In addition to Venema’s book the following works of W. Peter Stephens should be consulted. Stephens was previously professor at Aberdeen. He is an expert on Zwingli and in recent years has been increasingly writing on Bullinger.
“Election in Zwingli and Bullinger: A Comparison of Zwingli’s Sermonis de providential dei anamnema (1530) and Bullinger’s Oratio de moderatione servanda in negotio providentiae, praedestinationis, gratiae et liberi arbitrii (1536)”, Reformation and Renaissance Review, vol. 7.1 (2005), pp42-56.
“Predestination or Election in Zwingli and Bullinger” in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life – Thought – Influence (Zurich: TVZ, 2004), pp313-334.
In a letter written to Calvin on 1 December 1551 Bullinger appears to implicitly criticize Calvin:
“Now believe me, many are offended by your statements on predestination in your Institutes, and from that Hieronymous (ie Bolsec) has drawn the same conclusion as he did from Zwingli’s book on providence. In fact, it is my opinion that the apostles touched upon this sublime matter only briefly, and not unless compelled to do so and even in such circumstances, they were cautious that the pious were not thereby offended, but understood God to desire well for all men, and also to offer salvation in Christ, which itself can be received not by one’s own worth but by faith which is truly a gift of God. And indeed the elect are chosen on account of Christ and his grace and not on account of any respect of their own; the reprobate perish truly on account of their own guilt, and not by the malice of God”.
Calvin was neither pleased at the official letter from the ministers at Zurich nor at Bullinger’s personal letter to him. He interpreted them as attacks on his integrity and honour. He wrote to Farel:
“I can hardly express to you, my dear Farel, how much I am annoyed by their rudeness. There is less humanity among us than among wild beasts…. Should you be displeased with the general letter of the men of Zurich, let me tell you, that Bullinger’s private letter to me was not a whit better”.
In January 1552 Calvin wrote to Bullinger stating that he was “grieved beyond measure”. Bullinger replied on 20 February 1552 “Explaining to Calvin that he gave the impression of teaching that God had not only foreseen Adam’s fall but predestinated and activated it so that He is made the author of sin. Such a teaching would only scare people away from listening to the gospel, Bullinger added” (see George M. Ella, Henry Bullinger: Shepherd of the Churches (Durham: Go Publications, 2007), p221).
Showing posts with label Predestination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Predestination. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Bullinger and Predestination II
In 1551 Bolsec appealed Bullinger’s view in the controversy over double predestination. The Senate in Geneva wrote to the ministers of Zurich for clarification. This letter referred to Bolsec’s repudiation of Zwingli (his view as expressed in his Providentia) while, at the same time, appealing to Bullinger's view in support for his position.
The relevant sentence in the letter reads: Huc quoque accessit quod vestram ecclesiam implicabat. Zuinglium enim prae aliis omnibus damnans. Bullingerum eiusdem secum esse sententiae mentiebatur”.
In one of Bullinger’s personal letters to Calvin he emphasized what he had outlined in the Decades: God is a ‘lover of man’ (philanthropos); because of His mercy God “wants all men to be saved” (vult omnes homines salvos facere; justification is purely because of grace and “not on account of works which man has done” (non per opera quae ipse homo facit); those who are damned are not damned as a result of a fatal necessity that proceeds from God’s will but because they willingly reject the grace of God.
Bullinger wrote:
“Therefore, however many men are preserved, they are preserved by the mere grace of God the savior; those who perish do not perish by virtue of being compelled by a fatal necessity, but because they willingly reject the grace of God. Indeed, there is no sin in God; both this and the blame for damnation inheres in us”.
(Quotquot ergo homines servantur mera Dei servatoris gratia servantur: qui pereunt, non fatali necessitate adacti pereunt, sed quod volentes gratiam Dei respuerent. Neque enim peccatum in Deo ullum: in nobis id et culpa damnationis nostrae inhaeret.)
(see Venema, pp58ff)
The relevant sentence in the letter reads: Huc quoque accessit quod vestram ecclesiam implicabat. Zuinglium enim prae aliis omnibus damnans. Bullingerum eiusdem secum esse sententiae mentiebatur”.
In one of Bullinger’s personal letters to Calvin he emphasized what he had outlined in the Decades: God is a ‘lover of man’ (philanthropos); because of His mercy God “wants all men to be saved” (vult omnes homines salvos facere; justification is purely because of grace and “not on account of works which man has done” (non per opera quae ipse homo facit); those who are damned are not damned as a result of a fatal necessity that proceeds from God’s will but because they willingly reject the grace of God.
Bullinger wrote:
“Therefore, however many men are preserved, they are preserved by the mere grace of God the savior; those who perish do not perish by virtue of being compelled by a fatal necessity, but because they willingly reject the grace of God. Indeed, there is no sin in God; both this and the blame for damnation inheres in us”.
(Quotquot ergo homines servantur mera Dei servatoris gratia servantur: qui pereunt, non fatali necessitate adacti pereunt, sed quod volentes gratiam Dei respuerent. Neque enim peccatum in Deo ullum: in nobis id et culpa damnationis nostrae inhaeret.)
(see Venema, pp58ff)
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Bullinger and Predestination I
The work to consult with respect to Bullinger and predestination is Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (2002).
The previous post contained a quotation from Bullinger’s Decades which was cited by the Remonstants at the Synod of Dort. It is a good example of the golden rule of giving proper consideration to the context of the quotation.
This quotation is to be found on page 509 lines 24-33 in Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger Werke – Dritte Abteilung: Theologische Schriften. Band 3: Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimus Christianae religionibus capitibus (1552) (2008).
The quotation occurs in sermon IV.i which is given the title “Of the gospel of the grace of God, who hath given his son unto the world, and in him all things necessary to salvation, that we, believing in him, might obtain eternal life” (De evangelio gratiae dei, qui filium mundo dedit et in hoc verae salutis omnia, ut credentes in ipsum vitam consequamur aeternam).
We note the clear emphasis on grace. Indeed the first section of this sermon prior to the quotation above focuses on grace. Some of the marginal comments are: evangelium annunciate gratiam, gratia dei quid sit, causa gratiae divinae, operatio gratiae divinae, pugna s.Agustini et Pelagii de gratia dei, gratia iustificamur, in Christo suam nobis gratiam deus.
It is evident that Bullinger’s understanding of grace permits no room for any synergism.
The second thing to note from the title of sermon IV.i is the emphasis on believing in Christ. For Bullinger the reprobate are those who choose not to believe in Christ.
The quotation above from IV.i also needs to be read alongside the following quotations from IV.iv (this sermon is about God’s providence and has the sermon title ‘That God is the creator of all things, and governeth all things by his providence: where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination’ (Deum esse creatorem omnium ominiaque sua gubernare providentia, ubi et de bona dei erga nos voluntate ac de praedestinatione disseritur)).
“The predestination of God is the eternal decree (decretum) of God, whereby he has ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them. Whereupon also it is elsewhere called a foreappointment (praefinitio)”.
This is found on page 596, lines 23-25 of Opitz’s critical Latin text of the Decades.
“Praedestinatio autem decretum dei aeternum est, quo destinavit homines vel servare vel perdere certissimo vitae et mortis termino praefixo. Unde et praefinitio alicubi eadem appelatur”.
“Furthermore, God by his eternal and unchangeable counsel has foreappointed who are to be saved, and who are to be condemned. Now the end or the decree of life and death is short and manifest to all the godly. The end of predestination, or foreappointment, is Christ, the Son of God the Father. For God has ordained and decreed to save all, how many soever have communion and fellowship with Christ, his only-begotten Son, and to destroy or condemn all, how many soever have no part in the communion or fellowship of Christ, his only Son”.
This is found on page 597, lines 4-9 of Opitz’s critical Latin text of the Decades.
“Caeterum ab aeterno immutabili consilio praefinivit dues, qui salvari quive damnari debeant. Finis autem sive decretum vitae et mortis breve est et omnibus piis perspicuum. Finis praedestioninis vel praefinitionis Christus est dei patris filius. Decrevit enim deus servare omnes, quotquot communionem habent cum Christo unigenito filio suo, perdere autem omnes, quotquot a Christi filii sui unici communione alieni sunt”.
The previous post contained a quotation from Bullinger’s Decades which was cited by the Remonstants at the Synod of Dort. It is a good example of the golden rule of giving proper consideration to the context of the quotation.
This quotation is to be found on page 509 lines 24-33 in Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger Werke – Dritte Abteilung: Theologische Schriften. Band 3: Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimus Christianae religionibus capitibus (1552) (2008).
The quotation occurs in sermon IV.i which is given the title “Of the gospel of the grace of God, who hath given his son unto the world, and in him all things necessary to salvation, that we, believing in him, might obtain eternal life” (De evangelio gratiae dei, qui filium mundo dedit et in hoc verae salutis omnia, ut credentes in ipsum vitam consequamur aeternam).
We note the clear emphasis on grace. Indeed the first section of this sermon prior to the quotation above focuses on grace. Some of the marginal comments are: evangelium annunciate gratiam, gratia dei quid sit, causa gratiae divinae, operatio gratiae divinae, pugna s.Agustini et Pelagii de gratia dei, gratia iustificamur, in Christo suam nobis gratiam deus.
It is evident that Bullinger’s understanding of grace permits no room for any synergism.
The second thing to note from the title of sermon IV.i is the emphasis on believing in Christ. For Bullinger the reprobate are those who choose not to believe in Christ.
The quotation above from IV.i also needs to be read alongside the following quotations from IV.iv (this sermon is about God’s providence and has the sermon title ‘That God is the creator of all things, and governeth all things by his providence: where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination’ (Deum esse creatorem omnium ominiaque sua gubernare providentia, ubi et de bona dei erga nos voluntate ac de praedestinatione disseritur)).
“The predestination of God is the eternal decree (decretum) of God, whereby he has ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them. Whereupon also it is elsewhere called a foreappointment (praefinitio)”.
This is found on page 596, lines 23-25 of Opitz’s critical Latin text of the Decades.
“Praedestinatio autem decretum dei aeternum est, quo destinavit homines vel servare vel perdere certissimo vitae et mortis termino praefixo. Unde et praefinitio alicubi eadem appelatur”.
“Furthermore, God by his eternal and unchangeable counsel has foreappointed who are to be saved, and who are to be condemned. Now the end or the decree of life and death is short and manifest to all the godly. The end of predestination, or foreappointment, is Christ, the Son of God the Father. For God has ordained and decreed to save all, how many soever have communion and fellowship with Christ, his only-begotten Son, and to destroy or condemn all, how many soever have no part in the communion or fellowship of Christ, his only Son”.
This is found on page 597, lines 4-9 of Opitz’s critical Latin text of the Decades.
“Caeterum ab aeterno immutabili consilio praefinivit dues, qui salvari quive damnari debeant. Finis autem sive decretum vitae et mortis breve est et omnibus piis perspicuum. Finis praedestioninis vel praefinitionis Christus est dei patris filius. Decrevit enim deus servare omnes, quotquot communionem habent cum Christo unigenito filio suo, perdere autem omnes, quotquot a Christi filii sui unici communione alieni sunt”.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Bullinger and The Decades
It is 500 years since Bullinger wrote the Decades in 1549-1551. 1549 was the very year that Calvin and Bullinger hammered out the Consensus Tigurinus.
The Decades comprise fifty sermons in Latin probably originally aimed at equipping the pastors and teachers of Zurich for their ministries. They were translated into German and Dutch and was known as the “Housebook”. Copies of it in Dutch have been found in the East Indies (Indonesia). The Decades played in a important in the early Elizabethan church.
The structure of the Decades can viewed as follows:
1. An introductory section on the Four General Councils of the church and the important creeds and decrees of the church (12 documents). This was Bullinger’s way of underlying the fact that the Reformation church was the true descendent of the true Catholic Church.
2. Soteriology (I.i-IV.ii)
3. God and Creation (IV.iii-x)
4. Church and Sacraments (V.i-x)
Two important books to consult on the Decades are:
Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch (1956)
Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (2004)
At the Synod of Dort, the Remonstrants cited Bullinger out of context, thus giving the false impression that Bullinger differed from Calvin with respect to predestination. The following excerpt from IV.i was one of the passages that the Remonstrants used to support their views:
“And although it may by all this be indifferently well gathered, to whom that salvation belongs, and to whom that grace is rightly preached: yet the matter itself does seem to require in flat words expressly to show, that Christ and the preaching of the gospel belong unto all. For we must not imagine that in heaven there are laid two books, in the one whereof the names of them are written that are to be saved, and so to be saved, as it were of necessity, that, do what they will against the word of Christ, and commit they never so heinous offences, they cannot possibly choose but to be saved; and that in the other are contained the names of those, who do what they can and live never so holily, yet cannot avoid everlasting damnation. Let us rather hold that the holy gospel of Christ does generally preach to the whole world the grace of God, the remission of sins, and life everlasting.”
In subsequent posts I will cite other sections of the Decades to demonstrate the Bullinger’s view on predestination was very similar to that of Calvin’s. Venema has rightly termed Bullinger’s approach that of “homilietical Augustinianism”.
The Decades comprise fifty sermons in Latin probably originally aimed at equipping the pastors and teachers of Zurich for their ministries. They were translated into German and Dutch and was known as the “Housebook”. Copies of it in Dutch have been found in the East Indies (Indonesia). The Decades played in a important in the early Elizabethan church.
The structure of the Decades can viewed as follows:
1. An introductory section on the Four General Councils of the church and the important creeds and decrees of the church (12 documents). This was Bullinger’s way of underlying the fact that the Reformation church was the true descendent of the true Catholic Church.
2. Soteriology (I.i-IV.ii)
3. God and Creation (IV.iii-x)
4. Church and Sacraments (V.i-x)
Two important books to consult on the Decades are:
Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch (1956)
Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (2004)
At the Synod of Dort, the Remonstrants cited Bullinger out of context, thus giving the false impression that Bullinger differed from Calvin with respect to predestination. The following excerpt from IV.i was one of the passages that the Remonstrants used to support their views:
“And although it may by all this be indifferently well gathered, to whom that salvation belongs, and to whom that grace is rightly preached: yet the matter itself does seem to require in flat words expressly to show, that Christ and the preaching of the gospel belong unto all. For we must not imagine that in heaven there are laid two books, in the one whereof the names of them are written that are to be saved, and so to be saved, as it were of necessity, that, do what they will against the word of Christ, and commit they never so heinous offences, they cannot possibly choose but to be saved; and that in the other are contained the names of those, who do what they can and live never so holily, yet cannot avoid everlasting damnation. Let us rather hold that the holy gospel of Christ does generally preach to the whole world the grace of God, the remission of sins, and life everlasting.”
In subsequent posts I will cite other sections of the Decades to demonstrate the Bullinger’s view on predestination was very similar to that of Calvin’s. Venema has rightly termed Bullinger’s approach that of “homilietical Augustinianism”.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Covenant and Predestination in Bullinger
Venema has a thoughtful comment concerning covenant and predestination in the writings of Bullinger:
“It should also be noted that none of these earlier writings does Bullinger systematically develop the connection between the doctrine of the covenant and of predestination. Though the doctrine of the covenant is an organizing feature of his Summa, and though it received substantial elaboration in his De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno of 1534, in the writings we have considered, Bullinger does not explicitly draw any connections between these doctrinal loci. That such a connection exists is apparent, no doubt, from the location of Bullinger’s treatment of predestination in his Decades and Summa. The salvation promised in the covenant of grace could only be realized upon the basis of God’s provision of a Mediator and Savior. From eternity God purposed to provide this Moderator as the Savior of his elect people, those to whom he purposed to grant faith and repentance at the preaching of the gospel. The doctrine of predestination, therefore, constitutes a necessary basis for the realization of God’s saving purposes in history through the administration of the covenant of grace. Consistent with Bullinger’s stress upon God’s use of the means in the realization of his sovereign and gracious purposes, the covenant of grace is instrumental to the provision of salvation for the elect. What the covenant requires or demands, God graciously grants to his elect. Thus, Bullinger’s doctrine of God’s monopleuric and unconditional election correlates with his stress upon the covenantal means of salvation, even though he does not explicitly develop this correlation. The conditions of the covenant are only realized upon the basis of God’s sovereign and gracious purpose of election.”
(Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (2002) pp55,56)
“It should also be noted that none of these earlier writings does Bullinger systematically develop the connection between the doctrine of the covenant and of predestination. Though the doctrine of the covenant is an organizing feature of his Summa, and though it received substantial elaboration in his De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno of 1534, in the writings we have considered, Bullinger does not explicitly draw any connections between these doctrinal loci. That such a connection exists is apparent, no doubt, from the location of Bullinger’s treatment of predestination in his Decades and Summa. The salvation promised in the covenant of grace could only be realized upon the basis of God’s provision of a Mediator and Savior. From eternity God purposed to provide this Moderator as the Savior of his elect people, those to whom he purposed to grant faith and repentance at the preaching of the gospel. The doctrine of predestination, therefore, constitutes a necessary basis for the realization of God’s saving purposes in history through the administration of the covenant of grace. Consistent with Bullinger’s stress upon God’s use of the means in the realization of his sovereign and gracious purposes, the covenant of grace is instrumental to the provision of salvation for the elect. What the covenant requires or demands, God graciously grants to his elect. Thus, Bullinger’s doctrine of God’s monopleuric and unconditional election correlates with his stress upon the covenantal means of salvation, even though he does not explicitly develop this correlation. The conditions of the covenant are only realized upon the basis of God’s sovereign and gracious purpose of election.”
(Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (2002) pp55,56)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination
J. Wayne Baker argued that Bullinger was the pioneer of “the other Reformed Tradition”. Put simply, Baker’s view was that Bullinger (ie Zurich) taught a view of a bilateral covenant in tandem with single predestination whereas Calvin (ie Geneva) taught a monopleuric covenant in tandem with double predestination. The two supposed Reformed traditions represent two approaches to express what Scripture teaches concerning sola gratia and sola fidei.
Baker’s position can be found in: J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (1980); J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 29/2 (1998), pp359-376 and J. Wayne Baker and Charles S. Mc Coy, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (1991).
Inter alia Baker’s understanding of Calvin and the covenant has been challenged by Peter Lillback in The Binding of God (2001).
Baker’s understanding of Bullinger and predestination has been challenged by Cornelis P. Venema in Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (2002). Venema’s book follows on from his article: “Heinrich Bullinger’s Correspondence on Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, 1551-1553”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 17/4 (1986), pp435-450.
Venema’s study will be referred to in subsequent posts. The main focus of Venema’s study is Bullinger’s understanding of predestination in the Oratio of 1536, The Decades of 1549-1551, the Summa Christlicher Religion of 1556, Bullinger’s correspondence with Calvin concerning Bolsec, Bullinger’s correspondence with Bartholomäus Traheronus (1553) and his “conflicts” with Vermigli. Venema concludes that Bullinger had a very similar view to Calvin re predestination though Bullinger’s view was somewhat nuanced.
The following two comments on the back cover of the book are to be noted:
“Despite the fact that Heinrich Bullinger was one of the most significant and influential figures in the development of Reformed theology in the sixteenth century, he has not always been interpreted contextually. Cornelis Venema has provided us with a carefully researched and thoughtfully argued reassessment of Bullinger’s doctrine of predestination and soteriology. Venema’s work presents a significant challenge to those who find in Bullinger the source of a competing Reformed tradition distinct from Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy” (R. Scott Clark, Westminster Theological Seminary in California).
“This is the most careful and complete study of Bullinger’s doctrine of predestination in English. In the ongoing debate regarding whether Bullinger was the author of another Reformed tradition or another author of the Reformed tradition, Venema makes a compelling case for the latter. His finely nuanced arguments and ample support from the sources will make it difficult to contend any longer that Bullinger’s views of predestination and covenant diverged substantially from John Calvin’s” (Lyle D. Bierma, Calvin Theological Seminary).
Baker’s position can be found in: J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (1980); J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 29/2 (1998), pp359-376 and J. Wayne Baker and Charles S. Mc Coy, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (1991).
Inter alia Baker’s understanding of Calvin and the covenant has been challenged by Peter Lillback in The Binding of God (2001).
Baker’s understanding of Bullinger and predestination has been challenged by Cornelis P. Venema in Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (2002). Venema’s book follows on from his article: “Heinrich Bullinger’s Correspondence on Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, 1551-1553”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 17/4 (1986), pp435-450.
Venema’s study will be referred to in subsequent posts. The main focus of Venema’s study is Bullinger’s understanding of predestination in the Oratio of 1536, The Decades of 1549-1551, the Summa Christlicher Religion of 1556, Bullinger’s correspondence with Calvin concerning Bolsec, Bullinger’s correspondence with Bartholomäus Traheronus (1553) and his “conflicts” with Vermigli. Venema concludes that Bullinger had a very similar view to Calvin re predestination though Bullinger’s view was somewhat nuanced.
The following two comments on the back cover of the book are to be noted:
“Despite the fact that Heinrich Bullinger was one of the most significant and influential figures in the development of Reformed theology in the sixteenth century, he has not always been interpreted contextually. Cornelis Venema has provided us with a carefully researched and thoughtfully argued reassessment of Bullinger’s doctrine of predestination and soteriology. Venema’s work presents a significant challenge to those who find in Bullinger the source of a competing Reformed tradition distinct from Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy” (R. Scott Clark, Westminster Theological Seminary in California).
“This is the most careful and complete study of Bullinger’s doctrine of predestination in English. In the ongoing debate regarding whether Bullinger was the author of another Reformed tradition or another author of the Reformed tradition, Venema makes a compelling case for the latter. His finely nuanced arguments and ample support from the sources will make it difficult to contend any longer that Bullinger’s views of predestination and covenant diverged substantially from John Calvin’s” (Lyle D. Bierma, Calvin Theological Seminary).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)