Notice: register_sidebar_widget is deprecated since version 2.8.0! Use wp_register_sidebar_widget() instead. in /home/q85ho9gucyka/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3931
Calvin and Calvinism » God who Ordains

Archive for the ‘God who Ordains’ Category

17
Oct

John Murray Commenting on Romans 9:22-24

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

John Murray:

22–24 These verses are an unfinished sentence (6 Luke 19:42; John 6: 62; Acts 23: 9). Literally the Greek terms are “but if” and their force is properly rendered by ‘what if’, as in the version, or, as Sanday and Headlam observe, “like our English idiom ‘what and if.’” Understood thus the three verses are an expansion and application of what underlies the analogy appealed to in verses 20b, 21. If God in the exercise of his sovereign right makes some vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy what have lve to say? It is a rhetorical way of reiterating the question of verse 20.

The interpretation of these verses may more suitably be discussed in the order of the following details.

1. “Vessels of wrath” and “vessels of mercy” are best regarded in terms of verse 21. The potter makes vessels for certain purposes. So here the vessels are for wrath and mercy. It is true that they are vessels deserving wrath but this cannot apply in respect of mercy to the vessels of mercy. Hence both should be taken in a sense that can apply to both. This view is to the same effect as that of Calvin who says that vessels are to be taken in a general sense to mean instruments and therefore instruments for the exhibition of God’s mercy and the display of his judgment.

2. The participle “willing” has been interpreted in two ways: “because willing” or “although willing.” In the former case the thought would be that because God wishes to give more illustrious display of his wrath and power he exercises his longsuffering. In the latter case the meaning would be: although God wills to execute his wrath he nevertheless restrains and postpones this execution from the constraint of longsuffering. In the one case longsuffering serves the purpose of effective display of wrath and power, in the other case longsuffering inhibits the execution of the just desert. In favour of the latter it could be said that according to 2:4 God’s longsuffering is a manifestation of the goodness of God directed to repentance and could hardly be represented as the means of promoting the demonstration of God’s wrath. Before reaching a decision on this question other considerations bearing on the interpretation of verses 22,23 have to be taken into account.

Read the rest of this entry »

1
Oct

John Davenant on the Danger of “Ordering” the Decrees of God

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

 

Davenant:

HITHERTO we have treated of the death of Christ as it regards the whole human race, in the universal circuit of his quickening power to be brought into act under the condition of faith, as to every man. For although, through the want of this condition, the death of Christ does not display its saving virtue in the greater part of men, yet it is not to be denied, that the Scriptures every where clearly testify, nor is it to be doubted, but God had in himself the most just and wise reasons of his counsel, while he determined that the death of his Son should be applicable to all men on condition of faith, and nevertheless did not determine to effect or procure that it should be applied to all by the gift of faith to each individual. We ought not, therefore, to oppose to each other and clash together these Divine decrees, “I will that my Son should so offer himself on the cross for the sins of the human race, that all men individually may be saved by believing in him;–and–I will so dispense my efficacious grace that not all, but the elect only, may receive this saving faith, whereby they may be saved.” If these two decrees seem to any one to oppose each other, he ought rather to acknowledge the weakness of his own understanding, than to deny any of those things which are so plainly contained in the holy Scriptures. Let this, then, be fixed and established, That according to the decree of God himself, Christ was so offered on the cross for all men, that his death is a kind of universal remedy appointed for all men individually, in order to obtain remission of sins and eternal life, to be applied by faith. But now, lest under this universal virtue of the death of Christ, which extends to all rational creatures, we should destroy its special efficacy, which actually pertains to the predestinated alone, we shall enter upon the other part of the discussion we undertook, which will explain and defend the special prerogative of the elect in the death of Christ, both from the will of God the Father in giving his Son to death, and that of the Son in offering himself. For we ought not so to contend that Christ died for all, as to believe with the Pelagians, that the quickening efficacy of his death is at the same time common to all, from the intention of the Divine will, but in its event becomes saving to some and not to others, no otherwise than from the contingent use of human liberty. Nor are we to fancy with the Arminians, that God gave his Son to death absolutely intending nothing more than that from that that he might haw a mere power of saving some sinners, notwithstanding his justice, and that any sinners might have a way or means by which they might be saved, notwithstanding their own sin.” Hence arises that celebrated corollary of Grevinchovius, in his dissertation on the death of Christ (p. 9,) “That the dignity, necessity, and usefulness of, redemption might abundantly appear by its being obtained, even though it should never be actually applied to any individual.” Again (p. 14,) “That the redemption might be obtained for all, and yet applied to none on account of their unbelief.” But we by no means think that the death of Christ was like the cast of dice, but that it was decreed from eternity by God the Father and Christ, through the merit of his death, infallibly to save some certain persons whom the Scripture marks by the name of the elect; and therefore, that, according to the will of God, the death of Christ was, by some special mode and counsel, offered and accepted for their redemption.

Read the rest of this entry »

17
Sep

Johannes Wollebius on Reprobation

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Wollebius:

XI. Those who teach the doctrine of election in such a way as to deny reprobation, are clearly wrong.

Scripture teaches reprobation no less than election. Isaiah 41:9 “I chose you and do not abandon you.” Malachi 1:2-3: “I loved Jacob; I hated Esau.” Romans 9: 18: “He has mercy on whom he will, and he hardens whom he will.” Romans 11:7: “The elect attained it; the others were hardened.” I Thessalonians 5:9: “God has not destined us for wrath, but for salvation.” 2 Timothy 2: 20: “Vessels for noble use, and for ignoble.” Jude 4: “Some men long destined for damnation came in secretly.” XII. Just as Christ is the cause not of election but of salvation, so faithlessness is the cause not of reprobation but of damnation.

Damnation differs from reprobation as the means of carrying out a decree differs from the decree itself.

XIII. Not damnation, but the revelation of the glory of the justice of God, is the purpose of reprobation.

Therefore man cannot properly be said to have been created in order to be damned; for damnation, by which the person who has been rejected brings about evil for himself, is not the purpose but the means of achieving the purpose of God.

XIV. For purposes of instruction, two acts of reprobation may be assumed: the denial of unmerited grace, which is called preterition, and deliverance to merited punishment, which is called precondemnation.

Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in John W. Beardslee III, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1977), 52-53. [Originally published in 1626.]

25
Aug

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) on Predestination and Reprobation

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

Question 23. Predestination

Article 1. Whether men are predestined by God?

Objection 1. It seems that men are not predestined by God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 30): “It must be borne in mind that God foreknows but does not predetermine everything, since He foreknows all that is in us, but does not predetermine it all.” But human merit and demerit are in us, forasmuch as we are the masters of our own acts by free will. All that pertains therefore to merit or demerit is not predestined by God; and thus man’s predestination is done away.

Objection 2. Further, all creatures are directed to their end by divine providence, as was said above (22, 1, 2). But other creatures are not said to be predestined by God. Therefore neither are men.

Objection 3. Further, the angels are capable of beatitude, as well as men. But predestination is not suitable to angels, since in them there never was any unhappiness (miseria); for predestination, as Augustine says (De praedest. sanct. 17), is the “purpose to take pity [miserendi]” [See 22, 3]. Therefore men are not predestined.

Objection 4. Further, the benefits God confers upon men are revealed by the Holy Ghost to holy men according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 2:12): “Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God.” Therefore if man were predestined by God, since predestination is a benefit from God, his predestination would be made known to each predestined; which is clearly false.

On the contrary, It is written (Romans 8:30): “Whom He predestined, them He also called.”

I answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (Question 22, Article 2). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said (22, 1, 2). The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (Question 12, Article 4). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be providence. Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done. Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence.

Read the rest of this entry »

12
Aug

Edward Leigh on Reprobation

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism

In the Scriptures reprobate, and to reprobate are referred rather to the present conditions of wicked men, than God’s eternal ordination concerning them. But the Decree of Reprobation is expressed in such terms as these, “God is said “not to have given them Christ,” “not to show mercy on some,” “not to have written the name of some in the Book of Life.”

Reprobation is the purpose of God to leave the rest of men to themselves, that he may glorify his Justice in their eternal destruction. Est decretum aliquod quo destinavit alicui Deus damnationem. Twiss. See Mr Manton on the 4th verse of the Epistle of Jude.

The Schoolmen ad others distinguish between Negative and Positive, or affirmative act of Reprobation. The Negative Act is called Preterition, non-election, or a will of not giving life. The positive or Affirmative Act is called Predamnation, or a will of damning the reprobate person. So there are two parts of Election, viz. The Decree of giving grace, by which men are freed from sin by Faith and Repentance: 2. Of rewarding their Faith and Repentance with eternal life.

Preterition or negative Reprobation is an eternal Decree of God purposing within himself to deny unto the non-elect that peculiar love of his, wherewith Election is accompanied, as also that special grace which infallibly brings to glory: of which negations, permissions of sin, obduration in sin, and damnation for sin, are direct consequents. Dr Arrowsmith’s Chain of Principles, Aphor. 5. Exercit. 2.

Read the rest of this entry »