PRRD I.46-59

In this section Muller carefully and methodically reinforces the distinction between doctrine and method.

1.2 The Reformation and Its First Codification: Doctrine and Method to ca. 1565 (46-59)

A. The Reformation and Theological System: A Problem of Perception (46-52)

“No small part of the task of describing properly the work of Protestant orthodoxy belongs to the discussion of its relationship to the Reformation. In its simplest form, this relationship is one of broad doctrinal continuity together with methodological discontinuity. Of course, the relationship is considerably more complex than this basic statement: methodological changes bring about changes in doctrinal statement if only because careful systematization of an idea tends to remove elements of tension and paradox resident in the initial, unsystematic formulation” (46).

1. From unsystematic Reformation to systematized orthodoxy? A problem of perception (46-49)

Muller is particularly keen to note the methodological difference between much of the literature in the Ref and p-R periods (e.g. the ‘unsystematic theology’ represented in the preaching of the Reformers vs. the more ‘systematized theology' of their successors; the difference is between genres). He interacts with Gerhard Ebeling’s The Study of Theology (1978) as a test case. He is critical of the tendency of Ebeling (and others) to see the Reformation (particularly with Luther) as a systemic break from the dogmatic strictures of (late) medieval scholasticism and Protestant orthodoxy as a regress to the illegitimate framework of medieval theology. Rather, Muller argues that fundamental to the Reformation was the movement towards the right articulation of doctrine (as illustrated in the progression of the first editions to the last editions of Melancthon’s Loci communes and Calvin’s Institutio). “If [the Reformers] primary interest was the return to a scriptural faith, their secondary impulse was toward a reconstruction of established doctrine on the basis of Scripture” (48).

2. An alternative view: from Reform to theological and confessional codification (49-52)

Muller pleads for a more nuanced reading of the relationship between the Ref and p-Ref. Researchers take note. “When, moreover, distinctions are made between doctrinal content and method of presentation, when attention is paid to the particular literary genre and intention and to the historical context of documents, and when a suitably contextualized understanding of scholasticism, humanism, and various available philosophical perspectives is presented, a picture very different emerges from that offered by Ebeling and various other proponents of the movement from Reformation to orthodoxy” (49).

In other words, the Reformation is not merely a break from the medieval system but also a movement towards the re-systematization of ‘extant theological structures.’ The issue is not, to put it crudely, between the pure, dynamic, biblically-based preaching of the Reformers over and against the philosophically corrupt, stale, systematized dogma of the orthodox. The successors of the Reformers did not stop preaching. They simply added a new literary genre to express the codification of the theological system of the Reformation. Muller summarizes, “The fact is that a simple kergyma to dogma model or existential event to domestication-of-the-event pattern of doctrinal development cannot be applied to the historical development of Protestant orthodoxy” (51).

B. Reformers and Doctrinal Formulation (52-59)

1. The first and second generations of Reform: the shape of early developments (52-53)

Muller provides a brief historic prologue of the stylistic developments between the first and second generation Reformers.

2. Writers and issues in the first generation (53-56)

1. Lutheran Reformers

A) Luther – though his position as a initiator and instigator of Reform is undeniable, he contributed little to the re-articulation of a ‘reformed’ theological system. His theology was developed through sermons, commentaries, polemical writings, etc.

B) Melanchthon – his importance for the shape and formation of Protestant theology is enormous. His Loci communes (1521) represents the first attempt to formalize the doctrinal teachings of the reformation. The Augsburg Confession (1530) also reveals his concern for theological method and structure. Other Lutheran theologies to emerge before the death of Luther include Urbanus Rhegius’ Formulae…loquendi de praecipuis christianae doctrinae locis (1535), Erasmus Sarcerius’ Loci aliquot communes et theologici (1538), and Johann Spangenberg’s Margarita theologica (1540).

2. Reformed

A) Zwingli – he was trained as a humanist and scholastic. Among his many works, Commentary on True and False Religion (1525) is one of the earliest systematic articulations of reformed theology.

B) Bucer – even more than Luther and Zwingli, traces of the medieval tradition are clearly evident in his theology and biblical interpretation. In his exegetical works, he often moves from exegesis to the development of a theological loci and toward doctrinal definition.

3. The second generation: codification and confession (56-59)

These folks were the first codifiers of the Reformed tradition. As they sought to continue the work of the Reformation, their writings reveal a gradual movement towards orthodoxy and the development of a body of doctrinal literature which identified the beliefs and practices of the Reformed churches.

1. Calvin – This statement is too good not to quote regarding the development of Calvin’s Institutes – in which the first edition elaborated upon Luther’s Small Catechism. “Had Calvin written no more [after the first addition of his Institutes in 1536] he would be remembered as an exceedingly able codifier of the early Reformation but not as a particularly original thinker” (56). However, the 1559 edition became a standard work of Reformed Protestantism even within his lifetime.

2. Bullinger – Zwingli’s successor. Both his Compendium Christianae religionis (1556) and Confessio Helvetica posterior (1566) are systematic developments of doctrinal loci – though both are shorter in length to Calvin’s Institutes.

3. Musculus – a Scotist and nominalist, his Loci communes (1564) is a series of seventy-five doctrinal expositions.

4. Vermigli – a Thomist, his Loci communes (1576; 1583) were arranged posthumously by Robert Masson and organized to the structure of Calvin’s Institutes.

5. Confessions – Confessio Gallicana (1559), Confessio Belgica (1561), Scots Confession (1560), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and Thirty-nine Articles (1563). Each of these represents the confessional consensus of the reformation.