Some Musings Regarding Lutherans, Calvinists and the Neo-Puritans

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about Calvinism and Reformed theology, particularly about its relationship to American Evangelicalism in general and the revivalism that is central to so much of American Evangelicalism. 

It all started when I learned that Charles Finney – the 19th century revivalist preacher of Second Great Awakening fame, and utterly Pelagian in his outlook – was a Presbyterian.  This was enough to make me go, "huh?"  Charles Finney was a Presbyterian??  This was somewhat of a shock to me, as Presbyterians hold to Reformed theology, which is monergistic.  Finney was about as non-monergistic as one can get.

Of course, I realize that people are not necessarily consistent in their beliefs – they might belong to a certain denomination and not hold all the tenets of that denomination.  But I started to wonder more and more about this as I recalled that Billy Graham and various other revivalists also had a background of Presbyterianism. 

So the question I had was this: was the revivalism of these preachers a reaction against Reformed theology, or was it a logical conclusion of Reformed theology?  Or both?  This is an important question because not all Calvinists are revivalists.  In all my studies of these things I have found there to be basically two main schools of Calvinists:

1) The first is what I would call "Classical Calvinism", who hold more closely to the original teachings of Calvin.  These would be the "continental Reformed" found in denominations such as the United Reformed Church (URC), and to some extent the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).  Classical Calvinists are probably the closest to Orthodox Lutherans in that they hold a Law/Gospel distinction, have a relatively high view of the Sacraments, recognize the importance of the external Word of God as opposed to looking inside oneself for assurance, and are generally not at all pietistic.  They hold to covenant theology and infant Baptism.  Michael Horton and Kim Riddlebarger of White Horse Inn fame (both of the URC) are good examples of this category.

2) The second is what I would call "Neo-Puritanism," which is way more prevalent in America today than Classical Calvinism.  These are largely derived from the English Puritans, who were basically Anglican pietists.  Most (though not all) Reformed Baptists would probably fall into this category, as do many Presbyterians.  These are the folks who would have you look inward in some way for assurance of salvation as opposed to looking to the external Word.  I have not found them to have a particularly strong Law/Gospel distinction or a particularly high view of the Sacraments.  John Piper and the so called "New Calvinists" are the first people who come to my mind for this category.  They would probably not like the term "revivalist" but one could make the case that revivalism in America started with Jonathan Edwards and the English Puritans (though the Puritans would certainly not have emphasized man's free will decision in salvation as Arminians like Finney and Wesley did).  Many of these folks are big fans of Jonathan Edwards and the original Puritans. 

Both of these categories are Calvinistic, but the two come to radically different conclusions about where one's assurance lies, in my view.  So Calvinism and Reformed theology doesn't necessarily lead to pietism and revivalism.  But are pietism and revivalism a logical consequence of Calvinism and Reformed theology?

I happened to read a post today at Extra Nos noting the occasion of Calvin's 500th birthday, and the far-reaching consequences of his teachings.  L.P. notes that Calvin's theology detached the Holy Spirit from the Sacraments – i.e., God works in your heart apart from the Sacraments and the Sacraments are just a confirmation of what He has already given you.  L.P. concludes:

In short, for Calvin, the Sacraments may or may not
be accompanied by the HS. For him, there is no guarantee that the HS
will accompany the Sacraments for sure, the HS is detached from the
Sacraments. I have several theories as to what might be going on in his
psyche that led him to say this stuff but that is for another post.

What
then is the effect of this detachment or lack of guarantee that the HS
is with the Sacraments? You cannot look to it. Calvin's ambeguity [sic] has a
negative effect on the believer in that he becomes at a loss as to
where God's promises are located. He no longer has a guarantee that
when he goes there, God will meet him there. Hence, the believer may
have to look for a zap from above, and they often do, ergo, Enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm is the idea that the Holy Spirit comes apart from the Word and Sacraments.  This is basically what Pentecostals and Charismatics believe.  Calvin and his theological descendants would probably never say that the Holy Spirit comes apart from the Word.  But what about the Sacraments?  I am not convinced that even the most classical of classical Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit always comes through the Sacraments.  They believe that the Sacraments are "means of grace" in some sense.  Michael Horton talks about this all the time on the White Horse Inn, that God has promised to be in His Word and Sacraments.  But I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean the same thing that Lutherans mean – unless he's even more of a crypto-Lutheran than I thought.  "Means of grace" seem to have more of a covenantal flavor for classical Calvinists.  Thus for them, Baptism is seen as initiation into the covenantal community of God's people.  And regarding the Lord's Supper, Christ is not actually bodily present for the forgiveness of sins, but is only received spiritually through faith.

So what does this all mean?  Larry, a commenter on the Extra Nos blog (who should have his own blog!), makes an interesting observation that many Reformed complain about the state of American evangelicalism today, but don't realize that the state of American evangelicalism today is the logical outcome of Calvin's ideas.  He goes on to say that Calvin being off a half a degree in his time led to all the craziness we see today in the American church.

Could this be the case?  I find it interesting that I wasn't the only one whose thoughts were leaning in this direction.  I'll be the first to say that I enjoy listening to classical Calvinists like Michael Horton, (though I disagree with them on various things).  It's probably because they sound a lot like Lutherans.  But is their focus on the external Word, as opposed to the inward focus of the neo-Puritans, more of an anomaly than a logical conclusion?  Or are these Calvinists simply more "Lutheran" than even Calvin was?