Ulteriori informazioni
In the Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Calvin claimed full agreement with Luther's doctrine of the unfree will and divine necessity. Some scholars argue however that Calvin was trying to create the appearance of unity and was embarrassed by Luther's teaching. They have also denied any substantial influence from Luther. Others argue that the Reformers discontinued their teaching on necessity in the face of criticism. Matthew Heckel defends Calvin´s claim to unity with Luther and that Luther had a formative influence on Calvin. The latter can be seen in the fact that Calvin followed uniquely Lutheran contributions like the denial of free choice as a misleading term, free choice only in what is under human dominion, contingency defined as chance, divine omnipotence as the actuating force of divine necessity, and the distinctions between the hidden and revealed God and law and gospel. Despite what some interpreters have said, both Reformers affirmed necessity because of sin and divine sovereignty throughout their careers. Though the Reformers believed in divine necessity, they were careful to say that God was not the author of sin either before or after the fall of humankind. While Luther and Calvin agreed on necessity imposed by sin and divine sovereignty, they affirmed that the human will is always voluntary and thus responsible for its actions. Concerning predestination, they taught its double nature respecting the elect and the reprobate, while consoling believers by pointing them to grace alone in Christ-the revealed God-and God's preservation of the elect. Differences between the Reformers are noted but true solidarity existed on the will.
Info autore
Matthew C. Heckel has a Ph. D. in Reformation Studies from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He is Visiting Instructor in Church History at Covenant Theological Seminary and Adjunct Professor of History at Missouri Baptist University, both in St. Louis. He has published various articles and book reviews in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Church History, Presbyterion, Integrite: A Faith and Learning Journal, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Economic Education, and the T & T Clark Companion to Reformation Theology. He has presented papers at the Evangelical Theological Society, The Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, and the North American Forum for Luther Research. His interests lie in historical theology and church history of late antiquity and the Reformation era. He enjoys teaching ancient, medieval, Reformation, and modern history and pursuing ecumenical aims for the Christian faith.Herman J. Selderhuis ist Professor für Kirchengeschichte an der Theologischen Universität Apeldoorn, Direktor von Refo500, Wissenschaftlicher Kurator der Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek sowie Präsident des Internationalen Calvinkongresses.Dr. Christopher B. Brown is Associate Professor of Church History at Boston University.Dr. Günter Frank ist Direktor der Europäischen Melanchthon-Akademie Bretten und außerplanmäßiger Professor am Karlsruher Institut für Technologie.Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer ist Professorin em. für „Neuere deutsche Literatur“ an der Universität Bern.Tarald Rasmussen ist Professor für Kirchengeschichte an der Universität Oslo.Dr. Violet Soen is Associate Professor for Early Modern History at the Faculty of Arts at the University of Leuven.Dr. Zsombor Tóth is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Literary Studies at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Dr. Günther Wassilowsky ist Professor für Kirchengeschichte an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Prof. Dr. Siegrid Westphal ist Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Geschichte der Frühen Neuzeit an der Universität Osnabrück sowie Direktorin des Forschungszentrums Institut für Kulturgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit.
Riassunto
In the Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Calvin claimed full agreement with Luther's doctrine of the unfree will and divine necessity. Some scholars argue however that Calvin was trying to create the appearance of unity and was embarrassed by Luther's teaching. They have also denied any substantial influence from Luther. Others argue that the Reformers discontinued their teaching on necessity in the face of criticism. Matthew Heckel defends Calvin´s claim to unity with Luther and that Luther had a formative influence on Calvin. The latter can be seen in the fact that Calvin followed uniquely Lutheran contributions like the denial of free choice as a misleading term, free choice only in what is under human dominion, contingency defined as chance, divine omnipotence as the actuating force of divine necessity, and the distinctions between the hidden and revealed God and law and gospel. Despite what some interpreters have said, both Reformers affirmed necessity because of sin and divine sovereignty throughout their careers. Though the Reformers believed in divine necessity, they were careful to say that God was not the author of sin either before or after the fall of humankind. While Luther and Calvin agreed on necessity imposed by sin and divine sovereignty, they affirmed that the human will is always voluntary and thus responsible for its actions. Concerning predestination, they taught its double nature respecting the elect and the reprobate, while consoling believers by pointing them to grace alone in Christ–the revealed God–and God's preservation of the elect. Differences between the Reformers are noted but true solidarity existed on the will.
Prefazione
Calvin essentially agreed with Luther's doctrine of human choice bound to sin and divine necessity and there is a preponderance of evidence for Luther's influence on Calvin's doctrine of the will. This is seen in especially in Calvin following Luther's reinterpretation of medieval contingency as chance.
