LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

22 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV
observation, focusing on the cur alii question, rather than expounding
Scripture. There seems to be a tendency in Calvinist theology (as in Roman
Catholicism) to have a high view of human reason and follow it where
Scripture is silent. Reliance upon reason, however, leads one into a hall of
mirrors with an endless progression of questions, as Schreiner and Ware
admit:
It should be granted that the logical difficulties raised pose legitimate and
difficult questions for those who embrace Calvinism. The objections go
something like this: If God chooses only some, then how can he be loving If
God’s grace is irresistible, then what happens to human free will If God
saves those he has chosen, why pray or get involved in missions If God is in
control of the world, then why do anything at all If God is sovereign, then
why is there suffering in the world If God governs all events, then why is
evil our responsibility, not his 15
We prefer the simple teaching of the Bible.
The most recent literature on this topic shows that an attempt is being
made by Calvinists to find a mediating position. In 2003, Reformation &
Revival Journal devoted an entire issue to the subject of Predestination. In
the Introduction, John H. Armstrong states that “Even the highest of high
Calvinists will not use the term ‘fate’ to describe predestination …. Fatalism
involves the notion of ‘an arbitrary decree.’” 16 We have seen that Calvin
himself holds this view, centred in an arbitrary decree, but some try to pin
the blame on Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin’s amanuensis and
successor. Richard A. Muller, a Fuller Seminary professor, blames Beza for
taking Calvin’s doctrines of predestination “from their warm soteriological
placement” in the Institutes and in an Aristotelian manner injecting them into
the doctrine of God. 17 Thus Beza “destroyed the Christological balance of
Calvin’s thought and led to the development of a predestinarian metaphysic,
or ‘decretal theology.’” 18 Muller uses the term “rigid” several times to
describe “dead, Bezan orthodoxy”. Along the same lines, Greenbury
observes that after Calvin—whom he describes as warm and evangelical—
later Reformed theology, following Beza, adopted more scholastic methods,
increasingly emphasized the role of reason, and lapsed into a period of dead
orthodoxy. 19 Likewise Joel R. Beeke argues, “Since the 1960s many scholars
have argued that the supposed Calvin-Calvinist cleavage finds its real culprit
15 Schreiner, 16.
16 John H. Armstrong, “Introduction”, Reformation & Revival Journal 12.2 (2003): 7.
17 Richard A. Muller, “The Myth of Decretal Theology”, Calvin Theological Journal 30.1
(1995): 159-67.
18 Muller, 160.
19 James Greenbury, “Calvin’s Understanding of Predestination with Special Reference to
the Institutes”, Reformed Theological Review 54.3 (1995): 133.