# Christ and the Decree -- Richard Muller



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 7, 2008)

Any thoughts on this book by Muller?

Amazon.com: Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins: Richard A., Muller: Books


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 7, 2008)

Phenomenal. I've read it many times and always keep it handy as a reference.

Are you looking for a fairly thorough review, information about its contents or just overall thoughts and impressions?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 7, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Phenomenal. I've read it many times and always keep it handy as a reference.
> 
> Are you looking for a fairly thorough review, information about its contents or just overall thoughts and impressions?



For my purposes, it doesn't need to be a comprehensive, thorough review. Overall thoughts and impressions, summary of contents, highlights, issues to be aware of -- any and all of these would be of use to me. Thanks much!


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 7, 2008)

Overall, it is an attempt to overthrow the thesis that the later Reformed tradition held an _a priori_ doctrine of predestination which is entirely foreign to Calvin. To do this, he does not ignore the more speculative elements found in later codification (represented in this work by Perkins and Polanus), but shows the both theological frameworks within which this speculation occurred (that the speculation is not isolated, but is tempered by their Christological focus, trinitarian patterns, the goodness of God, etc.), and the historical patterns and trajectories established by earlier orthodox formulations such as those found in Calvin and Bullinger -- rather, though this speculation is not found in Calvin, it is certainly to be expected based upon the path he set up.

The method which Muller uses is to examine the overall predestinarian themes in a progression of history. The first being represented by Calvin, Bullinger, Vermigli and Musculus; the second, by Beza, and by the Heidelberg-ers Ursinus and Zanchius; and the third by Perkins and Polanus. The first section is of utmost importance as Muller reminds us that Calvin is not the sole father of a tradition, but that what we have received stems from many fundamentally related, yet varied sources.

He demonstrates well the differing methods of the period represented by Ursinus and Zanchi from those of Calvin, Bullinger, etc., and the resultant different patterns and foci. He also argues, however, that this was instrumental to our more full understanding of the patterns of the earlier codification, and that when we come to Perkins, Polanus and the later formulations, we find a restored emphasis on the tendencies of the earlier age augmented by those of the more scholastic teachers.

I think he demonstrates quite clearly that, though many theologians considered the decree within the locus and in terms of the doctrine of God, this nevertheless did not remove it from its rightful relationship to Christology, soteriology and the historical progression of the covenant (mostly from Bullinger's influence).

His argumentation on the centrality of the Trinitarian nature of God to Calvin's theology, and to his soteriology and understanding of predestination in particular, was world-changing for me several years ago. Much that is latent and implicit in Calvin was crystallized and brought to the surface for me by this book (it was my first encounter with Muller), including the abovementioned Trinitarian emphasis, the revitalized Christology and Trinitarian teaching of Calvin over the patristic formulations, etc.

As a side note, one particularly interesting point he mentioned on the side which stuck me profoundly is the possibility of _Beza's_ influence on _Calvin_ before the last edition of his Institutes. I remember dropping the book on the floor the first time I read that. I think there was an earthquake.

The book is fascinating, and not only serves to refute a myth, but I think vastly expanded my understanding of the theologians considered not only with respect to this issue, but the foundational perspectives which Muller argues that they had shaped my understanding of them on many other issues as well.

I don't have much to caution about with this book -- I can't argue with Muller too well; he knows his sources, and I don't. It is a very balanced book, and he is not afraid to note anomalies and aberrations where they exist, and to demonstrate the inherent changes which did occur from the earlier periods of our tradition.

(One less than wonderful thing about the book is the quantity of endnotes. Don't get me wrong, for the purpose of this book they are necessary, but the constant flipping back and forth does get tiring after a while: I personally prefer footnotes, though I realize they are not always practical).

One quote from fairly early in the book I think captures the whole quite well:


> We are not to understand this formulation, even in the magnificent conception of Calvin's 1559 Institutes, as a completed edifice. For all the attractiveness of the early Protestant systems--their strength of piety, their proximity to the preaching of reform, their profound biblicism, and, indeed, their repudiation of a scholasticism which seemed to have wandered far from the biblical deposit of revelation--they represent no more of a terminal point in the history of Christian thought than the systems of other periods....But we can ask the important questions of the central themes set forth by Calvin and his contemporaries, of the manner in which they set the stage for doctrinal development, and of the continuity and discontinuity in form and in content between their theology and the theology of their successors. (p.67-68)



Anyway, I hope this was of some help/interest. I'm sure far more educated folk than I can offer some better thoughts. Hope you enjoy the book -- just make sure you have pen and pencil on hand when you read it.

-----Added 12/7/2008 at 04:38:26 EST-----

Also, I didn't really mention this too much above, but the focus on the differing methods of formulating Christology were worth the read by themselves.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 7, 2008)

Paul -- Thank you so much. I didn't mean to ask you to write so much, but what you have written is immensely helpful. Blessings!

P.S. I too greatly prefer footnotes to endnotes.


----------



## MW (Dec 7, 2008)

Well reviewed, Paul.

Muller's treatment of early reformed writers has wisely shown that their systems were not polished but allowed scope for alternative patterns to develop into the future. In this way he has successfully cut off the possibility of historians turning the later tradition against the early pioneers.


----------

