Aquinas:

According to a Gloss the book of life is the same as the predestination of the saints. They are the same reality but the ideas are different. It should be noted that in olden times it was a custom to write in a register the names of those appointed to some duty or dignity, as soldiers and senators, who were enrolled in the palace. Now all the predestined saints are chosen by God for something great, namely, eternal life; and this appointment is called predestination. The record of this appointment is called the book of life: and this record is in the divine memory, because inasmuch as He appoints, He predestines; inasmuch as He knows it unchangeably, it is called foreknowledge. Therefore, this foreknowledge about the predestined is called the book of life.

But is anyone ever erased from this book? I answer that some are enrolled absolutely, and others in a qualified sense. For some are absolutely predestined by God to obtain eternal life, and they are enrolled indelibly. Others are predestined to have eternal life not in itself, but in its cause, inasmuch as they are ordained to justice for the present; and such persons are said to be erased from the book of life when they fall away from justice in this life.

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians and the Letter to the Philippians, (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966), 112-113.

Harmon:

Fifth Sermon on Romans 11:33

In keeping with the passage that he is expositing, Amyraut’s sermon on Rom 11:33 again sustains a pervasive doxological emphasis. In response to God’s free creation, his general revelation of his patience, and forbearance in nature and providence, and his particular revelation to the Jews and in Christ, efficaciously applied in some, the only appropriate response is to cry, “Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom of God!” As a result, Amyraut’s purpose in his exposition of the passage is primarily to speak of the freedom of God. He observes the circumstances of Paul’s words and several conclusions, particularly of a twofold election.⁶⁹

The epistolary context of Paul links his praise of God’s wisdom with his discourse on his dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Paul has described how God allowed Israel to fall so that opportunity may be given to extend grace to Gentiles. Yet, the Jews will be called back in the future. This transfer of the center of God’s saving activity confirms that all are placed in rebellion so that God might have mercy upon all. But, this does not mean that God saves every person. According to his first kind of mercy he does, providing that they believe. But, according to the second kind of mercy that creates faith in its recipients, he does not desire for every person to be saved. On one hand, all men are not saved because many refuse God’s offered salvation, but on the other hand, they could have been saved, but their corrupt natures made it impossible for them to believe.⁷⁰

To each group, Jew and Gentile, God acted differently before the manifestation of the gospel. To the Gentiles, God gave only the revelation of himself through nature and his providence. Even this revelation was often despised, and so God allowed Gentiles to fall into infamously licentious behavior as judgment. At the same time, in Judea there were two different groups. Some faithful ones held to the promises of the Messiah and did so by the Spirit’s inward power. Others were restrained in their outward behavior from reprehensible living, while sinful passions continued to writhe within them. This apparent contrast in outward behavior between Jews and Gentiles could seem to provide a contrast in the working of God’s salvation. If Jews behaved better than Gentiles, were they saved by their works? And now that the gospel had come to Gentiles, were they saved in a different manner, by grace? To avoid this possible confusion and to emphasize God’s mercy above all other considerations, God largely removed the light of salvation from Israel for a time. This focus upon the Gentiles could then confirm his mercy.⁷¹

Read the rest of this entry »

Zanchi:

The fifth Question

Whether every singular man be bounden to believe that he is one of the elect: and how he may be persuaded hereof. To this we will answer in two propositions, because it consists of two parts.

The first proposition.

Every man is bounden, by God’s commandment, to believe that he is elected, and predestinated to eternal salvation in Christ: but especially he, who is a professor of faith in Christ.

I say every man: even the reprobate, who never shall believe. For to all it is said, “Hear him:” that is, believe the Gospel [Math. 17:5.]. And of the wicked especially it is said, “The Spirit shall reprove the world, of sin, because they believed not in Christ,” [Joh. 16:9.]. And marvel not at this, that all are bound to believe though they cannot believe. For all are bounden to love God with all their hearts, to repent, &c., but all neither shall, nor can do this. Now if all be bounden to believe in Christ, then that they are elected in Christ. For these are inseparable: and who so doubts of the one calls into question the other. But for the proof of this proposition, mark: As man is commanded personally to repent, so by his own faith to be believe the whole Gospel. Both which are comprised in that speech of Christ, “Repent, and believe the Gospel,” [Mark 1:15.]. Now the Gospel does not only teach that Christ is a Savior only of the elect, &c., but that all such as are saved in him were so elected in him before the world was. Wherefore as every man is bounden to believe in his own salvation by Christ, so also his own election in Christ: and therefore because these benefits belong only to the elect, for whom they were prepared. Now that Christ belongs only to the elect it is plain. “This is my blood which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins,” [Luk. 22:20]. “Christ was offered once to take away the sins of many,” [Hebr. 9:25.]. “I pray for them,” that is, for the elect: “I pray not for the world,” that is, the reprobate. Will he spill his blood for them, for whom he will not spend his breath? nay the sacrifice of his body was only for them, for whom was the sacrifice of his lips. But excellently says the Apostle, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s chosen? it is God that justifies,” [Rom. 8:33.].  Whom? Even those chosen ones of God. So then whereas we read that Christ died for all, we must by all understand, all of the elect: for there is a universality of them: and that he died for the world, we must understand such only as are saved. For there is mundus salvandorum, a world of the saved: and mundus damnandorum, a world of the damned. Again only the elect have their sins forgiven: and so consequently saved by Christ: whom he has predestined (says Paul), them (alone) he has called (effectually), and whom he has called, them (alone) has he justified [Rom. 8:30.]. And blessed be God, says the same Apostle, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ: even as he has elected us, &c [Eph. 1:3.]. But why were we blessed? because says he, God has elected us alone to such blessings. Besides, eternal life belongs only to them. For whom he “has predestined, them also” (alone) “has he glorified.”  They shall sit at Christ’s right hand for whom it is prepared [Rom. 8:31.].  Inherit the kingdom prepared for you [Math. 20:25.], shall Christ say, at the last day.  Wherefore every man is bounden to believe this even for himself. And are we not moreover commanded to believe that god in love through his Son has given unto us eternal life? “So God loved the world,” &c., Joh. 3:16. “As thou hast loved me, so hast thou loved them,” says Christ, Joh. 17, But, “me hast though loved before the foundation of the world,” v. 24. “He loved us first,” says John, that is, from eternity, and that in Christ [1 Joh. 4:16.]. Therefore says Paul, it was said, “according to the purpose of God, Jacob have I loved,” [Rom. 9:13.]. We are besides in the gospel commanded to believe, and call upon God as our Father: can we do this without assurance of our election? “Fear not little flock,” says Christ, “it is your Father’s pleasure to give you the kingdom,” [Luk. 12:32.]. If you would not fear you must believe your election. For what is it else to have a kingdom given us, but to be elected unto salvation? if you do fear, you obey not the commandment of Christ. Why then say you, “I can believe that my sins are indeed pardoned in Christ: but that I am elected personally I cannot believe? is it because it is said, “the Lord knows who are is, and no man knows the mind of God,” &c. [2 Tim. 2:19.]. Why neither knows you whether your proper sins are forgiven, and whether Christ died particularly for you, by that kind of knowledge, of certainty of science [notitia & certitudine scientiae.] But I know say you this other, that is, that Christ died for me, by the knowledge, and certainty of faith. Why and this only is that knowledge and certainty of election which we do require in this place. But where says you does the Scripture set this down, that you particularly shall be saved. We read that Christ died for us, that the promises of salvation are universal. And because these promises exclude none, therefore are we to believe them. And the like may be said of election: that as out of the universal promises of redemption, you assume a particular: so must you out of the universal of elections: and the rather, because nowhere the Scripture does exclude you. If you object that the promises of election are not universal, because it is said, “Many are called but fire are chosen.” I answer, that indefinite propositions must be thought universal. And if this were a good reason, then the propositions of redemption should not be universal, because it is said that he “died for many.”  True then it is, that all are bounded to believe their particular election, without which assurance, there can be no assurance of faith in Christ. “For faith is only proper to the elect,” [Tit. 1:1.]. And, “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” [Act. 13:48.]  Another reason is this. You must either be persuaded of your election, or else not be persuaded at all, or at the least doubt. Says you that you must be persuaded? Why it is the thing that we do teach. That not at all: or that you must doubt? Why are we commanded the contrary in the Word. And God will have man to believe him without doubting. Nay this is a most pernicious conceit, not to be persuaded of your election. For as the persuasion of God’s good favor, and election, makes man to love, trust in, and give thanks to God: yea to contemn the world, and suffer all adversities: so to doubt of God’s mercy causes quite the contrary. You will not love, you dare not trust, you cannot give thanks unto him, who has not as you fear been so good to you, as to many thousands in the world. Is this then so pernicious to your soul? O I beseech you, flee it: is the contrary so sovereign for your salvation? O I pray you embrace it.

[Girolamo Zanchi] Live Everlasting: Or The True Knowledge of One Iehova, Three Elohim and Jesus Immanuel: Collected Out of the Best Modern Divines, and compiled into one volume by Robert Hill, ([Cambridge:] Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And are to be sold [in London] at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Church-yard by Simon Waterson, 1601), 538-540. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; side-headers included; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: Worldcat and Wing identify this as as: “Largely a translation and abridgement of Zanchi, Girolamo. De natura Dei. Zanchi is identified in the side-note on page 655—STC…” I have inserted Zanchi’s name in the title as a reflection that because: 1) as noted, this is largely a translation of Zanchi’s work; 2) because it quite probably does reflect Zanchi’s theology; 3) because Wing attributes the authorship to Zanchi, and Hill as the translator; and 4) from the opening “Epistle Dedicatory” (3^rd page) Hill identifies a work by Zanchi as the principal text upon which this work is based. Lastly, I actually suspect this is a much more reliable translation than Toplady’s briefer translation from the same work. 5) For more on Zanchi, with an attempt to explicate the complexity of his views on the nature and extent of the atonement, see: G.M., Thomas,  The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (UK: Paternoster: 1997), 87-99.]

Zanchi:

The third question.

Whether the will of God be simply one, or divers; and if divers, which they be.

The Proposition.

The will of God in divers respects is both and divers.

Divines do make many divisions of the will of God: some divide it into antecedent or consequent, as Damascus, 1.2.c.46, others into the will of his good pleasure, and the will of sign, that is, by which he signifies what his pleasure is: as the Schoolmen, others into his secret and revealed will: others into his absolute and conditional will; others into that which he will do with us, and that which he will have done by us. Others though they seem divers, yet if they be well weighed they all come to the same purpose. But how this will is both one and divers, it is hard to set down. if we take will in any of three acceptations which I mentioned before, it will appear that the will of God is one only, both in efficacy, in act, and in his object. And this will of God is his free, eternal, most wise, and immutable decree, by which he brings every singular creature which he made to their several use and end, by such means as he has appointed: and to permit sins which he neither did not, nor does make, to be in the world; and all for the manifestation of his glory.  I call it a decree, because the Scripture does so: “My counsel or decree,” says the prophet of God, “shall stand, and I will do whatsoever I will,” [Isai, 46:10.]: where counsel and will are joined together as all one.  So the Apostles said that Herod and Pontius Pilate were gathered together, to do whatsoever the counsel of God had determined before to be done “[Act. 4:28]: and Paul calls the will of God concerning the salvation of the elect, predestination [Rom. 8:29]: and when Christ says that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without the will of his Father [Matt. 10:26.], his meaning is, without his certain, and eternal decree: as also Ioho[?], 6:40, “and who has resisted his will:” his immutable decree. I call it free, because none more free then God, whose decree is therefore called the “God pleasure of his will,” [Eph. 1:8]. I said eternal, because look what he now will, he ever would: and we are said to be elected before the foundation of the world: the like may be said of all other things that they were purposed from eternity. I added most wise, because God is wisdom itself: and immutable, because he is without change. I mention every singular creature, because all were made by him, and that very good: and are directed to their several ends: directed, for God does either immediately, or mediately move all things: to their several ends and uses; for there is one use of fire, another of water: one of godly, another of the godless: and therefore they are called vessels of mercy, those of wrath. And these ends are either near or far off: the next end of the wicked is death, of the godly life, the last is God’s glory, who created all things for himself even the wicked against the evil day. And all this God does by such means as he has appointed: his children are elected, but in Christ; called to him, but outwardly by the word preached: inwardly by the Spirit: brought to him by the knowledge of the law and the Gospel:” engrafted in him by faith: sanctified by the Spirit and by good works brought into the possession of eternal life. As for sins, I said he decreed to permit them: for sin as it is sin, and evil as it is evil, God is not the author of it; but as all men confess permitted it, not unwillingly, but willingly; and therefore it was the eternal decree and will of God to permit the same. The end of all I said to be the glory of God, all things which God either has willed or does will, are comprehended under this eternal decree and will, the which if it were not one but divers the Scripture would not ever speak of it in the singular number, and term it counsel, good pleasure, will: but would sometimes use the plural number, as they do not: nay God would not ever command us to do his will, that is, his commandments: neither should it be said that all things are governed according to his will, as one, but as many:” so then though God will not all things after one sort, but some things for himself as that which is good’; others for other respects as those things which are evil: some absolutely as whatsoever he will; others conditionally as that which he promises, if we do this or that, yet if we consider God who wills we shall see that his decree or will is one only, by which he wills whatsoever he will.

Read the rest of this entry »