Did Polish “Calvinists” Believe In Predestination?

By Dariusz M. Bryc´ko [1]

The seventeenth-century Polish Reformed pastor and theologian Daniel Kałaj refers to John Calvin affectionately in his discussion on the doctrine of justification. [2] This brief remark might come as a surprise to those familiar with Polish historiography of the early modern period and the terrible reputation the Genevan Reformer received, mostly due to his belief in predestination. Therefore, in this article I would like to take a closer look at how Polish historiography deals with the doctrine of predestination among the Polish Reformed theologians and how certain perspectives could be problematic, especially when one considers some primary texts of the Polish Reformed. It is not my goal to provide here a comprehensive or final view, but simply to initiate discussion on this important issue.

Reading Polish secondary sources of the Reformation, one might come to the rather shocking conclusion that the Polish Reformed actually rejected one of the important doctrines of the Protestant Reformation—that is, the teaching of justification by faith alone—and instead proposed something else (however, it is not really clear what that might have been). This situation is illustrated in the available analysis of the theological writings of the early Polish humanist and theologian, Mikołaj Rej (1505-1569). This celebrated author is commonly known as the father of the Polish language; he and Jan Kochanowski (1530-1584) were considered the most prolific writers of the Polish Renaissance. Although the opinions of scholars are divided over Rej, most seem to agree that Rej rejected “Calvin’s doctrine of predestination.” This characterization suggests not only that Calvin was the one who invented the dogma, but also that Rej softened and altered Calvin’s cruel notion that God elected some to salvation and reprobated some to condemnation. For example, Jerzy Kloczowski, in his book A History of Polish Christianity, wrote:

For Mikołaj Rej—who was thoroughly Polish and was called by Zofia Szmidt ‘an Erasmian of the first order’—Christ was the personification of love, kindness, and gentleness, just as he was for Erasmus, and not a strict judge or ruler arousing fear. In the eyes of Erasmus and Rej, a man was not an individual thoroughly degraded by original sin, as was assumed by Calvin and Luther: on the contrary, as a God-created being, he could legitimately trust his own mind, heart, and conscience. Despite the fact that Rej formerly belonged to the Calvinist Church, at the end of his life, it seems that his understanding of Christ and man was much closer to the Franciscan than to the Calvinist. [3]

Kloczowski questions here also Rej’s belief in original sin and in general downplays his association with Protestants. Kloczowski also gives the impression that, in a sense, he wants to save Rej’s reputation and distance him not only from Calvin but even Luther. Unfortunately, Kloczowski does not substantiate his findings or provide convincing grounds for the argument about Rej’s affinity to Franciscanism.

Lucas Henry is another scholar who shares Kloczowski’s opinion on the Erasmian character of Rej’s work. However, he recognizes other possible intellectual influences that impacted Rej, and writes, “In his religious conception he [Rej] was eclectic, for while influenced by Luther in matters of dogma, he was Zwinglian in ritual and Calvinist in church government but his conceptions, which were essentially Erasmian, colored all his acts.” [4] Furthermore, there is the opinion of Aleksander Brückner, a well-known Polish literary figure and author of numerous works on Rej. Brückner, who concurs with the opinion that Rej rejected Calvin’s teaching on predestination, but proposes an alternative source for Rej’s inspiration. He argues that Rej confessed the Lutheran doctrine of predestination but adopted only some Calvinist terminology. Most of all, he admires Rej for his eclectic approach and that he was able to retain his “inborn sense of justice.” He writes:

[Rej] never became a Calvinist; he did not accept predestination…. Rej remained holding to the Lutheran view for the rest of his life even though he accepted Calvinist terminology. He preached about predestination; however, he understood it differently. Predestination for him was when a man, being born under whatever planet or destiny, was still given a mind and God’s commandments to go about changing his bad fate—Calvin would be either outraged or amused by such a definition of predestination. Therefore, Rej divorced Calvin in this basic assumption (there were others who left Calvin for the same reason, for example, Remonstrants in Holland). So the only honorable thing [we can ascribe to Rej] was that in the name of [a] sect he did not get rid of his inborn sense of justice and thus was not completely consumed either by Lutheranism or Calvinism. [5]

Once again, we face the challenge of having no evidence for such an interpretation of Rej’s supposedly unorthodox theological convictions, or even an explanation of what Rej retained from Luther or rejected from Calvin’s view of predestination.

Additionally, Janusz Maciuszko, in his more recent and quite comprehensive volume, Mikołaj Rej: Forgotten Evangelical Theologian of the Sixteenth Century, notes that Rej’s exegesis of “The Parable of the Wedding Banquet” was written in reaction to Calvin’s interpretation of the passage. [6] Maciuszko asserts that Rej’s sermon was written to correct Calvin’s false interpretation and could not have been properly understood without prior knowledge of Calvin’s text. [7] He also proposes that Rej’s understanding of predestination was eclectic and came from Luther, Melanchthon, and Erasmus. [8] He summarizes his inquiry in the following passage:

Rej did not understand, nor wanted to understand, the doctrine of predestination. This theological doctrine was much too complicated and refined for him. For Rej, it was sufficient to trust in the Lord Jesus, going through life with God and a sense of virtue, hoping that goodwill would be rewarded and evil would be punished. This was his sense of justice and this is what he taught. [9]

Maciuszko, like the previous authors, fails to identify the Erasmian and Lutheran elements, stresses Rej’s inborn sense of justice, and adds the so-called “simple trust,” indirectly contrasting it with the confusing and unjust faith of Calvin and the Reformed.

Tadeusz Grabowski offers an alternative interpretation of Rej’s work in his book titled From the History of Polish Calvinist Literature (1550-1650). [10] Grabowski claims that Rej’s view of predestination was generally in agreement with the Protestant doctrine taught by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. He notes that Rej did not spend much time arguing for the doctrine, and he recognizes some differences with Calvin’s position. For example, he points out that Rej uses New Testament quotes with greater frequency than Calvin and detects some stylistic similarities in Rej’s writings to those of Luther and Bullinger. Unfortunately, he does not provide in-depth comparisons between Rej’s and Calvin’s theology, and he betrays an anti-Calvinist bias when he laments that Rej was so influenced by the Helvetic thinker. Grabowski argues that Rej’s massive collection of sermons, titled Postylla, lost some of its artistic value due to its strong Reformed character, and he argues that if Rej had not adopted so much from the Swiss, his work would be considered a masterpiece of Polish literature, even before the works of famous Polish Jesuits. [11]

The above examples give a sense of Polish historiography’s anti-Calvinist trajectory of interpreting of Rej. Polish authors appreciate Rej for things like his down-to-earth literary style, sense of justice, and simple trust, while downplaying or critiquing his doctrinal convictions. In doing this, they imply that Rej’s Reformed identity was in tension with his actual theological views, or that his Calvinism devalued his work.

Further, Kazimierz Kolbuszewski, in his Polish Postylo­graphy of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century, [12] seems to agree with Grabowski, but he lends nuances to his view. He notices numerous differences between Rej and Calvin. Kolbuszewski stresses the fact that Rej could have been afraid that the preaching of predestination was misunderstood to portray God as vicious and merciless. He also points out that Rej might have been following Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) [13] and the famous Polish Reformer Jan Łaski (1499-1560), who offered toned-down expressions of the predestination doctrine. He writes, “Łaski tries to soften Calvin’s severe tone…. Rej comes closer to the teachings of Łaski; he does not, however, argue against the enslaving nature of God’s Word which is the expression of God’s will to which we need to submit in our life.” [14] Unfortunately, Kolbuszewski does not precisely define Łaski’s doctrine and we continue to find the secondary literature on Łaski problematic as well. Jerzy Lehmann suggests that Łaski did not agree with Calvin, [15] while the critical biographies of Jan Łaski, by Oskar Bartel and Halina Kowalska (available in Polish), do not deal with the topic in detail. [16]

We do not have space in this essay to explore all the materials dealing with Łaski’s view of predestination, and thus simply note that further research (especially in Polish and English) is needed in this area. [17] Also, we would like to point out here that Bullinger’s connection with the Polish Protestants has not been questioned by Polish historiography to the extent to which Calvin’s connection has been. Additionally, the doctrinal similarities identified between Rej, Łaski, and Bullinger do not necessarily mean that the Polish Reformers did not believe in predestination or that they abhorred Calvin in the way Polish historiography describes. [18]

In 1564, Rej translated Bullinger’s Hvndred Sermons vpon the Apocalips of Jesu Christe. [19] And six years later, Polish and Prussian Protestants at the Synod of Sandomierz (1570) adopted Bullinger’s personal confession of faith, known as The Second Helvetic Confession. This confession contains a chapter titled “Predestination of God and the Election of the Saints,” in which the Bullingerian view of predestination is expressed. [20]

If, then, we assume that the Polish Reformed believed the Bullingerian formulation of the predestination doctrine, we must deal with the question of whether Calvin and Bullinger agreed on this important theological locus—a question that the vast majority of Polish historiography either ignores or indirectly negates. On the other hand, we find Cornelis Venema convincingly arguing against the idea that Bullinger represented a divergent approach to the doctrine of predestination—some sort of “other Reformed tradition,” [21] or “Calvin against Calvinist.” [22] Venema argues that Calvin and Bullinger differed in the way they explained justification but ultimately agreed on the doctrine itself. [23] Venema writes:

Though there is evidence that Bullinger formulated his doctrine of predestination in a manner that was distinct from that of Calvin and other Reformed theologians of the period, the distinctiveness of his doctrine does not amount to a substantial divergence of theological position. On the main points of the historic Augustinian doctrine of predestination, Bullinger’s doctrine exhibits considerable continuity with the preceding and subsequent tradition of Augustinianism.

In addition to the fact that Calvin and Bullinger agree on predestination, Venema points out that Bullinger never managed to give a coherent definition of his predestination doctrine. Bullinger recognized the importance of grace-oriented Protestant soteriology but was afraid to make logical connections that could have taken them outside of scriptural boundaries. He wrote with a strong pastoral concern, arguing that it was more important to emphasize the comfort found in God, something that also became a dominant theme of the Heidelberg Catechism. He wanted to keep the logical antithesis of election and salvation far from the church’s pulpit. Nevertheless, Bullinger would still affirm the Protestant concept that salvation could be given only by the will of God and could not be earned by any means. [24]

Contrary to the opinions offered in Polish historiography, Polish Reformers did not have to agree with the form and expression of Calvin’s view of predestination to be Reformed and to affirm a general understanding of the Reformed doctrine of salvation.

Further, Rej’s sermon on Matthew 22:1-14, mentioned by Maciuszko, contains no evidence of an Erasmian emphasis on man’s natural goodness (as argued by some Polish interpreters), but rather a Reformed emphasis on man’s disobedience and ungratefulness. In continuity with the doctrine of original sin, shared by Catholics and Protestants with Augustine, Rej argues that all men were born with a sinful nature, and that only by the grace of God could they be enabled to choose salvation and perform good actions for the glory of God. Rej writes, “It is not in the power of anyone to do any good but only evil, following sinful desires and therefore leaving the Lord. You cannot do any good unless God will pull you to Himself.” [25] He also stresses that faith comes from listening, and therefore that one cannot do anything to earn one’s salvation. Additionally, Rej admonishes his readers not to trouble themselves about the possibility of losing their salvation if they have already responded to God’s call. He urges them to live a virtuous life and to not grow in envy over the prosperity of the wicked because God in His providence will watch over His children. [26]

Further, as Richard Muller points out, although Calvin was one of its major early codifiers, the Reformed tradition was equally rooted in many other thinkers, including Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), Bullinger, Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Griolamo Zanchi (1516-1590) and others. [27] Thus Calvin was not the sole father of the Reformed tradition, and a departure from the way he expressed the doctrine did not mean a departure from Reformed orthodoxy altogether. As a side note, Polish Reformers—just like their Western coreligionists—would not have called themselves “Calvinists” or “Bullingerists” even in the second half of the seventeenth century. The previously mentioned minister Daniel Kałaj, for example, takes offense at being called a “Calvinist,” and his reaction echoed that of many of his contemporaries, such as Pierre Du Moulin (1568-1658), Jean Claude (1619-1687), and Pierre Jurieu (1637-1713), who, while not disagreeing with Calvin, found it inappropriate to treat him as some sort of patriarch of Reformed theology. [28] Thus Kałaj’s offense is not on account of any particular disagreement with Calvin’s views; elsewhere, he refers to Calvin affectionately, as we noted at the beginning of this essay. Rather, he disapproves of the nickname—he prefers to be called simply an evangelical, one for whom the gospel (and not Calvin) has the highest authority.

So, if we assume that Rej, Łaski, and other early Polish Reformed in general followed Bullinger, this does not mean that they stepped outside of Reformed orthodoxy but only preferred a milder and more pastoral expression of it, perhaps seeking to avoid supralapsarianism and thus protect their churches from the accusation so commonly made against Protestants of that day—that they made God to be the author of sin. [29] This notion was challenged and rebuffed in the seventeenth century by another Polish theologian, Jan Makowski (or Johannes Maccovius; 1588-1644), rector of the famous Franeker Academy, staunch supralapsarian, and Rembrandt’s brother-in-law. [30] Furthermore, we note that Makowski’s presence at the Frisian Academy had attracted a number of students from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which Polish historiography once again positions in an anti-Calvinist trajectory.

For example, the aforementioned Daniel Kałaj arrived at Franeker shortly after Makowski’s death and missed by a few years the chance to study with this celebrated Polish theologian. Yet Kałaj still was trained very much in the milieu of teachings promoted by Makowski’s students and later by Mikołaj Arnold (1618-1680), a Polish Reformed theologian who also taught at Franeker. Marek Wajsblum, in his extensive article dedicated to history of the Polish Arians, argued that Kałaj departed from the rigid Calvinism of the seventeenth century under the Socinian influence that shaped him before and during his studies in Franeker. Later, the famous Polish historian Janusz Tazbir took up the same argument. In Wajsblum’s view, Kałaj took the teachings of his master, the “liberal” Johannes Cocceius, and expanded them even further, paving the way for German irenicism and the teachings of the Dutch Collegiate. Wajsblum thus summarizes Kałaj’s contribution to seventeenth-century Polish Calvinism:

Kałaj departed far from the Polish Calvinism of the seventeenth century…. We know well who influenced Kałaj. Without a doubt, while still young, he had to have been impacted by the pure atmosphere of the Socinian congregations. While in Franeker the shell of official Calvinist orthodoxy did not prevent Kałaj from being warmed up by the rays of German irenicism and the Dutch religious liberalism of the Collegiants, which were advancing thanks to the lively and future-oriented thought of the professor Cocceius—Kałaj’s own master and guide. [31]

Although no direct reference to the doctrine of justification is being made here, one is left to assume that the Socinian influence might also have extended to Kałaj’s understanding of justification, a doctrine that was highly controversial for the Socinians. As was the case with Rej and Łaski, we do not find any evidence that leads us to consider Kałaj unorthodox (or even to believe Kałaj had a preference for Bullinger over Calvin) on the doctrine of justification. On the contrary, as previously mentioned, Kałaj freely quotes Calvin and never even mentions Bullinger. He discusses the Protestant view of justification in context of the medieval theologians, referring to Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) [32] and Cardinal Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534). [33] It is precisely here that he refers to “our Calvin” [34] and even quotes the Institutes of the Christian Religion. The quote refers to Calvin’s argument concerning our ability to do good works and to be rewarded for them, but not with eternal life. [35]

Conclusion

In answering our initial question of whether Polish “Calvinists” believed in predestination, we first note that Polish Reformers would not choose to call themselves Calvinists but rather simply evangelicals. They understood well that Calvin was not the sole father of their system of belief and that the Reformed tradition had many fathers who, while agreeing, would often express biblical teaching with different emphases and applications. Thus the mere assumption that Rej or Łaski preferred Bullinger over Calvin is not a sufficient basis to question that the Polish Reformed rejected the Reformed teaching of predestination and/or original sin, as there is no evidence that Bullinger rejected Calvin on this important issue. The additional support for our perspective emerges in the Post-Reformation period, for we have an example of a well-known Polish theologian arguing for supralapsarianism. Finally, we observe that Daniel Kałaj freely quoted from Calvin and argued for the continuity of the Reformed doctrine of salvation using Augustine and the Middle Ages. We find no evidence that Polish Reformed Evangelicals would have gone beyond the borders of how the doctrine of predestination was described by Calvin or other Reformed theologians of the Reformed and Post-Reformation periods.

The reasons for the strong anti-Calvinist bias in Polish literature are perplexing, especially when evidence for such interpretation of Polish Reformed tradition is so hard to locate. Perhaps it is rooted in the desire to retain the Polish Reformation and its rich contribution to Polish culture without the perception that it carried with it any unappealing doctrinal baggage. The distinguished Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009), who was selected by the National Endowment for Humanities for the Jefferson Lecture and in 2003 awarded by the Library of Congress the John W. Kluge prize for lifetime achievements in humanities, once compared the psychological effect of Calvinism to the Bolshevik revolution [36] and argued that Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination was an “Augustinian radicalism.” [37] He saw Calvinists, and later Jansenists, as falling into the fatal trap of determinism, calling it a “sad religion” and seeing it “as not tailored to the needs of an ordinary decent Christian” but rather “for people who were able to bear the never-ending suspense of Christianity and uncertainty”; it was a religion for “unhappy people and it was designed to make them more unhappy.” [38] This pejorative and misleading interpretation from such a distinguished, contemporary Polish intellectual calls into question the way that Polish researchers understand and explain predestination. Their inaccurate perceptions present an obstacle to the proper interpretation of Polish Protestantism’s philosophical and theological heritage; and, worse, scholars fail to grasp what Polish Protestants found so attractive and liberating about the notion of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, based on Christ’s merit alone.

Notes

1. This essay was delivered on October 27, 2010, at the University of Warsaw (Warsaw, Poland) during an international academic conference titled “The Reformation Between The East and The West” and organized by the university’s Institute for Interdisciplinary Artes Liberales and the Committee for the Study of Reformation in Central-Eastern Europe.
2. Daniel Kałaj, Rozmowa przyjcielska ministra ewangelickiego z xiedzem katolickim… (Gdan´sk, 1671), 29. For recent treatment of Daniel Kałaj’s life and theology, see my The Irenic Calvinism of Daniel Kałaj (d. 1681): A Study in the History and Theology of the Polish-Lithuanian Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
3. Jerzy Kloczowski, A History of Polish Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 92.
4. Henry S. Lucas, “Leadership of Calvinist Thought in Protestantism,” in The Renaissance of the Reformation (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 613-43.
5. Aleksander Brückner, Mikołaj Rej, człowiek i dzieło (Lwów: H. Altenberg, 1922), 37-38.
6. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1960), 3.28.8.
7. Janusz Maciuszko, Mikołaj Rej zapomniany teolog Ewangelicki (Warszawa: Chrzes´cijan´ska Akademia Teologiczna, 2002), 340.
8. Maciuszko, Mikołaj Rej, 352-55.
9. Maciuszko, Mikołaj Rej, 356.
10. Tadeusz Grabowski, Z dziejów literatury kalwin´skiej w Polsce (1550-1650) (Kraków: Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci, 1906).
11. Grabowski, Z dziejów literatury, 386-87, 388-89.
12. Kazimierz Kolbuszewski, Postyllografja polska XVI i XVII wieku (Kraków: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnos´ci, 1921).
13. One of the scholars who also argues for Bullingerian inspiration of Rej’s work is Michał Janik in Mikołaja Rej z˙ywot i pisma (Kraków: Krakowska Spółka Wydawnicza, 1923). This view is also held by Maciuszko.
14. Kolbuszewski, Postyllografia, 76.
15. Jerzy Lehmann, Konfesja Sandomierska na tle innych konfesji w Polsce XII wieku (Warszawa: Druk B-ci Drapczyn´skich, 1937), 89-91.
16. Oskar Bartel, Jan Łaski, 2nd ed. (Warszawa: Neriton, 1999); Halina Kowalska, Działalnos´c´ reformatorska Jana Łaskiego w Polsce 1556-1560, 2nd ed. (Warszawa: Neriton, 1999). See also: Wojciech Kriegseisen i Piotr Salwa, Jan Łaski: 1499-1560: w pie˛c´setlecie urodzin: materiały konferencji zorganizowanej przez Instytut Historii PAN, (Uniwersytet Warszawski, Konsystorz Kos´cioła Ewangelicko-Reformowanego w RP, Instytut Historii PAN, 2001).
17. For non-Polish literature on Łaski see: Judith Becker, Gemeindeordnung und Kirchenzucht: Johannes a Lascos Kirchenordnung für London (1555) und die reformierte Konfessionsbildung, (Leiden, Brill 2007); Henning Jürgens, Johannes a Lasco: ein Leben in Büchern und Briefen (Wuppertal, Germany: Foedus, 1999); Henning P. Jürgens, Johannes a Lasco in Ostfriesland: Der Eerdegang eines Europischen Reformators (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Christoph Strohm, Johannes a Lasco: Polnischer Baron, Humanist und Europischer Reformator; Beiträge zum Internationalen Symposium vom 14.–17. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); See also: Brückner, Jan Łaski; Hermann Dalton, John a Lasco: His Earlier Life and Labours, trans. Maurice J. Evans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886); Basil Hall, John a Lasco 1499-1560: A Pole in Reformation England (London: Dr. Williams Trust, 1971); Hall, Humanists and Protestants: 1500-1900 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990).
18. Maciuszko, Mikołaj Rej, 340.
19. Mikołaj Rej, Apocalypsis to jest dziwna sprawa (Drukarnia Macieja Wierzbity, 1565); Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons vpon the Apocalips of Jesu Christe (London: Iohn Day, 1561).
20. Krystyna Długosz-Kurczabowa, Konfesja Sandomierska (Warszawa: Semper, 1995); John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 3rd edition (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1982), 131-92.
21. Wayne J. Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980).
22. Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’”: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 345-75.
23. Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “The Other Reformed Tradition”? Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 118.
24. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 59-60.
25. Rej, Postylla, 239.
26. Rej, Postylla, 240.
27. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).
28. Richard A. Muller, “The ‘Calvinists’ Respond to Calvin” (paper presented at the International Congress, Geneva, May 25, 2009).
29. Mikołaj Rej, Postylla, ed. Konrad Górski, 2 vols., Biblioteka Pisarzów Polskich (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich, 1965), 238-39.
30. Johannes Maccovius, Scholastic Discourse. Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, ed. by Willem van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, and Rein Ferwerda (Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatienonderzoek, 2009); Willem van Asselt, “The Theologian’s Tool Kit: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) and the Development of Reformed Theological Distinctions,” Westminster Theological Journal 68, no. 1 (2006): 23-40.
31. Marek Wajsblum, “Ex regestro Arianismi—Szkice z dziejów upadku protestantyzmu w Małopolsce,” Refromacja w Polsce 19-20 (1937-1939): 89-408, 315.
32. Kałaj, Przyjcielska rozmowa ministra…, 29.
33. Kałaj, Przyjcielska rozmowa ministra, 29. For more information on Cajetan see Tommaso de Vio Cajetan, Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, ed. Jared Wicks (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), 224-34. See also Heiko Augustinus Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 245-55.
34. On some continuities between late medieval theology and Calvin on the issue of merit, see McGrath, Iustitia Dei (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 149-50.
35. Calvin, Institues, 3.14.21.
36. Leszek Kołakowski, God Owes Us Nothing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 36.
37. Kołakowski, God Owes Us Nothing, 51.
38. Kołakowski, God Owes Us Nothing, 197.