Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Berkouwer and Pinnock embraced deterministic Calvinism when they were young theologians. However, later on they started to revolt against the ‘Calvinism’ of their youth and Dort. Paul Helm never joined or affirmed this uprising. It is not that I revolt against Dort, but I defend that Reformed scholasticism, including Dort, was never a kind of theological necessitarianism—this in contrast with John Calvin’s theology. Instead, classic Reformed scholasticism offers us a theology of contingency and individuality, of goodness and will, and of freedom and grace. Rediscovering this comforting historical reality is a gift and a joy. Helm argues that he cannot embrace this viewpoint. However, this present contribution demonstrates that he misinterprets the core structure and the medieval foundation of classic Reformed theology and philosophy. It is the latter that form the basis of Reformed systematic theology and the necessity-contingency, the synchrony-diachrony, as the necessity of the consequence-consequent and the secundum compositionem/divisionem distinctions show.
Journal of Reformed Theology – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2014
Keywords: historical theology; Reformed; medieval scholasticism
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.