IV. The Anthropology of the Period of the Reformation
History of Christian Doctrine, II, pp. 111–151; Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, cf. Index.
IV. The Anthropology of the Period of the Reformation 1. THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE REFORMERS. The Reformers followed Augustine and Anselm in their construction of the doctrine of sin and grace, though with some modifications. They gave a more exact definition of the relation of Adam's sin to that of his descendants by substituting for the realistic theory of Tertullian,
Augustine, and Anselm, the covenant idea. It is true that they did not fully develop this idea; yet they utilized it in defining the relation between Adam and his descendants. Beza especially emphasized the fact that Adam was not only the natural head of the human race, but also its federal representative; and that consequently his first sin is imputed as guilt to all his descendants. And because all are guilty in Adam, they are also born in a polluted condition.
Calvin stressed the fact that original sin is not merely a privation, but also a total corruption of human nature. And where Augustine sought this corruption primarily in the sensual appetites, Calvin pointed out that it has its seat in the higher as well as in the lower faculties of the soul, and that it operates through these as a positive evil. In opposition to the Roman Catholics the Reformers maintained that original sin is something more than a mere absence of original justice; and that also the first movements of the desires, which tend in the direction of sin, are actually sins., even before they are assented to by the will, and not merely the fomes or fuel of sin. They are indwelling sins, which make man guilty and worthy of condemnation. According to Calvin and the Reformers generally, original sin is a hereditary depravity and corruption of human nature, rendering man obnoxious to the divine wrath and producing in him the works of the flesh. We are by nature guilty and polluted in Adam, and stand justly condemned in the sight of God.
The generally prevailing view among the Reformers was that, as a result of the fall, man is totally depraved, incapable of doing any spiritual good, and therefore also unable to make the least advance toward his recovery. Luther and Calvin express themselves strongly on this, point, and Zwingli is in general agreement with them here, though he seemingly regards original sin as a disease and a condition rather than as sin in the proper sense of the word. Even Melanchton subscribed to this view at first, but in a later period modified his opinion. But while maintaining the doctrine of total depravity, the Reformers also held that the unregenerate could still perform civil righteousness, a righteousness which God approves in the social relations of men. Even Luther, who uses exceptionally strong expressions respecting the spiritual inability of man, clearly recognizes his ability to do good in secular affairs. Melanchton went even farther than Luther; and Calvin did more than anyone else to direct attention to the fact that there is a common grace of God. which enables man to perform civil righteousness.
The natural correlative of the doctrine of total depravity, is that of the absolute dependence of man on the grace of God for renewal.
Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli are a unit on this point, but Melanchton, though first in perfect agreement with Luther, under the stress of the opposition to the doctrine of the bondage of the will, ascribed a certain measure of material freedom or spiritual power to the will and taught a synergistic theory of regeneration.
In view of all the preceding it was but natural that the Reformers should be strict predestinarians. Luther and Calvin both believed in a double predestination, though the former does not make the doctrine as prominent as the latter and sometimes manifests an inclination to deny the doctrine of reprobation or to make it dependent on foreknowledge. Zwingli also taught this doctrine in unmistakable terms, and was not as cautious as Calvin in describing the relation of the divine agency to sin, but insists on reprobation as an efficient decree. Melanchton, of course, wavered here, as he did in his
teaching on sin and regeneration. He avoided the subject of predestination as much as possible.
After the Reformation the covenant idea was more fully developed, especially in the writings of Bullinger, Polanus, Gomarus,
Cloppenburg, and Coccejus. It became evident that Adam was not merely the natural head of humanity, but also its federal head, the moral and legal representative of all his descendants. As a result the idea that all men sinned in Adam literally and realistically gave way to the thought that they sinned in him representatively. Because the first man sinned as the legal representative of all his descendants, the guilt of his sin is imputed to them, and consequently they are also born corrupt. The realistic theory was abandoned, more generally in Reformed than in Lutheran circles, and the covenant idea was utilized in its stead to explain the transmission of sin.
2. THE SOCINIAN POSITION. Socinianism represents a reaction against the doctrine of the Reformation, and in the doctrines of sin and grace it is simply a revival of the old Pelagian heresy. According to it the image of God in which man was formed consisted merely in man's dominion over the lower creation, and not in any moral perfection or excellence of nature. Since Adam had no positive righteousness or holiness, he could not lose it as the result of sin.
While he sinned and incurred the divine displeasure, his moral nature remained intact, and is transmitted unimpaired to his posterity. Man dies, not because of the sin of Adam, but because he was created mortal, Men are even now by nature like Adam in that they have no proneness or tendency to sin, but are placed in somewhat more unfavorable circumstances because of the examples of sin which they see and of which they hear. While this increases their chances of falling into sin, they can avoid sin altogether, and some of them actually do. And even if they do fall in sin and are thus guilty of transgression, they do not therefore incur the divine wrath.
God is a kind and merciful Father, who knows their frailty and is quite ready to forgive them when they come to him with penitent hearts. They need no Saviour nor any extraordinary interposition of
God to secure their salvation. No change in their moral nature is required, and no provision for effecting such a change was made.
However, the teachings and example of Christ are helpful in leading them in the right direction.
3. ARMINIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. In the beginning of the seventeenth century the Calvinistic doctrine of sin and grace met with a determined opposition in the Netherlands, which centered in the great Arminian controversy. Arminius, a disciple of Beza, and at first a strict Calvinist, became a convert to the doctrine of universal grace and free will. He denied the decree of reprobation and toned down the doctrine of original sin. His successor at Leyden,
Episcopius, and his other followers, such as Uytenbogaert, Grotius, Limborch, and others, departed still farther from the accepted doctrine of the Church, and finally embodied their views in a remonstrance, consisting of five articles.
The position taken by the Arminians is practically that of SemiPelagianism. While they do believe that Adam's transgression had an evil effect on the spiritual condition of all his descendants, they reject the doctrine of original sin as it was taught by the Churches of the Reformation. They maintain that the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed to his descendants, though its pollution is passed on from father to son. This pollution they do not regard as sin in the proper sense of the word but only as a disease or a weakness. It does not bring man under a sentence of condemnation, but weakens his nature, so that he is incapable of attaining to eternal life, either by reestablishing himself in the favor of God or by discovering for himself a way of salvation. They do not believe in the total depravity of human nature, though they occasionally express themselves as if they do, but leave room for the free will of man in the material sense of the word, that is, as a natural power or ability in man to do something that is spiritually good, so that he can also in some measure prepare himself for turning to God and doing His will.
They also propose a theory of grace which differs essentially from that of the Confessions, distinguishing three different degrees in grace, namely, (a) prevenient or common grace; (b) the grace of evangelical obedience; and (c) the grace of perseverance. The Holy
Spirit confers on all men sufficient grace to counteract the effect of the inherited depravity and to enable them to co-operate with the Spirit of God in regeneration. If some are not regenerated, it must be due to the failure of the human will to co-operate with the divine. He who makes proper use of this sufficient or enabling grace becomes the object of God's efficient grace. He receives the higher grace of evangelical obedience, and in the way of obedience may become a partaker of the still higher grace of perseverance.
This theory of sufficient grace is supposed to safeguard the doctrine of human responsibility. Since original sin cannot be imputed to man as a fault, God cannot demand faith of him irrespective of the bestowal of enabling grace. But if He bestows a grace on him, as He does, which removes his spiritual inability, He also has the perfect right to demand faith. If man resists this grace of God and refuses to co-operate with it, he is naturally responsible for the fact that he is not regenerated.
In harmony with these views the Arminians naturally did not believe in absolute election or reprobation, but based election on foreseen faith, obedience, and perseverance, and reprobation on foreseen unbelief, disobedience, and persistence in sin. In that respect they were far less consistent than the Socinians, who clearly saw that, if they rejected predestination, they had to reject foreknowledge as well.
4. THE POSITION OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. This Synod was summoned by the States General of the Netherlands in 1618, and was indeed an august assembly, consisting of eighty-four members and eighteen political delegates. Forty-eight of these were Hollanders, and the rest foreigners, representing England, Scotland, the Palatinate, Hesse, Nassau, Bremen, Emden, and Switzerland. The
delegates of France and Brandenburg did not appear. The Arminians were not seated as members, but appeared only as defendants. One hundred and fifty-four sessions were held, and a large number of conferences. It was the most representative body that ever met. The Synod was uncompromising in the doctrinal matters that were brought before it: it rejected the five Articles of the Remonstrance, and adopted five thoroughly Calvinistic canons, in which the doctrines of the Reformation and particularly Calvin, on the disputed points are set forth with clearness and precision, and the Arminian errors are exposed and rejected.
The Synod affirmed the doctrine of a double predestination, based on the good pleasure of God, and not on foreseen faith and unbelief.
Both election and reprobation are therefore absolute. Election is from the fallen race, subject to condemnation on account of the sin of Adam; and reprobation consists in preterition, the passing by of a certain number of the fallen race, leaving them in their ruin, and condemnation on account of their sin.
It asserted the doctrine of original sin in the strict sense of the word.
Since Adam was the legal representative of all his descendants, the guilt of his first sin is imputed to them, and in consequence the corruption of human nature is also propagated to them. They are totally corrupt, that is, corrupt in every part of their being and so corrupt that they cannot do any spiritual good and cannot make a single effort to restore the broken relationship with God. At the same time the Canons also say: "There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil." III and IV, Art 4.
Regeneration is regarded as strictly monergistic, and not at all as the work of God and man. Without regenerating grace no one can turn to God, and none can accept the offer of salvation apart from an efficient act of God founded on election. Yet salvation is offered in all seriousness to all who hear the Gospel on condition of faith and repentance. They who are lost will have only themselves to blame.
The decisions of the Synod of Dort were of great importance for various reasons: (a) They were deliverances on some of the most important points of Reformed theology, which up to that time had not received such careful consideration. (b) They were to all intents deliverances of an Ecumenical Council, composed of many of the ablest theologians of the day, the most representative body that ever met. (c) They terminated the uncertainty that prevailed in the churches of the Netherlands, an uncertainty that was also felt in other countries, and warded off a great danger that threatened the Reformed faith. (d) They had a determining influence on the composition of the later Westminster Confession.
5. THE POSITION OF THE SCHOOL OF SAUMUR. The School of Saumur made an attempt to tone down the Calvinism of the Synod of Dort especially on two points. Amyraldus distinguished between a universal and conditional, and a limited and unconditional decree. In the former God decreed to provide a universal salvation through the mediation of Jesus Christ, to be offered to all alike on condition of faith, and in the latter He, seeing that of himself no man would believe, elected some to eternal life and decided to give them the necessary grace of faith and repentance. And Placaeus, another representative of the School, denied the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Men are not accounted guilty in Adam and therefore born corrupt, but derive from him the corruption of nature, and this is now imputed to them as guilt. Placaeus calls this mediate and consequent imputation.
The case of Amyrald was brought up at three Synods, which did not condemn him, but found it necessary to guard against the