Ames:

37. Because of this setting apart whereby God does not bestow blessedness upon some persons, he is said to Hate them, Rom. 9:13. This hatred is negative or privative, because it denies election. But it has a positive content, for God has willed that some should not have eternal life.

38. In this is found, nevertheless, the second difference (in reason) between election and reprobation, namely, that the love in election bestows good on the creatures directly, but the hatred in reprobation only denies good–it does not bring or inflict evil because the creature himself deserves it.

William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Durham, North Carolina: Labyrinth Press, 1983), 156.

Davenant:

Some relevant quotations:

1) The last argument is taken from a comparison of the twofold covenant, and according to it, of a twofold ordination of men to salvation. As, therefore, in the covenant of nature, that is, the agreement with Adam at the time of creation, salvation was procurable by Adam and all his posterity under the condition of obedience to be paid to the law of nature, and to the express commandment of God; so in the covenant of grace, which was confirmed by the blood of the Mediator, salvation is also understood to be procurable for all men under the condition published in the Gospel, that is, of faith in this Mediator, who hath made satisfaction for the sins of the human race. Moreover, as in the first covenant, God, who ordained salvation as procurable for Adam and his posterity, yet did not predestinate that either Adam himself or any of his posterity should be really saved by that covenant; so God, who in the second covenant ordained salvation as procurable for all under the condition of faith, yet hath not predestinated to give to all men individually this faith. by which they might infallibly obtain salvation. But lest the blood of the Son of God should flow, and through the fault of the human will the same should happen in the second covenant which had happened in the first, namely, that no one should enjoy the benefit of it, God resolved with himself a more deep and secret counsel and determined of his mere and special mercy to give to some persons the ability and will to fulfil the aforesaid condition of faith, and further, that they should actually and infallibly fulfil it. But now, as he would be unjust towards God who should deny that salvation was ordained by God as procurable for Adam and his posterity under the covenant of nature; so he is more unjust towards Christ, who denies that his death was ordained by God, as a remedy for salvation applicable to all under the condition of the new covenant, although many do not obtain salvation by means of it. God himself gave to the world this remedy applicable to all mankind individually; let the world concede to God the liberty of applying it, as it may seem good to his wisdom and justice. Those who think in this manner of the death of Christ do not take away that common loving-kindness of God, of which the Scripture testifies; and yet at the same time they contend, that as many as are saved by the merit of the death of Christ, are saved by special and undeserved grace; and that as many aa are not saved, perish through their own unbelief, or at least. through their own fault. I omit bringing forward any more arguments to corroborate this our opinion. Let us now attend to what is wont to be objected on the other side. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 364-365.

2) REPLY 1. But I answer, When we affirm the death of Christ according to the ordination of God, and the nature of the thing, to be a remedy applicable to every man, we consider not merely the outward passion of Christ endured at the appointed moment of time, but the eternal virtue of the death of Christ, bringing salvation to mankind in every age. For Christ, as to the intention of God, was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the efficacy ofthis propitiatory sacrifice could extend itself as much to those who lived before Christ suffered, as to us who live after his passion. If therefore they only mean, that those could not be relieved by the death of Christ in time, who before his death were by an irrevocable decree adjudged to infernal punishment, we confess the same; because they had then ceased to be living in this world, and therefore were not capable of repentance and faith; but if they mean to contend farther, that the eternal virtue of the death of Christ was not applicable to such persons while they were alive in this world, because the passion of Christ did not regard them any more than the wicked and condemned angels, that we deny. For it may be truly said of Cain, Esau. or any man who died before Christ suffered, that he might have been absolved from his sins, and saved through the virtue of the sacrifice to be offered up by the Messiah, if he had believed in him ; which cannot be said of the condemned angels: because the universal covenant of salvation under the condition of faith, embraces the whole human race, but does not embrace the fallen angels. It is therefore worthy of observation, that God would not that the death of his Christ should either be applied or applicable under any condition to any of the fallen angels: to all these, therefore, God conducted himself alike and equally. But not equally to mankind; for as to these, although he determined and declared that the death of his Son was applicable to any one under the condition of faith, yet he did not determine to cause it by the benefit of his special mercy to be applied equally to every one. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 367-368.

Read the rest of this entry »

Davenant:

1) I wish that in this litigious age we had before our eyes this specimen of Christian charity and modesty, by which, as it appears to me, that tempest which was excited by the preaching of Godeschalcus was so happily settled and appeared. For in the following ages I find no contests about the aforesaid controversy. At length theological questions came into the hands of the Schoolmen, who, although they were fruitful artificers of disputes, yet were unwilling to renew this subject. To them it seemed sufficient to teach that Christ died for all sufficiently, for the predestinated effectually; which, since no one could deny, no handle was given for using the saw of contention. The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a manner on the death of Christ, that they afforded no occasion of reviving the contest. For they taught, That it was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by those that believe. At the same time, they judged it improper to mingle the hidden mystery of Election and Preterition with this doctrine of the Redemption of the human race through Christ, in such a manner as to exclude any one, before he should exclude himself by his own unbelief. Let us hear their own words. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 336-337.

2) Under the word death, then, we comprehend that infinite treasure of merits which the Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, by doing and suffering, procured and laid up for our benefit. Again, when we say that this death or this merit is represented in the holy Scriptures as the universal cause of salvation, we mean, “That according to the will of God explained in his word, this remedy is proposed indiscriminately to every individual of the human race for salvation, but that it cannot savingly profit any one without a special application. For an universal cause of salvation, or an universal remedy, includes these two things: first, that of itself it can cure and save all and every individual: secondly, that for the production of this determinate effect in each individual it should require a determinate application. Not unaptly, therefore, did Aquinas say, “The death of Christ is the universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man may be said to be the universal cause of damnation. But it is necessary that an universal cause should be applied particularly to each individual, that its proper effect may be experienced.” Further, what we maintain in our proposition, that this universal cause of salvation is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, at once excludes the apostate angels. to whom (whatsoever may be thought of the intrinsic value and. sufficiency of this remedy) according to the revealed will of God, its universality is not extended. Nor even with respect to men can it be extended so universally as to be applicable to every one under every state and circumstance. For it is not applicable to the dead or the damned, but to the living: nor to the living under every condition, but under the conditions ordained by God. The death of Christ was not applicable to Peter for salvation, if Peter had persisted in denying Christ to the last. And the same death of Christ was capable of application to Judas, if Judas had repented and believed in Christ. For this cause, therefore, we have not merely said that it is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, but on this being added, from the ordination of God, and the nature of the thing. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 341-2.

Read the rest of this entry »

Calvin:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.  Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is  declared to be the only true salvation of the world. John Calvin, 1 John 2:2.

[Note: For now I will pass over the question of whether or not Calvin rejects this formula in his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, when speaking of this same verse and issue. If we assume, as I think most scholars do, that what Calvin does say here is what he did actually believe, we have to then consider what he meant.

According to AA Hodge, Calvin expressed his commitment to the classic ‘unrevised’ formula. Thus the idea that Calvin thought only that the “suffering for all” referred to a mere hypothetical suffering for all is not credible. On the contrary, from his wider writings it is more than clear that Calvin considered this suffering for all, actual and not hypothetical.

Read the rest of this entry »