November 2007 - Protestant Reformed Churches in America

Book Reviews
the very dubious honor of being
appealed to by the Remonstrants
in the Netherlands some
year later.
As to the question faced by
this book, whether or not
Bullinger was the “author of
the other Reformed tradition,”
this introduces the doctrine of
the covenant. Bullinger was
the first of the Reformers to
write a treatise on the covenant.
Bullinger does not connect
election with the covenant.
He does use the term
“conditions.” One finds in this
treatise ambiguity that feeds
debates about what Bullinger
really meant. In the History
of Dogma class that I teach,
students are assigned to read
Bullinger’s treatise on the covenant.
Students regularly
struggle with a lack of precision
in this treatise. Much
depends on what Bullinger
inger’s weakness on predestination,
will cause the debate to
continue indefinitely.
What is not right, however,
is to attempt to show unity between
Bullinger and Calvin by
weakening Calvin’s teachings.
Venema finds “language of conditionality”
in Calvin (p. 109)
and insists that “the mutuality
of the covenant of grace is a
theme that runs throughout
Calvin’s treatment of the doctrine
of the covenant.” He adds,
“The fellowship between God
and his people that the covenant
expresses includes mutual responsibilities
and obligations”
(p. 110). He concludes that
Calvin also taught a bilateral
covenant. The problem is that
“mutuality” is not the same as
bilateral. Calvin was not using
“conditions” in the sense of a
prerequisite that man had to fulfill
to realize the covenant.
means by “conditions,” Calvin’s doctrine of the covenant
whether he is using the term
as Heyns and Schilder would
use it, or as Francis Turretin
did.
Venema’s conclusion is that
Bullinger is not the author of a
different Reformed tradition.
This matter can be debated. I
personally believe that the lack
of clarity in the treatise on the
covenant, together with Bull-
was consistent with His
doctrine of sovereign, double
predestination. He did not teach
a conditional, bilateral covenant.
If that is in fact what
Bullinger taught, then Bullinger
is the author of another tradition.
But that can be debated.
In conclusion, what is plain
first is that Bullinger had a weak
view of predestination. Sec-
November 2007 125