The Place of Predestination in Zwingli and Bucer
William Peter Stephens
Abstract
Open-access reader
William Peter Stephens
Abstract
Open-access reader
In both Zwingli and Bucer there is a strong sense of the sovereignty of God and of his initiative in our salvation.Yet there are some significant differences between them in the ways in which they express God's sovereignty and in which it shapes their thought.This can be seen in particular in the different place that the doctrine of predestination has in their theology.For Zwingli predestination was not developed until 1526, and even then it remained subordinate to his doctrine of providence and his general stress on the sovereignty of God.For Bucer, however, it was developed earlier, in 1524, and helped to give a particular shape to his theology.In this context it is interesting to note that they emphasised different texts in their discussion of predestination.For Bucer it was Romans 8:28-30, a text with limited importance for Zwingli.It had from the first a vital role in Bucer's understanding of predestination and also an important bearing on the way predestination affected other parts of his theology.For Zwingli the emphasis was rather on Romans 9, and a verse such as Romans 9:21.As Zwingli paid less attention to predestination, it is helpful first to focus on his doctrine of providence, which he sees as the mother of predestination, and then to examine both the context and the various ways in which he used predestination in the five years between 1526 and his death in 1531.With Bucer our main concern is also with five years, from 1524 to 1529, though there is some reference to other works.His later works do not differ substantially from his earlier ones, even though he treats the subject more extensively and systematically in his commentary on Romans in 1536 than elsewhere 1 .We will consider his early exposition of predestination, with particular reference to Romans 8:28-30, and some of the ways in which this affects his theology, differentiating it from Zwingli's.The presentation of Bucer calls into question, though for the most part implicitly, the position expounded by August Lang.A number of issues raised by predestination are not discussed here.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In both Zwingli and Bucer there is a strong sense of the sovereignty of God and of his initiative in our salvation.Yet there are some significant differences between them in the ways in which they express God's sovereignty and in which it shapes their thought.This can be seen in particular in the different place that the doctrine of predestination has in their theology.For Zwingli predestination was not developed until 1526, and even then it remained subordinate to his doctrine of providence and his general stress on the sovereignty of God.For Bucer, however, it was developed earlier, in 1524, and helped to give a particular shape to his theology.In this context it is interesting to note that they emphasised different texts in their discussion of predestination.For Bucer it was Romans 8:28-30, a text with limited importance for Zwingli.It had from the first a vital role in Bucer's understanding of predestination and also an important bearing on the way predestination affected other parts of his theology.For Zwingli the emphasis was rather on Romans 9, and a verse such as Romans 9:21.As Zwingli paid less attention to predestination, it is helpful first to focus on his doctrine of providence, which he sees as the mother of predestination, and then to examine both the context and the various ways in which he used predestination in the five years between 1526 and his death in 1531.With Bucer our main concern is also with five years, from 1524 to 1529, though there is some reference to other works.His later works do not differ substantially from his earlier ones, even though he treats the subject more extensively and systematically in his commentary on Romans in 1536 than elsewhere 1 .We will consider his early exposition of predestination, with particular reference to Romans 8:28-30, and some of the ways in which this affects his theology, differentiating it from Zwingli's.The presentation of Bucer calls into question, though for the most part implicitly, the position expounded by August Lang.A number of issues raised by predestination are not discussed here.
Key concepts: Predestination, Doctrine, Context (archaeology), Philosophy, Sovereignty, Theology, History, Law