|
Did Calvin’s
Successors Distort His Doctrine of Predestination?
Joel E. Kim, M.Div.
First published in Modern Reformation,
November/December 1998
The division of history into various
periods serves as a helpful pedagogical tool. I walked out of my
courses in ancient, medieval, Reformation, and modern history
with a sense of accomplishment in having somewhat mastered
important events, individuals, and trends of thought that make
each period distinct from one another. Such divisions offer
convenient and accessible methods of studying history. At the
same time, these divisions come with serious side-effects. They
lead to an oversimplification of history by dealing with
highlights that fail to portray the diversity and complexities
of each period. More importantly, such divisions overlook the
necessity of identifying the continuities and discontinuities of
each period with the period that precedes and succeeds it. Such
oversight often results in oversimplification and erroneous
historical conclusions.
The study of the Reformation has not been immune from such
isolation and over-simplification. Recent studies into the
medieval background of the Reformation have challenged the once
popularly accepted belief in the complete discontinuity of the
Reformation from its medieval predecessors. Moreover, the
apparent continuities have shown the complexities and
diversities found in both the medieval scholasticism and the
Reformation.1 However, such advances have not significantly
affected the study of the relationship between the Reformation
and the Protestant theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, or, specifically, Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy.
The notion of a strict separation between the Reformation and
its Protestant successors remains popular. At the center of
this discussion are the doctrines of the decree and
predestination. Simply stated, the degree is God’s eternal
ordering of all things according to his pleasure, while
predestination is the eternal decree of God that deals
specifically with what God willed for each person. The issue is
not whether Calvin or his successors taught and valued the
doctrine of predestination; rather, the question surrounds the
function and the nature of predestination in theological
systems.
According to one school of thought, Calvin’s understanding of
predestination is foremost biblical and historical.2 This
concrete formulation of predestination produced a doctrine that
is soteriological (salvational) in its usage and Christocentric
in its focus. But, these scholars continue, Calvin’s “balanced”
approach was abandoned by his successors, who removed the
doctrine from its soteriological location and placed it in the
doctrine of God and the decree.3 As a result of this relocation,
the doctrine of predestination became “speculative.” No longer a soteriological doctrine, predestination is discussed primarily
within the eternal decree of God in himself rather than in its
execution in history. Furthermore, the advocates of this
“decretal theology” abandoned the Christocentric focus of
Calvin’s formulation and made predestination the central
principle from which all other doctrines were derived. Thus,
some complain, Calvin’s theological successors coiled back to a
“speculative determinism which Calvin had attempted to close.”4
This line of argument is commonly referred to as the “Calvin
against the Calvinists” position.
But is this assessment of Calvin and his successors—and the
relationship between them—accurate?5
Soteriological Understanding of Predestination
In Christ and the Decree, Calvin Seminary professor Richard
A. Muller examines the merit of “the Calvin against the
Calvinists” position by analyzing the formulations of various
writers from the Reformation and the Reformed orthodoxy. In his
judgment, a significant continuity exists between the
theologians of the two periods. His investigation begins with
Calvin for whom the decree of predestination and Christology are
intimately related. On the one hand, the sinfulness of man and
the resulting separation from God is resolved in the work of
salvation by Christ, the mediator. Redemption accomplished by
Christ and applied through calling, justification, and
sanctification is historical and temporal in its execution.
Salvation, then, is a historical act accomplished in Christ. At
the same time, Scripture equally confirms that the author of
this salvation is God. The human predicament could not be
overcome without God decreeing salvation in eternity. From this
perspective, salvation is an eternal act accomplished by God.
These seemingly opposite conclusions are reconciled in Christ.
Since Christ is both human and divine, salvation is actualized
in Christ and by Christ. In other words, Christ as the mediator
reconciles man to God by the execution of salvation in history,
and Christ as God decreed the very salvation that he himself
reveals and accomplishes in history.
A result of interrelating predestination and soteriology
(i.e., the doctrine of salvation) is locating the cause of
salvation in the grace of God which is consistent with the
Reformed emphasis of the sovereignty of God even in salvation.
Moreover, the relationship of predestination and soteriology
makes the discussion of the eternal decree possible. Professor
Muller states,
Indeed, the concept of predestination or of divine decrees
can only be properly understood as it is seen to represent one
aspect, the causal aspect, of an eternal solution to the
temporal predicament: it is the vertical line of the saving will
that intersects, at a particular temporal moment, the history of
salvation and the life of the individual in that history.6 No
longer is the decree a speculation into the mind of God since
the decree must be examined to establish the causal aspect of
salvation. Thus, the order of salvation in Christ provides a
glimpse into the mind of God in the history of salvation. One
conclusion from this examination of the decree is Calvin’s
doctrine of reprobation.
We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he
compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For
all are not created in equal condition, rather, eternal life is
foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore,
as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends,
we speak of him as predestined to life or death.7 Since Calvin
formulated such an explicit statement on reprobation, the
conclusion (of the Calvin versus the Calvinists advocates) that
God’s decree of reprobation is a later deduction from a
predestinarian theology seems unfounded.8 A fuller picture of
salvation is possible by relating the decree of predestination
with soteriology.
As the sixteenth century neared its end, the Reformed concern
for the sovereignty of God, especially in the work of salvation,
continued. The causal priorities established by the earlier
reformers became more defined and the ordo salutis (the temporal
order of causes and effects through which the salvation of the
sinner is accomplished) was examined in the ordo rerum
decretarum, a statement of the logical priorities within the
eternal purpose of God.9 While this investigation into the order
of the decree is a movement beyond Calvin’s teaching, Professor
Muller’s contention is that this theological step is an attempt
to affirm once again the place of divine grace in salvation
while remaining firmly rooted in the temporal ordo salutis for
its formulation. Amandus Planus von Polansdorf (1561-1610), an
early orthodox theologian who contributed to the establishment
of Reformed orthodoxy in Basel, falls within this trajectory of
thought. In his much-developed discussion of the mediatorial
role of the God-man, the two natures in Christ appear not merely
as a doctrinal formulation of the Christ in his essence, but as
an explanation for the two states of Christ in his work of
salvation: humiliation and exaltation. Within this elaboration
of Christology, the essential divinity of the Son and the
relationship of the Trinity becomes even more explicit. Since
the work of salvation in Christ is essentially a divine act that
is not possible apart from the unity of the persons in the
Godhead, the decree of predestination must belong to the divine
essence.
To place predestination under the topic of God and providence
is not to render it abstract or speculative, but to make
explicit what is implied in soteriology; the ultimate cause of
salvation accomplished in history is a direct result of the
decree of God in eternity. This is far from an attempt to build
a system based upon the decree of predestination. Instead, it
was an effort by Reformed orthodox scholars to produce more
precise statements on the relationship between God and his
temporal work of salvation, between God’s essence and his saving
action. Professor Muller concludes, Thus, in Polanus’ Syntagma,
and even in a high orthodox system like Turretin’s Institutio
theologicae elencticae, where a fully developed doctrine of God
and his attributes with all the scholastic and philosophical
language of essence and being appears prior to treatment of
predestination, the determining factor in the system is not a
speculative interest in the metaphysics of causal determinism
but a soteriological interest in the manner in which God relates
to his world in Christ.10 Calvin’s discussion of the decree
establishes the basic foundation upon which his successors
built. Noting that the Reformed orthodox theologians worked
within the basic boundaries established by Calvin, Muller
comments, “What is more, the development of the doctrine of
predestination in the era of Reformed orthodoxy, despite the
increased recourse to scholastic argumentation and the
relatively greater interest in Aristotelian discussion of
causality, did not yield definitions that were more strict than
Calvin’s own…”.11 The doctrine of predestination thus serves to undergird the argument for continuity rather than discontinuity
between the reformers and their followers.
Central Dogma
One of the underlying problems of those who posit a separation
between Calvin and his successors is the impulse to make
historical judgments based upon an oversimplification of the
various theological systems. To simply designate Calvin as
“Christocentric” and his successors as “predestinarian” does not
do justice to the multi-faceted nature of their doctrinal
systems. While “soteriological emphasis” and “Christological
motif” is clear in Calvin’s writings, these particular doctrinal
points did not become the starting point for deducing other
doctrinal formulations. This is not to deny the usefulness of
the term “Christocentrism.” The term is helpful inasmuch as the
reformers “consistently place Christ at the historical and at
the soteriological center of the work of redemption.”12 However,
the Christocentrism of Calvin remains an aspect of his system,
not the central principle.
In the same way, no determinism or “central principle” of
predestination or the decree dominates the writings of Reformed
orthodox theologians. The systems of the Reformed orthodox
invariably look to Scripture for their doctrinal formulation and
view God as the essential foundation of their endeavors. A
statement by Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a Reformed orthodox
theologian, is typical: “That God is the object of theology is
evident both from the very name, and from Scripture which
recognizes no other principal object.”13 In fact, the very
theological system they used dictates against viewing any
doctrine as central. The theologians of the sixteenth and
seventeenth century fully embraced the locus method in which
topics of theological discussions were drawn from their
exegetical endeavors. These texts were arranged according to
their theological topic and published as a system of theology.
Doctrines, then, are derived from Scripture, not from a central
doctrine. In fact, the thought of a “central principle” is a
modern theological innovation that was unknown to the
theologians of the Reformation and the Reformed orthodoxy.14
The Diversity of Formulation
To conclude that the Reformed orthodox theologians abandoned the
Reformation by examining their relationship to Calvin is built
upon another false assumption; namely, that a period can be
represented by a particular figure or writing.15 Calvin is not
the only theologian of the Reformation. Therefore, it is wrong
to identify the Reformed theologians of the succeeding
generations simply as “Calvinists.” While Calvin’s influence is
substantial and cannot be minimized, the significant influence
of Calvin’s contemporaries should not be overlooked.
In the discussion of the decree, an analysis of his
contemporaries underscores the continuity of the Reformation and
the Reformed orthodox period. At the same time, the variations
found in the writings of the Reformed orthodox are not
necessarily deviations from Calvin; often, they show the
acceptance of alternate Reformation formulations. Professor
Muller examines the writings of Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang
Musculus, and Peter Martyr Vermigli, Calvin’s contemporaries, to
provide a broader picture of the Reformation scene. Along with
Calvin, each scholar exhibits an “overarching concern to
delineate the pattern of divine working in the economy of
salvation.”16 Yet, their differences are just as significant for
the development of doctrine. Calvin dislikes the use of the
permissive decree, for example, but Vermigli uses this doctrine
to explain the Fall.17 So, while Calvin’s formulation of
Christology and the double decree of election and reprobation
had a tremendous influence in the Reformed orthodox theologies, Vermigli’s infralapsarian conception of the election and his use
of the permissive decree also received wide acceptance by the
Reformed orthodox. Thus, by moving beyond Calvin as the only
representative figure in the Reformation, the perceived
differences between the Reformation and the Reformed orthodoxy
may need other explanations than theological innovation.
Scholastic Method
Advocating a general continuity in doctrinal formulation does
not mean that Reformed orthodox theologians merely duplicated
the previous generations of scholars. One significant change is
the method of theological discussion. It does not take long to
notice that Francis Turretin’s Institutes is considerably
different in style from Calvin’s Institutes. The scholastic
method that Turretin employed “elaborates, distinguishes,
clarifies and finds technical formulae” for a particular topic
in question.18 Usually the word “scholasticism” has a pejorative
connotation because of its association with various medieval
theologians. But the scholastic method itself does not imply
certain conclusions. Instead, the method provides a tool for an
“academic argument … leading to the resolution of objections,
the identification and use of distinctions, and the
establishment of right conclusions.”19 In fact, the drastic
theological differences seen in the so-called “scholastic”
theologians, such as Duns Scotus, Gabriel Biel, Jacob Arminius,
and others, proves that the method itself does not determine set
conclusions.
The assumption that the use of the scholastic method by the
Reformed orthodox theologians made predestination determinative
and central stems from a faulty conception of scholasticism.20
Whether for polemical or pedagogical reasons, the Reformation’s
successors developed clearer definitions by implementing the
scholastic method. Francis Turretin’s statement sums up the
opinion of the Reformed orthodox: “Theology rules over
philosophy, and this latter acts as a handmaid to and subserves
the former.”21
This historical debate over the decree and predestination
presents us with two challenges. First, it urges us to examine
anew the doctrine of predestination to gain greater clarity
about this profound yet enriching doctrine. Second, the debate
leads us to readdress the history of the Reformed tradition with
which many of us identify. Even this particular debate over
predestination and the decree challenges us to see beyond our
narrow understanding of the Reformation and to fully embrace the
rich heritage of our faith.
Footnotes1 Heiko A. Oberman,
Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
WInston, 1966); idem, The Harvest of Medieval Theology:
Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids;
Eerdmans, 1967). 2 Basil Hall, "Calvin Against
the Calvinists," in John Calvin, ed. Gervase Duffield (Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1966); cf. Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and
the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in
Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1969); R.T. Kendall, "The Puritan Modification of
Calvin's Theology," in John Calvin: His Influence in the
Western World, ed. W. Stanford Reid (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982); Philip C. Holtrop, "Decree(s) of God," s.v. in
Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, ed. Donald K. McKim
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 97-99.
3 Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy,
42. 4 Hall, "Calvin Against the Calvinists,"
27. 5 For a specific discussion of the
decrees, see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree:
Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin
to Perkins (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1988). For a broader continuity/discontinuity of the
Reformation and Protestant Orthodox, Richard A. Muller, "Calvin
and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities
Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part I," in Calvin
Theological Journal, 30, no. 2 (November 1995), 345-375;
idem, "Calvin and the Calvinists: Assessing Continuities and
Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part II,"
in Calvin Theological Journal, 31, no. 1 (April 1996),
125-160. 6 Muller, Christ and the Decree,
19. 7 Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.5.
8 Holtrop, "Decrees," 98. 9
Muller, Christ and the Decree, 129. 10
Ibid., 180. 11 Muller, "Calvin and the
Calvinists, Part II," 155. 12 Ibid., 151-57.
13 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Eclentic
Theology, vol. I, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T.
Dennison (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), I:v:3.
14 Muller, "Calvin and the Calvinists, Part I," 345-359.
15 Muller, "Calvin and the Calvinists, Part
II," 134-137. 16 Muller, Christ and the
Decree, 68. 17 Ibid., 39-75.
18 Ibid., 138. 19 Muller,
"Calvin and the Calvinists, Part I," 367. 20
Muller, "Calvin and the Calvinists, Part II," 126, 129.
21 Turretin, Institutes, I:xiii:2. Ó2006
Westminster Seminary California All rights reserved
|
|
S. M. Baugh
R. Scott Clark
Iain M. Duguid
Bryan D. Estelle
W. Robert Godfrey
Michael S. Horton
Dennis E. Johnson
Hywel R. Jones
Peter R. Jones
Joel E. Kim
Julius J. Kim
George C. Scipione
Robert B. Strimple
David M. VanDrunen
|
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
PRINT
SHARE
