Only gradually did John Calvin become the dominant figure in the Christian tradition which is often named after him. The expression “Calvinist,” in fact, was coined by the Lutheran opposition during the 16th century, while the church groups which accepted a Calvinist confession usually called themselves “Reformed.” Many other theologians in addition to Calvin influenced the development of these Reformed bodies. Unlike the Lutherans, they lacked a common confession. Instead, a number of different confessions were prepared, which were limited to individual countries or areas, as for example the Gallican Confession, the Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession (accepted in Scotland), and the Heidelberg Catechism (accepted in the Palatinate). Many of the Reformed theologians were relatively independent of Calvin. Heinrich Bullinger, for example, Zwingli’s successor in Zurich, was influenced in particular by Zwingli and by the Wittenberg theologians, and he combined elements from both sources. Furthermore it must be remembered that Melanchthon exerted a profound influence also on the Reformed tradition. A number of his close disciples later on joined Reformed churches. This was the case with Victorinus Strigel, whose name is associated with the synergistic controversy (see below), and Christoph Pezel, who published the writings of Melanchthon and Strigel.
Another theologian who stood very close to Lutheranism was Ursinus, chief among those responsible for the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the confessional document of the church in the Palatinate.Thereby he represented a mediating position between Luther and Calvin, the position which characterized the church in the Palatinate. The Heidelberg Catechism propounds the Calvinist concept of the Lord’s Supper, but it does not have much to say about the strict teaching of predestination.
Bartholomäus Keckermann, active at the beginning of the 17th century, was also rather independent of Calvin. Most of his contributions were of a philosophical nature. In the field of theology he attempted to apply the so-called analytical method (to start with the goal and then to determine the means of reaching it), which was later adopted by Lutheran orthodoxy. Keckermann was also the first to use the concept “systematic” as the designation for a general description of a scientific discipline.
It was Theodore Beza who perpetuated the pure Calvinist tradition. Beza developed the doctrine of predestination even more stringently than Calvin himself and gave it a more central place in his world view.
But Calvinist orthodoxy is to be found in its strictest form in Franciscus Gomarus. He, like Beza, represented the so-called supralapsarian position, which says that predestination was decided upon without taking the fall of man into consideration. This implies that not only eternal damnation but also the fall into sin was foreordained in God’s decree. The infralapsarian position implies that predestination to damnation was decided upon in anticipation of man’s fall into sin.
At the Synod of Dort (1618–19), whose decisions became normative for a large part of the Reformed Church, the strict Calvinist point of view was victorious. It was asserted there that a certain number of men have been chosen to salvation in Christ, solely on the basis of God’s pleasure. Those included in this number can be sure of their election, for such signs as faith in Christ, a childlike love of God, sorrow for sin, and longing for righteousness are infallible. Of the rejected it was said only that they were passed by when the elect were chosen, and given over to the misery which they brought upon themselves by their own guilt (the infralapsarian position).
The Synod of Dort was assembled to deal with the growing opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, which was led by Jacobus Arminius. The Arminian opposition was indeed rejected at Dort, but it nevertheless came to be of great significance. This was true because it absorbed the Socinian movement (of which more will be said later) and also because it anticipated the thought patterns of the age of Enlightenment in many respects. Besides its rejection of the orthodox doctrine of predestination, Arminianism was characterized by a moralistic strain (faith was looked upon as a human achievement) and in later years by its marked rationalizing of theology. The well-known jurist Hugo Grotius developed a similar point of view in his theological writings.
Another theologian who stood very close to Lutheranism was Ursinus, chief among those responsible for the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the confessional document of the church in the Palatinate.Thereby he represented a mediating position between Luther and Calvin, the position which characterized the church in the Palatinate. The Heidelberg Catechism propounds the Calvinist concept of the Lord’s Supper, but it does not have much to say about the strict teaching of predestination.
Bartholomäus Keckermann, active at the beginning of the 17th century, was also rather independent of Calvin. Most of his contributions were of a philosophical nature. In the field of theology he attempted to apply the so-called analytical method (to start with the goal and then to determine the means of reaching it), which was later adopted by Lutheran orthodoxy. Keckermann was also the first to use the concept “systematic” as the designation for a general description of a scientific discipline.
It was Theodore Beza who perpetuated the pure Calvinist tradition. Beza developed the doctrine of predestination even more stringently than Calvin himself and gave it a more central place in his world view.
But Calvinist orthodoxy is to be found in its strictest form in Franciscus Gomarus. He, like Beza, represented the so-called supralapsarian position, which says that predestination was decided upon without taking the fall of man into consideration. This implies that not only eternal damnation but also the fall into sin was foreordained in God’s decree. The infralapsarian position implies that predestination to damnation was decided upon in anticipation of man’s fall into sin.
At the Synod of Dort (1618–19), whose decisions became normative for a large part of the Reformed Church, the strict Calvinist point of view was victorious. It was asserted there that a certain number of men have been chosen to salvation in Christ, solely on the basis of God’s pleasure. Those included in this number can be sure of their election, for such signs as faith in Christ, a childlike love of God, sorrow for sin, and longing for righteousness are infallible. Of the rejected it was said only that they were passed by when the elect were chosen, and given over to the misery which they brought upon themselves by their own guilt (the infralapsarian position).
The Synod of Dort was assembled to deal with the growing opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, which was led by Jacobus Arminius. The Arminian opposition was indeed rejected at Dort, but it nevertheless came to be of great significance. This was true because it absorbed the Socinian movement (of which more will be said later) and also because it anticipated the thought patterns of the age of Enlightenment in many respects. Besides its rejection of the orthodox doctrine of predestination, Arminianism was characterized by a moralistic strain (faith was looked upon as a human achievement) and in later years by its marked rationalizing of theology. The well-known jurist Hugo Grotius developed a similar point of view in his theological writings.
No comments:
Post a Comment