Culverwell:

For the better understanding and practice of this duty, of particular application of God’s promises to our several necessities, that so we may thereby live by Faith, (which is the chief thing by me intended in this Treatise) we are advisedly to consider the nature and kinds of these promises (which be the foundation of our Faith), that so we may more soundly apply them to our several occasions and uses.

By God’s promises, I understand generally all those declarations of God’s will, wherein he offers us to his Word any good thing to enjoy: as on the other side, by threats are meant those declarations of his Will, wherein he denounces any evil against us for sin. Both which he plentifully sets down in the Holy Scriptures to these ends, that by his promises he might allure and draw us to believe and obey his will; and by his threatenings he might scare us from sin: In all which God does declare his will after a double manner, either absolutely, or conditionally. Absolutely, what he will most certainly do, any thing to the contrary notwithstanding. As for example, “That there shall be no more waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.” And, “in this same time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son,” which the Apostle says, is a word of promise: of this sort be all of God’s promises concerning salvation made unto the Elect, which cannot be made void by any means whatsoever.

The other manner whereby God does reveal his will, is not absolute, but (as it is commonly said to be) conditional, which is, when God declares his will, what he will do if we do our part, else not: this conditional promise well understood, may be born; otherwise misunderstood, it destroys the nature of the free and gracious promise of the Gospel, and in this respect confounds the Law and the Gospel, taking away a chief difference between the Covenant of Works (wherein God promised life upon the condition of doing all that was written in the Law, without which condition performed on our parts, God did not covenant to give life): and the Covenant of Grace, wherein God freely promised, not only life, as Jer. 31, from vers. 31. to 35. read the place. The like Ezek. 36.24. &c. “A new heart also I will give you), &c. In which, and the like many, is  no condition expressed on our parts, but God himself makes capable of this grace whom he pleases. How these are by us to be applied, afterwards I will show. But now seeing very many, yea the most of  the free gracious promises of the Gospel, be propounded with some condition, either expressed or necessarily understood, we are wise to consider them; As first in this, and the like many, the condition, or duty required, is expressed, Joh. 3:15, “Whosoever believes in Christ, shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

Read the rest of this entry »

AA Hodge:

45. What is the supra-lapsarian theory of predestination?

The term supra-lapsarian (supra lapsum) designates that view of the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical relations which supposes that the ultimate end which God proposed to himself was his own glory in the salvation of some men and in the damnation of others, and that, as a means to that end, he decreed to create man, and to permit him to fall According to this view, man simply as creatible, and fallible, and not as actually created or fallen, is the object of election and reprobation. The order of the decrees would then be–

1st. Of all possible men, God first decreed the salvation of of others, for the end of his own glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means to that end, to create those already elected or reprobated. 3d. He decreed to permit them to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a salvation for the elect. This view was held by Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, and by Gomarus, the great opponent of Arminius…

47. State the arguments against the supra-lapsarian scheme.

This scheme is unquestionably the most logical of all. It is postulated upon the principle, that what is last in execution is the in intention, which undoubtedly holds true in all spheres comprehended in human experience. Hence it is argued that if the final result of the whole matter is the glorification of God in the salvation of the elect and the perdition of the non-elect, it must have been the deliberate purpose of God from the beginning. But the case is too high and too vast for the a priori application and enforcement of the ordinary rules of human judgment; we can here only know in virtue of and within the limits of positive revelation

The objections against this scheme are–

1st. Man creatible is a nonentity. He could not have been loved or chosen unless considered as created.
2d The whole language of Scripture upon this subject implies that the ” elect” are chosen as the objects of eternal love, not from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sinful men.–John xv. 19; Rom. xi. 5, 7.
3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sanctification, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled by sin.–1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i. 4-6.
4th Predestination includes reprobation. This view represents God as reprobating the non elect by a sovereign act, without any respect to their sins simply for his own glory. This appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as we as with the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are “ordained to dishonor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious justice–Conf. Faith,” ch. 3, sec. 3-7, “ L. Cat,” question 13; “S. Cat.,” question 20.

48. Show that a correct exegesis of Eph. iii 9,10, does not support the supra-lapsarian view.

This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- lapsarian theory. If the hina, introducing the tenth verse, refers to the immediately receding clause, then the passage teaches that God created all things in order that his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the angels. It is evident, however, that hina, refers to the preceding phrase, in which Paul declares that he was ordained to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mystery of redemption. All this he was commissioned to do, in order that God’s glory might be displayed, etc.–See “Hodge on Ephesians.”

AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1879),  232 and 233.  [Note: what AA Hodge says here does not do justice to C Hodge’s full explanation of this point in this Commentary on Ephesians. The reader should also peruse C Hodge’s remarks there.]

Bullinger:

Bv. [Bullinger] Hereby certainly, it is evident that the Son died with the good will of the Father, and that the will and purpose of them both was all one in the redeeming of the world.

Source: Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiasticall exposition of the holy Gospel after S. Iohn, trans., Thomas Timme (Imprinted at London by Thomas Marshe, Anno Domini. 1575), John 10:17, p., 374. [Some spelling modernized.]

AA Hodge:

24. What do the Scriptures teach arr to the relation of Providence to the sinful acts of men?

The Scriptures teach–

1st. The sinful acts of men are in such a sense under the divine control that they occur only by his permission and according to his purpose.–I Chron. i. 4-14; Gen. xlv. 5 and 1. 20. Compare 1 Sam. vi. 6 and Ex. vii. 13 and xiv. 17; Is. lxri. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 11; Acts iv. 27, 28; ii 23; iii. 18.

2d. He restrains and controls sin.-Ps. lxxvi. 10; Gen. 1. 20; 18. x. 15.

3d. He overrules it for good.–Gen. 1. 20; Acts iii. 13.

4th. God neither causes sin, nor approves it, he only permits, directs, restrains, limits, and overrules it. Man, the free agent, is the sole responsible and guilty cause of his own sin. Turretin sets fort the testimony of Scripture upon this subject thus–

1st. As to the beginning of the sin, (1) God freely permits it But this permission is neither a, while permitting it physically, he never approves it; nor merely negative, i.e., he does not simply concur in the result, but he positively determines that bad men shall be permitted for wise and holy ends to act according to their bad natures.–Acts xiv. 16; Pa lxxxi. 12. (2.) He deserts those who sin, either by withdrawing grace abused, or by withholding additional grace. This desertion may be either (a) partial, to prove man’s heart (2 Chron. xxxii. 31), or (b) for correction, or (c) vii. 29; Rom. i 24-26). (3) God so orders providential circumstances that the inherent wickedness of men takes the particular course of action he has determined to permit (Acts ii. 23; iii. 18). (4.) God delivers men to Satan, (a) as a tempter (2 Thess. ii 9-11), (b) as a torturer (1 Cor. v. 5).

2d As to the progress of the sin, God restrains it as to its intensity and its duration, and as to its influence upon others. This he effects both by internal influences upon the heart, and by the control of external circumstances.–Ps. lxxvi. 10.

3d. As to the end or result of the sin, God uniformly overrules it and directs it for good.-Gen. l. 20; Job i.12; ii.6–10; Acts iii. 13; iv. 27, 28.

AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1879), 267-268.