Cocceius and Barth

8/13/2019 Cocceius and Barth

1/21

THE INSEPARABLE BOND BETWEEN COVENANT AND

PREDESTINATION

COCCEIUS AND BARTH

Maarten Wisse

1.Introduction

Twentieth-century interest in federal theology in general and in

Cocceius theology in particular was primarily motivated by the inten-

tion to compensate for the post-Reformation Reformed interest in the

doctrine of predestination by the notion of the covenant. The alleged

role of predestination as the Zentraldogma gave so-called Reformed

orthodoxy the image of a harsh, rationalist, fatalistic system.1In this

context, a strand of Reformed theology in which the loving fellowship

between God and believers played a crucial role was more than

welcome, fitting as it was into the typically twentieth-century interest in

thinking God as love.

2

Thus, twentieth-century research on Cocceiusinterpreted his theology as biblical rather than scholastic, historical

rather than rationalist, experiential rather than abstract.3

1 For the view of the doctrine of predestination as a Zentraldogma, see Willem J.van Asselt, ed., Inleiding in de gereformeerde scholastiek (Zoetermeer: Boekencen-trum, 1998), 1830. Willem van Asselt has been one of the key critics of this so-calledold school-interpretation of Reformed scholasticism.

2 See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Introduction: The Love of God Its Place, Meaning

and Function in Systematic Theology, in Nothing Greater, Nothing Better: Theo-logical Essays on the Love of God, ed. idem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 129.For two full-scale works on God as love, see Vincent Brmmer, The Model of Love: AStudy in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993);Markus Mhling, Gott ist Liebe: Studien zum Verstndnis der Liebe als Modell destrinitarischen Redens von Gott, Marburger theologische Studien 58, 2nd ed. (Marburg:Elwert, 2005).

3 Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (16031669),trans. from the Dutch by R. A. Blacketer, Studies in the History of Christian Thought100 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 216.


2/21

260 WISSE

Willem J. van Asselt is the present day expert on Cocceius.4 He

always resisted the oversimplified appropriations of Cocceius thought,

arguing that it is an anachronistic misreading of Cocceius work if one

contrasts it too much with the mainstream Reformed scholasticism of

his contemporaries.5

Still, van Asselt shares much of the twentieth-century worries about

the particularist aspects of Reformed theology. Two anecdotes may be

invoked to illustrate this. Once, I heard van Asselt reinterpret the tradi-

tional Dutch Reformed opening (votum) of a Church service. He para-

phrased Who will never abandon the works of his own hands,6 asWho will never abandon the work he has begun in eachof us. What

if his great seventeenth-century hero Johannes Cocceius had heard him,

who, as we will see, argues against this heresy to much length in the

Summa doctrinae! Also, when I was a student and expressed my worries

about the consequences of predestination thought to van Asselt, he

always replied with a quote from one of his teachers, the Dutch system-

atic theologian Arnold van Ruler: The gospel skims across the border

of universalism.7Although van Asselt has been eager to criticize a

number of Karl Barths readings of the Reformed scholastics, when

confronted with the riddle of predestination, he often expressed his

sympathy with Barths universalisation of Reformed soteriology.Given the combination of van Asselts expertise on Cocceius on the

one hand, and his appreciation for a Barthian solution to the problem of

predestination on the other, it seems appropriate to me to devote my

contribution to this Festschrift to the question of the relationship

4 Among his main works on Cocceius are a complete Dutch translation of Coc-ceius Summa doctrinae: Johannes Coccejus, De Leer van het Verbond en het Testa-ment van God, trans. from the Latin by W. J. van Asselt and H. G. Renger (Kampen:De Groot Goudriaan, 1990) and, in addition to numerous articles, two monographs: amore biographical one in Dutch (Willem J. van Asselt, Johannes Coccejus: Portretvan een zeventiende-eeuws theoloog op oude en nieuwe wegen, Kerkhistorischemonografien 6 (Heerenveen: Groen, 1997)), and the thoroughly revised English trans-

lation of his dissertation: van Asselt,Federal Theology.

5 Van Asselt,Federal Theology, 94105.

6 A traditional Dutch Reformed church service opens with the following phrase:Our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth, who will neverabandon the works of his hands,a combination of Pss 124:8 and 138:8.

7 In Dutch: Het evangelie scheert langs de rand van de alverzoening. More onvan Ruler in English: Allan J. Janssen,Kingdom, Office, and Church: A Study of A. A.van Rulers Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Office, The Historical Series of the ReformedChurch in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).


3/21


4/21

262 WISSE

raries, reasons that, to my conviction, have retained a good deal of their

validity over against the allegedly superior innovations of post-Barthian

twentieth-century theology.

2. Cocceius and the Barthian Tradition

In one of the footnotes to his magnum opus, The Federal Theology of

Johannes Cocceius, van Asselt characterizes Barths occupation with

Cocceius as follows:

In any case, Barth was occupied with Cocceius over the whole span of hislifeCocceius caused this twentieth-century church father many a sleep-less night! Often visitors would find Barth reading Cocceius. Through hisstudy of Cocceius the concept of the covenant became perpetually and

permanently conspicuous for Barth.10

Barth had three of Cocceius works in his personal library.11In addi-

tion, his attention was drawn to Cocceius through his reading of

Schrenks book on federal theology.12Barths evaluation of Cocceius

doctrine of the abrogations depends almost entirely on Schrenk, given

that he probably did not have access to Cocceius main work on this

topic, the SD.13In the Church Dogmatics, there is an extensive discussion of federal

theology in general, and Cocceius in particular, at pages 6170 of

volume IV/1.14 In this excursus, Barth is very critical of federal

theology as a whole. It will be helpful to quote Barths general criticism

of federal theology at length, because it gives a good impression of the

main issue at stake in Barths relationship to federal theology:

But the more embracing and central and exact this apprehension becomesin the main period of the Federal theology, the more insistently the ques-

10 Van Asselt,Federal Theology, 9.

11 Van Asselt,Johannes Coccejus, 107.

12 G. Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im lteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich beiJohannes Coccejus(Gtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923).

13 There is nosinglereference to Cocceius own works in the excursus on federaltheology. In volume II/2, where Barth appeals to Cocceius for his identification ofelection and the covenant (See van Asselt,Federal Theology, 199201 and van Asselt,Johannes Coccejus, 222225), he refers to the Summa Theologiaeonly: CD II/2, 85,102, 1145, 308;KDII/2, 91, 109, 1223, 338.

14 CDIV/1, 5466.


5/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 263

tion imposes itself from what standpoint this occurrence is reallyregarded and represented as such. What happens when the work, theWord of God, is first isolated and then reconnected, according to theteaching of pragmatic theology, with a whole series of events which are

purposefully strung out but which belong together? Does this really cor-respond to the state of affairs as it is prescribed for theology in Scripture?Can we historicise the activity and revelation of God? . . . They sawexcellently that the Bible tells us about an event. But they did not see thatin all its forms this narrative has the character of testimony, proclamation,evangel, and that it has as its content and subject only a single event,

which in every form of the attestation, although they all relate to a whole,is the single and complete decision on the part of God which as such callsfor a single and complete decision on the part of man. . . . The Federaltheologians did not notice that for all the exclusiveness with which theyread the Scriptures, in this analysis and synthesis of the occurrence

between God and man they were going beyond Scripture and missing itsreal content. . . . As becomes increasingly plain in the sketches of theFederal theologians, the atonement accomplished in Jesus Christ ceasesto be the history of the covenant, to which (in all the different forms ofexpectation and recollection) the whole Bible bears witness and in faceof which theology must take up and maintain its standpoint, and it

becomes a biblical history, a state in the greater context of world-history,before which, and after which, there are other similar stages.15

Most striking in this quotation is the overcritical attack on what Barthcalls the historicizing of theology that federal theology develops.

15 CD IV/1, 5657. KD IV/1, 5859: Aber je umfassender, prinzipieller undgenauer diese Zusammenschau [vom Alten und Neuen Testament] in der Bltezeit derFderaltheologie wird, desto mehr drngt sich die Frage auf: von welchem Standortaus dieses Geschehen nun eigentlich in Blick genommen und als solches dargesteltsein mchte? Was geschieht da, wo das Werk, das Wort Gottes auseinandergelegt unddann wieder pragmatisch-theologisch verknpft wird zu einer Serie von sinnvoll anei-nandergereihten und ineinander greifenden Ereignissen? Entspricht das wirklich derder Theologie in der Schrift vorgegebenen Sache? Kann man Gottes handlung undOffenbarung historisieren? . . . Da die Bibel von einem Geschehen berichtet, dashaben sie vortrefflich verstanden, nicht aber, da dieser Bericht in allen seinen Gestal-ten den Charakter von Zeugnis, Verkndigung und Botschaft und zu seinem Inhalt und

Gegenstand ein einziges Geschehen hat, das je in dieser und dieser Gestalt seinerBezeugung, indem doch jede von ihnen sich auf seine Ganzheit bezieht, die eine, ganzeEntscheidung Gottes ist, die als solche nach der einen ganzen Entscheidung des Men-schen ruft. . . . Die Fderaltheologen haben nicht bemerkt, da sie zuerst mit ihrer Ana-lyse und dann mit ihrer Synthese des Geschehens zwischen Gott und Mensch bei allerAufgeschlossenheit, in der sie die Schrift gelesen haben, an der wirklichen Schrift vor-beilasen und an ihrem Inhalt vorbeisahen. . . . Ihm wird . . . die in Jesus Christusgeschehene Vershnung aus der Bundesgeschichte . . . zu einerbiblischen Geschichte,zu einer Etappe in einem greren Zusammenhang von Geschichte, vor der und nachder es auch noch andere solche Etappen Gibt.


6/21

264 WISSE

Even if Barths own theology is commonly presented as a Copernican

revolution in thinking about the relationship between God and history,

this quotation makes clear that the historicizing in Barths theology is of

a very special kind, namely a historicizing in the sense of the identifica-

tion of God with the human person Jesus Christ. If we had to believe

Barth, only a theology of the strictly Christological character that he

favours can do justice to the richness and complexity of the biblical

message! This is indeed the great divide between federal theology on

the one hand, and Barth on the other. Barth holds that theologies must

be based on and consist of only one thing: either Christ, as he claims hisown theology does, or sinful human nature, as he claims all theologies

accepting some form of natural theology do.16 As van Asselt has

pointed out, it is one of the central tenets of federal theology to think in

pairs, duplexities, as the English translator of his dissertation calls

them.17

In spite of the vigorous critique that Barth exercises in his excursus

on federal theology, there is much more positive influence of Cocceius

on Barth than Barth himself wants us to believe. In fact, throughout the

volumes of the CD, Barth is increasingly using covenantal conceptu-

ality to develop his theology. This starts in volume II/1, where Barth

introduces the notion of the covenant (as Gemeinschaft) in his doctrineof God.18According to Barth, God, by definition, is a God who chooses

himself to be a God in relation with human beings. This notion of the

covenant is then running through his doctrine of election and the divine

commandments in volume II/2,19 and it plays a central role in the

doctrine of creation in volume III. In volume IV, then, reconciliation

takes the form of the restoration of the covenant.20

In a way, Barths dogmatics can certainly be said to be a covenantal

theology. It is even appropriate to speak of a radicalization of federal

theology in Barth. Where Cocceius still sees the notion of the covenant

between God and human beings as characteristic of Gods works, not of

Gods being, at most metaphorically, this is different in Barth. Barth

16 On the Christological character of dogmatics, see CDI/2, 1223;KDI/2, 1345. On the refutation of the knowledge of God from nature, see CDII/1, 63127;KDII/1, 68141.

17 Van Asselt,Federal Theology, 303ff.

18 CDII/1, 272296;KDII/1, 306334

19 CDII/2, 333;KDII/2, 135.

20 CDIV/1, 178;KDIV/1, 182.


7/21


8/21

266 WISSE

3. Cocceius on Pactum Salutis and Foedus Gratiae

The Covenant in General

In this essay, I will assess Barths twentieth-century critique of the

second abovementioned duplexity that is central to Cocceius theology,

the duplexity of thepactum salutisand thefoedus gratiae. We start our

analysis with Cocceius definition of a covenant in general:

The covenant of God with a human being is different from the covenantthat human beings have among each other. A covenant between human

beings, namely, is based on mutual welldoing, whereas God makes acovenant based on his welldoing only. The covenant of God is nothing

but the divine declaration concerning the way of receiving the love ofGod, and of acquiring the union and communion with him. If a human

being makes use of this way, he is in a relationship of friendship withGod, or put differently: God is his creator and his God in a special way.23

One should notice that this is a definition of everycovenant that God has

with human beings, no more, no less. As Cocceius points out, it is not a

definition of any covenant we can think of, because inter-human cove-

nants are different, as in inter-human covenants, both partners formulate

conditions and promises constitutive of the covenant. In a God-human

covenant, Gods declaration alone is constitutive of the nature of the

covenant.

So far, Barth and Cocceius are still on par. For Barth, it is very impor-

tant to stress that God is never dependent on the existence or actions of

human beings. Human beings only exist in the covenant with God by

virtue of Gods initiative in creation and revelation.

For Cocceius, this is as much the case as for Barth, although it is

significant that for Cocceius, this is still only the definition of the cove-

nant in general. That is, although both concrete covenants (of works and

of grace) between God and human beings are characterized by this defi-

nition, concrete covenants have somespecificfeatures that this defini-

tion does not contain. This is already hinting at the difference with

Barth. In a sense, for Barth, the general definition is a sufficient descrip-tion of what God is for us in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, God offers us

23 SD, I, 5: Foedus Dei cum homine aliter se habet ac hominum inter ipsos.Homines enim de mutuis beneficiis: Deus de suis foedus facit. Est enim Dei foedusnihil aliud, quam divina declaratio de ratione percipiendi amoris Dei, & unione accommunione ipsius potiendi. Qua ratione si homo utatur, in amicitia Dei est, sive, Cre-ator ipsius est & Deus ipsius peculiari ratione.


9/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 267

a way in which we can enter into a relationship of love and friendship

with God. Human beings are called to respond to this offer in faith and

obedience. This offering of a way in which we can enter into a relation-

ship of love and friendship with God is constituted by Gods act of

reconciliation in Jesus Christ, in which God, acknowledging that we

will and cannot live in this friendship with God, responded to this call

in the ultimate way, suffering for us at the cross.24As we will see, in

Cocceius, the consequences of sin make it impossible to account for the

specificity of the covenant of grace in terms of a mere offer of grace to

which we are called to respond.Cocceius needs the distinction between a covenant in general and

specific covenants for two reasons: First, concerning the covenant of

works, Cocceius needs a specific covenant because the promise and the

conditions of the covenant of works are essential to the nature of this

covenant. Second, concerning the covenant of gracemore on that

belowCocceius needs a specific covenant because the abrogation of

the covenant of works is of such a radical kind that a covenant in terms

of an obligation to be fulfilled on the part of human beings does not

suffice. After sin, human beings lack the ability to fulfil the obligations

of a covenant that asks something of them, if it not also gives what it

asksAugustine.

The Covenant of Grace

The first concrete form that the covenant between God and human

beings takes is the covenant of works, but we skip the covenant of works

and its first abrogation in the fall for the moment. We will come back to

it in due course, and proceed to Cocceius definition of the covenant of

grace:

The covenant of grace is an agreement between God and a sinful humanbeing, in which, [first], God declareshis free benevolence to give justiceand an inheritance to a certain seed in the Mediator through faith, to theglory of his grace, [second], God invites through a commandment ofrepentence and faithor put differently: the repentence the beginning ofwhich is faith in the Mediator, and through a promise, to give justice

24 As we will see below, here is the big tension in Barths conception. On the onehand, God calls us to respond. Faith is exactly this response. On the other hand, onlyGod can respond to this call and does so in Jesus Christ, basically fulfilling the condi-tion of the covenant for all human beings once and for all.


10/21

268 WISSE

to those who believe in him, [and third] the human being joins in theagreed matters through cordial faith, resulting in peace and friendshipand the right to expect the inheritance with a good conscience.25

The most important difference between the general definition of a cove-

nant and the specific definition of the covenant of grace is the first part

of the latterthe declaration. In the first part of the definition, there is

no mention of a covenant between God and human beings, but of Gods

unconditional decree to save certain people through the mediatory work

of Jesus Christ: God declares his free benevolence to give justice and

the inheritance of the covenant to a certain seed, to the glorification ofhis grace. Thus, in the definition, the decree is combined with the invi-

tation and the human response to the invitation, without the relationship

between the decree, the invitation, and the response being clarified.26

What is the background of this? The background is the first abroga-

tion of the covenant of works mentioned in the previous chapter of

Cocceius Summa Doctrinae: sin. According to the Reformed tradition

that Cocceius is following here, the power of sin is such that it makes a

natural human response to Gods invitation to the covenant of grace

impossible. If the covenant of grace is a mere proclamation of the work

of Christ for all humanity, leaving it to the responsibility of human

beings to accept this message in faith or not, no human being would besaved, the Reformed fathers hold. Therefore, not a mere general procla-

mation of a common message is needed, but also the actual liberation

from the bondage of sin. This, then, is the reason why the covenant of

grace as an invitationto the love of God in Jesus Christ can only take

25 SDIV, 76: Foedus gratiaeest conventio inter Deum & hominem peccatorem,Deo declarante liberum beneplacitum suum de justitia & haereditate certo seminidanda in Mediatore per fidem, ad gloriam gratiae ipsius, & per mandatum resipiscen-tiae ac fidei sive resipiscentiae, cujus initium est fides in Mediatorem, ac per promis-sionem justitiae credentibus in illo dandae invitante, homine autem per fidem cordisastipulante contracta, ad pacem & amicitiam & jus expectandae haereditatis in bonaconscientia.emphasis mine. There are a number of subtle differences between van

Asselts translations of this definition and ours. Boom and I have read the definition asbuilt around the three verbs declarare, invitare, and astipulare.

26 Van Asselt has always insisted on the differences between the decree, the pac-tum salutis, the testament and the covenant of grace: van Asselt, Federal Theology,219226, 239247. Still, from a systematic point of view, it is important to see thatwithin the definitionof the covenant of grace, reference is made to that which makesthis covenant possible, that is the eternal decree. This is not to suggest that the cove-nant of grace (or parts of it) coincide with the eternal decree. Rather, I would say thatin the covenant of grace, the declarationof the eternal decree (in close relationship tothepactum salutis), takes the form of a testament.


11/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 269

effect if it is rooted in a testament. This testament is the declaration of a

pact between the divine Persons of the Trinity that guarantees the actual

salvation of certain people, whether these people accept it or not.27

Returning to Barth, this view of the implications of sin means that his

charge of natural theology in Reformed orthodoxy is unjustified. Given

that sin makes it impossible to know God without Gods actual inter-

vention in the life of human beings, there is no room for a human

attempt to reach God through the powers of ones own autonomous

existence, as Barth fears. Hence, there are other ways to avoid the

dangers of an autonomous capturing of God than Barths option offormulating the whole of Christian doctrine in Christological terms.

It may even turn out that the traditional Reformed distinction

between pre-fallen and fallen humanity provides a better way of

avoiding this trap than Barths Christological dogmatics. This,

however, depends on the specific strand in Barths thought that one

pursues. Following one line, there is ultimately only one true ontolo-

gical state of human beings, that is the state of being in relation to God

through Jesus Christ. Ultimately, human beings are what they are in

Jesus Christ even if they do not know or ignore it. Faith is not a change

of an ontological state. It is not a becoming of a new being in Christ. It

is just realizing what we have been all the time! This implies the risk ofnaturalizing grace by accepting ones relation to God in Christ as a

standing condition. It is something we can count on, whether we reckon

with it or not. Of course we need the revelation of God in Christ to know

in what state we are, but whatever we do in that state, the result is the

same. Barth, however, following anotherI would say: opposing

strand of his thought, would deny the possibility of ontologizing the

Christological foundation of his dogmatics. Being human in and

through Jesus Christ is never something one can count on, as it is always

a concrete gift of grace with a strict here and now character. Taking

our relationship with God in Christ for granted, Barth would say, is

precisely the proof of sin, as it takes us away from the dependence on

Gods free gift of grace.

27 Cf. van Asselts translation of the definition of the covenant of grace, who trans-lates conventio inter Deum & hominem peccatorem as an agreement between Godand sinful humanity: van Asselt,Federal Theology, p. 41. This is incorrect, as the restof the definition shows. According to Cocceius, the covenant is only made betweenGod and the believer.


12/21


13/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 271

of this salvation. This will has the nature of an agreement insofar as, inthis ineffable economy of salvation, the Father is considered as the onewho stipulates the obedience of the Son to death, and as a reward for hisobedience, promises him a kingdom and a spiritual seed, and it is anagreement insofar as the Son is considered as the one who sets himself upto do the will of God, demanding the salvation of the people that weregiven to him out of the world or, more clearly stated, claim his rights fromthe other party.30

Several aspects of this quotation are worth noticing.First, the issue of

the strength (firmitas) of the testament. Why is the pactum salutis

needed to safeguard the firmness of the testament, and more generally,

of the covenant of grace? Should not Gods promise of salvation to all

who believe be firm enough? As we will see in more detail below, not

so for Cocceius. If the testament were only Gods promise of salvation

to those who believe, there would be no guarantee that the testament

would arrive at its destination at all. If the covenant were only an invi-

tation on Gods side, the sinners case would be hopeless, as the sinner

would be unable to fulfil the condition of access to the goods of the

covenant. Therefore, the covenant of grace, if it is to be a real answer to

the demand of human sinfulness, must include not only the invitation to

the friendship of God, but also the fulfillment of the condition of faith.

This is only possible if all conditions of the covenant of grace are metin the trinitarian God, in the trinitarian pact. Therefore,secondly,it is

unavoidable that the covenant of grace as a whole, as regards its nature

as a testament, remains restricted to the elect, those given to the Son by

the Father.

Finally, it is significant that Cocceius speaks of the ineffable

economy of grace. The characterization of thepactum salutisas inef-

fable qualifies all contractual speech between the divine Persons, as

Cocceius explains in 92:

Indeed, the will of the Father and the Son are the same, and not diverse,because they are one. Still, insofar as the Father is not the Son, nor the

30 SDV, 88: Inest tamen in hoc Testamento divino Pactum, quo nititur ejus firmi-tas. Pactum scil. non cum homine lapso, sed cum Mediatore. Scilicet voluntas Patrisfilium dantis caput & lutrwth&j redemptorem populi praecogniti, & voluntas Filii,sese ad hanc salutem procurandam sistentis, habet rationem conventionis, dum secun-dum ineffabilem illam oeconomiam negocii salutis notrae consideratur Pater stipulansobedientiam Filii usque ad mortem, & pro ea ipsi regnum & semen spirituale repromit-tens: filius autem se sistens, ad faciendam voluntatem Dei, & Patre salutem populisibi mundo dati restipulans, sive, ut claritis loquar, altrinsecus petens.


14/21

272 WISSE

Son is the Father, this will is appropriated by each of both distinctly andaccording to their own mode, to the one as sending and giving, to theother as sent and given. Thus, this greatest mystery becomes known(which had to become known to confirm our faith concerning our salva-tion and to direct [this faith] to God), in what way we are justified andsaved by God, in what way God is, who both judges and vouches for us,and is judged in that way, who absolves and intercedes, who sends and is

being sent.31

Cocceius insistence on the inexpressibility is significant vis--vis

Barths critique of thepactum salutisas a sort of contract between two

divine subjects, a view of the Trinity which is obviously incompatible

with Barths view of the trinitarian persons as modes of being.32While

Barth refers to the Reformed tradition in support of his conception of the

trinitarian persons,33 the possibility of a pact between the trinitarian

persons in Cocceius makes clear how Barths conception differs from

the tradition. Whereas Barths modes of being in God are three ration-

ally conceived functionsof a single subject, the traditional Reformed

view still conceives of the relationship between the one being of God in

three Persons as, well indeed: an ineffable relationship.34In this inef-

fable relationship, indeed three more or less subject-like persons can be

distinguished, who at the same time, however, form an inexpressible

unity, both in themselves and in their works.

31 SDV, 92: Patris quidem & Filii voluntas eadem est, non diversa, quia & unumsunt; sed, quatenus Pater non est Filius, neque Filius Pater, eadem voluntas distincte &suo modo utrique appropriatur, scilicet alteri ut donanti & mittenti, alteri ut dato &misso. Ita mysterium illud maximum (quod fidei nostrae de salute nostra confirmandae& in Deum dirigendae causa patescere debebat) patescit, quomodo in Deo justificemus& salvemur, quomodo Deus sit & qui judicat & qui spondet, atque ita judicatur; quiabsolvit & qui intercedit; qui mittit & qui mittitur.

32 CDIV/1, 6465;KDIV/1, 6869. See also van Asselt,Federal Theology, 233236. For some nuances concerning the use of the trinitarian persons as modes ofbeing, see: Iain Taylor, In Defence of Karl Barths Doctrine of the Trinity,Interna-tional Journal of Systematic Theology5 (2003): 3346.

33 See also CDI/1, 407415;KDI/1, 374381.

34 For a systematic account of the view of the Trinity as ineffable, drawing onAugustines theology, see: Maarten Wisse, Ego sum qui sum: Die trinitarischeEssenz Gottes nach Augustins De Trinitate, in Entzogenheit in Gott: Beitrge zurRede von der Verborgenheit der Trinitt, ed. M. Mhling and M. Wendte, Ars Dispu-tandi Supplement Series 2 (Utrecht: Ars Disputandi, 2005), URL: http://adss.library.uu.nl, 6376; idem, De uniciteit van God en de relationaliteit van demens: De relevantie van Augustinus voor de hedendaagse theologie,Nederlands The-ologisch Tijdschrift60:4 (2006): 310328.


15/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 273

Obviously, Cocceius conviction that the covenant of grace must

include a pact between the Father and the Son, has also significant rami-

fications for his view of the work of Christ. In 104 the question is

raised for whom Christ has become Sponsor: for the elect only.

However, Cocceius is very careful with the use of predestination

language. He is always keen on explaining the soteriological context in

which the conclusion of limited atonement becomes unavoidable:

First of all, it is clear that, for whom he has vouched, for them he has alsosucceeded, he has been their merit, their sins have been put on him andthey have been condemned in him, he has sacrificed himself for them andhas prayed for them; in addition, it is clear that those for which he died,also died [in him]: that those are the same that have been justified andsaved through him. These things, namely, are of the same effect andextent. . . . Since Scripture denies in the strongest wordings that the guar-antee of Christ concerns all and each, no one excepted, and since it hasthus far been a generally accepted dogma in the Church that Christ, as ithas been said, did not die for all without exception according to the effi-cacy [of his death], it can easily and safely be concluded (although it con-cerns a great mystery), that Christ was no guarantee for all withoutexception, or for those who are not saved.35

An extensive argument follows against the Arminians and Socinians,

who extended the benefit of Christs work to all people. What is at stakein this argument time and again, is the content of what it means to say

that Christ died for someone. If, Cocceius argues, the scope of the

atonement in Christ is extended to all people, the material content of

what it means that Christ died for someone will change, and in

Cocceius view, it will loose its force. Thus, in 113:

In no way should the phrase from Scripture be weakened that Christ hasdied for sinners. This means much more than just that he has died to thebenefit of humans, insofar as at least is not meant that benefit that there is

35 SDV, 108: Et primo quidem illud evidens est, pro quibus spopondit, illis &impetravisse, illis meritum esse, illorum peccata in ipsum injecta suisse, & in ipso con-demnata esse, pro illis se obtulisse, pro illis orasse; &, pro quibus mortuus est, illosmortuos esse: eosdemque justificari & salvari per ipsum. Haec enim paris efficaciae &ejusdem sunt latitudinis. . . . Quum igitur Scripturae apertissimis verbis negent, illamsponsionem Christi ad omnes pertinere & singulos, nullo excepto, fueritque hactenusin Ecclesia receptissimum dogma, Christum (ut loquuntur)secundum efficaciam nonesse mortuum pro omnibus hominibus sine exceptione: & facile & tutum est (licet in remagni mysterii) definite, Christum non spopondisse pro omnibus sine exceptione, siveetiam pro illis, qui non salvantur.


16/21

274 WISSE

in the attainment of salvation, but in some other benefit, such as that theyare called, or that they are led to the knowledge of truth.36

And again in 163:

There are others who reduce the merit of Christ, such as 1. Those whostate that Christ has died no more for those who are saved, as for thosewho perish. Although they seem to extend the merit of Christ, in fact theyreduce it in such a way, that nothing remains of what he has merited.Indeed they speak of the grace that is necessary and sufficient to believeand to acquire reconciliation. But what is this [grace]? Is it the calling?

Impossible, for many are not called.37

So, if we bring this back to the discussion with Barth: for Cocceius, the

duplexity in the covenant of grace, that is the duplexity of the firmness

of the inter-trinitarian pact on the one hand, and the dynamics of invita-

tion and faith in time on the other, is absolutely necessary. If we, like

Barth, speak of only onedecision in God, we will loose one of the two

elements: We will either loose the firmness, fruitfulness and effectivity

of Gods work of salvation, ending up in a theology in which God is in

some way dependent on human responsibility for salvation to come

about (Pelagianism/Arminianism), or we loose the dynamics of Gods

interaction with human beings in the preaching of the gospel, ending up

in hard universalism (unconditional salvation for all, regardless whattheir response is).38The problem of Barths position is that he refuses

to choose one of the two options.

36 SDV, 113: Minim enervanda est phrasis Scripturae, qua dicitur Christus prohominibus mortuus. Plus illud significat, quam mortuus utilitate hominum, siquidemnon utilitatem illam, quae est in assecutione salutis, sed utilitatemquamvis intelligas;ut est, quod vocantur, quod ad agnitionem veritatis adducuntur . . .

37 SD V, 163: Sunt alii, qui imminuunt, videlicet 1. Qui statuunt Christum non

magis pro iis, qui salvantur, quam pro iis, qui pereunt, mortuum esse. Quanquam enimvideantur extendere meritum christi, reipsa tamen id ade imminuunt, ut omnino nihlipsi relinquant, quod meritus sit. Dicunt quidem . . . Gratiam ad credendum & recon-ciliationem consequendum necessariam & sufficientem. Quid illa? An vocatio? Nonpotest. Plurimi enim non vocantur.

38 I distinguish between hard and soft universalism. Hard universalism is aview of salvation in which all will be saved, regardless of what their response is (theso-called apokatastasis pantoon). Soft universalism is a view in which God promisessalvation to all, but makes it dependent on human decision whether it is actually real-ized (popularly phrased: Arminianism).


17/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 275

The Covenant of Grace as Communicative Act

So far, we have seen that for Cocceius, the covenant of grace needs to

be grounded in the pactum salutisamong other reasonsin order to

provide the covenant with the robustness required by the disastrous

effects of sin. This is the first central tenet on which the Reformed sote-

riology is built. Reformed theology would not be characterized by

duplexity, though, if there were not a second central notion constituting

it. As much as Reformed theology is concerned to maintain the firmness

of salvation, it is concerned to maintain the nature of salvation as acommunicative act. God saves by the Word, by proclaiming salvation

in Christ to human beings in the preaching of the gospel. Partaking in

salvation is a matter of a human act of response to the preaching of the

gospel.

But can these two notions live together in a peaceful way? The

charge of the Barthian tradition is that they cannot. In Barths view, the

Reformed view of Christ as the mirror of election cannot be consistently

thought together with a doctrine of double predestination, in which God

decides on the ultimate destination of human beings in an arbitrary way.

This is one of the main grounds for Barths reduction of the doctrine of

election to a communicative act: Election is the Sum of the gospel.39

According to Barth, the covenant between God and human beings can

only be a communicative act if there is no secret decree behind it.

Cocceius is of the exactly opposite opinion. He believes that the

communicative nature of the covenant of grace can only be truly safe-

guarded if it is rooted in thepactum salutisas Gods ultimate decision

on the destination of human beings that remains independent of the

communicative structure of the gospel. It needs to be independent of

this communicative structure because its firmness requires that it

remains independent of human consent.

The key passage in which Cocceius explains the inner logic of this

position is this:

This is of utmost importance to the foundation of faith and evangelicalconsolation. And because God approves every truth that flows from hiscounsel, one can rightly say that it is his will that everyone who sees theSon and believes in him, has everlasting life. Although, namely, these

ALLare ONLY those given to Christ, and in God there is no universalcounsel without a determination of subject, or again, a decree to bless

39 CDII/2, 1234;KDII/2, 1135.


18/21

276 WISSE

without the explicit mentioning of a certain seed, nevertheless, throughhis approving will, he wants to be universally true that which follows andis implied by his special and definite counsel. . . . Through such a condi-tional commandment and promise, salvation is offered to all those called,i.e. it is proposed to them without any deceit; thus, it is clear that there isno reason to suggest some sort of desire or incomplete will or the like thatGod would be unworthy of, so that we uphold Gods integrity and sincer-ity.40

This passage may require some explanation. Let me start at the end.

Cocceius emphasis on Gods integrity and sincerity can be technically

phrased as his conviction that the combination of a doctrine of predes-

tination (including limited atonement) with the free offer of Christ in the

gospel to all who hear it, is entirely consistent. No compromise of the

content of Gods eternal decree in the preaching of the gospel is

required, nor is the offer of Christ in the gospel to all in any sense an

insincere offer, a mere play to guarantee the responsibility of the non-

elect.

Cocceius provides the solution in the abovementioned key passage:

what God decides to work out from eternity is an unconditional

promise, taking the form of God will do so and so whatever happens.

At the same time, however, this decree to do so and so appears in the

preaching of the gospel in a conditional manner: All those who believein Jesus Christ will be saved. The latter is entirely consistent with the

former, as all those who believe in Jesus Christ will indeed be saved, the

eternal decree providing the certainty that those who receive the regen-

erating grace of God, will indeed believe in Jesus Christ. Thus, the

eternal decree of God in no way interferes with the free offer of Christ

in the gospel, because the believer-to-be does not in any sense need

access to the eternal decree in order to be allowed access to Jesus Christ

offered in the gospel. The Reformed theologians remain perfectly able

40 SDVI, 184: Maximique id ipsum momenti est ad fundandam fidem & consola-

tionem Evangelicam. Et, quia Deus approbat omnem veritatem, quae ex consilio ipsusfluit, rect dicitur voluntas ipsius esse, ut omnu, qui videt filium & credit in ipsum,habeat vitam aeternam. quanquam enim hi O M N E Ssint S O L Idati Christo, & Deusnon habeat consilium universale sine determinatione subjecti, sive propositum benedi-cendi citra vocationem seminis; tamen Voluntate approbante hoc vult universaliteresse verum, quod ex speciali & definito ipsius consilio fluit & consequitur. . . . Per talemandatum & promissionem conditionatam omnibus vocatis salus offertur, h. e. pro-ponitur sine omni illusione; ut patet neque necesse est singere desiderium sive vol-untatem incompletam & alia istiusmodi Deo indecora, ut tueamur ipsius integritatem& sinceritatem.


19/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 277

to quote Isa 55:1/Rev 22:17: [W]hoever wishes, let him take the free

gift of the water of life.41

Furthermore, the act of faith in Christ is and remains the sole point

of access to salvation. It is important to see that this is a crucial point of

agreement between the Reformed orthodox theologians and the Armin-

ians. Being saved is really about doing something, acting upon the

gospel proclaimed. The Reformed object against the Arminians

unclarity about the originof the act of faith, i.e., the question whether

and in what sense grace is necessary to make the act of faith possible,

but they do not dispute the character of faith as an act of response toChrist offered in the gospel.42If we put it in a popular way: What the

Reformed orthodox would have against the mass meetings of Billy

Graham is not the emphasis on making a decision for Christ. There is

much of such emphasis on making a decision in Reformed practical

literature, the Anglo-American Puritan tradition in particular. What the

Reformed tradition might have against a Billy Graham meeting is the

suggestion that ones being able to make the right decision depends on

oneself rather than God alone. You may choose, but in choosing, the

only thing you can say is: We love because he first loved us. (1 John

4:19).

Of course, the conditional nature of the promise of salvation to allwho believe qualifies the object of the belief. What one has to believe is

not so much the fact that one is saved, but that those who believe will

be saved. This has important consequences for the question of assurance

of faith:

Question: is everyone in common obliged to believe that Christ has diedfor them? Answer: This is exactly the consolation that is the fruit of jus-tice; it pertains only to those who have a dismayed conscience, and tothose souls that hunger and thirst after justice. . . . Nobody may dare toarrogate this consolation to himself who has not been converted to God

by true faith of his heart, i.e. who not hungers and thirsts after justice, and[bears] fruits of that to the glory of God. Someone who has not taken ref-

41 See the earlier argument for this point in: Maarten Wisse, Zij laat alles zoalshet is: De actualiteit van de scholastieke methode, in van Asselt, ed.,Inleiding, 163173.

42 It must be said that there are some exceptions to this rule, compensating for thenegative consequences the emphasis on faith as an act might have in pastoral practice.This compensation is particularly provided by the concept of faith as a habit. SeeMaarten Wisse, Habitus fidei: An Essay on the History of a Concept, Scottish Jour-nal of Theology56:2 (2003): 172189.


20/21

278 WISSE

uge in Christ, to put it concisely, who did not begin to love him as theruler of salvation.43

The position of the traditional Reformed theologians becomes all the

more clear when we confront it with Barths view. Barths single decree

of God to be God in Jesus Christ is motivated by his attempt to think

God exclusively as God with us, as God in relation to human beings.44

In addition, the attempt to think God as God in Christ exclusively is

motivated by Barths aim to dynamize the allegedly static under-

standing of God in the tradition.45Barths aim is to bring history, the

contingent encounter between God and human beings in the here and

now, to the center of the theological discourse. Thus, for him, the

doctrine of election can be nothing but a form of communication, the

sum of the gospel.

However, as there is only room for onedecree in God,46 and the

communicative message of the gospel cannot be the announcement of

those elected from eternity, Barth is forced to accept universalism.47

Thus, the message of the gospel can be nothing but an announcement of

a state of affairs, namely the state of being reconciled with God.

Although in Barth, God is defined by his being God in Christ in time,

the dynamics of God in time is in fact a dynamics of a single moment,

43 SDVI, 180: Quaeritur, An omnibus omnino imperetur credere, Christum essepro se mortuum? Resp. Hanc ipsam esse consolationem, quae est fructus justitiae; &non pertinere nisi ad conscientias contritas & animas esurientes & sitientes justitiae. . .. Hanc consolationem nemo sibi debet arrogare, qui non vera animi fide conversus estad Deum; h. e. qui non sitit & esurit justitiam & fructus ejus ad gloriam Dei; qui nonconfugit ad Christum, &, ut uno verbo dicam, qui non ipsum incepit amare, ut princi-pem salutis, Here, Cocceius is fully on par with Voetius: De scholastieke Voetius:Een luisteroefening aan de hand van Voetius Disputationes Selectae, ed. W. J. vanAsselt and E. Dekker (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1995), 98100.

44 CDIV/1, 122;KDIV/1, 122. Of course this is not to deny Barths emphasison the freedom of God to be God with us.

45 CDII/1, 257271;KDII/1, 288305.

46 What I mean by one decree here is: one level of decision in Godoveragainst the two in traditional Reformed orthodoxy. This is not to overlook Barths doc-trine of reprobation. It is only to suggest that in Barth, the doctrine of reprobation is afunction of the doctrine of election, and thus does not introduce a distinct level of deci-sion in God.

47 I am aware of the discussion concerning Barths universalism. Berkouwers dis-cussion provides a good overview: G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the The-ology of Karl Barth(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), chapter X.


21/21

INSEPARABLEBOND 279

namely the being of God as being God in Christ.48The event of the

preaching of the gospel and the human response to it is a mere recogni-

tionboth on the part of the preacher and on the part of the believer

of the one single act of Gods being in Christ. There is no additional

soteriological level in which the restoration of the divine-human rela-

tionship between God and the believer is taken into account. Put in trin-

itarian terms: there is no separate level of the Spirit in the economy of

salvation.49 While motivated by a concern to build the relationship

between God and human beings into the very being of God, Barth ended

with a static account of this relationship, a relationship in which a reci-procal action between God and the believer cannot truly be taken into

account.50

48 On this point, see especially the essays on time and eternity: CD I/2, 45121,and III/1, 4293;KDI/2, 50133, and III/1, 44103.

49 In a sense, Barths critique of Cocceius as having no room for the Spirit in thepactum salutisis a typical case of the pot calling the cattle black! Cf. van Asselt,Fed-eral Theology, 233236.

50 I would like to thank, in chronological order, Prof. Dr. Christoph Schwbel, themembers of Prof. Schwbels Doktorandenkolloquium at Tbingen, Dr. Bert Loonstra,Prof. Dr. Gijsbert van den Brink, Prof. Dr. Richard A. Muller, and Prof. Dr. MarcelSarot for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. The research for this arti-cle was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), theAlexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Flemish Organisation for ScientificResearch (FWO-V).

Cocceius and Barth

Documents