Heinrich Bullinger

Dr. Steve Lawson writes:

Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) is regarded as the most influential second-generation Reformer. As the heir to Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich, shop Switzerland, he consolidated and continued the Swiss Reformation that his predecessor had started. Philip Schaff writes that Bullinger was “a man of firm faith, courage, moderation, patience, and endurance … [who was] providentially equipped” to preserve and advance the truth in a difficult time in history (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII: Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation [1910; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], 205). During his forty-four years as the chief minister in Zurich, Bullinger’s literary output exceeded that of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Zwingli combined. He was of monumental importance in the spread of Reformed teaching throughout the Reformation. So far-reaching was Bullinger’s influence throughout continental Europe and England that Theodore Beza called him “the common shepherd of all Christian churches” (Theodore Beza, cited in Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, 207).

Bullinger was born on July 18, 1504, in the tiny Swiss town of Bremgarten, ten miles west of Zurich. His father, also named Heinrich, was the local parish priest, who lived in a common law marriage with Anna Wiederkehr. This practice was officially forbidden by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but Bullinger’s father had received permission to enter into such a relationship by agreeing to pay his bishop a yearly tribute. The younger Heinrich was the fifth child born of this illegitimate wedlock. The marriage between Bullinger’s parents was eventually formalized in 1529, when the elder Bullinger joined the Reformed movement.

IT IS ESTIMATED THAT BULLINGER PREACHED IN ZURICH BETWEEN SEVEN THOUSAND AND SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED SERMONS
Young Heinrich’s father groomed him for the priesthood from a very early age. At age twelve, he was sent to the monastic school at Emmerich, known as the School of the Brethren of the Common Life. This school was a citadel of the via antique, the “old way” of learning that was stressed by the theologians of the High Middle Ages, such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265–1308). There, Bullinger received an advanced education in humanistic principles, especially Latin. At the same time, he came under the influence of the devotio moderna, the “modern devotion,” a medieval emphasis on the Eucharist and the deep spiritual life. Augustine and Bernard were among the earlier leaders of this pietistic movement, and it had been revived by Thomas á Kempis in his book The Imitation of Christ. Bullinger was attracted to this movement’s stress on meditation and the search for a personal spiritual experience with God. Also at this time, Bullinger began displaying a remarkable aptitude for scholarship.

The University of Cologne

Three years later, in 1519, Bullinger proceeded to the University of Cologne, where he began studying traditional Scholastic theology. Cologne was the largest city in Germany, and Roman Catholicism was deeply entrenched there—papal superstitions ran high in the city and German mystics gathered there in large numbers. Aquinas and Scotus had taught there earlier, and their Scholastic influence remained firmly embedded in Cologne. But Bullinger was convinced of the humanist approach. In his studies, he pursued the writings of the Church Fathers, especially Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine. Their insistence on the priority of Scripture moved him to study the Bible for himself. Such a pursuit, he later admitted, was unknown to most of his fellow students.

While at Cologne, Bullinger was exposed to the teaching of the leading humanist of the day, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (ca. 1466–1536). Erasmus had elevated the Scriptures over Aristotelian logic and sought to reform the church through humanistic scholarship and the moral teachings of Christ. But it was Luther’s works that most challenged Bullinger’s thinking. Luther’s books were being burned in Cologne, which only piqued Bullinger’s interest in their content. Soon his mind was captured by Luther’s ideas. He also studied Philip Melanchthon’s Loci communes (1521), the first systematic treatment of Lutheran theology. In it, Melanchthon treated the Reformed hallmark doctrines of the bondage of the will and justification by faith alone. This work further impacted Bullinger. Seeds of reform were being sown in his mind. At age seventeen, he embraced the pivotal truth that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. Amid this personal transformation, Bullinger gained his master’s degree. Continue reading

Abraham was Right

in which God commands him, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering” (Gen. 22:2). One might think that Evans writes to lament the weakness of her faith compared to Abraham’s. Instead, she celebrates the superiority of her refusal to do what Abraham did, since from her moral perch God is wrong and disobedience to him is right.

She summarizes:

“This is a hard God to root for. It’s a hard God to defend against all my doubts and all the challenges posed by science, reason, experience, and intuition. I once heard someone say he became an atheist for theological reasons, and that makes sense to me. Once you are convinced that the deity you were taught to worship does evil things, it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.”

There are some obvious questions to ask Mrs. Evans. The first is where she derives her moral objections to the actions of God. She later states that her stance comes from “being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ,” as if Jesus had some objection to the God of the Bible. What Jesus is she referring to? Is he a Jesus of her own projection or the Jesus of Scripture? Since Evans, in the same article, denounces the idea of Old Testament holy war and the New Testament doctrine of hell, does she accept or reject the Jesus of Revelation 19:11, who sits on a white horse “and in righteousness he judges and makes war”? Is this her Jesus, or does she decide who Jesus is, just as she decides what God is allowed to do?

Speaking of Scripture, we ask a second question. What does it mean to be a Christian who responds to the Bible with antipathy and condescension? Jesus declared, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life” (Jn. 5:24). According to Jesus, faith in him is faith in his Word. Is not his Word revealed in Scripture? Jesus said his followers must believe “him who sent me,” i.e. the God of the Old Testament, who Evans purports to revile and reject. Is Evans’ Christianity something different than what Jesus described? I say this not to attack Mrs. Evans, who I do not know, but to express concern for what seem to be the inevitable implications of her declarations. Is she not abandoning what the biblical Jesus describes as Christianity for a different religion based on “science, reason, experience, and intuition”? As I read Evans, and her apparent hermeneutical mentor, my old professor Peter Enns, they are not at all charting new territory of spiritual authenticity but serving up old-fashioned unbelieving liberalism, which according to J. Gresham Machen is simply a different religion from biblical Christianity.

Having asked some questions regarding Rachel Held Evans’ view of God, let me take my own stab at this subject. For I pray that I would pass Abraham’s test and I applaud Abraham for doing so. Evans states that while she is not yet a mother, she knows “deep in my gut” she would sooner turn her back on God and be struck dead than obey such a command. Writing as the father of five dearly beloved children, I counter that Abraham was right to obey and I would hope to do likewise in his place. Why was Abraham right? Let me briefly offer four perspectives and reasons: Continue reading