Here Muller confirms what I have been asserting all the while; that he sees an organic thread between Calvin and the “orthodox, Calvinists.” He says:
In the early years of the Reformation emphasis on the faith of the individual and stress on a new found sense of Christus pro me placed atonement at the center of theological concern. Even so, the work of Christ as mediator occupies the center of Calvin’s thought. The following essay will argue in similar terms that Protestant orthodoxy did not depart from this emphasis, that it developed a doctrinal structure more formal in definition and more scholastic in method but nevertheless concerned to maintain a doctrinal continuity with the soteriological emphasis and christological center of the theology of Calvin and his contemporaries. In this development, orthodoxy completed the transition (already evident in the work of Calvin) from piety and the preaching of reform to the system of Reformed doctrine. New structures, like the threefold office and the two states of Christ were integrated into systems of doctrine as formal principles, indeed, as new doctrinal contexts elicited from scripture, in terms of which dogmas received from the traditions — the Chalcedonian christological definition, for example — would be understood and, to a certain extent, reinterpreted. In this context also, the doctrine of the atonement, because it manifested the gracious will of God, moved into close relation with the doctrine of election. (Richard Muller, “Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology From Calvin to Perkins, 10)
Like I said, a “seamless whole.” Muller represents, as one of the “Reformed’s” best scholars (and let me just say, he is exceedingly brilliant, an amazing scholar), the atttitude that I’ve been trying to engage here. That is, what Muller calls “orthodoxy” is the only “live” option for what it means to consistently and coherently appropriate the thought of Calvin — thus the exclusive claim (by Federal theology) to the name “Calvinist.” It is this thesis that becomes the a priori force that shapes the sectarianism that is now evinced by Calvinists, today. That is, if someone says that there are other, even historic, ways to appropriate Calvin (much more in line with his Evangelicalism); these folks are considered heterodox.
I’ve read Muller’s book before, I don’t think he sustains his thesis here; I think it remains an ad hoc assertion. But that’s just me . . .
Nice post Bobby. This is a great example of a specific link made by Muller that supports your/our thesis. Nice work. I am about to read Muller's work again next week. I like his clarity and throughness, even if I disagree with some of his interpretive decisions along the way.Thanks
What you are leaving out, and what is most at the heart of Reformed Theology, is the tribunal of Scripture. Reformed Christians don't believe Reformed Theology because Calvin said it, or because the confessions state it, or because they are invested like some intellectual in a tradition they must defend in some worldly way for worldly reasons; Reformed Christians believe Reformed Theology because it passes the tribunal of Scripture. Limited atonement, for instance, is not, to a Reformed Christian, a philosophical construct that exists to be accepted or not accepted in some airy universe of discourse where intellectuals debate: it is biblical doctrine and can be defended and is defended on Scriptural ground.
Limited atonement is amongst the weakest of the traditional Reformed arguments, and it relies on a whole host of inferences that are questionable at every stage. "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2). Of course, there will be some sly reinterpretations of what "atoning" means, as well as "world world," and it precisely these reinterpretations that are the issue at stake.
True Ken – Amen. And the fact is that we are Reformed/Calvinists so we are with you, Puritan. But what you naively portray is the view that there would be no genuine disagreements if we only knew how to interpret Scripture properly! So if that is the case why did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, not to mention the Catholics- disagree so much over the Eucharistic controversey?! Perhaps none of them were trying to exegete Scripture in your opinion?! Try reading something like Enns, Incarnation and Atonement, that is, unless WTS Federal theological dogma says you can't because his are on the banned books list…
Thanks, Ken and Myk.I agree, limited atonement is just not scriptural; and does not fit with who God is.