reform was more moderate than Calvin’s, retaining more medieval liturgy. Following their leaders, the Lutherans and Calvinists differed in their views of how Scripture regulates worship. The Lutherans taught that we may include in worship what is not forbidden in Scripture; the Calvinists maintained that we may not include in worship what the New Testament does not command.

Joel R. Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, Loc. 235.

The righteous magistrate, who knows his place, and has a proper sense of the nature and functions of the magistracy, will not allow the transgressors of law to escape with impunity. He not only “bears the sword” — he is not only armed with a just authority — he will use the “sword:” it will not lie idly in the scabbard; he will exercise the power with which he has been invested. Faithful to his calling and to the great interests of social and moral order, the upright civil functionary, whether in a higher or an inferiors station, will not permit God’s authority to be impugned, or the interests of society to suffer, from unrestrained lawlessness — from flagrant breaches of the peace — from rampant immorality — from gross, avowed and open hostility to the name and law of God. To be indifferent to these, or to administer law partially, inflicting punishment upon the weak and unprotected, while the evil deeds of the elevated and strong are winked at, is a virtual abdication of power. Such may “bear the sword,” but they bear it “in vain.”

James M. Wilson, Civil Government: An Exposition on Romans XIII. 1-7 (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1853), 68-69.

Still, we are not to infer that every crime is to be punished with this extreme penalty. Far from it. The “sword” here is, we repeat, an emblem, — the power of the sword comprehending every grade of penal infliction, from the smallest fine to the severest sort of punishment. Civil rulers are endowed with power to affix and execute suitable penal sanctions.

James M. Wilson, Civil Government: An Exposition on Romans XIII. 1-7 (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1853), 68.

If we do not know our Reformation heritage, ignorance will lead to indifference, and indifference to relinquishment. I urge you to study Reformed thinking. Immerse yourself in the writings of solid, renowned Calvinists. Read sixteenth-century classics such as Calvin’s Institutes. Try Henry Bullinger’s The Decades, which teaches the doctrines of the Bible in fifty messages on a somewhat simpler level than the Institutes. Read seventeenth-century classics, too, such as John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and John Flavel’s The Fountain of Life. Pick up eighteenth-century works such as Wilhelmus a Brakel’s The Christian’s Reasonable Service and Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections. From the nineteenth century, read Octavius Winslow’s Work of the Holy Spirit and Charles Spurgeon’s The Treasury of David. From the twentieth century, read D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ The Sermon on the Mount and John Murray’s systematic theology (Collected Writings, vol. 2).5 If we do not appreciate our Reformation heritage, our faith will lack authenticity. No one will be jealous of us, for we will be sorely lacking in true peace, joy, and humility. And if we don’t live our Reformation heritage, we will not be salt in the earth. When salt has lost its saltiness, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men (Matt. 5:13).

Joel R. Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, Loc. 143.

“In the 1980s, my doctoral dissertation adviser, D. Clair Davis, often said that Calvinism is so comprehensive that it is hard to get one’s mind and arms around it. He would then say, a bit tongue-in-cheek, that this comprehensiveness is one major difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Lutheranism could neatly bring all of its confessional statements under one cover in 1580 and call it The Book of Concord. But the Calvinistic faith is so rich that at least three families of confessional statements developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: the English-Scottish family, the Dutch-German family, and the Swiss family–none of which contradicted the others but built on and complemented them” (Joel R. Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, Loc. 78).

[Comment on 1 Corinthians 15:24] V. 24. delivered up the kingdom to God] Christ hath a double kingdom; 1. Essential, as God; and this Christ possesseth with his Father and the Spirit for ever. 2. Economical, as Mediator betwixt God and man: and this kingdom which he received from his Father, he shall surrender up again to his Father after he hath subdued sin and death, and put all enemies under his feet.

Annotations upon all the books of the Old and New Testament wherein the text is explained, doubts resolved, Scriptures paralleled and various readings observed by the joynt-labour of certain learned divines, thereunto appointed, and therein employed, as is expressed in the preface (London: John Legatt and John Raworth, 1645).