Cardinal Bellarmine
In the days of early orthodoxy (before 1618: prior to the Synod of Dort), Reformed polemics were mostly against Rome – Cardinal Bellarmine (d. 1621) in particular.The Reformed also wrangled with Lutherans to some extent over a fairly limited set of doctrinal issues. And all three (Catholic, Reformed, and Lutheran) opposed what Muller calls the “traditional heterodoxies of Christianity.” But by the time of high orthodoxy (1618-1687: from Dort to the death of Francis Turretin), the Reformed “encountered a wider variety of antagonists.” Muller divides these debates into two categories: ad extra and ad intra.
“The ad extra debates, confrontations between the confessional Reformed and alternative confessional positions – whether Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Remonstrant, or Socinian – occupied the larger portion of the polemic of orthodoxy” (Muller, PRRD, 1:75). The arguments with Roman Catholics and Lutherans became more and more detailed and philosophically involved, but I want briefly to highlight the polemic with the Remonstrants and Socinians.
The Remonstrants were, of course, the followers of James Arminius. They were a highly rationalistic bunch, depending on Cartesian (and later Lockean) thought, and they posed a great danger to Reformation truth. One thing I hope to gain a better knowledge of is how Remonstrant thought infiltrated the Reformed through Federalism. Clearly, Reformed thought became thoroughly covenantal (or federal), but the Reformed orthodox had to root Arminianism out of it. The Socinians were rationalists that rejected (among other things) the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. Both Remonstrants and Socinians are examples of the growing rationalism of the age, against which the Reformed orthodox fought.
The debates ad intra were the “bitter battles among the Reformed.” These ranged from the espousal of Cartesian philosophy to the various teachings
Moses Amyraut
of theologians at the Academy of Saumur to the soteriology of Richard Baxter. Muller notes that “on none of these issues, however, did the Reformed churches rupture into separate confessional bodies or identify a particular theologically defined group as beyond the bounds of the confessions, as had been the case at the Synod of Dort” (ibid., 1:76). Of all these Reformed variations, I have the most familiarity with the various Salmurian teachings, including Amyraldism (or hypothetical universalism) and am happy to discuss them. The most outstanding thing, however, is that “Reformed” is confessionally defined. What’s more, it’s not a narrow confessional definition (as tends to be the case in contemporary debate), but is broad enough to include the Salmurian Triumverate: Moses Amyraut, Louis Cappel and Josue de la Place, at least two of which would be almost certainly be driven out today. We think of the orthodox as unbending and narrow, but overall I think they were a good deal more open-minded than we give them credit for.
Carl Trueman says we must always be careful to follow Owen in calling Socinianism heresy, but Amyraldism an error. Do you agree?
Socinianism is chalked full of arch-heresy. Amyraldianism is a variation of scholastic Calvinism, which sought to be less abrasive to Roman Catholics. Muller’s very quick to point out that the orthodox themselves saw things as Trueman does.
If you read Van Stam’s dissertation or even Armstrong’s you will see that some of the high Orthodox hated the Salmurians, calling them Arminians etc. They strongly believed that they were outside of Dort’s orthodoxy.
The two French Synods did a lot to remove the antipathy of elder Du Moulin, and the Rivet brothers.
When the Scottish delegates, on their way to the WA, were forced to dock in Holland due to a storm in the North Sea, some of the Saumur opponents asked the Scots to obtain a public rebuke and denunciation of Salmurian theology from the Prolocutor of the WA. The irony of course was that Twisse was himself a supralapsarian hypothetical universalist.
I don’t think they were that more open-minded than some today.
If you can, get a hold of Muller’s Mid-American 2009 lectures on Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism. Muller points out that many man original Reformers held to a form of non-Amyraldian HU a long time before Amyraut came on to the scene.
For more information, click on my name and check out the relevant entries.
Thanks,
David
Thanks for the comments, David. Intramural wranglings are sometimes the most bitter of all. I think that the Salmurian controversies fall into that bitter intramural category. I do think that, partially due to the breadth of learning, the Reformed orthodox were more open than a good deal of what I read coming out of our Reformed establishments today. I suppose that’s a very difficult thing to quantify, so you may be right in the end. In any event, welcome to my blog and I hope that you will benefit all of us with your knowledge.
Hey Tim,
Thanks for kind words.
I should let you know, if you have not discerned this already, but I hold to a form of unlimited expiation. I hold that the intent of the satisfaction is limited, not the extent of the satisfaction, and that this was the position of most of the original Reformers, as well as many later Puritan and Reformed theologians (over and above the Salmurians).
I just want to make that disclosure so you know where I am coming from.
To your original post, thanks for posting it btw. I should have said that in my first comment.
I think a lot of the modern Reformed have adopted a strict black and white attitude.
In the 17thC, among the English, the English Presbyterians, on both sides of the extent of the satisfaction question, sought to work together as fellow Reformed. You can see this same approach in France, Germany, and in New England. I know that in Scotland, things were not so, and later in Switzerland, things likewise tightened up.
If we are willing to allow other Reformation and Reformed models (such as exemplified by the original Reformers, and then later by French and German Reformed, and English and American Presbyterians), I do believe our understanding of Reformed history, and importantly, Scripture, will be deepened and broadened.
Thanks again for letting me comment. Ive visited your blog quite a few times before.
David