Du Moulin:¹

III. Reprobation is the decree of God, by which from eternity he decreed, not to give to certain men his grace, by which they might be freed from their engrafted depravation, and from the curse due to them, and appointed them to just and deserved punishment for their sins.

VI. God is, after the same manner, the cause of reprobation, as the judge is the cause of punishment of them that are guilty, and sin is the meritorious cause. Seeing therefore the consideration of sin does move the judge, and the judge does condemn to punishment, it appears that sin is the remote cause of damnation, and not only a condition necessarily fore-required, and that the judge is the next and nearest cause.

VII. Furthermore although sin be the case of appointment to punishment, yet it is not the case of the difference between the Elect and Reprobate. For examples sake: Two men are guilty of the same crime, and it pleases the king to condemn one, to absolve and free the other, his sin indeed that is condemned is the cause of his punishment, but it is not the case why the king is otherwise affected to the other then to him, seeing the fault on both sides is alike. The cause of the difference, is that something steps between, which does turn the punishment from one of them, which in the work of predestination is nothing else but the very good pleasure of God, by which of his mere good pleasure, he gave certain men to Christ, leaving the rest in their inbred corruption, and in the curse due unto them. For which difference, it is great wickedness for us to strive with God, seeing he is not subject nor bound to any creature, and punishes no man unjustly, giving to one the grace that is not due, and imposing on the other the punishment that is due.

XII. And although reprobation cannot be said to be the cause of sin, because sin goes before reprobation, yet it cannot be denied that reprobation is the cause of the denying grace, and of the preaching of the Gospel, and of the spirit of adoption, which is peculiar to the elect. For seeing this denying is a punishment, it must be, that it is inflicted by the will of a just judge….

XV. …This is the fountain of their² error; this last beginning has led aside those acute men into byways. The respect of election is one, the respect of reprobation is far other. For sin and infidelity is not a condition after the same manner in the reprobates, as faith is a condition required in the elect. For sin is a condition fore-required in reprobates, but faith is a condition following election. Reprobation is made for sin, but election is made to faith. Sin is the cause of the appointing to punishment, faith is the effect of election. God finds sin, but works faith. Sin follows reprobation only in the necessity of consequence, but not in the necessity of the consequent. But faith does follow election in both ways….

Peter Movlin, The Anatomy of Arminianisme (London: Printed by T.S. For Nathaniel Newbery, and are to be sold at the signe of the Starre vnder Saint Peters Church in Cornehill, and in Popes head Alley, 1620), 210-212, 216-217. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; footnotes and values mine; and underlining mine.]

_____________________

¹Pierre Du Moulin was an extremely “high” Calvinist, with (apparently) strong voluntarist and rationalist influences. A few of his definitions and expressions are objectionable, such as his definitions of divine love, for example. Du Moulin later became an aggressive opponent of Amyraut and all things Amyraldian. Regarding the above statements, I have attempted to extract only his critical positive affirmations, and not his negative comments against Arminianism and Arminians.

²“Their,” that is, the Arminians.

Perkins:

1)

The 1. Error.

There is a certain universal general election, whereby God, without any either restraint, or exception of persons, has decreed to redeem by Christ, and to reconcile unto himself all mankind wholly fallen in Adam, yea every singular person, as well as the reprobate, as the elect.

Confutation.

The very name of Election does fully confute this: for none can be said to be elected, it so be that would have all men elected in Christ, for he that elects or makes choice, cannot be said to take all: neither can he that accepts of all, be said to make choice only of some.

Object. Election is nothing else but dilection, or love: but this is we know, that God loves all creatures; therefore he has elected all his creatures.

Answer. I. I deny that to elect is to love, but to ordain and appoint to love. Rom. 9:13.

II. God does love all his creatures, yet not all equally, but every one in their place.  William Perkins, “A Golden Chaine,” in The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the University of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins (London: Printed by John Legatt, 1626), 107-108.  [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.] [Credit to Tony for this find.]

2) Having the meaning, consider the duty, which is, to do good principally to the faithful, the saints and servants of God, that is, we must do good unto them before others, and more then to others, which are not of the same family; as David says, “My well-doing reaches not to thee, but to the saints that are in the earth, and them that excel in virtue,” Psal. 16:2, 3. For it is all one as if the Apostle should have said, “As it is fit and convenient, that they that are of the same family should be helpful and beneficial one unto another, rather then to those that are of another family. So it is requisite, that those which are members of the same body, nay sons and daughters, brethren and sisters, having the same God for their Father, the Church for their mothers, Christ for their elder brother, begotten of the same immortal seed, nourished with the same milk of the word, and looking for the same blessed inheritance: should rather be beneficial one to another, then to those that are foreigners and strangers, no way linked unto them by the bond of faith.

Now reasons why we ought specially to do good to them of the household of faith, may be these. First, because God loves all his creatures, specially mankind, most especially the faithful, upon whom he does bestow the riches of his love, yea himself also: for though be good unto all, Psal. 145:9, yet in a special sort he “is good to Israel, to them that are of a pure heart,” Psal. 73:1. “He is a Savior of all men, specially of all those that believe,” 1 Tim. 4:10. Thirdly, in respect of the Excellency of their persons, that they are sons of God, heirs of his kingdom, members of Christ, Temples of the Holy Ghost, &c. William Perkins, A Commentarie or, Exposition Vpon the fiue first Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer for the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, 1617), 524-525. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Bavinck:

But this first period in the history of humankind also soon became marked by the most fearsome wickedness. The corruption of the best proved the worst; the extraordinary powers and gifts were abused in the service of sin. This period was ushered in with fratricide. The Cainites, separating themselves from the Semites, concentrated on dominating the earth (Gen. 4:20ff.) and found their strength in the sword (Gen. 4:24). But only when the two, the Sethites and the Cainites, intermingled did wickedness explode: the imagination of the thoughts of their hearts were continually only evil (Gen. 6:5). It was a period so full of iniquity as would never come again until its return in the days of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:37). In a calamitous flood this whole generation disappears, except for Noah’s family, which then becomes the nucleus of a second humanity. The period after the flood is essentially different from that before the flood. In the time from Adam to Noah, nature–the world of plants and animals–as well as humankind bore a very different character from that of the time following. Powerful and copiously supplied with gifts, the world was, as it were, left to itself for a time; but it soon became evident that if God did not forcefully intervene, the world would perish in its own wickedness. With Noah, therefore, a new period begins. The grace that manifested itself immediately after the fall now exerted itself more forcefully in the restraint of evil. God made a formal covenant with all his creatures This covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:1-17), though it is rooted in Gods grace and is most intimately bound up with the actual covenant of grace because it sustains and prepares for it, is not identical with it. It is rather a “covenant of long-suffering” made by God with ad humans and even with all creatures. It limits the curse on the earth; it checks nature and curbs its destructive power; the awesome violence of water is reined in; a regular alternation of seasons is introduced The whole of the irrational world of nature is subjected to ordinances that are anchored in God’s covenant. And the rainbow is set in the clouds as a sign and pledge (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:9-17).

A humanity now appears that, by comparison with the preceding one, is much gentler in nature, diminished in power, and of a much shorter life span. The blessing of multiplication is again expressly stated (Gen. 9:1); the fear and the dread of humans is laid on every animal (v. 2); green plants and meat are given to humans for food (v. 3). Human life is safeguarded by the requirement of the death penalty for murder and by implication, in principle, by the institution of government (w. 5-6). And later when humanity in building the tower of Babel conceives a plan to continue to live together in one location and to start a world empire, God frustrates the plan, disperses it in peoples and languages, and in that way, too, counters the development and explosion of wickedness! The grace of God, accordingly, manifests itself much more forcefully after the flood than before. To it is due the existence and life of the human race; the expansion and development of peoples; states and societies, which gradually came into existence; religion and morality, which were not completely lost even among the most degenerate peoples; and the arts and sciences, which achieved a high level of development. Everything that after the fall is still good even in sinful humans in all areas of life, the whole structure of civil justice, is the fruit of Gods common grace. Granted, God did allow the Gentiles to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16), but he did not leave them; he did not leave himself without witnesses to them but revealed himself to them through the works of his hands (Acts 14:16-17; 17:27-28; Rom. 1:19; James 1:17). The Logos illumines every human coming into the world (John 1:9). The Holy Spirit is the author of all life, power, and virtue, also among the Gentiles (Gen 6-17- 7:15; Pss. 33:6; 104:30; 139:2; Job 32:8; Eccles. 3:19). Humankind was led by this grace and under the dispensation of this covenant of nature before Christ and prepared for his coming. One can indeed speak in a positive sense of mankind’s education by God. A susceptibility for salvation was maintained and the need for it aroused.

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2004), 3:217-219. [Original footnotes not included, and underlining mine.] [For more on Bavinck and Common Grace, see his excellent article, Calvin and Common Grace.]

[comments below]

Dagg:

An unrestricted invitation to all who hear the gospel, to come to Christ for life, seems to imply that universal provision has been made in him; and in order to the making of universal provision, it appears necessary that he should have borne the sins of all men.

But the supposition that he bore the sins of the whole human race, is attended with much difficulty. Multitudes died in impenitence before he came into the world, and were suffering for their sins in the other world, while he was hanging on the cross. How could he be a substitute for these, and suffer the penalty for their sins, when they were suffering it in their own persons? And if he endured the penalty for the sins of all who have since died, or shall hereafter die in impenitence, how shall they be required to satisfy justice a second time by personal suffering?

For a solution of this difficulty, with which the minds of many have been much perplexed, it has been supposed that the amount of suffering necessary to make an atoning sacrifice, is not increased or lessened by the amount of the sin to be atoned for. This hypothesis is entitled to respect, not only because of the relief which it affords the mind, but also because it has recommended itself to the general acceptance of learned and pious men. Nevertheless, like every other hypothesis invented for the removal of difficulty, it should not be made an article of faith, until it has been proved.

In support of the hypothesis, it has been argued that since the wages of sin is death, Christ must have died for a single sin, and he needed only to die, in making atonement for the sins of the whole world.

This argument does not sustain the hypothesis, unless it be assumed that death is the same in every supposable case. But death may be an easy and joyful transition from this world to the world of bliss. Such was not the death of Christ. Death, as the wages of sin, includes more than the mere dissolution of the body: and Christ, in dying for sin, endured an amount of sorrow which was not necessary to mere natural death. In this suffering, the expiatory efficacy of his death chiefly consisted; and we dare not assume that the amount of it must be the same in every supposable case. The sufferings of Christ derive infinite value from his divine nature; but, being endured by his human nature, their amount could not be infinite; hence it is supposable that the amount might have been different in different circumstances. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will, in the last day, be doomed to the second death, equally with the more guilty inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida: but the anguish attendant will be more intolerable in one case than in the other. Analogy would seem to require, that Christ, suffering for the sins of the whole world, must endure more than if suffering for only one sin.

Read the rest of this entry »