Charles Partee sets out a twofold objective in his study of the theology of John Calvin. The first is to survey the full sweep of Calvin's theology and the second is to collect the benefits that accrue (p. xi). By this Partee means that he will gather from Calvin's theology all that could be useful today. For instance, Partee thinks that Calvin's use of scripture without a theory of scripture would be useful today (p. 62), whereas Calvin's explanation of how the body and blood of Christ are and are not present in the bread and wine of the Supper is totally useless (p. 272), as is his understanding of the conscience (p. 98). However, Partee's main objective in the book is to correct the misconceptions he thinks still abound regarding the nature of the theological task pursued by Calvin, and then to illuminate the central concerns of his theology.

Partee is eager to praise Calvin as a systematic and comprehensive thinker, in fact the ‘greatest systematic thinker’ among the Reformed theologians of his day. ‘Calvin is a systematic thinker in striving for producing an orderly theological interpretation’ (p. 29) of the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ (p. 26). This description echoes Calvin's concern in the Institutes to follow the order of right teaching. However, when it comes to setting forth the order that Calvin actually follows in the Institutes, Partee gives up in frustration, comparing the task to the philosophical problem of the One and the many. The reason for this frustration may have to do with Partee's nervousness with any ‘system’ of theology. Time and again he reminds the reader that Calvin did not produce a system, even though he praises Calvin for being the most systematic theologian of his generation. Partee is convinced that any ‘system’ is going to be governed by reason, logic and coherence, not by faith and scripture. Over against this interpretation of Calvin's theology, Partee insists, ‘Calvin produced not a rational system of belief but a Christian confession of faith’ (p. 297).

If reason lies at the centre of any ‘system’, then ‘mystery’ lies at the heart of Calvin's confessional theology, in recognition of ‘Calvin's commitment to mysteries beyond the reach of reason’ (p. 26). According to Partee, Calvin's theology is best understood as ‘confession in defense of the mystery of God's revelation’ (p. xiv). Calvin is alleged to assess the adequacy of theological concepts not by their logical coherence but by their ‘adequacy in protecting confessional mysteries’ (p. 157). According to this view, theology protects the Christian confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, even as the Christian confession protects the mystery of God's revelation in Christ (p. 153). The reader soon becomes aware, however, that this understanding of theology, confession and mystery is not Calvin's, but Partee's. Partee makes several historical observations on the nature and purpose of trinitarian and christological dogmas that set forth this view. The doctrines of Nicea/Constantinople and Chalcedon do not explain, but rather protect, the mystery of the biblical revelation of God, for the Christian conviction that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself led to the development of these protective doctrines (p. 158). Partee never tells the reader from what these confessions and doctrines protect the mystery. However, he is quite clear how he thinks theology and confession protect the mystery of God's gracious revelation in Christ, and that is by eschewing any appeal to rationality, logic or coherence. This approach is then continually read back into Calvin's theology itself. We are told that Calvin wrote for the faithful, not the logical (p. 27), for ‘Calvin's purpose is more confessional than logical’ (p. 329). Calvin is more interested in fidelity than coherence (p. 206), and in confessing the faith more than producing arguments to support it. Indeed, when Calvin does attempt to explain the mystery of our communion with the flesh of Christ, Partee finds this explanation ‘useless’, whereas as a confession of our union with Christ it is ‘helpful’ (p. 272). The rejection of all rational, explanatory, argumentative, logical and philosophical categories is the sine qua non for the right interpretation of Calvin. ‘Proper interpretation begins with the recognition that Calvin believes and thinks more in biblical/personal than philosophical/abstract categories’ (p. 247). Calvin follows the logic of the heart, not of the head (p. 239), and thinks in a practical and experiential way, not in a speculative or logical way (p. 233). Only in this way can the mystery of God in Christ be protected from being transformed into a rational system of philosophical theology (p. 211). The problem is that all of these claims about the nature and purpose of Calvin's theology are made without ever referring to what Calvin himself says his purpose was as a teacher.

The central mystery, according to Partee, is ‘union with Christ’ based on the central confession that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (p. 247). ‘This union with Christ who is one with God is the central and irreducible mystery of Christian faith and life’ (p. 41). The conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord leads to the confession that the elect are united to Christ (p. 116) and election then leads to the particular providence of God, as providence is a function of predestination (p. 246). The collapse of providence into predestination, and the focus on union with Christ, means that Partee cannot account for Calvin's discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator, other than to say that it is part of the Christian confession of faith (p. 79). Since union with God in Christ is the central mystery, Partee claims that the foundation of certainty for Calvin is not scripture or theological principles, but the person of Jesus Christ and union with him (p. 206). Indeed, Partee finds Calvin to be the most useful at precisely this point, for his confession of union with God in Christ ‘denies’ and ‘refutes’ the subject/object dichotomy introduced into Western thought by Descartes and Kant, though the reader is not told how this is done. Union with Christ also means that Calvin only does theology and not anthropology (p. 81). More surprisingly, Calvin is said to have no doctrine of sin (p. 81) and his discussion of sin is said to lie outside both the knowledge of God the Creator and Redeemer (p. 130). Nor does Calvin use the fall to make sense out of redemption. Even a cursory reading of Institutes II. i–v refutes every one of these claims, and this reader is puzzled why anyone would make these assertions.

In spite of Partee's claim that Calvin treats sin existentially and not ontologically (p. 122), he makes the startling claim that, unlike the Catholics who think that sin only damaged nature, ‘Protestants insist that originally created nature is destroyed by sin’ (p. 91) – a claim that Calvin would never make. Hence, according to Partee, Protestants claim that grace does not restore human nature, but rather ‘replaces nature’ (p. 104). The consequence of this ‘Protestant’ position is the categorical rejection of the position of Thomas Aquinas regarding the operative and cooperative grace of God. This is quite surprising, since Partee insists that the grace of God is ‘irresistible’ according to Calvin, which is precisely what Thomas meant by ‘operative grace’.

In sum, Partee offers a very provocative interpretation of the nature and purpose of Calvin's theology, especially as found in the Institutes, but it often seems as though Calvin is being used to advance Partee's own systematic claims, and is not being interpreted in his own right. I would therefore not recommend this book as a survey of the full sweep of Calvin's theology.