Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nathan Lovell Project 2009
Nathan Lovell Project 2009
In this project we examine how reformed soteriology accounts for particularity, with
particular reference to the concept of limited atonement. We begin with Calvin's correct
observation that any attempt to account for particularity is a statement about how the
eternal act of God in election relates to the temporal outworking of his will in the
economy. Therefore it is a statement about Christ, since the incarnate Word is the one
who straddles time and eternity for our sake.
However, we will note that Calvin's doctrine of election exposes a point of tension in
historical theology that was not easily resolved. Early reformed thinkers followed
Calvin in seeing Christ primarily in his mediatorial role, through whom we discover the
fact of election. The doctrine of predestination was therefore seen as an a posteriori
explanation of sola gratia. The later reformed orthodox theologians rejected this
conception due to its possible subordinationist implications and instead conceived of
election as the a priori explanation of soteriology and Christ as the electing God.
We argue that the categories exposed by this dogmatic locus of predestination present a
fruitful ground for investigating the consequences of the doctrine. Our method will be to
examine the a posteriori systems of Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli and Musculus and
contrast them to the a priori systems of Beza, Polanus and Perkins. In doing this we
can see more clearly how election relates to Christ, which dramatically shapes how one
accounts for particularity. The historical debate climaxes in the highly developed
soteriological statements of Amyraut and Owen in the 17th Century, and we shall spend
some time examining the implications of these also.
Both the doctrines of predestination and atonement are, in the end, statements about the
character of God and his orientation towards humanity. What does the saving activity of
God reveal to us? We argue that whatever our statement of particularity, far from being
a theological obscurity, will shape our conception of God and the gospel that we offer to
others.
i
Contents
Synopsis i
Contents ii
Introduction 1
Conclusions:
Our Love for Christ 54
ii
Introduction
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
so that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.
exposition of John 3:16. Although "the gospel" can certainly be expressed simply, there
is a depth and complexity in reformed thought that is not immediately intuitive. At the
heart of the complexity is the paradox of sola gratia; that salvation from first to last is
entirely a work of God. The consequence of this is irresistible grace, that God has
chosen whom he will to save, and that those elect will certainly be saved. John 3:16 is
of predestination. If the sovereign saving will of God is expressed towards the world
then why is not the world saved? If we are to understand the world in a narrower sense
—as whosoever should believe in him; the elect—then are we right to say that God so
loved only the elect also? The way in which we account for particularity is therefore at
the very heart of the reformed gospel, since it affects the way we conceive of the work
of God in giving his Son. It will also shape our conception of the character of God,
since "the Son does only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5:19). Who does the
The method of this project will be to explore the way that reformed soteriology
developed over the two centuries that followed the reformation, and to apply the lessons
that were learned to our own contemporary conceptions of particularity. Although this
method reveals a particular focus on historical theology, the goal of the project is
theology, and the modern positions trace their theological ancestry to the 16th and 17th
1
centuries. It is therefore our task to explore the consequences of how one states the
“simple” gospel of John 3:16 from this reformed tradition, and in doing so to avoid
categories within reformed theology. Richard Muller's analysis of the period is helpful,
and we shall roughly follow his schema.1 The early codification of reformed thought
which leads up to the Synod of Dort in 1689/19 focuses on the immediate and
polemical requirements of the burgeoning protestant church. From this period we shall
focus on Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli and Musculus. Protestantism gains a sure foothold
rigorous theological systems for teaching in its institutions. By the peace of Westphalia
in 1648 it had become associated with elaboration and the increasingly tight specificity
of the scholastic method. From this broad period we shall examine Beza, Polanus and
Perkins. Not all of protestantism, however, were equally pleased with the direction in
which protestant thought developed during this period. The result was the internal
soteriological debates of the late 17th century, of which we will pay particular attention
1 Muller's schema is only roughly chronological. It follows a more theological grouping of similar
positions and methods. Nevertheless, he does equate the positions he describes with periods of history.
R. Muller, 'Approaches to Post-Reformation Protestantism: Reframing the Historiographical
Question.' Pages 3-24 in R. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological
Tradition. Oxford University: Oxford. 2003.
2 There is a historiographical problem surrounding the development of protestant orthodoxy post
Calvin. See R. Muller, "Calvin and the Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities
between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2.' Pages 21-104 in R. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in
the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford University: Oxford. 2003 for a discussion. I am
not intending to address the question of the relationship between Calvin and the Calvinist tradition
directly in this project. However, at several points the argument of this project will bear on that
question.
2
One more preliminary observation is necessary. The issue of particularity is essentially
an attempt to reconcile two perpendicular axis of theology. The vertical axis represents
outworking of that decree. Many statements of particularity move directly between the
two and arrive at a doctrine of limited atonement: the will of God was to save only the
elect, and therefore the atonement is limited to the elect. Indeed this is an intuitive
theological move, for predestination and atonement are two sides of the one
soteriological coin; God's saving action in eternity and time. However, the problem with
this method is that we have no epistemological access to the vertical axis. It does not
exist within our temporal universe, except at one point. There is one man who stands at
the apex, not merely mediating between God and man, but between the eternal and the
temporal also. To relate election to atonement, we must first relate election to Christ in
order to see in what way Christ reveals the electing God. Only then can we grasp how
the temporal work of Christ contributes to his eternal work, and how the love of the one
God towards us is revealed in both time and eternity. We will therefore begin in the next
chapter with an exploration of the relationship between Christ and the decree in Calvin's
thought, which will provide a suitable launch-pad to explore the topic in reformed
3
The Love of Which God?
Christ and Election
The typical reformed exposition of predestination3 begins with the distinction between
the secret and revealed will of God—God's will to save—and proceeds to the
gratia as the primary cause of salvation, reformed thought then moves to the way in
which predestination relates to other soteriological doctrines such as the five points of
'Calvinism.' Stemming from Barth there has been a modern critique of this exposition. 4
If soteriology is founded upon the secret decree of God to save the elect, and this decree
is the head of a causal series of events operating through providence, then all of the
the secret will of God. According to Barth then, God has become something essentially
What Barth's critique has done, quite apart from the merits of the argument itself, is to
remind us that how one frames the doctrine of predestination is not only a soteriological
question, but theological. The doctrine of predestination reveals something of the God
who predestines and therefore, as Helm notes, there is a "fruitful line of inquiry" that
opens up when it is considered in connection with the doctrine of God.5 It is our task in
this chapter to investigate these connections in the work of John Calvin. We will
3 See for example L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1958. 100-08.
Or L. Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company. 1932. 13-19.
4 Barth, CD II/2. 112.
5 P. Helm, 'John Calvin and the Hiddenness of God.' Pages 67-82 in B. McCormack, (ed.) Engaging
The Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives. Michigan: Baker. 2008. 67.
4
accomplish two things by doing this. Firstly, we will lay a necessary trinitarian
foundation for the rest of our discussion and, secondly, we shall also expose the
fundamental theological distinctions that will shape the doctrine of election in reformed
Several of these connections between the doctrines of God and predestination are
begins in a way typical of nearly all reformed thinkers, with a defense of sola gratia: "if
we are chosen in Chirst, it is not of ourselves."7 However this does not exhaust his
exposition. In his Institutes Calvin develops two other themes in relation to this issue:
Christ is the “Author of election”,8 and Christ is the mediator or “mirror of election”.9
His discussion hinges on two concepts in particular: the aseity of the Son, and his
“strongly emphasized distinction between the essence and the Personality” of God.10
Calvin writes, “When we profess to believe in one God, under the name of God is
hypostases.”11 Valentius had argued that the 'Father who is truly and properly the sole
5
God' had 'infused into [the Son and Spirit] his own deity.' 12 Calvin responded that God is
a simple unity in essence and therefore the Son is without derivation and essentially
fully God. It would be a “detestable invention that essence [be] proper to the Father
alone, as if he were the deifier of the Son.”13 If the essence of the Son were derived from
the Father, then the Son is not divine in essence at all: “If they grant that the Son is God,
but second to the Father, then in him will be begotten and formed the essence that is in
the Father unbegotten and unformed.”14 Calvin had already rejected this conclusion
firmly in his polemic against the modalist doctrine of Servetus.15 Therefore, for Calvin,
Trinity is to meet all three since the essence of the godhead is completely present and
the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern
Within this unity of being there remains a clear distinction among relations that is
necessary because “the persons carry an order within them.”17 That is to say, the Son is
not the Father, neither is the Father the Holy Spirit. Rather, “the Father is the beginning
and the source... [and] in this way the unity of essence is retained, and a reasoned order
is kept, which takes nothing away from the deity of the Son and the Spirit.” 18 There is a
critical distinction here that we shall see re-emerge in Calvin's christology. The Son, in
12 M. Thompson, 'Calvin on the Mediator.' Pages 106-135 in M. Thompson, (ed.) Engaging with Calvin:
Aspects of the Reformer's Legacy for Today. Nottingham: IVP. 2009. 111.
13 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.24.
14 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.24.
15 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.22.
16 Calvin quotes Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration, 40.41 in Institutues I.xiii.17.
17 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.20.
18 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.20.
19 Calvin, Institutes, I.xiii.23.
6
with respect to their relations, the Father is principium of the Son. In this way Calvin
defends Nicean christology, maintaining that the the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father.20
Calvin applies this trinitarian formula to election when he considers its relation to
Christ's witness in Institutes III.xxii.7. He argues, citing John 6:37-39, that election is to
be understood primarily as the “Father's gift” of the elect to the Son which is “the
beginning of our reception into the surety and protection of Christ.”21 The internal
relations of the godhead govern this formula. Since the Father is seen as the “beginning
of activity,”22 then “the elect are said to have been the Father's before he gave them his
only-begotten Son.”23 However, this is not to say that Calvin sees election as the work
of the Father alone. Citing John 13:18, Calvin argues that “Christ... claims for himself,
in common with the Father, the right to choose.”24 Since Christ elects in common with
the Father, Calvin concludes that “Christ makes himself the Author of election.”25
Although it finds its source in the Father, election is the work of the “undifferentiated
Trinity” including Father, Son and Holy Spirit.26 Because Christ is autotheos, he is the
overcome the Deus nudus absconditus? The answer will depend on the relationship
between the imminant and economic Trinity in Calvin's thought. We have already seen
one strong indication that Calvin's autotheos answers Barth's charge when Calvin
20 D. Thomas, 'The Mediator of the Covenant.' Pages 205-225 in D. Hall, and P. Lillback, A Theological
Guide To Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. New Jersey: P&R. 2008. 211-215.
21 Calvin, Institutes III.xxii.7.
22 Calvin, Institutes I.xiii.18.
23 Calvin, Institutes III.xxii.7.
24 Calvin, Institutes III.xxii.7.
25 Calvin, Institutes III.xxii.7.
26 Calvin, Institutes I.xiii.20.
7
employed John 13:18 to describe Christ as the electing God. The fact that Christ has
chosen his disciples in the economy is evidence that he is “Author of election” and
“clear proof of his Divinity.” Jesus “testifies that they who were elected before the
However, Calvin will not collapse the imminant Trinity into the economic. As Doyle
Calvin's thought for the mystery of God since Calvin is careful to maintain the
distinction between the final truth of the imminant god and the accommodated nature of
revealed truth. However, Calvin does consistently ground his understanding of the
imminant relations of the godhead in their economic revelation, and so therefore the
economy does truthfully point beyond itself. Calvin's comments on Luke 19:41 are
illustrative of this. He first maintains that it is Christ in his humanity who weeps: “He
was God, I acknowledge; but on all occasions when it was necessary that he should
perform the office of teacher, his divinity rested, and was in a manner concealed, that it
might not hinder what belonged to him as Mediator.” However immediately following,
he asserts that even this reveals something true of the Father also: “By this weeping he
proved not only that he loved, like a brother, those for whose sake he became man, but
also that God made to flow into human nature the Spirit of fatherly love.”29
For Calvin then, even through the accommodated nature of revelation, we see
something true of the imminant Trinity in the economic activity of the Son. There is
8
therefore sufficient warrant to conclude with Muller, and against Barth, that “Calvin
will not allow reference to a God who decrees salvation eternally apart from a sense of
the trinitarian economy and the effecting of the salvation in the work of the Son of God
Person... Unless Jesus Christ who is the Subject of election is the Jesus
variance with the Christ of the Gospels. And we may find ourselves having
less confidence in such a Christ than Barth thinks we ought to have in the
In Calvin there is no Deus nudus absconditus. What is explicit in the later reformed
dogmatics—that “The Father has chosen us not as Father, because election is not the
personal work of the person of the Father, but as God, since election is the common
work of the whole most Holy Trinity, of whom the Father is the beginning”32—finds
nebulous expression in Calvin in the phrase “Author of election.” Since the Son is
autotheos, we meet and know the electing God in the incarnate Word.
30 R. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin
to Perkins. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2008. 19.
31 Helm, 'John Calvin and the Hiddenness of God.' 82.
32 A. Polanus, A Treatise of Amandus Polanus, Concerning Gods Eternall Predestination. Cited in
Muller, Christ and the Decree. 157.
9
Christ as the Mediator of Election: The Question of Subordination
Even granted the aseity of the Son in Calvin's thought, there remains an important
qualification as to how the eternal Word's action of election relates to his mediatorial
role of Christ. That is to ask of Calvin, in what way does this Christ mediate or “mirror”
election to us?33 One aspect of the trinitarian framework that we have already noted in
Calvin was that in relational terms the principium of the Son is the Father. This will
mediator in relation to his person and not primarily according to his nature.
human nature, Calvin attaches the role to neither his human nor divine natures, but to
his person as divine Son. The threefold mediatorial office of prophet, priest and king is
specifically, but in relationship to his entire person. Christ's kingship, for example, is
both his human messianic role35 as well as his divine sovereignty.36 This, together with
his conception of autotheos, leads Calvin to the conclusion that the mediation of Christ
is evidence of God's general disposition for us. Christ is not simply prophet, but prophet
for us,37 not simply king, but king for us,38 and a priest for us also.39 In Christ therefore,
as autotheos, is revealed the God who “is moved by pure and freely given love of us”
10
Calvin applies this directly to his doctrine of election when he states that “Christ
conceived of as the means by which God's eternal plan and purpose are temporally
humanity, Christ as the eternal divine Son is able to mediate election also. That is to say
that what we know of God's act of election, we know in him. Therefore also, if we are
Christ mediates election to us and in doing so becomes the “mirror” in which we may
Now, what is the purpose of election but that we, adopted as sons by our
matter how much you toss it about and mull it over, you will discover that
its final bounds still extend no farther. Accordingly, those whom God has
adopted as his sons are said to have been chosen not in themselves but in his
Christ [Eph 1:4]... [and] if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find
assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we
conceive him severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we
However this leaves a point of tension in Calvin's thought that is not easily resolved,
11
reformation developments in soteriology. What is the relationship between Christ and
the ordo salutis? Does the divine Son as “Author of election” stand somehow prior to
the decree, at the head of the ordo, or is the mediator—who is mediator in both his
execution? As Muller notes there is a need to “ask in the light of the trinitarian ground
of Calvin's doctrine, how Christ is not only 'election itself' but also more than election,
how Christ not only appears within the ordo salutis but also provides the ordo salutis
In one sense the strong biblical focus of Calvin's christology forces him to locate the
reason for the incarnation and mediation in redemption. Christ, as mediator, is defined
with reference to the decree. Osiander had argued that the incarnation be understood as
an internal decision of God, and not with reference to the external necessity of
redemption.44 Calvin replied in Institutes II.xii.4 that the sole purpose for Christ's
incarnation is redemption since “all Scripture proclaims that to become our redeemer he
speculation.” In Calvin's soteriology the mediator himself is elect for us.46 Following
Augustine on this point, Calvin reflects in Institutes II.xii.1 on the eternal election of
Christ as the foundation of all soteriology and the highest expression of sola gratia. The
mediation of Christ “has stemmed from a heavenly decree, on which man's salvation
depended. Our most merciful Father decreed what was best for us.”47
In another sense, however, Christ as autotheos stands prior to the ordo salutis as its
12
Author, and this is the heart of the tension. Christ is not mediator according to his flesh
but according to his person. Yet the 2nd person of the Trinity is mediator in eternity.
argued that in Calvin's thought the person of the Word is defined in eternity by his
relation not only to the Father, but also to the decree to save. Certainly this is not a
passages (eg. John 8:42; 12:49; 14:28; 17:21-25; 1 Cor 15:24-28) he maintains a
Christ—the incarnate Word. Warfield and, more recently, Bray have therefore defended
Calvin against the charge of subordinationism maintaining that in Calvin's thought “the
persons of the Trinity are equal to one another in every respect.”48 However, others such
as Helm have criticised this reading: “They are not equal in every respect, since in
virtue of [the order within their relations] each bears a unique relationship to the
others.”49
There have been some recent attempts to resolve this tension. Muller employs the extra
calvinisticum in defense of Calvin where “in the execution of the decree or work of
salvation, the Son of God is wholly given, in subordination to the eternal plan, as
mediator. But the Son as God a se ipso cannot be wholly contained in the flesh or in any
way subsumed under the execution of the decree.”50 But this resolution does not entirely
solve the problem. As we have seen, Christ becomes mediator “before the foundation of
the world” (Eph 1:4), and long before he took on flesh. Mediation for Calvin is only
secondarily related to the incarnation, and primarily related to the eternal person. Paul
13
Helm's distinction between the Son of God as eternally logos asarkos and eternally
logos ensarkos is probably more useful.51 By this he tries to capture the two pre-
incarnate eternal states of the Son—the first in which the Son is defined with reference
to the internal relations of the Trinity and the second in which the definition relates to
However helpful these categories may be, they are not Calvin's categories, and they will
dogmatics will wrestle with this fundamental issue of how to relate Christ to the ordo
posteriori position within the context of soteriology, because this is its locus in
Scripture. In this formulation Christ will stand as the elect Son before the Father as
mediator for us. As time progresses and the doctrine is defined and its boundaries and
“Author of election.” In this respect they will relocate the doctrine of election and
develop its relations in an a priori position within the context of the doctrine of God. In
the next chapter we shall examine the consequences of these relations. In the final
chapter we shall see the manner in which this formulation will impact on how one
51 Helm, 'John Calvin and the Hiddenness of God.' 68. The distinction is between two eternal states of
the divine Word. The Word must exist as logos asarkos logically prior to the decision to create. There
was a time, so to speak, when he was not mediator since the decision to redeem is God's free and
gracious action, and not compelled in any way. However since the Word is eternally mediator he
exists also in eternity as logos ensarkos in which he freely, and in a way suitable to the internal
relations of the Trintiy, agrees to become mediator of salvation and, eventually at the right time, the
Word incarnate Jesus Christ.
52 I consider Helm's essay a throughtful resolution to the problem. Cf. Helm, 'John Calvin and the
Hiddenness of God.'
14
accounts for particularity in the reformed doctrine of the atonement, and what one can
therefore learn about the character of God through his act of salvation.
15
The Love of God in the Eternal Word:
Christ and the Decree of Election
When Rebecca had conceived and bore children by one man, our
forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done
nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of
election might continue, not because of works but because of his
call—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is
written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
relationship both to Christ as the “Author of election”, and also to Christ as the man
who became elect of the Father for the sake of humanity. Calvin's location of election at
these two opposite poles has, as we shall argue in this chapter, exposed a point of
within the structure of theology, and functions to guard divine freedom and sovereignty
in soteriology. Christ as the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity is the final cause and
executor of predestination for no other reason than it is his gracious will. In this
construction the doctrine finds its locus of exposition within the doctrine of God.
However, considered in its alternate relations, Christ is the elect man, and the “mirror”
by which our own election may be evaluated. Here the doctrine is utilised as an a
posteriori explanation of the sola gratia of soteriology, and the guarantee of the
perseverance of the saints. It is our task in this chapter to explore and evaluate these
There has been considerable attention devoted to the question of the dogmatic location
of election in Calvin's theology. In every edition of The Institutes until 1550 the
16
dogmatic locus of the doctrine of predestination was found, conjoined with providence,
in an a priori position relative to his soteriology, and within the doctrine of God.53 In his
final arrangement in 1559, however, the doctrine has been separated from this context54
and its exposition set within the context of soteriology.55 This position is an a posteriori
locus, coming after the exposition of the work of Christ as mediator 56 and after the
reconciliation, so that “the Christian life... [is] seen from the standpoint both of its
Much has been claimed of the significance of this doctrinal shift. Calvin himself wrote
in the preface to the 1559 edition of The Institutes that he “was never satisfied until the
work had been arranged in the order now set forth.”59 It is clear from this that he was
the 1559 edition almost to the exclusion of other editions and works, taking Calvin's
statement of satisfaction to mean that this edition was the yardstick by which he wished
his entire system to be evaluated.61 Studies of comparison between Calvin and later
53 F. Battles, Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin. New Jersey: P&R. 1980.
15.
54 It is mentioned in passing as “special providence.” Calvin, Institutes, I.i.5-7.
55 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi-xiv.
56 Calvin, Institutes, II.xii-xvii.
57 Calvin, Institutes, III.i-xiv.
58 Barth, CD II/2. 85.
59 J. Calvin, 'John Calvin to the Reader.' Pages 3-5 in Institutes. 3.
60 S. Clark, Election and Predestination: The Sovereign Expressions of God. Pages 90-122 in D. Hall
and P. Lillback, A Theological Guide To Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. New Jersey: P&R.
2008. 91.
61 R. Muller, 'Establishing the Ordo Docendi: The Organisation of Calvin's Institutes, 1536-1559.' Pages
118-139 in The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. 118.
Muller, 'Calvin and the Calvinists,' 98.
17
scholastic protestantism undertaken by Armstrong,62 Kendall,63 Clifford64 and others
understand Calvin this way, and suggest that Calvin had (correctly) identified the locus
of the doctrine of predestination. They argue that a 'rigid scholastic' influence had
shifted it back into the central dogmatic position found in later works, imposing an
More recent scholarship has suggested a revision to this popular historical conception.
Muller argues that it was Calvin's commitment not only to the contents of Scripture, but
to the systematic methodologies of his day that better accounts for this shift.66 The loci
under thematic headings, to be compared and analysed side by side. The headings
themselves were set in the same relations as they were found in Scripture, and so in this
method the doctrine of election would be expounded within the doctrine of soteriology,
and not within the doctrine of God. Muller argues that Calvin was increasingly
influenced by Melancthon's work, titled Loci Communes, which ordered its theological
topics according to their placement within The Epistle to the Romans. Several scholars
have noted the likelihood of this claim. The influence of Romans on reformed thought
was substantial. More than 70 commentaries on Romans were written during the first
half of the 16th Century, and Calvin praises both Melancthon and Bullinger's own
62 B. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in 17th
Century France. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison. 1969. 127-39.
63 R. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1979. 29-42.
64 A. Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology, 1640-1790 - An Evaluation.
Oxford: Carendon Press. 1990.
A. Clifford, Amyraut Affirmed, or "Owenism, a caricature of Calvinism": A Reply to Ian Hamilton's
"Amyraldianism – Is it Modified Calvinism?" Norwich: Charenton Reformed Publishing. 2004.
65 Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 263-9.
66 Muller, 'Establishing the Ordo Docendi,' 119-30.
67 P. Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes. Edited and Translated by Manschreck, C. L.
New York: Oxford University Press. 1965.
W. Musculus, Loci Communes. Basel. 1560.
18
commentaries for their clarity of exposition in the preface to his own work.68
There does seem to be some correlation between Romans and the ordering of topics in
The Institutes.69 Predestination arises for the first time in Romans 8:28-30 in what is
certainly an a posteriori position after the Work of Christ (Romans 3/5) and the
(Romans 5/8). Despite the tendency of modern commentators to separate Romans into
two halves at the end of Chapter 8,70 reformed exposition rightly saw the discussion of
election in chapters 9-11 as hinging upon what came before. If 'nothing can separate us
from the love of God in Christ' (8:39) then this begged the question for Calvin of what
happened to Israel, God's beloved (9:1-5, cf. Ex 19:5). Was there 'no truth in the divine
promise'?71 Chapters 9-11 then serve as Paul's rhetorical answer to this objection: God's
plan did not fail, rather his purpose of election was never for all Israel (9:6-13), and
always included the gentiles (9:24-33). The doctrine of election in Romans therefore
to the believer of the 'power of God for salvation' (1:16). Thus Muller's argument can be
summarised this way: while early editions of The Institutes were structured according to
the Apostle's creed, Calvin became convinced that Scripture itself should govern the
dogmatic location of doctrine, and therefore ordered his Institutes according to the
This argument remains unproven, since Calvin left us no significant annotations on the
structure of the Institutes. However, Muller's thesis accords well with Calvin's
68 Calvin, 'The Epistle Dedicatory' in Calvin, J. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Romans.
69 Battles, Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin, 16-19.
70 See the discussion in D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 31-33.
71 Calvin, Commentary, Romans, 9:1-5.
72 Muller, 'Establishing the Ordo Docendi', 125-130.
19
determination to produce a non-speculative theology; restrained at every point by
and even dangerous... If allowed, it will leave no secret to God that it will
not search out and unravel... Let this, therefore, first of all be before our
eyes: to seek any other knowledge of predestination than what the Word of
God discloses is not less insane than if one should purpose to walk in a
pathless waste.74
Calvin believed that the Bible itself discussed election primarily within an a posteriori
locus and so it is the salvation-historical focus of Calvin's christology that drives this
understood only against the backdrop of the great narrative of Scripture: creation, fall,
redemption and consummation. This is the only Christ that we know, and while we meet
the “Author of election” in him, we still come to God—and to the doctrine of election—
through the elect man Jesus Christ, our “mirror of election.” For this reason Calvin has
20
The Love of the Electing God: The Exposition of the Decree in Early Reformed
Theology75
Other early reformed expositors such as Bullinger, Vermigli and Musculus expound
predestination within the same a posteriori dogmatic locus as Calvin, and tend to agree
both with his historically oriented christology and his hesitation to move beyond the
economy of salvation recorded in Scripture. Bullinger, for example, relates the decree
Lo, this is the will or eternal decree of God... that in the Son by faith we
should be saved... Therefore, if thou ask me whether thou art elected to life,
communion or fellowship with Christ, thou art predestinate to life, and thou
aret of the number of the elect and chosen: but if thou be a stranger from
Firstly, predestination is a source of assurance and “comfort [for] the godly worshipers
75 A brief methodological note on supralapsarianism and ifralapsarianism is necessary at this point. The
terms are not synonymous with the a priori and a posteriori categories that we will develop here.
Although they are the historical choice of the 17th century debate, they are not the most useful terms to
clarify the soteriological distinctions within reformed theology. To phrase the debate in terms of the
order of decrees is to miss an essential distinction. There were some within the infralapsarian position
who expounded the doctrine of predestination in its a priori connections, as well as those who chose
the a posteriori locus. Those who developed the doctrine within the a priori locus have much in
common with the supralapsarians, the only essential difference being their conception of the role of
the fall within soteriology. Therefore in this project we have grouped them with the supralapsarians
under the a priori heading. Bavinck's discussion on these categories is helpful in ellucidating the
various positions. H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation. Grand Rapids:
Baker. 2004. 361-66. Jewett misses this distinction in his otherwise well informed discussion. P.
Jewett, Election and Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1985. 115-120.
76 Bullinger, Decades, 4.iv 186-7.
77 Bullinger, Decades, 4.iv 185.
21
through the lens of the sovereignty of God, and in so doing assures us that salvation is
God's work, and does not rest on our frail ability. 78 Secondly, and for the same reason,
not stayed or stirred with any worthiness or unworthiness of ours; but of the mere grace
and mercy of God the Father, it respecteth Christ alone."79 The fact of predestination, as
we saw in Calvin, is the fundamental doctrine that underpins the entire reformed sola
gratia.80
Both of these uses can be easily discerned in all reformed exegesis and in that way are
not distinctive of the a posteriori locus. The third, however, is. In early reformed
theology, the fact of predestination reveals the love of God. This point, discernible
clearly in the systems of Calvin, Vermigli and Bullinger arises also from exegesis. The
golden chain of Romans 8:29-30 is framed on the one hand by the providence of God
(8:28), and on the other by the love of God (8:31-39). Early reformed thought therefore
insisted that this connection—beginning with providence and passing through election
Decades.81 Bullinger argues from Ephesians 1:4-6, Romans 9:16 and 2 Timothy 1:9-10
evidence of God's general goodness towards humanity, not his specific goodness to the
elect, in that he remembers our 'lowly estate' and chooses mercy for us (Psalm 103,
Isaiah 49:15-16). Drawing on Matthew 11:28 and Mark 16:15-16, Bullinger asserts that
78 Calvin, Institutes,III.xxiii.4.
79 Bullinger, Decades, 4.iv 187-8.
80 Calvin, Institutes,III.xxiii.2.
81 Bullinger, Decades,4.
22
the call to receive that mercy is universal which proves that God must desire the
"Freely therefore, of his mere mercy, not for our deserts, but for Christ's
sake, and not but in Christ, hath he chosen us, and for Christ's sake doth
embrace us, because he is our Father and a lover of men... Truly, in Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God exhibited unto us, God the Father hath
Since election in its a posteriori position does not answer the question who will be
saved, the fact of it reveals God's disposition to act for us in mercy. Therefore for
way by the action of predestination itself which is the outworking of providence for the
elect.83 This focus on the economy of salvation, rather than decree, allows Bullinger to
utilise God's saving action in both election and atonement indiscriminately as proof of
the Father's good will and love towards humanity. This is pronounced when he
that we must “comfort ourselves with the most sweet promises of God’s hand” which
come to all because “God does not will the death of a sinner.”84
This then is the crucial distinction between the a priori and the a posteriori loci. Early
reformed thought, through its focus on the economy of salvation, agrees that the decree
to elect finds its final cause in the love of God. That is to say, God chooses to save
because he loves. In doing so it draws an exegetical point from Deuteronomy 7:7-8 and
23
10:14-15.85 This is not an argument that God loves all men equally; the force of
Romans 9:13 is evident within all reformed exegesis also.86 The argument is simply that
election finds its basis in the love of God. It is this statement, as we shall see, that is
Before we can move to consider this a priori construction, there is one more
consequence that must be developed. Although within the a posteriori system there
remains decrees of both election and reprobation, these decrees will not be co-ordinate
in the way that they will become in the a priori system. In early reformed thought man
action on God's part, only the negative action to withhold mercy from some sinners.87
placement so that it can maintain its correct relation both to the fall and to God's
subsequent saving and loving action. For Vermigli, the reprobate are not appointed to
The love, election and predestination of God are ordered among themselves
and follow on one another for a certain reason. First, all men in their
miserable, then those whom God of his pure and simple mercy loves and for
24
whom he wills the good are distinguished form those he passes over... by
this discretion they are said to be elect; the elect, truly, are appointed toward
their end.88
This is not to say that reprobation in early reformed theology is not grounded also in the
will of God. Election is a merciful decree that saves some, but passes over others in
judgement. Reprobation in these early systems denies a mercy to some which was freely
given to others—and in that sense is based in the divine decision89—but unlike the a
priori system it is not a decision per se to create a reprobate group of humanity. Of all
of these early systematicians, Musculus moves the furthest in the a priori direction,90 yet
even he will assert in the the non-coordination of the decrees. For Musculus the
reprobate are those that simply do not obtain the grace of election: "We do not call those
reprobate who are reprobate for an inward evil of their nature... but those whom God
It is this construction which allows early reformed theology to maintain that God's love
is the causal foundation of election. Therefore, the ordo salutis itself is not simply
grounded in the free decision of God, but in the free decision of God to love. As
Vermigli says, “It was necessary that Christ die according to the purpose of the divine
providence and counsel: for God decreed it should be so. This indeed he did chiefly to
declare his infinite love.”92 We shall understand the reason why this is so more clearly
25
The Glory of the Electing God: The Exposition of the Decree in Protestant
Orthodoxy
In the later codifications of protestantism, through the 16th and early 17th centuries, there
arose a tendency to return the doctrine of predestination to the a priori position that it
the puritan constructions of Perkins and Owen accounts at least in part for the shift.94 As
Armstrong argues, the tight causal structure that the a priori locus applies to soteriology
fits very neatly with the kind of rigid logic that scholasticism utilises.95 However, as
In fact, the seeds of later protestantism were sown, as we have shown in the last chapter,
in Calvin's construct of Christ as the “Author of election.” Calvin's christology left open
the question of a relational subordinationism since Christ in his person is the mediator
soteriology based in the free decision of God. But, Muller argues, "in the increasingly
[christology] and his conception of the election of the mediator were to be overcome.”97
The types of trinitarian and christological formulations found in later orthodox thought
26
support Muller's basic thesis. Later reformed orthodox thinkers are careful to maintain
the advances they perceive in Calvin's christology. For example, Perkins' christology
closely mirrors Calvin's stress on Christ as God made known in flesh, and in the words
“from above” nor “from below” but in the historical line of covenant-promise.”98
Polanus developed the clear implication of this. If Christ reveals the electing God then
“the Father indeed elects us, not as Father, since election is not the proper work of the
person of the Father; but as God, for as much as election is the common work of the
Once explicitly stated in this way the a priori ordering has an inevitable appeal in that it
allows the resolution of the question of relational subordination. By moving the locus of
predestination back into the a priori position, and back into the doctrine of God,
election can be discussed in the context of the Father and of the Son. In Perkins'
formulation, Christ is subordinate to the execution of the decree, but not to the decree
itself: "[Christ is] called of his Father from all eternitie to performe the office of the
mediatour, that in him all those which should bee saved might be chosen." 100 In this
context election functions not as the guardian of sola gratia, although it still carries this
role, but now primarily—as it had once done also in Thomist theology101—to guard the
sovereign freedom of the Father, Son and Spirit: "[Election is] that by which God in
himselfe hath necessarily, and yet freely, from all eternity determined all things."102
Thus the Son can in no way be considered subordinate to the decree. He stands
completely free and sovereign over it. Christ freely becomes subordinate in execution of
27
the decree in his role as human mediator. But as the divine Son he is free to elect or to
to co-ordinate the decrees of election and reprobation because they stand at the head of
a causal chain in the ordo salutis. For example, when Beza comments on Romans 8:28-
9:23 his focus is on the role of the will of God as the cause of soteriology. Beza
understands the humanity of Romans 9:21 not as creatus et lapsus, as in the early
formulation in which God creates some for election, and some for reprobation
according to his sovereign choice. It would be, argues Beza, a “great injury to God if we
the creature.”104 God decrees by his right and according to his will alone. Similarly for
Perkins, “God according to his supreme authoritie doth make vessels of wrath, he doth
not find them made.”105 Both election and reprobation are simply that which “God [has]
In the a priori system, the decree of reprobation and the decree of election differ in
manner of execution only. Election is executed by faith in Christ and reprobation by the
wages of sin. In other respects, and importantly with respect to the will of God, the
decrees are co-ordinate. The consequence of this is that election can no longer find its
103J. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007. 37.
104Beza's comments on Romans can be found in Theodori Bezae, Annotationes, in quibus ratione
interpretationis vocum reddita. Cambridge, 1642. As far as I am aware this work is not available in
English so I gratefuly acknowledge my debt to various secondary sources in this regard. Particularly,
S. Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination. Nieuwkoop: De Graaf. 1975.
105Perkins, A Golden Chaine, 28.
106Perkins, A Golden Chaine, 28.
28
final cause in the freely given love of God. There are two reasons for this. Firstly,
humanity is uncreated in the mind of God at the point of the decree, and therefore he is
neither loved nor hated. This is a conscious theological move illustrated clearly in
Perkins' soteriology. He reflects that “actuall hatred comes not in till after the creation.
Whom God hath decreed...to hate, them being once created, he hates in Adam with
actual hatred.”107 The second reason is that election can not manifest the love of God
since the fact of election at the same time reveals a co-ordinate reprobation. Instead of
love, the historical focus shifted to the glory of God, since it is possible to conceive of
both election and reprobation within this framework. God's mercy for the elect is co-
ordinate with his justice for the reprobate, the fall is predestined to achieve this end, and
the entire ordo salutis manifests the supreme glory of God. Beza's Tabula
The Lord God, that he might put in execution this eternal counsel, to his
those that he would choose, and those also which he would refuse. For when
he determined to shew his infinite mercy in the salvation of the elect, and
necessary that he should shut up both under disobedience & sin, to show his
mercy to... the elect: and contrariwise to have just cause to condemn [the
reprobate].108
In Beza's formulation, God's will is to glorify himself, and election and reprobation
serve only that end. The decision for God to love comes after his decision to elect. The
29
same can be seen clearly within English puritanism, which is unsurprising due to the
anticipates the objection that it is “very hard to ascribe unto God who is full of bountie
and mercie, such a decree” he replies that even the “eternall destruction” of “every
creature in heaven and earth [would serve to] set forth the glorie and majestie of
God.”110 Perkin's relative ordering of love and election is clearly illustrated in his
famous diagram in A Golden Chaine (see overleaf.) Perkins places the love of God as a
conditional upon the decree of election, and in logical sequence to the state of unbelief.
In other words, the divine decision to love remains a decision made of creatures in the
state creatus et lapsus. However God's love depends logically on the prior decree to
elect, which has been brought forward to establish the head of the causal chain. This has
exactly reversed the formula of the a posteriori locus. God now loves because he has
chosen, whereas we saw in Calvin, Vermigli and Bullinger that God elects because he
loves.
The theological consequences of the discussion of this chapter will be seen more clearly
in the next, and so it has been our task until now to be descriptive without necessarily
offering an evaluation. We should, however, pause at this point to briefly evaluate the
The question before us is how we should conceive of election and its relationship to the
character of God and to christology. On the one hand, the a posteriori position would
seem to have the better of the scriptural witness. Whenever the Old Testament states a
30
Perkins' diagram of the causes of salvation from A Golden Chain. The Reprobate follow the black line
on the right, the elect follow the grey line on the left. Notice particularly the relationship between
election and love on the line of election.
31
cause for the election of Israel it is always love (Deuteronomy 4:37, 10:15; Psalm 78:67;
Isaiah 41:8). Furthermore, in the two key New Testament reflections on election, love
election is spoken of in a particular sense, especially with respect to Christ as the chosen
servant, love is likewise the cause of election (Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18) and there is
a similar link discernible in Paul's letters to the elect (Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians
1:4). It is exegetically justifiable to claim that freely given divine love is the cause of
divine election. Even the golden chain of Romans 8 requires a personal disposition of
God toward man and not just stark divine will alone. It is those that God “foreknew”
However, the achievement of the a priori view is a more robustly trinitarian conception
of election, for it shows that it is the work of the three persons of the godhead to elect
and not the work of the Father alone. Therefore the a priori formulation serves to
safeguard the full deity of Christ as “Author of election”. It is not primarily the
imposition of a scholastic system on Scripture that has produced the a priori system.
Rather it is the desire to safeguard this truth. The question that must be asked, however,
is whether this construction can be defended from Biblical testimony. The essential
weakness of the position is that it posits a God, even a Christ, that is fundamentally
different than the salvation historical witness. This is the core of Barth's critique of the
entire protestant tradition; that we have actually arrived at a Deus nudus absconditus.
number of occasions, the gospel writers show us Jesus as the electing God (Matthew
11:27, Luke 10:22, John 15:6), and Calvin's exegesis of these passages posits that this
111P. O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999. 98-101.
32
economic activity reflects the imminant Trinity.112 However what is not evident in the
narratives is any depiction of Jesus as the reprobating God. That Jesus' mercy is
prostitute—is unquestionable. Every day he “ate with tax collectors and sinners”
(Matthew 9:10-11). However we never see the co-ordinate decree—that Jesus' justice be
exonerated by his rejection of the reprobate. Rather, he looks on them in love (Mark
10:21) and with pity (Mark 1:41) and, to borrow from Peter, “does not wish that anyone
should perish” but extends the open invitation, “Come to me!” (Matthew 11:28). Jesus
does not even actively reject the one person that Scripture identifies as certainly
Scripture then it is one of love and not primarily glory. The disciples are loved and
chosen by Jesus in the same way that the Father loves and chose the Son (John 15:9;
17:23). Even in John's gospel where the theme of glory is so prominent, it remains set in
a fixed relationship with love. Jesus is glorified not because of justice and mercy, but
because of the Father's decision to love him (John 17:24). Love is given as the ultimate
ground of every divine action in the world. God chooses, and gives, and sends his Son
The attraction of the a posteriori view is that it coheres so well with the portrait of Jesus
in the gospels. In contrast, the a priori view insists that the actual reality of election is
something quite other than what we see in Christ. If we are to know anything of the
imminant relations of the Trinity through the economic activity of the Son, then we
33
must be able to “read up” these relations. We have seen how this operates in Calvin's
exegesis already. The relations of the Godhead—the Father who begets the Son, and the
Spirit who proceeds from both—are accurately mirrored in the economic relations of the
Father sending the Son, and the Father and Son together sending the Spirit.113 If this is
not the case, then the imminant God is indeed a Deus nudus absconditus. If Christ is the
God who creates the mass of humanity, some to election and others to reprobation for
In this respect then, the a posteriori construction is preferable, even if it contains within
it the tendency towards the subordination of the Son. Given how vigorously Calvin
strove to avoid this charge through his conception of autotheos,114 I do not see it as a
necessary implication. I admit, though, that others have and still do. Even if it were true
then we should qualify what would be meant by subordination. The Son would remain,
as in Calvin's christology, homoousios with the Father—in very nature God. The
the Son is begotten of the Father and then in the economy he is sent by the Father as the
mediator, for us men and for our salvation. This subordination is therefore conjoined
with the divine eternal decision to create and then redeem. The Son, in this co-decision
to create, defines himself as eternally for us, a perpetual mediator in subjection to the
Father (1 Cor 15:28). This relational definition of subordination, at least, can claim for
itself a great deal of scriptural support (eg. John 5:19; 14:28). The Son became who he
34
The Love of God in the Temporal Man:
Christ and the Limited Atonement
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God
sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through
him.
Up until this point it has been our task to describe the connections that have historically
thought. By doing so we have now laid a proper groundwork for our investigation into
the temporal work of God in the atonement. We shall argue in this chapter that one's
conception of the decree of predestination dramatically shapes the way in which one
will describe the atonement, and that a great deal of the variation within reformed
thought about the work of Christ, and in how one accounts for particularity within that
soteriology, can be accounted for using the a priori and a posteriori categories of
There are a number of expositors of reformed theology that have argued that the chosen
substantial. For example, Bavinck comments that the decision of locus “does not
the decisions made with regards to the placement of election results in a distinctly
different conception of the ordo salutis, which in turn affects how we should ground the
doctrine of soteriology in the character of God. Since election and atonement are not
two different things, but two descriptions of the same saving purpose of God along two
different axes, how one conceives of the former will significantly influence the latter.
115H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951. 358.
cf. S. Clark, Election and Predestination: The Sovereign Expressions of God. Pages 90-122 in D. Hall
and P. Lillback, A Theological Guide To Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. New Jersey: P&R.
2008. 91.
35
Reformed theology has always understood this. From its first codifications the
incarnation has been viewed as the temporal nexus between God's eternal plan, and the
execution of that plan in the economy of salvation. As Muller says, “it is the
incarnation, the two-fold nature of Christ, that functions to bind God's sovereignty in
Bray argued, characteristic of Beza and later protestantism.117 Rather it finds a nebulous
this distinction between Christ's work in time and eternity which lays behind Calvin's
concept of Christ as the “mirror of election.” It is due to the the sovereignty of the Son,
and not just the Father, that the eternal will of the indivisible God is so precisely and
I come now to [Christ's] kingship... [of which we must] infer its efficacy and
benefit for us, as well as its whole force and eternity. Now this eternity,
which the angel in The Book of Daniel attributes to the person of Christ
[Dan 2:44], in the Gospel of Luke the angel justly applies to the salvation of
The implications of this, of how one constructs the doctrine of predestination in relation
to christology, reach much farther than Bavinck's “matter of emphasis”. As we shall see,
116Muller, Christ and the Decree, 19.
117Bray, Theodore Beza's Doctrine of Predestination, 90-93.
118See for example:
Calvin, Commentar, Ephesians 3:11.
Calvin, Commentary, Romans 11:34.
Calvin, Commentary, John 10:16.
Calvin, Commentary, John 6:40.
119Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, x.4.
120Vermigli, Loci Communes, II.xvii.2.
121Musculus, Loci Communes, ch17-18.
122Calvin, Institutes, II.xv.3. See also Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiv.5.
36
they flow out to the very ends of Christian life and practice: in accounting for salvation,
Before we begin it will be necessary to refine our definition of the word atonement.
Reformed dogmatics generally has a wide view of the atonement as the process by
which we have become reconciled to God. That is to say, it includes the entire life and
work of Christ. This is certainly the explicit view of Calvin as he develops his doctrine
writing on the subject, the phrase has come to refer specifically to the death of Christ,
umbrella term, which finds its referent in the entire life of Christ, but sometimes an
equivocation enters theological discourse at this point so that opponents in a debate can
both claim to adhere to a “limited atonement” and mean by it two different things. In
what follows I will employ the broad meaning of the word atonement; that it
encompasses the totality of the reconciling work of Christ, his life, baptism, obedience,
death, resurrection and heavenly intercession. I will not use “death of Christ” as an
umbrella term to cover these same concepts. The death of Christ refers specifically to
his death.
The Love of God for the Elect: Particularity in the A Priori View of Election
We shall begin with the a priori view since it is the more straight-forward of the two,
and has within it the least historical variation. This formulation is found in the reformed
tradition beginning with Beza and continuing mainly through the protestant scholastics.
The distinctive feature of all reformed christology is its covenantal and soteriological
37
another focus to this christology: Christ is conceived as the temporal executor of the
divine decree. These two elements are clear, for example, in Polanus' christology.
Polanus describes the atonement as the “means of salvation” in temporal categories, but
then he immediately relates it to election: “Christ [is] given to us by the Father and sent
into the world at the end of time, [died] and suffered for us and in our place” but this
“gift is the effect of our eternal election.” Therefore, for Polanus, the “mediation of
Christ is a meritorious and proximate efficient cause of all subsequent means, which are
We noted in the last chapter the relationship between election and love in this view—
that God loves those he has first chosen. The same relationship is now evident between
the atonement and election. Christ is sent for the elect, and therefore his work is the
execution of the decree [in Christ].”124 In fact, as Bray observes of Beza, “virtually all of
the traditional cardinal Christian doctrines could be viewed from the perspective of the
Accounting for particularity within this model is straightforward. Since the decree of
election finds its place at the head of a causal chain from which every other
this position can still maintain the classical Lombardian distinction: the atonement is
sufficient for all but efficient for the elect alone. This distinction is possible because of
38
the worth of the sacrifice: “Since Christ suffered as a divine-human person the value of
what might have been had the will of God been different. As it is, the work of Christ
There is no point then, indeed it barely makes sense within this view, to equivocate on
the term atonement. The work of Christ in his entirety serves only the end of the decree.
For Perkins “the [atonement] is appointed and limited to the elect alone by [both] the
Father's decree and the Sonnes intercession and oblation... For the Sonne doth not
sacrifice for those, for whom he doth not pray: because to make an intercession and
sacrifice are conjoyned: but hee prayeth only for the elect and for beleevers.”127
The Love of God for the World: Particularity in the A Posteriori View of Election
It must be said at the outset that the a posteriori view allows a great deal of variation
when accounting for particularity in soteriology. This is because the decree of election,
which ultimately still accounts for particularity by the sovereign will of God, is not
considered as the causal head of a chain of temporal events. That is to say that not every
event in the economy of salvation must find its ultimate cause in the execution of the
decree of election. There is room for the sovereign God to work some events of history
for other reasons than to execute the decree. One of these other reasons may be the
The value of the a posteriori locus for christology is that not all of the mediatorial work
of Christ must find its referent with respect to the decree of election. In the a posteriori
39
system, it is possible to expound the person and mediatorial work of Christ without any
reference to the decree whatsoever, as Calvin does in Institutes II.xv-xvii, and indeed as
much of the New Testament does. The strength of this formulation is that Christ as
mediator can be said to be acting, at least in some aspects of his work, for humanity in
general rather than for the elect specifically. We have already seen this developed in the
previous chapter. The fact of predestination reveals, for the early reformed thinkers, a
God who desires to save. Anderson puts it simply, “God has a preference for mercy over
judgment.”128 Therefore in the economy also Christ reveals a God who is favourably
This is not to deny irresistible grace, nor the sovereignty of God to particularize within
grace. The soteriology of the Synod of Dort suitably illustrates the distinction. The
human choice, and with it came a doctrine of universal atonement—that the atonement
made salvation possible for all, but that the human decision to accept Christ was the
ultimate limiting factor in soteriology. Against this, the Synod of Dort affirmed a strong
was considered creatus et lapsus at the point of the decree, and so the chapter on
predestination begins with an exposition of the sin of all men in Adam.130 However, it
128J. Anderson. 'The Grace of God and the Non-Elect in Calviun's Commentaries and Sermons.' (New
Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, PhD, 1976.) 25.
129The Articles of the Synod of Dort. Translated by T. Scott. Virginia: Sprinkle Publications. 1993. 1.7.
130Synod Of Dort, 1.1.
40
moves immediately from there not to discuss the decree of God to save, as an a priori
discussion would, but to the universal love of God. Drawing on 1 John 6:9 and John
3:16 it states: “But 'in this is the love of God manifested, that he sent his only begotten
Son into the world, that every one who believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.'”131 From there it discusses the work of Christ, before finally coming to
predestination. Dort then shares the same dogmatic loci as Calvin. In it, the act of
sending the Son is motivated by God's love towards the world, without limit as to
particularity.
Ultimately, the Synod of Dort does affirm a limited atonement because it accounts for
understands this decree as election to faith. That is, the atonement is not limited at the
point of Christ's death, but at the point of his intercession as the risen Christ gives faith
That some, in time, have faith given them by God and others have it not
given, proceeds from his eternal decree; For “known unto God are all his
works, from the beginning of the world.” Acts xv. 18. Eph i.11. According to
which decree, he graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard,
and he bends them to believe: but the non-elect he leaves, in just judgment,
Dort's offer of the gospel is a genuine offer to both the elect and the reprobate. Since
“the death of the Son of God is... abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole
41
world”,133 then it follows that “the promise of the gospel... ought to be announced and
Lombardian distinction135 takes a very different nuance here than in the a priori
consists of two related but ultimately independent axes: the first being the free gift of
the Son to expiate sin, and the second being the election to faith of those who will be
saved.137
The exegesis within early reformed systems reveals a similar soteriology. Calvin can, in
his comments on 1 Timothy 2:4, hold both a universal promise of the gospel and a
particular salvation: “God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the
acknowledgment of his truth... [and] wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all
without exception.” But Calvin also sees “the folly of those who represent this passage
gospel is genuinely offered to all humanity in an act showing God's disposition of love
towards them. Although God is “ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may
perish”, his “hidden purpose” in election is that not all will receive this promise with
product of union with Christ—and not at the point of the work of Christ: 139 “For God [in
42
the act of sending Christ] stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays
hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation
of the world.”140
Calvin can therefore be said to hold to a limited atonement. However the reason for the
voluminous modern discussion141 on the topic should now be apparent. Strictly speaking
II.xvi.4-6 that Christ makes satisfaction (satisfactio) and expiation (expiato) for the sin
short redemption (redemptio), was accomplished only for the elect.142 Atonement is
therefore limited in the sense that only the elect will be saved. However, at the same
time the death of Christ constitutes an unlimited and universal offer. Anderson observes
that this aspect of Calvin's soteriology is more transparent in his exegetical remarks and
that
the effect of Christ's death comes not to the whole world, nevertheless...
Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for [the reprobate] as
for us, therefore it behooves us to labor to bring every man to salvation, that
The effect of Christ's death, for Calvin, is reserved for those who will be united to Christ
43
by faith.145 However the act of Christ's death constitutes a genuine, unlimited offer so
that it is for the reprobate as well as for the elect. Christ's mediation is therefore, at least
in this aspect, universal.146 This manner of exposition is common among those that
maintain the a posteriori locus of the decree. Bullinger, for example, also shows the
where "men are drawn by God."147 Drawing on both 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 he
concludes that we should not "despair... whether I am elected... [and whether] it then
profit me to hear sermons" but rather "let every man be of good hope, that God in time,
It will be apparent by this point why the term limited atonement is particularly difficult
argued that Calvin had no conception of a limited atonement,149 Muller argues that he
most certainly did,150 and Peterson believes him to have been ambiguous or
contemporary theology, then there will be no dispute; the entire reformed branch of
theology holds that only the elect will be saved. It is a poor substitute, however, because
it does not distinguish between any of the positions. However, if by atonement is meant
44
the oblation, then the discussion is more complex. In my opinion the debate finds its
clearest exponents in the theology of Moses Amyraut on the one side, and later, John
Amyraut's own claim was that his system, a hypothetical universalism, was “more like
Calvin than the Calvinists.”152 At the heart of this claim is his use of Calvin's distinction
between the secret and revealed will of God153 by which he illuminates his soteriological
framework. Building on Calvin's insight and the federal theology of his day, Amyraut
proposed a bi-covenantal system. The first covenant contains within it the earthly work
of Christ and establishes the basis in which God might justify sinners. It corresponds to
the revealed will of God, and is predicated on the condition of faith. On the basis of this
covenant, Amyraut can affirm in the straightforward sense that “God does not will that
any should perish.”154 However, the sin of man and the inevitable rejection of God's
Christ necessitates a second, unconditional covenant. This covenant operates sola gratia
and corresponds to the secret will of God, whereby faith is imparted to believers. The
basic soteriological distinctions then are very similar to Calvin's, even though the
promised to all who believe and repent, and which for this reason he called
conditional. To the second head applies those promises which are absolute
and by which God promised that He himself would give the faith which is
152By "Calvinists" Amyraut refers to the reformed orthodox theologians of his day. Bavinck argues that
both Amyraldianism and Arminianism were historically the product of a dissatisfaction with the
protestant scholastic expression of Calvinism. H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2, 361.
153Calvin, Instututes, I.xviii.3.
154See his comments on 1 Timothy 2:6. Translated and cited from Armstrong, Calvinism and the
Amyraut Heresy. 169-177.
45
required of men.155
Thus for Amyraut, the term “limited atonement” is actually meaningless. Atonement
finds its locus within the conditional covenant and so it is limited to precisely those who
will fulfill that condition. Since salvation remains sola gratia as a separate act from the
oblation in and of itself, a separate covenant, the phrase limited atonement becomes a
worthless distinction. Again this is seen best in comparison. Reformed orthodoxy of the
17th Century required an exegetical qualification between “all without exception” and
“all without distinction” to make good sense of passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 and even
John 3:16 since a limited atonement precluded a universal aspect. For Amyraut this
all will be saved, and makes provision for it with a universal covenant. Context,
therefore, rather than theological system, will determine the meaning of “all”.156
Amyraut's system neatly holds together what is seen as a paradox by the reformed
orthodox; the atonement is not limited, but only the elect will be saved.
in their doctrine of the atonement itself. This probably accounts for much of the
reformed reaction against the hypothetical universalist position. After all, was not some
that Christ's death would save any on the condition of faith? The difference between the
Arminian position and the Amyraldian position was the second, unconditional covenant.
155Amyraut, Eschantillon, 1658, 209-10. Translated and cited from Armstrong, Calvinism and the
Amyraut Heresy, 198.
156As it had with Calvin. Contrast Calvin's exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 (all without distinction) and 2 Peter
3:9 (all without exception). Calvin, Commentary, 1 Timothy 2:4. Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peteter 3:9.
46
Faith, for the Arminian theologians, was the human response to the grace of God in the
universal atonement. For Amyraut, faith was irresistibly accomplished by the Holy
Spirit. Thus the distinction between Amyraldianism and Arminianism lies outside the
established locus of exposition of the atonement. This leaves many reformed orthodox,
and many theologians today also,157 to argue that Amyraut held to an Arminian theology
of the atonement. MacLeod, for example, describes the Amyraldian system as “an
Indeed this was John Owen's response.159 Owen could group together the exponents of
Amyraut—with the Arminian theologians and use the same argument against both.160 At
its heart, Owen's objection relies on a particular Aristotelian conception of God as the
“perfect agent,” defined as the being in which there will be no discrepancy between
what he sets out to do, and what is accomplished.161 There is an “infallible connection
between God's purpose and will” so that his will to save matches exactly his purpose in
sending the Son.162 This statement is the Christian doctrine of sovereignty placed into a
scholastic framework: that God will not be thwarted. Since Scripture reveals the end of
the atonement as the salvation of the elect, then Owen can argue that God must also
have intended the atonement save only the elect. If he had intended anything else then
his intention would have failed.163 By this logic, the atonement does not simply enable
157A. McGowan, 'The Atonement as Penal Substitution.' Pages 183-210 in A. McGowan (ed.) Always
Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. Leicester: IVP. 2006. 206-08.
Eg. A. Troxel, 'Amyraut "at" the assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the
Atonement.' Presbyterion 22/1 (1996):43-55. 48.
158MacLeod, 'Amyraldus Redivivus,' 211.
159Owen, Death of Death, IV.vi.
160J. Packer, 'Introductory Essay.' Pages 1-44 in J. Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1995. 24.
161Owen, Death of Death, I.i.III.
162Owen, Death of Death, IV.i. 199.
163Owen, Death of Death, I.ii.
47
the Father to save, it actually accomplishes this end.
Since the end of the atonement proves the intention of God in the atonement then this
also forms the basis of Owen's objection against the bifurcation of the work of Christ
that we saw in both Amyraut and Calvin. Christ's oblation can not be for the world and
at the same time his intercession for the elect.164 It is the one perfect being who willed
both of these activities to bring about salvation for the elect and so therefore this end
proves the same intention of God in both of these acts. Drawing on John 17:9, where
Jesus prays specifically for the elect, Owen claims that the incarnation, the oblation and
the intercession all must accomplish this same goal.165 This objection, for Owen, defeats
hypothetical universalism:
“Those for whom [Christ] died may assuredly conclude that he maketh
intercession for them... which breaks the neck of the general ransom; for
intercession.”166
For Owen, then, the atonement is limited at the point of the intention of God.
between the Father and the Son.167 Owen is, therefore, driven to the same conclusions as
Beza, Perkins and others within the a priori position. Specifically God does not love the
world in general, but only the elect,168 and Christ is not sent in any way for the world
but only the elect. To carry this argument Owen faces an exegetical challenge with
164Owen's own categories are impetration and application. Owen, Death of Death, II.iv.
165Owen, The Death of Death, I.iv. 65.
166Owen, The Death of Death, I.iv. 65.
167Owen, The Death of Death, I.iii. 56.
168Owen, The Death of Death, I.vi. 286. cf. II.ii. 94.
48
passages such as 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and particularly John 3:16. His exegesis of
these passages is theologically driven. The Death of Death contains a lengthy sections,
for example, to explain why the Johannine use of “world” can, on occasion, mean
“elect.”169
How then should we account for particularity? Both Owen and Amyraut are products of
the 17th Century and so there are facets of their respective systems which most would
not adopt today. Nevertheless they remain the clearest expositors of the two alternatives.
Also, both have modern adherents. Owen's position finds a modern-day defense in
Muller, who argues that “it is superfluous to speak of a hypothetical extent of the
efficacy of Christ's work beyond its actual application.”170 Amyraut finds a supporter in
D.B. Knox who argues that “from the point of view of the preacher, [ie. the a posteriori
Certainly there are implications for both positions in the presentation of the gospel,
assurance of faith, and the Christian life which must be taken into account, and we shall
briefly develop these in the conclusion to this thesis. However, to argue from desired
that the heart of the matter of particularity in soteriology is how one accounts for the
temporal execution of the eternal decree. This will be a statement about Christ, since he
alone lives and works both in time and eternity. Within this framework, election and
49
The prior question that must be answered, then, is not to whom do the benefits of
election and the atonement come, but how. Or, in other words, how does Christ come to
live and dwell in us? Calvin will once again provide an important starting point as he
understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated
from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human
race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what
he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within
us.172
It is common to most reformed thought, though overlooked in some, that union with
Christ forms the basis of the appropriation of the benefits of Christ's atoning work. 173 It
is a faith union, bonded by the Holy Spirit. Thus atonement, the execution of the decree
of predestination, becomes a work of the trinitarian God. The Father sends his only-
begotten Son (John 5:30), who achieves a perfect salvation and returns exalted to the
Father's right hand (Acts 2:33). The Father and the Son then together send the Spirit
(John 14:16, 16:7) who through adoption unites us to the Son (Rom 8:15-16). Through
this faith union we appropriate the benefits of the Son (Rom 8:17).174 As Calvin wrote in
50
adoption that which he possessed by nature, namely, to make us sons of God.”175 It is on
this theological basis that the reformed doctrine of double imputation rests: in our union
with Christ, he becomes for us sin, and we become in him righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). 176
Redemption and reconciliation with God therefore is not simply the work of Christ for
us. It is the work of Christ in us and our being in him through faith (John 15:4). Both
atonement and election find their temporal execution when the “one mediator between
God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 2:5) draws near to us and dwells in us.
It is this act in time, in the existential coming of the Son to us and dwelling within us—
and not in the hapax of the son for us on the cross—that the eternal plan of God is
And now we have come to the crux of the matter. There is a biblical distinction to be
made between the work of Christ for us in the atonement, and the work of Christ in us
as his Spirit brings us into union with him; reconciliation, justification, sanctification
and redemption. Yet both are required for salvation. Amyraut was in fact correct in this
regard at least, in his assessment of the soteriology of Calvin, and in his biblical
theology. In Scripture salvation is something that is first accomplished and then applied.
“Unless you are born again,” said Jesus to Nicodemus, “you cannot see the kingdom of
God.” (John 3:3) It is not applied to all indiscriminately, but it is offered to all
essential constituent of redemption than the acquisition of it.”177 We can see this
principle operating clearly in the language in the book of Hebrews.178 The author of
51
Hebrews will not speak of salvation in direct connection with the cross. The word
groups σωζω and σωτηρια are in fact never connected to Christ's work for us. In
connection with the cross the author prefers λυτρωσις (Heb 9:12, 15), ιλασκομαι (Heb
2:17) and αγιαζω (Heb 10:10, 14). By contrast, salvation is won when it is applied in
the heavenly mediatorial and priestly work of Christ (Heb 2:3, 10; 5:9; 7:25; 9:28).
At this point we must pause to answer Owen's objection regarding the intention of God
in the atonement. Historically it has been this objection that has swayed reformed
provides a modern statement of the critique, that a two-stage salvation essentially poses
accomplish redemption for all, but the Holy Spirit undertook to apply it only to the
elect.”179 Barth's objection is similar, that “the Holy Spirit does not make effective a
work of Jesus Christ which was ineffective without it' because God's 'eternal will has
been fully and completely realized in Jesus Christ.”180 The objection, however, fails to
grasp the trinitarian weight that the doctrine of union with Christ gives to the
atonement. The Father, Son and Spirit are not divided because the work of the Spirit in
the application of redemption is not something done outside of Christ. The Father and
Son mutually send the Spirit which unites us to Christ because he is the Spirit of Christ
(Rom 8:9).181 In this way the Son, as our heavenly mediator, “continues his prophetic,
priestly and ruling activity”182 and accomplishes salvation “to the utmost” (Heb 7:24-
52
25). The intention of the triune God in his work for us was to offer a genuine gospel to
all men—“good news for all the people, a saviour!” (Luke 2:10-11). The intention of
the triune God as he unites us to himself through the Son is to accomplish that salvation
In the final analysis, the question of limited atonement is to understand the debate in the
wrong categories. The great value and strength of the a posteriori locus of election is
the economic focus that it brings to the whole question. Such an economic focus is also
the consistent answer of Scripture. When Jesus was asked “Will those who are saved be
few?” his answer was simply “Strive to enter.” (Luke 13:23-24). To phrase the question
in terms of the will or intention of God is, in the first place, to accept the a priori
formulation, and therefore, to concede the debate before it has begun. The a posteriori
answer to the question “For whom did Christ die?” is simply that God so loved the
world that he gave his only son. And of the question “Who will be saved?” it answers
without denying sola gratia, whoever should believe in him. Particularity in soteriology
should be accounted for by the human response of faith. This may sound Arminian to
some reformed ears, but it is not, because faith is the gift of the ascended Lord Jesus
Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit to the elect. Through the temporal
outworking of the economy of salvation, the Father accomplishes his divine purpose to
save fallen humanity through the work of his Son, by his Spirit.
53
Conclusions:
Our Love for Christ
We love because he first loved us.
We have argued in this project that particularity within soteriology must be understood
and how that character is revealed to us in his Son. We have seen that the a priori
placement of predestination resulted in the primacy of election over love. In this system
God is a God of the pure will, who decrees two groups of people, one to perdition and
the other to salvation for no other reason than his own freedom and glory.
But is this a God, humanly speaking, in whom fallen creatures can find refuge? 183 As the
Psalmist says, it is as God shows his wondrous love that we will hide in the shadow of
his wings. (Psalm 17:7-8). To approach God it is necessary to believe first that he is
good to us (Hebrews 11:6), for otherwise God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). The
mountain is glorious, to be sure, but it is also fearful (Hebrews 12:21). There are several
consequences, then, if our theological system permits only the statement that God is
Firstly, a great deal of introspection will be required to determine the status of one's
election. The eternal decree of God is unknowable directly, and so must be deduced
from its temporal effects. The practical syllogism of later reformed orthodoxy attempts
to do precisely this, to determine the status of election through the visible signs of the
Holy Spirit in sanctification. As has been often noted,184 the pastoral consequences of
183Cf. S. Jeffery, M. Ovey and A. Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of
Penal Substitution. England: IVP. 2007. 319-31.
184Eg. D. Carson, 'Reflections on Christian Assurance.' Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 1-
54
Christian introspection as the basis of assurance are devastating. In the extreme cases,
this regard. Although it always maintained salvation by grace through faith, once
assurance came from introspection, soteriology became in practice not very different
Secondly, the basis on which the gospel is proclaimed to “all the world” (Mark 16:15) is
tenuous if God loves only the elect. What would be the good news to proclaim? That
“among you are some that God loves?” The Christian evangelist must be able to
genuinely say “Let the one who is thirsty come and take the water of life without
application that we have developed in the previous chapter is in fact important to the
gospel in this regard. When asked, “How do I know that God wants to save me?” the
evangelist replies without hesitation, “Because Christ died to save you.” When asked,
“how do I know if I am saved?” the evangelist can in turn say, “Because you believe
that Christ died to save you.” In this formula the practical syllogism is avoided, and the
basis of assurance becomes the fact of faith. It is the genuine offer of Christ to the world
without particularity that is important, for in this offer we understand truly that God
loves us and works for us (1 John 4:10). And so in Christ is revealed to us a God in
God's love for us, only then will we begin to love him in return.
The distinction then between the a priori and a posteriori exposition of the decrees is
neither academic, nor unimportant. It reaches to the very core of the Christian gospel.
29. 4-5.
A. Null, Lectures on Repentence in Tudor Anglicanim delivered at Moore Theological College,
Annual Lectures, 2009.
55
Neither is it an oddity of historical theology. The debate over how we should understand
limited atonement is still very current in the worldwide reformed church. However we
frame the question, and whatever our solution, we must not abandon the love of God for
us, for people, for the world. We may, in the final analysis, catch a glimpse of the
cling to this sola gratia with all our might lest we be cast back helplessly upon our own
resources. Nevertheless, there is only one mediator between God and man, and in him is
revealed the loving heart of the Father, who looks upon our helpless estate and
56
Bibliography of Primary Sources
Publications. 1993.
Beza, T. A Brief e Declaration of the Chiefe Poyntes of Christian Religion, Set Foorth
Cole, H. Pages 13-206 in Calvin's Calvinism. London: Sovereign Grace Union. 1927.
_____. A Treatise on the Secret Providence of God. Edited and Translated by Cole, H.
Society. 1847.
_____. Commentary on the Harmony of The Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke.
_____. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Grand
57
_____. Consensus Tigurinus. 1549.
_____. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second
Owen, J. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.
1995.
1599.
58
Bibliography of Secondary Sources
Anderson. J. 'The Grace of God and the Non-Elect in Calviun's Commentaries and
Baker, J. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Ohio:
Barth, K. Church Dogmatics II/2: The Doctrine of God. Edited and Translated by
Battles, F. Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin. New
_____. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2004.
_____. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Grand Rapids:
_____. The History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1937.
(1992): 1-29.
59
Clark, S. Election and Predestination: The Sovereign Expressions of God. Pages 90-
Doyle, R. 'Strategies and Consequences in Calvin's Teaching on the Trinity.' Pages 82-
105 in Thompson, M. (ed.) Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer's Legacy
Gaffin Jr. R. 'Justification and Union with Christ.' Pages 248-269 in Hall, D and
Hartog, P. A Word For the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement. Illinois:
Helm, P. 'John Calvin and the Hiddenness of God.' Pages 67-82 in McCormack, B.
_____. Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark. 2008.
Jeffery, S., Ovey, M. and Sach A. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the
60
Jewett, P. Election and Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1985.
Kelly, D. 'The True and Triune God: Calvin's Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.' Pages 65-89
Kendall, R. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1979.
Matthias. 2000.
Letham, R. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. New
(2009). 210-229.
McCormack, B. 'The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism.'
Morris, L. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross: A Study of the Significance of Some
61
Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford University: Oxford. 2003.
_____. '"Calvin and the Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between
the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 1.' Pages 63-80 in Muller, R. After Calvin:
2003.
_____. '"Calvin and the Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between
the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2.' Pages 21-104 in Muller, R. After Calvin:
2003.
_____. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology
_____. 'Establishing the Ordo Docendi: The Organisation of Calvin's Institutes, 1536-
Packer, J. 'Introductory Essay.' Pages 1-44 in Owen, J. The Death of Death in the
62
Peterson, R. 'Calvin on Christ's Saving Work.' Pages 226-247 in Hall, D and Lillback,
70 (2008): 317-35.
Shaw, M. 'William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge
(1996): 267-301.
Thomas, D. 'The Mediator of the Covenant.' Pages 205-225 in Hall, D and Lillback, P.
A Theological Guide To Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. New Jersey: P&R.
2008.
Engaging with Calvin: Aspects of the Reformer's Legacy for Today. Nottingham: IVP.
2009.
Troxel, A. 'Amyraut "at" the assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the
Warfield, B. Calvin and Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press. 1931.
63
Other Works Consulted
Beeke, J.R. 'The Atonement in Herman Bavink's Theology.' Pages 324-345 in Hill, C.
and James III, F. The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological and Practical
(2007): 331-348.
Helm, P. Calvin and the Calvinists. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. 1982.
Press. 1993.
Muller, R. 'A Note on "Christocentrism" and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology.'
Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Volume 3—The Divine Essence and
64
Venema, C. Heinrich Bulliunger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of "the
65