To adiophora or not to adiophora – the Calvinist response

Jean Cauvin

Huldrychus Zwinglius, the famous Swiss Reformer known to us as Uldrych Zwingli, and Jean Cauvin, the famous French Reformer who fled to Switzerland, known to us as John Calvin, are considered the fathers of the Reformed family of churches [shhh, and, of course, John Knox]. They, like all the Reformers, had to deal with the problem of history. That is, how does one deal with two issues: one is the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church while the second is how does one deal with early church history? I have already mentioned that two approaches were that of the Radical Reformers and that of the Lutheran/Anglicans. The Radical Reformers dealt with history by denying the received narrative and creating an alternate narrative. The Lutheran/Anglicans were much more cautious. They agreed with the received narrative but changed Holy Tradition into simply tradition. Mind you, they argued strongly that the tradition of the first 500 years ought to not be lightly changed or discarded, but, ultimately, they argued that there was no such thing as Holy Tradition. But, they both also argued that the Church has real authority to define the “discipline” of the Church. One way of summarizing their attitude is to say that what is not forbidden is permitted. That is, as long as Scripture did not forbid it, it was permitted.

Zwingly and Calvin, however, had a different attitude towards history. They also argued that there was no such thing as Holy Tradition. However, their attitude towards the history of the Church was quite different. They had many of the same suspicions as the Radical Reformers. However, and this is key, they also agreed with the received narrative. That is, they saw the “apostolic” line of the Church as being the same as the received narrative, at least as far as the first few hundred years. Nevertheless, they took a much harder line towards the issue of tradition. One way of summarizing their attitude is to say that what is not permitted is forbidden. That is, if Scripture does not authorize it, then it is forbidden. Chapter 21, paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states the Regulative Principle in this fashion:

The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

This sounds reasonable on the surface. We ought to worship in the way in which God wants us to worship. However, when this is coupled with the principle Sola Scriptura, it ends up in exactly the same place the Radical Reformation ended up. The New Testament never gives anywhere a complete description of one Christian worship. It gives many principles of Christian worship. It mentions some elements of Christian worship. But, it never, anywhere, gives a description of Christian worship, other than the incredibly basic outline found in the Book of Acts, chapter 4. Those descriptions are found in Holy Tradition. Only when one reads the Early Church Fathers can one find descriptions of Christian worship.

Thus, when one applies the Regulative Principle, it basically means that almost nothing one wishes to do can be done in Christian worship. It is not the least bit surprising that much of Calvinist worship was little more than preaching, singing, and the recitation of 1 Corinthians during the Lord’s supper. And, in some Calvinist traditions, only Psalms could be used in singing. This worship outline is particularly true since the Calvinists, like all Reformers, made strong arguments against the use of the charismatic gifts in worship. But, more importantly, it means that though Zwinglian/Calvinists technically claim that they honor the Early Church Fathers, they actually do not. For, in fact, they end up declaring that most of what developed in Early Church history is not overtly sanctioned by Holy Scriptures and it, therefore, forbidden. Hmm, which, therefore, puts them in the same camp as the Radical Reformers.

Or, another way to put it is that it makes them the philosophical ancestors of today’s progressive/liberal Christians, every bit as much as the Radical Reformers. In fact, any view of Christian history which does not honor the Early Church Fathers as being true and accurate purveyors of apostolic Christianity ends up making progressive/liberal Christianity not only possible, but probably inevitable.