1. religion and spirituality
2. christianity

Christocentric
Developments in the
Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination
F. STUART CLARKE
The publication of the volume of Kart Barth's Church Dogmatics,
which dealt with the problem of predestination, in German in 1942
and in English in 1956, has opened up a whole new approach to the
doctrine. The last development of equal importance was the
conversion of Augustine from the hitherto generally accepted
doctrine of predestination to his own doctrine, in the interval
between the first and second replies to Simplicianus in AD 396.
Differences between Augustine's doctrine and that of other Christians were not generally noticed until about thirty years later, but
since then controversy over predestination has usually been between
Augustinianism and an older doctrine which was revived by the
followers of Cassian in the 420s, and has remained an alternative to
Augustinianism. This doctrine is of second-century origin and may
have been assumed by the Greek apologists, but is first clearly stated
by Clement of Alexandria, once; then frequently by Origen,
especially in his Commentary on Romans. Its distinctive feature is its
interpretation of the link between foreknowledge and predestination
in Romans 8:29. According to Origen, God predestinates men
according to his foreknowledge of how they will respond to his grace
and to the offer of the gospel. Those who will respond in faith, love
and a virtuous life are predestinated to salvation. Thus Origen
succeeded, in his own judgement, in reconciling Pauline predestination and human free-will, which second-century Christians had
accepted from Greek philosophy, particularly from Platonism.
This doctrine was found wanting by Augustine, and Barth never
considers it. The Reformed theologians of the sixteenth to the
eighteenth centuries were also, of course, Augustinians. But the
Origenist doctrine of predestination-whose source by then had been
forgotten-continued, and they opposed it under various names. It is
Barth's greatness that he abandoned this sterile controversy of the
previous millenium and a half, and through his study of Athanasius
adopted a different approach. In his Orations against the Arians,
Athanasius had seen predestination as a subdivision of Christology.
229
Churchman
Now both Augustinians and Origenists agree that, in the strict sense,
Christ is God's one and only elect, and that Christians are elect in
him. But Athanasius's polemic against Arianism led him to assert
that if Christ is truly God, he must share fully in the election of men
along with his Father; in Barth's phrase, he must be electing God as
well as elected man. But one may ask whether the great Reformed
theologians of the past were really so unaware of this part of Christ's
work. The present article is an attempt to answer that question.
JohnCalvin
We approach Calvin's doctrine through the relevant parts of his
Commentary on Ephesians. 1 Calvin's critics generally agree in finding
the Commentaries as illuminating as his dogmatic works, and his
comments on the most obviously Christocentric of Bible passages on
predestination are important.
To Calvin, 'the full certainty of salvation consists in the fact that
through the gospel God reveals his love to us in Christ. ' 2 In detail,
Christ is one of four causes of salvation which Calvin understands
Paul to mention in Ephesians 1:5 and 1:8, the material cause, both of
eternal election and of God's love. This is the reason why Christ is
called in this passage 'the Beloved', 'to tell us that by him the love of
God is poured out to us.<~ Calvin refers I :7 to the material cause: 'for
he explains how we are reconciled to God through Christ, in that by
his death he has appeased the Father towards us. Therefore we ought
always to direct our minds to the blood of Christ, if we are seeking
grace in him ... ' 4 Later, the phrase in 1:10, 'that he might gather'(Av)
is explained: 'outside Christ all things were upset, but ... through him
they have been reduced to order. ' 5
How Christocentric is this teaching? Clearly it is so to a
considerable degree. Calvin does not actually call Christ God's elect
here, but his interpretation of the title, 'the Beloved', shows that he
knows Christ is the elected man in whom alone other men can be
elect. But, to Calvin, Christ is not the first cause of our salvation:
'God's eternal election is the foundation and first cause both of our
calling and of all the benefits which we receive.' 6 Similarly, 'the
efficient cause of our salvation is the good pleasure of the will of
God.' 7 To all these Christ, as the material cause, is subordinate.
Elsewhere (not in this part of the Commentary on Ephesians) Calvin
stresses the hidden nature of God's counsel. H
Although the Commentary seems to present a more Christocentric
doctrine than the Institutes, nowhere in the Commentary does Calvin
call Christ the author of election, as in the one passage of the
Institutes quoted by Professor J .K.S. Reid: 'Christ represents (facit)
himself as the author of election ... Though Christ introduces himself
in his mediatorial capacity, yet he claims to himself the right to
election in common with the Father ... ' 9
230
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
But, as Professor Reid says. this passage is unique in Calvin. His
doctrine is generally a Christocentric Augustinianism. He argues that
'if we are chosen in Christ, it is outside ourselves', 10 and uses the
name of Christ to exclude human merit, as part of his controversy
with the 'sophists' (Origenists) of the Sorbonne, and with those who
would make foreknowledge the mother of election. 11
JohnKnox
In 1560 John Knox published An Answer to the Great nomber of
blasphemous cavillations written by an Anabaptist, and adversarie to
Gods eternal Predestination. He did not name the anabaptist. Laing
tentatively identifies him with the Englishman Robert Cooke. 12 In his
Answer, Knox reprints the whole of the anabaptist's treatise
verbatim, section by section. This procedure makes the Answer very
long-488 pages in Laing's edition-and somewhat discursive.
Despite Knox's title, the ana baptist was not an 'adversarie to ...
Predestination', unless predestination necessarily includes reprobation. He accepts 'God's Election afore the world', but no 'contrarie
Reprobation'. 13 He accepts also that Christ is the Elect and Chosen
of God', 14 and that 'we are chosen in Christ Jesus'. 15 Again, 'we are
sure that without Christ there is no election.' 16 If Knox's doctrine
seems to us Christocentric, that of the anabaptist does not fall so
short. In the mid-sixteenth century, not only Calvinists, but also their
Origenist opponents, were conscious in some degree of the place of
Christ in predestination.
Knox accepts all the positive statements of his opponents about the
place of Christ. Christ is God's elect, and other men are elect and
chosen in him: 'I most certainly believe, that in the same Christ Jesus;
of free grace he did Elect and choose me to life everlasting before the
foundation of the world was laid', 17 and 'man was never Elected to
life everlasting but in Christ Jesus onlie. •IX
Does Knox go beyond the anabaptist in recognizing that Jesus
Christ is electing God as well as elected man? He quotes the words of
Jesus: 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.' 19 Other
evidence is hard to find. Knox follows, and wishes to follow, Calvin
closely. To him, Calvin is ~that notable instrument of God,' 20 and
similar expressions. He quotes from the Institutes and, at length, from
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, as well as from
Calvin's work of 1545, Against the Libertines.Z 1 In his most revealing
passage, Knox-accepting the anabaptist's statement that Christ is
God's elect, but not the anabaptist's inference (that if reprobation
exists, 'there must be more Christes of whom some must be
Reprobate m-explains how he understands Christ as God's elect:
God of one masse, that is of Adam, hath prepared some vessels of
mercie, honour and glorie, and some he hath prepared to wrathe and
231
Churchman
destruction. To the vessels of his mercie, in his eternall counsell before
all tymes, he did appoint a Head to reule, and give life to his Elect, that
is, Christ Jesus our Lord, whom he wold in tyme to be made like unto
his brethren in all thinges, sinne except; who in respect of his humaine
nature is called his servante, the just sede of David, and the Elect in
whom his soule is well compleased, because, as I have said, he is
appointed onely head to give life to the hodie, without whom there is
neither Election, salvation, nor life, to man nor to angell. And so in
respect of his humanitie, from the which he in no wise can he
separated, he is called the Elect. 2.1
Knox's restriction of the election of Christ to his human nature
places him with Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, and shows that he
has not really moved in this work towards a Christocentric
understanding of predestination. But his contribution to the doctrine
is not confined to the Answer. Percy and Professor McEwen have
speculated that the Answer was a tour de force, and that Knox's heart
was not really in it. 24 As principal author of the Scots Confession,
composed and published a little later than the Answer, Knox takes a
different line which brings him praise from Barth. 25 The word
'predestination' is not used in the Confession, and election is defined
in cap.8 by a citation of Ephesians 1:4, 'That same eternal God and
Father, who of mere mercy elected us in Christ Jesus his Son, before
the foundation of the world was laid, appointed him to be our Head,
our Brother, our Pastor and great Bishop of our Souls. ' 26
Cap. 7 has attributed the 'conjunction betwix the Godhead and the
Manhead in Christ Jeuss' to 'the eternal and immutable decree of
God, whence also our salvation springs and depends', and cap.8 (on
election) goes on to express the necessity of the incarnation and death
of Christ for our restoration and salvation. Again, cap.l6, 'Of the
Kirk' (as God's elect), shows, as Barth says, 27 that the Scots
Confession is exceptional among confessional writings in showing
more interest in the elect community than in the elect (or reprobate)
individuals.
All this adequately fulfils two of Barth 's criteria for a Christocentric doctrine of predestination: that the decree of election is identical
with that of salvation, and is primarily concerned with the mission
and people of the Son. 28 The one element not clearly present is that
of Christ himself as electing God. Cap.l and cap.6 express orthodox
Trinitarian doctrine, but cap.8 (following Ephesians) attributes
election to the Father electing us in Christ.
Jonathan Edwards
The doctrine of predestination of Jonathan Edwards is most
attractively presented in his Remarks on Important Theological
Subjects, Chapter 3 (Concerning the Divine Decreesf9
232
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
Edwards begins with Christ. who, as he says. is often spoken of as
being pre-eminently the elect or chosen of God. A number of
Scripture texts are quoted. But he is clear that Christ is the chosen of
God both as to his divine and human nature:
As to his divine nature. he was chosen of God, though not to any
addition to his essential glory or real happiness, which is infinite. yet to
great declarative glory. As he is man, he is chosen of God to the
highest degree of real glory and happiness of all creatures. As to both.
he is chosen of God to the office and glory of the mediator between
God and man, and the head of all the elect creation.-10
The theme is continued by comparisons between God's election of
Christ as God, ans his election of Christ as man. As God, Christ was
elected for his worthiness; as man, his election was the ground of his
worthiness. His election, as God, is a manifestation of God's wisdom;
his election, as man, is a manifestation of God's sovereignty and
grace. Through God's election, Christ was free from sin; through
God's election also, Christ did not fail in the great and difficult work
that he undertook (the atonement). 'So that the man Christ Jesus has
the eternal, electing love of God to him, to contemplate and admire
... as all his elect members have. ' 31
Here Edwards's doctrine differs significantly from that of most
previous Augustinian and Calvinist theologians. He has freed himself
of the restricting idea that Christ is only the first of the elect according
to his human nature, and for this he deserves our gratitude and
admiration. He has freed himself to take, if he wishes, the further
step of recognizing Christ as not only the elected, but also the
electing, God, who elects other men in himself.
At this point Edwards seems to draw back. He recognizes that
Christ is the head of election, the pattern of election, and that angels
and men are chosen to be in him. He defines election as containing
two things, foreknowledge and predestination. But in both of these,
God the Father is the subject and Christ is the direct or (in the case of
the predestination of other men) indirect object:
With respect to foreknowledge ... we are chosen in him as God chose
us, to be actually his in this way. viz. by being ... members of his Son ...
But by predestination, which is consequent on his foreknowledge, we
are elected in Christ ... For God having in foreknowledge given us to
Christ, he thenceforward beheld us as members and parts of him; and
so ordained the head to glory, he therein ordained all the members to
glory. 32
In fact, Edwards has seriously weakened the Christological basis of
his doctrine of predestination earlier in the same chapter. In
discussing the sincerity of God's calls and invitations to the
233
Churchman
reprobates, he comments thus on the desire of the godly for the
salvation of the reprobate:
There is nothing wanting in God, in order to his having such desires
and such lamentings, but imperfection; and nothing is in the way of his
having them, but infinite perfection; and therefore it properly,
naturally and necessarily came to pass that when God, in the manner of
existence, came down from his infinite perfection, and accommodated
himself to our nature and manner, by being made man ... in the person
of Jesus Christ, he really desired the conversion and salvation of
reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery; as when he
beheld the city Jerusalem, and wept over it, saying '0 Jerusalem' etc.-'·'
Apparently 'came down from infinite perfection' is Edwards's way
of expressing the kenosis of Philippians 2:7, which Paul does not refer
to Christ's electing work. But if, when Christ 'emptied himself, his
will to save was affected, then he must have two wills: one, in his
incarnate life, to save all men; the other, in his infinite perfection, to
save a limited number. Alternatively, the former will must be
illusory, 'an accommodation to our nature and manner'. Both
explanations are unsatisfactory.
Like Calvin and most Calvinists, Edwards is obsessed with the
dangers of an Origenist interpretation of predestination, which he
had to face in the person of Daniel Whitby. This may be the reason
why his doctrine is not completely Christocentric .
.Amandus Polanus
The Reformed theologian Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf (15611610) receives no less than eight references and several quotations in
the part of Barth 's Church Dogmatics, chapter 7, which treats of the
election of God. The main reason is that Polanus knew of the passage
of Athanasius, reproduced it, and attempted to take account of its
teaching in his own doctrine of predestination. 34
Polanus gives a typical Calvinist definition of election: 'The
election of men to eternal salvation is the predestination by which
God from eternity gave to Christ those men on whom he willed to
have mercy. ' 35 But the efficient cause of this election is God,
specifically defined as the whole Trinity, 'one in essence, three in
persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit', and Polanus emphasizes, in
the passage quoted by Barth, 36 that election is not a work confined to
the person of the Father, but is a common work of the whole Trinity
whose head the Father is. In fact Polanus quotes the Athanasian
passage twice, and his use of it repays examination.
The first quotation is short and consists of the opening words of
c.77 of Oration 2. 37 Polanus is arguing against Origenism in general,
and specifically against the eleventh-century Greek Origenist,
2.34
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
Theophylact (floruit 1078-1107), who had argued that foreknown
faith was the foundation of election. In reply, Polanus quotes
Augustine and Prosper, then introduces Athanasius to prove that the
foundation of faith is Christ himself. The second quotation is much
longer, 3x almost the whole of cs 76 and 77: that is, the heart of
Athanasius' argument. The purpose of the quotation is to stress
Christ as the link and the means of union between electing God and
elected man. 39 Polanus continues by challenging 'certain men'
(Catholics?, Lutherans?, Arminius?) who accuse 'us' (Calvinists) of
holding a kind of absolute election, such that God elects certain men
to salvation without respect to Christ; to this they oppose a
Christocentric doctrine. Polanus rejects this accusation and pronounces an anathema against anyone who does not believe that he
was elected IN CHRIST (capitals) to eternal life before the
foundations of the world were laid. He goes on to argue that election
is not universal, and to discuss reprobation.
Polanus quotes Athanasius: first, when as an Augustinian he can
legitimately claim Athanasius as an ally in his polemic against
Origenism; and second, when he is trying to show that, contrary to
the accusations of their opponents, Calvinists do hold a Christocentric doctrine of predestination. Whether Polanus's fellow Calvinists
would have accepted Athanasius' statement as a sound expression of
their views, is another matter. Where Polanus's own thinking seems
to be most influenced by Athanasius, in his attribution of election to
the whole Trinity and not just to God the Father, Athanasius is never
quoted. Is Polanus consciously or subconsciously aware that the
Athanasian doctrine is as dangerous to the Augustinian view of the
Father's decretum absolutum, as to the Origcnist \'iew of election
based on foreknown faith?
Johannes Coccejus
The seventeenth-century Reformed theologian Johannes Coccejus
(Johann Koch) has received honourable mention from Karl Barth as
one of the rare theologians who have had a Christological basis for
their doctrine of predestination. In his foreword to Maury's work on
predestination, 40 Barth ranks Coccejus with Athanasius, Augustine,
Knox and Maruy himself, and analyses Coccejus's doctrine in the
Church Dogmatics. 41 Undoubtedly Coccejus was a follower of
Augustine and doctrinally akin to Knox. Coccejus is best known for
his so-called 'federal theology' or 'covenant theology'. It has been
claimed that in his thought, the doctrine of a covenant between God
and man usurped the place of the New Testament doctrine of the
fatherhood and sonship. In fact, Coccejus has a clear understanding
of the sonship of Christ. Tlie first part of the covenant is God's
decree to give his only-begotten Son and to send him in human
flesh, according to Hebrews 2:11-14. 42 Like Polanus, Coccejus is
235
Churchman
concerned to involve the whole Trinity in the decree of election,
which, as Barth says, is for him identical with the decree of salvation.
The mediator of the covenant, Christ, is God, and not another God
different from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 43 The will of Christ, as
mediator of the covenant, is sponsio, the solemn promise; 44 it is also
the will of the Holy Spirit. 45 The concept of Christ as the sponsor,
surety, is vital for Coccejus's understanding of the decree. No
covenant could be made without the will of Christ as mediator and
sponsor. Coccejus quotes John I: I and John 5: I9f., in the interesting
form, 'the Father does nothing which he does not show to the Son, so
that he may do the same. ' 46 So, towards the end of his discussion of
predestination, Coccejus can say that God has elected those to be
blessed, in Christ, and that 'in Christ' is to be understood in two
senses: with Christ, as the foreknown head of his members; and
through Christ, and with him, as the subject of election, the eligens,
specifically the 'sponsor' .47 Several Bible texts are quoted for each interpretation of the phrase, and Augustine for the first interpretation.
Yet, as Barth says, Coccejus sees the content of predestination in
typical Augustinian fashion as God's election of his children, the
heirs of life, and their separation from the reprobate. 4 x Between his
stress on the Godhead and the will of the Son and the Spirit in
cap.34, and his explicit identification of Christ as the electing God in
cap.37.31, there intervenes a long argument against 'Pelagians' and
'semi-Pelagians' (Origenists), which takes up most of cap.37, in
which he attacks Chrysostom, and uses Augustine and Prosper to
confute those who believe predestination is based on God's foreknowledge of men. Why?
Coccejus has not successfully solved the problem of combining the
Godhead of the Son, his electing work, and the covenant with God
for man's salvation, into a harmonious whole. The epistle to the
Hebrews speaks of the Godhead of the Son and the covenant, but not
of election or predestination. While trying to hold the Godhead of
the Son and his full participation in the election of God's people,
Coccejus in practice must think of the Son as making the covenant
with the Father from the man ward side.
Andreas Byperius
Before predestination officially became an issue between Lutherans
and Reformed with the publication of new doctrinal formulae
between 1577 and 1581, Andreas Hyperius, who is, as Dr J .K.S. Reid
says, generally to be placed with the German Reformed theology ,4\1
nevertheless treated the doctrine in a way which differed at certain
· points from the Calvinist doctrine. In his V aria opuscula theologica of
1570, Hyperius includes an essay whose contents are summarized in
its title: 'that Christ is not only the instrumental cause of our
salvation, but also the efficient and the first cause. ' 50
236
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
Hyperius summarizes two opinions about salvation held by learned
men: 1) his own, that we are reconciled and received into grace by
God the Father because of (propter) Christ, and justified because of
Christ's merits and dignity; and 2) that we are received into grace,
not because of Christ, but because of God's goodness, mercy and
love towards us, of which Christ is sign, testimony and seal, but not
impulsive cause; rather is he the instrumental cause which God
chooses to use.
This second opinion was in process of becoming Reformed
orthodoxy, but Hyperius seeks to disprove it. He appeals to the
generally accepted fact that the operations of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are common and undivided, and shrewdly quotes from
Augustine's Contra Sermonem Arianorum that the works of the
Father and Son are the same, not that the Son is the same person as
the Father, but because the Son does nothing which the Father does
not do through him, nor does the Father do anything except through
the Son working with him. The problems this raises are solved by an
appeal to the communicatio idiomatum (communication of attributes) in Christ.
God does all things because of himself; 51 he predestinates, elects,
calls, justifies and glorifies men. But he does so not only because of
the Father, but because of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which three
are one God. This cuts out a merely instrumental understanding of
the work of Christ, which is also irreconcilable with the true nature of
faith in Christ. A parallel with Adam is also used; if Adam was the
efficient cause of our fall, so must Christ be our salvation.
The essay is concerned with predestination as part of the whole
saving work of God. In Hyperius's work of systematic theology, the
Methodos theologicus, 52 the same point is made in the section on
predestination. When Scripture informs us, as it does frequently, that
we are elected in Christ and through Christ, it means that if any cause
moves God to elect us, it can only be the dignity of Christ himself. 53
This point is made explicitly against those who make foreknown faith
the ground of election, implicitly against certain fellow-Reformed
theologians. As many as are elected are elected because of Christ,
and none are elected except those who acknowledge and confess
him. 5 4
Hyperius recognizes that belief in God the Trinity requires as
corollary the belief that all parts of our salvation, including
predestination and election, are the work of the whole Trinity, the
Son and Spirit as well as the Father. But the immediate future lay
with the doctrine Hyperius sought to disprove. The Reformed
theologian Bucan, who recognized with Hyperius that belief in the
Trinity means belief in the whole Trinity as the first cause of election,
goes on to make a distinction which Hyperius would have found
invalid. To Bucan, the first cause of election is God, and Jesus
237
Churchman
Christ-'because he is not a different God from the Father'-and the
Holy Spirit. But the efficient or impulsive cause is the love of God
and the good pleasure of his will. 55 To Hyperius, the first, efficient
and impulsive causes are identical, and all identified with Christ
himself.
Summary
We find Christocentric developments in Hyperius, Coccejus and
Edwards, and in Knox's Confession (though not in his Answer).
When the Scots Confession was virtually replaced in Scotland by the
Westminster Confession, the Christocentric understanding of predestination suffered. But none of these completely freed themselves
from Augustinian presuppositions, and only Coccejus created a
theological school whose doctrine of predestination was distinguishable from that of mainstream Calvinism. However, this school used
the concepts of the covenant, and of Christ as its sponsor, in such a
way as to endanger the Godhead of the Son in electing his members.
With minor qualifications, the judgement of Professor J. K.S. Re id,
in the article quoted, must be accepted, that 'the later Calvinists did
no more than Calvin himself to achieve for Christ a secure and
effective place in the preparation of this decree' (of election). 56
Philippe Maury
In his foreword to Maury's book, Barth speaks of the 'profound
impression' made upon him by Maury's address a~ the Geneva
Calvinist Congress of 1936, and of its decisive contribution to his own
later Christological understanding of predestination. 57
Maury wishes to remove the alternatives to a Christological
doctrine of predestination. Thus, in traditional Reformed fashion, he
rejects Origenism: 'The divine decision in no way depends upon the
man who is its object. It is not even the case ... that God chooses by
grace [the man] whose faith or virtue he knows in advance through
his divine foreknowledge. ' 58
But equally he rejects Augustianism-perhaps the first Reformed
theologian to do so. 'The decree of election ... is not, as classical
theology has maintained, from Augustine to Luther, Calvin and the
orthodox dogmatic theologians of the seventeenth, eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, the obscure and impenetrable decision of a
divinity who does not, on this point, reveal his designs. ' 5<J
Both Origenism and Augustinianism are, to Maury, forms of the
error that the doctrine of predestination is the doctrine of the
predestined, and not that of the God who predestines; an anthropological and not a theological doctrine. 60 But who is this God who
predestines? It is not enough to say that he chose Jesus Christ-he
chose to be Jesus Christ. And in the prologue to John's gospel
(apparently in John 1:12), Maury finds Jesus explicitly presented to
238
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
us as both choosing and chosen. " 1 It cannot be otherwise if the
doctrine of the two natures is true. This incidentally involves the
rejection of Calvin's doctrine of Christ as the mirror in which we see
the secret of the absolute decree, formed elsewhere than in Christ. 62
But if Christ is the chosen one, he is also the chosen one rejected.
Here Maury and Barth go beyond the doctrine of Athanasius, and it
is instructive to observe why they feel compelled to do so.
Augustinianism, and in a sense Origenism also, has asserted a
parallelism in the doctrine of predestination, of elect and reprobate,
of God's will to save and God's will to harden, even of God's hatred
and God's love. Indeed, Augustinianism thought such a parallelism
necessary, to preserve the freedom of God's grace. Maury quotes a
famous professor and fervent disciple of Calvin as saying, 'Let there
be one man damned, just one, and all the elect will have their place in
the Kingdom because of the absolute, irrevocable decree. ' 63
This is the final blasphemy towards which the Augustinian
reasoning leads us. Salvation is made to depend not on Christ's
death, but on the final reprobation by God's hidden decree of some
unspecified member or members of the human race. The answer to it
is that one man has been damned, just one, really, though
temporarily-Christ on the cross-and that through him all the elect
do have their place in the kingdom. Only if the decree of election is
identical with that of salvation, and rejection takes place on the cross,
can the cross retain its rightful place in our thinking.
Nevertheless Maury-and l.ere he differs from Barth-rejects any
idea of final universal salvation, as untrue to Scripture. 6 On the
other hand Scripture equally teaches Maury that there can be no final
decree of death until the sifting at the last judgement. 65 It cannot be
brought forward to before the foundation of the world, or even to
Calvary.
Maury accepts that his interpretation of election, which makes
each of the elect the object of both rejection and grace, will shock
many as unscriptural and would have been firmly rejected by
Calvin. 66 But he finds it necessary, because he sees all Christian
doctrines as related in their Christology, and only in their Christology
intelligible and convincing. 67
KarlBarth
Barth has revived the Athanasian doctrine of predestination as an
effective alternative to both Augustinianism and Origenism, and has
placed the church in his debt. Here we draw attention to certain
original features of Barth's own doctrine.
He stresses, more clearly than Athanasius, that we begin with Jesus
Christ as he is revealed in holy Scripture, and especially in
Colossians, as the One in whom there dwells the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. 68 Without the Son sitting at the right hand of the
239
Churchman
Father, God would be a different and alien god, and, to the
Christian, not God at all. Therefore our concept of God must not be
simply that of a being who rules absolutely; false gods and idols also
rule. 'Infinite power in an infinite sp.here is rather the characteristic of
... ungodly and anti-godly courts.' 9 The true God rules in a definite
sphere with a definite power. This rules out any Augustinian idea of
an absolute divine decree prior to Christ. On the other hand, the
Augustinians are right about the divine freedom in election, which
rules out any Origenist attempt to find something in man, e.g. his
merits or faith foreknown by God, as the basis of election. But God is
only free to be what he has willed to be in Christ. Predestination
involves a twofold election: in Christ, God elects himself to
fellowship with man, and elects man to fellowship with himself. Jesus
Christ is the foundation of predestination in every possible respect.
Not only is he the elect of God in whom all others are elect; he is also
the electing God who elects himself.
In paragraph 34, Barth goes on to consider the election of the
community: 'The election of Jesus Christ is simultaneously the
eternal election of the one community of God. ' 70 But, in Christ, men
are elected for judgement as well as mercy. Here Barth begins to go
beyond the Athanasian doctrine and its direct implications, to
elaborate doctrines which may, as he claims, be based on Scripture,
but, from the point of view of classical doctrines of predestination
(including the Athanasian), contain original elements. This is
particularly the case when in the final paragraph 35 he comes to
consider the question which Athanasius did not consider-the
election of the individual.
Barth's basic point is that Christ is not only the elect of God. He is
also the Rejected, the 'only one rejected, the bearer of all men's sin
and guilt and their ensuing punishment. ' 71 Because he is the elect and
the rejected, 'he is ... the Lord and Head both of the elect and also of
the rejected.' There is a 'solidarity of the elect and the rejected in the
One Jesus Christ. m But there is no complete parallel. In Christ as
the elect man, the elect find their own eternal election; in Christ as
the rejected on the cross, the rejection of the rejected has been
averted from him and diverted to Christ, and if the rejected seeks to
make his own rejection eternal (as he does), then he witnesses to a
lie. So there is a choice for man (here Barth in effect sides with
Origenism against Augustinianism), but the choice of the godless
man is a satanic possibility, a void choice of nothing, excluded by the
divine election of grace. 73
To evaluate this we may compare it with a passage in Knox'sAnswer,
where the anabaptist argues: 'That this is untrew, "Wheresoever
there is Election, there is also Reprobation of the same kynd" ... may
be easilie proved ... Christ is the Elect and Chosen of God ... And will
you say therefore, that there be no Christes which be reprobates?' 74
240
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
This comes near to Barth's statement, with the vital difference that
for Barth it is the same Christ who is 'reprobate', or rather
temporarily rejected. Knox denies that he and his friends have said
this: 'Trew it is, that John Calvin thus writeth: "Inter Electos et
Reprobus mutua est relatio" ... so that the Election of the which the
Apostle speaketh can not stand except we should grante that God bath
set apart one sort of men whom it pleaseth him from an other sorte. ' 7
Knox argues that, on the anabaptist's principle, if there is one John
Knox who is elect, there must be another John Knox who is
reprobate, and so with all other men: 'A more sure and trew
conclusion is this: God of one Masse bath Elected some men to life in
Christ Jesus; ergo, There was left of the same masse another sort,
under another head, the Devil, who is the Father of lies, and of all
such as continue in blasphemie against God. ' 76
Here Barth stands far from traditional Augustinianism as represented by Knox: 'In the determination of the rejected we have to do
with the will of God in . . . a wholly different sense than in the
determination of the elect. ' 77 No eternal covenant of wrath corresponds to the eternal covenant of grace; no established or tolerated
kingdom of Satan corresponds in any way to the kingdom of Jesus
Christ. The rejected man is the man not willed by God, but, because
God is wise and patient, the rejected man at present continues to
exist and is not simply annihilated. Thus Barth goes beyond any
earlier theologian in seeking a Christocentric understanding of the
unbeliever and the rejected, as well as of the predestinated and elect
man.
But can the 'null and void' choice of the rejected man be
permanent? In traditional terms, is Barth a universalist? Barth
cannot finally answer this question because he cannot, on principle.
find any criteria outside the revelation of God in Christ, and there are
two which, taken separately, would lead to different conclusions.
There is the freedom of God in grace, according to which we cannot
say that all the rejected will finally be elect. There is the fact that the
real and revealed will of God in Christ 'is directed to the salvation of
all men in intention, and sufficient for the salvation of all men in
power'; 7H therefore we cannot make a final limitation of the number
of the elect in Christ. 'We avoid both these statements, for they are
both abstract and therefore cannot be any part of the message of
Christ, but only formal conclusions without any actual substance. ' 79
The elect community has simply to witness to God's will 'that the
rejected should believe, and that as a believer he should become a
rejected man elected. •HO
Conclusion
Since the 1940s there has been a renewed attempt to find the true
place of Christ in the doctrine of predestination. Professor J .K.S.
241
Churchman
Reid, in his article in the first two numbers of The Scottish Journal of
Theology, has argued that Calvinist theology has failed to draw fully
on the implications of its presupposition that predestination is in
Christ. 111
There is another presupposition in Calvinism, which Calvin
expresses at least once, that election precedes grace. In traditional
Calvinism, these two presuppositions coexist precariously. But the
God and Father of Jesus Christ is essentially a God of grace. If Christ
is electing God, there can be no election which precedes grace; on the
contrary, election is itself a work of grace. This involves other
changes in traditional doctrine. The concept of the 'decree' must be
abandoned, because predestination is not a res acta but a res agenda;
the gracious and continuing action of God's will, not a once for all
decision which binds God as well as man. Christians must find their
security not in a decree, but in the gracious will of God. Again, the
will of God in predestination must be seen as wholly personal,
because God is himself wholly personal. Finally. the man who is
elected has a real decision to make. though it is no more than the
echo of a reply already given in Christ.
The key text for election is Ephesians 1:4. and Professor Reid
emphasizes equally that we are chosen in Christ and chosen before
the foundation of the world. He interprets the latter to mean that
Christ is the Chooser as well as the Chosen; he elects men, and
imparts the divine election to those who are in him. The key text for
reprobation is Matthew 27:46; like Maury and Barth, Professor Reid
finds Christ to be the Reprobate. There is a parallelism between
election and reprobation. which must not be pressed too far. It
breaks down at a certain point-the question is. at what point? The
Reformers wrongly contrasted the merited punishment of the
reprobate with the undeserved salvation of the elect. The true
contrast is between the purpose of Christ's election, and the purpose
of his reprobation: 'The salvation is Christ's so that we may partake,
but the damnation so that we may escape. ,g~
Professor Reid asks if we are committed to a doctrine of
univcrsalism. He believes that it will always be open to men to reject
what is offered in Christ, but that the rigid classes of elect and
reprobate. which the classic doctrine worked. must be abandoned in
favour of 'existential possibilities'. If this is to set up a species of
indeterminism at the heart of the doctrine, he accepts the charge, but
pleads that we are here confronted with the problem of evil; and as
evil is the final irrationality. it resists exact comprehension in terms of
predestination, as in any other terms.
How satisfactory is this doctrine? Its weakness. if any, lies in what
Professor Re id confesses to be his 'singularly lame conclusion'. 113
Can we go further? We have Paul's authority that God's
predestination is linked with his foreknowledge, and we have
242
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
discovered by experience that neither the Origenist interpretation
that God predestinates individuals according to his foreknowledge of
how they will use their free will, nor the Augustinian interpretation
that God merely foreknows which individuals he himself means to
save or damn, is satisfactory. The Athanasian interpretation that
Christ shares with his Father fully in electing us, is satisfactory as far
as it goes, but offers no help in understanding the predestination of
individuals. If we interpret Romans 8:29 in the light of other Pauline
passages, we may see more clearly. Ephesians I :3-I4 speaks of God's
grace, but also of man's hope and faith. The neglected passage, I
Corinthians I: 18-2:10 speaks at 2:7 of (Christ as?) the predestinated
wisdom of God. It appears that predestination is based on God's
foreknowledge, not of his own will or of ours, but of the whole
relationship between God and the individual soul. Such a relationship
is begun, continued and perfected only by God's grace, yet it does
not, according to Paul, exclude the part played by human faith (1:21)
and human love (2:9).
The concept of foreknowledge must be reintroduced into our
doctrine of predestination if we are to give a satisfactory account of
the predestination of individuals. Perhaps at this point we must leave
the subject. The New Testament revelation does not take us further,
and each human relationship with God, as with any other being, has
some unique quality which defies further classification.
F. STUART CLARKE is minister of the Hastings Methodist circuit, Sierra Leone, and
part-time tutor in Christian doctrine and NT Greek at the Theological Hall, Freetown.
NOTES
1 David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, eds, Calvin's Commentaries,
Epistles to Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T.H.L. Parker
(Oiiver & Boyd. Edinburgh & London 1965).
2 ibid .. p.l24.
5 ibid .. p.129.
6 ibid .. p.l24.
3 ibid .. p.l27.
4 ibid., pp.l27ff.
7 ibid., p.l26.
!\ See Professor J .K.S. Re id's edition of Concermng the Eternal Predestination of
God (James Clarke, London 1961), p.l06, and the introduction, pp.38-44.
9 Institutes 3.22.7, quoted in Scottish Journal of Theology (SJ1), I, I, 1948; 'The
Office of Christ in Predestination'. pp.8f.
10 ibid., (T.H.L. Parker's translation). p.l25.
11 ibid., pp.l25. 127; see also Calvin's Commentary on Malachi.
12 David Laing. ed., The Works of John Knox, vol.S (Johnstone & Hunter.
Edinburgh 1!156), pp.16. 13, 14 (incorrect pagination in the preface).
13 ibid .. p.122.
18 ibid .• p.256.
14 ibid.,p.l23.
19 ibid.,p.i01;John 15:16.
IS ibid .. p. 107.
20 ibid., p.124.
16 ibid., p.251.
21 ibid., pp.l68-78.
17 ibid., p.130.
22 ibid., p.130.
243
Churchman
23 ibid., p.l31.
24 J.S. McEwen, The Faith of John Knox (Lutterworth Press, London 1961). pp.64,
78.
25 K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol.2. part 2. ET (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh 1957),
pp.62, 84, 154; and foreword toP. Maury. Predesination and Other Papers. trans.
Edwin Hudson (SCM Press. London 1960). p.l6.
26 Version in modern English from W.C. Dickinson. cd .. John Knox's History of the
Reformation in Scotland, (Thomas Nelson. London 1949), vol.2. appendix VI.
pp.257-72.
27 Barth. op. cit.. p.308.
28 ibid.,p.ll5.
29 The Works of Jonathan Edwards, AM ... revised and corrected hy Edward Hickman
(F. Westley & A. H. Davis. London lll34). vol.2.
30 ibid.' p.538.
31 loc. cit.
32 ibid .. pp.538f.
33 ibid., p.521l. my italics.
34 Barth. op. cit.. p.lll. See also H. Faulcnbach. Die Struktur der Theologie des
Amandus Polanus van Polansdorf(Basler Studicn. Ziirich 1967). and works there
cited.
35 A. Polanus. Symagma Theologiae Christianae (Geneva 1612). col.6XO. Electio
hominum aeternum servandorum. est praedestinatio qua Deus ab aetcrno dedit
Christo cos homines quorum voluit miscreri.
36 Barth. op. cit.. p.lll; the passage from col.l574 in the 1609 edition. which I could
not obtain. The column numbers in the 1612 reprint are different (col.6XO).
37 Col.686 in 1612 edition.
38 Col.690 in 1612 edition.
39 The quotation from Athanasius follows the passage of Polanus quoted by Barth,
op. cit.. p.lll, from col.l596 (1609 edition). col.690 (1612 edition).
40 P. Maury. op. cit., p.l6.
41 Barth, op. cit.. especially pp.ll4f.
42 J. Coccejus, Summa Theo/ogiae (Leiden 1662). 33.16, p.3X5. quoted Barth. op.
cit .. p.ll4.
43 ibid .. 34.8, p.3X9.
44 ibid., 34.5, p.31lll.
45 ibid .. 34.6, p.31l8.
46 ibid .. 34.6. Unde ... diligenter inculcet ... Christus. Patrem nihil facerc. quod non
monstret filio. ut is similiter id facial (John 5: 19). Quo significatur. Patrem nihil
facere nisi communi Filii sapientia. decreto. potentia. operatione.
47 ibid .. 37.31, p.401: quoted Barth. op. cit.. p.ll4.
41l ibid., 37.2, p.395; quoted Barth. op. cit., p.301l.
49 K.J .S. Re id in SJT. I. 2, 1948, article cited, p.l72.
50 A. Hyperius. Varia opuscula theo/ogica. 1570, p.641. Christum non instumcntalcm
modo esse salutis nostrae causam. verum etiam efficientcm et principem.
51 ibid., p.650,proptersese.
52 A. Hyperius. Methodos theologicus (Basle 1574).
53 ibid .. pp.l88f.
54 ibid .. p.l93.
55 lnstitutiones theo/ogicae, 36, p.l6f.
56 Reid, op. cit. (SJT, I, 1). p.l8.
57 Maury, op. cit.. p.l6.
5X ibid .. p.38.
63 ibid., p.60.
59 ibid .. p.34.
64 ibid., p.58.
60 ibid .. p.37.
65 ibid.' p.52.
61 ibid., p.50.
66 ibid., p.66.
62 ibid .. p.51.
67 ibid., p.21.
244
Christocentric Developments in the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Barth, op. cit., p.S.
ibid., p.SO.
ibid.,p.l95(summary).
ibid., p.346.
ibid., p.347.
ibid., p.316.
Laing, cd., op. cit., p.l23.
ibid.,p.l26.
76
77
78
79
80
81
X2
X3
ibid., p.131.
Barth, op. cit., p.450.
ibid., pp.421f.
ibid., p.418.
ibid.' p.506.
Rcid. op. cit. (SJT 1948), p.S.
ibid.,p.IXI.
ibid., p.IX3.
245