Question of Central Dogma: PRRD 1:123-132

2.5 Reformed Orthodoxy and the Idea of “Central Dogmas” (123-132)

A. The Problem of Presuppositions: Prolegomena and Principia vs. Central Dogmas (123-125)

1. Rationalism, predestinarianism, and determinism in the seventeenth century – a distinction of issues (123-125)

In this section, Muller is concerned with two questions often raised by scholars about Reformed orthodoxy: 1) is it a predestinarian system, and is it a form of rationalism? If answered in the affirmative, then the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth century would stand in stark discontinuity with the Reformers. Therefore, Muller states, “The identification of Reformed orthodoxy as [sic] a movement in continuity with the Reformation, and therefore, as the historical link between the Reformation and modern forms of confessionally identifiable Reformed thought depends, therefore, in no small measure, on our ability to answer both of these questions in the negative” (123).

2. Central dogmas and the methods of seventeenth century (125)

One way to answer these questions is to examine to the treatises on theological prolegomena developed by the Reformed orthodox. For here we find the controlling presuppositions and principles of their theology given in their own words. These works evidence two fundamental principia for theology: Scripture and God. Far from a predestination-centered or rationalistic driven theology, we find a theology that is logically arranged but on the basis of exegetical principles and within a traditional catholic framework.

B. The “Principles of Reformed Orthodoxy” (125-132)

1. Predestination and the principia (125-129)

“The attempt to describe Protestant scholasticism as the systematic development of central dogmas or controlling principles – predestination in the case of the Reformed, justification in the case of the Lutherans – was, at best, a theological reinterpretation of the Protestant scholastic systems based on the efforts of constructive theologians of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to rebuilt theological system in the wake of the Kantian critique of rational metaphysics…At worst, the central dogma theories are an abuse of history that cannot stand in the light of a careful reading of the sources” (125-125). Ouch!

The doctrine of predestination is not considered as a organizing principle of theology (locus de theologia) in any of the orthodox systems. Nor is it considered as a foundation of theology (principium theologiae) or fundamental article of the faith (articulus fundamentalis). Rather, the Reformed orthodox affirmed two fundamental principles for the development of theological system: foundation of knowing (principium cognoscendi) and the foundation of being (principium essendi). The former is Scripture and the latter is God. Like Augustine and Aquinas before them, the Reformed orthodox considered predestination as a subordinate category to the doctrine of God (principium essendi) and not as the controlling doctrine of theology.

2. Althaus, Heppe, and Schweizer on prolegomena: specific critiques (129-132)

In this section, Muller examines the important works of Althaus, Heppe, and Schweizer. His critique is essentially the same. Each at some level assumes predestination as a central dogma and fails to do justice to the sources.