Venema:

1) It is usually asked what kind of knowledge that is by which God knows things that are conditionally future. The Jesuits here introduce their scientia media, to which they assign a middle place between scientia simplicis intelligentice and scientia visionis; inasmuch as God by the former knows things merely possible–things not absolutely but only conditionally future.

Here, therefore, scientia media is required. But we say in reply, that this scientia media is introduced without reason and foundation, because nothing else is necessary to the knowledge of future contingent events than the knowledge of the connexion between the antecedent and the consequent. Now the connexion between the conditions, namely, and the occurrence of events, is either necessary or arbitrary and free, and depending on the decree of God. If it be necessary it belongs to scientia simplicis intelligentice, by which God knows things with their consequences and relations. Thus he knew that the inhabitants of Keilah would deliver up David; not, however, by scientia media, but by scientia simplicis intelligentice, by which he knows the relations of things, whether these relations be absolutely or restrictedly necessary. But if the connexion be arbitrary, or depend upon the free determination of the will of God, then it belongs to scientia visionis, or to that knowledge by which he knows by his decree the relations and issues of things. Now there is a general decree by which he has ordained the connexions of things. This knowledge, therefore, belonged to that part of the decree by which he instituted the mutual relation of events, such as that which we have already adverted to in the case of Joash who, if he had smitten the arrows upon the ground five or six times, would have smitten and consumed Syria. The event in this case depended on the good pleasure of God, because he had instituted the connexion between it and what went before.

Such also is the connection between the condition of salvation and salvation itself;–”H e that believeth shall be saved”–a connexion which depends upon the free decree of God. The same remarks may be applied to all conditionally future events. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 155. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Strong:

1) Unconscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our common humanity in him, makes us the heirs of much temporal blessing. Conscious participation in the atonement of Christ, by virtue of our faith in him and his work for us, gives us justification and eternal life. Matthew Henry said that the Atonement is “sufficient for all ; effectual for many.” J. M. Whiton, in The Outlook, Sept. 25, 1897—”It was Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island (1721-1803) who first declared that Christ had made atonement for all men, not for the elect part alone, as Calvinists affirmed.”We should say “as some Calvinists affirmed”; for, as we shall see, John Calvin himself declared that “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Alfred Tennyson once asked an old Methodist woman what was the news. “Why, Mr. Tennyson, there ‘s only one piece of news that I know,— that Christ died for all men.” And he said to her: “That is old news, and good news, and new news.”  Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium (Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907), 772. [Some reformatting and underlining mine.]

2) Richards, Theology, 302-307, shows that Calvin, while in his early work, the Institutes, he avoided definite statements of his position with regard to the extent of the atonement, yet in his latter works, the Commentaries, he acceded to the theory of universal atonement. Supralapsarianism is therefore hyper-Calvinistic, rather than Calvinistic. Sublapsarianisin was adopted by the Synod of Dort ( 1618, 1619 ). By Supralapsarian is meant that form of doctrine which holds the decree of individual salvation as preceding the decree to permit the fall; Sublapsarian designates that form of doctrine which holds that the decree of individual salvation is subsequent to the decree to permit the fall.

The progress in Calvin’s thought may be seen by comparing some of his earlier with his later utterances. Institutes, 2:23:5—” I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed.” But even then in the Institutes, 3:23:8, he affirms that “the perdition of the wicked depends upon the divine predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves. Man falls by the appointment of divine providence, but he falls by his own fault.” God’s blinding, hardening, turning the sinner he describes as the consequence of the divine desertion, not the divine causation. The relation of God to the origin of sin is not efficient, but permissive. In later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on 1 John 2:2—”he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world”—as follows: “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction [Rom. 5:18], his blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race [Mark 14:24]; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope” [John 3:16].  Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium (Valley Forge, PA: The Judson Press, 1907), 777-778. [Some reformatting; square bracketed inserts mine; italics mine; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Annotations:

Verse. 1. Exhort] Or, desire.
Supplications, prayers] Either these words are synonymous, all signifying the public devotion of the Church in her service and Liturgy; or they may be thus distinguished: by demseis: and meant prayers as we make in our necessities and distresses, to prevent and avoid evils that may befall, or are come upon us, by proseuchas, such prayers wherein we sue for good things at God’s hand, namely spiritual and temporal blessings; by enteuxeis, such prayers wherein we entreat for the good of others.

For all men] That is, all kinds of men, Jew and Gentiles, bond, free, faithful, infidels, friends, enemies, great men and mean ones, public and private; or, as the word is often taken in Scriptures, as Matthew 4:23, pasan noson, all diseases, that is, all sorts of diseases, Luke 11:42, pan lachanon, all manner of herbs.

V. 2. For Kings] He mentions Kings particularly, either because the Kings and Magistrates were then enemies to the Church, and persecutors of the Saints of God, and some might peradventure make scruple whether they ought to pray for such; the Apostle therefore resolves they ought; and yields a double reason for it, the former in this verse, that through God’s blessing upon their Government we may enjoy peace (Jer. 29:7). The latter in the fourth verse, because God excludes no sorts or conditions of men from the means of salvation. Or he names Kings in the first place, because they are highest in dignity, and upon the good use of their power very much depends the safety of the Church and Common-wealth.

authority] Or, eminent place.
honesty] Or, comeliness.

V.4. all men to be saved] By as much as appeared unto us by the will revealed in the Gospel, he excluding none by name, neither nation or condition whatsoever, Matthew 28:19. Mark 16:15. Or all, may be taken, not pro singulus generium, but pro geniribus singulorum. Verse. 1.

V. 5. Between] Gr. of. the man Christ Jesus] The Apostle does not add man to exclude the divine nature from his Mediatorship: for he is God revealed in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3:16. And God has purchased his Church by his blood, which through the eternal Spirit he offered without spot unto God, Heb. 9:14, but to express that nature in which he paid the ransom for us, mentioned in the verse following; and to show that our Mediator being a man, all sorts of men have by faith free access unto him and his offering, Heb. 2:10.

V. 6. a ransom for all] All that do believe in him, Matthew 20:28. John 3:16 and 10:15, Rom. 1:16 and 3:22.
to be testified in due time] Or a testimony. Gr. Tec. For all in due time. The word marturion, is left out in the Greek copy by Tecla, and the sense is full without it, “Who gave himself a ransom for all in due time;” but if retain the word because most copies have it, the meaning is, “That the ransom he paid was a real testimony of his Mediatorship betwixt God and man, whereby he reconciled both.” Or the meaning is, “That though their ransom were paid at one time, yet it is testified to several nations, kairois idois, at several seasons appointed by God for their conversion.

Annotations Upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament: This Second Edition so enlarged, As they make an entire Commentary on the Sacred Scripture: The like never before published in English. Wherein The Text is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Paralleled (London: Printed by John Legat, 1651). [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Rex:

The year 1618 is one of the historic dates of Calvinism. It was then that in Holland the famous Synod of Dordrecht was convoked to combat the greatest crisis in dogma since the age of the first reformers. From Germany, the United Provinces, Geneva, Switzerland and England the delegates assembled (France, by order of the king, could send no delegates) to deal with the Arminians, or “Remonstrants” as they were often called, who had challenged some of the fundamental orthodox doctrines, threatening to split the Calvinist world in two.⁷

It was the pious conviction of the Arminians that the insistence of traditional Calvinism upon God’s omnipotence and man’s helplessness (as expressed in the absolute decrees of election and reprobation and other doctrines concerning the nature of grace and the Divine Satisfaction) led immediately and necessarily to the conclusion that God Himself was responsible for man’s sins and was the cause of his damnation.⁸ To avoid a conclusion so monstrous in itself, and which made them so vulnerable to accusations by their Catholic adversaries, they remonstrated to the orthodox with five points of doctrine carefully phrased to coincide as closely as possible with the usual orthodox formulae, but which in reality–as the orthodox were quick to see–affected the very foundations of the Calvinist theological system. In order to make it clear that it was man, rather than God, who was responsible for his own damnation the Arminians suggested (1) that the decrees of predestination and reprobation were not always absolute, (2) that Christ had proffered remission of sins to all mankind by His death, (3) that Christ had died for each and every person, (4) that a sinner might resist grace, and (5) that the saints did not always persevere in their faith. These points if adopted would have broken the absolute nature of the divine decrees; they would have implied the existence of a kind of universal grace offered to all (as opposed to the traditional “particular” grace offered only to the elect), and they would have meant that man’s will was partially independent–independent enough to refuse the grace offered in Christ’s death, or even to lose it, if in the wickedness of his heart man chose to do so.

Inevitably the orthodox rejected the five points. They were far from admitting that their traditional doctrines led to such impious consequences as the Arminians claimed; they saw no necessity to revise the whole structure of their theology, especially since their traditional doctrines were so “evidently” supported by the authority of the Scripture, and since Arminianism was clearly another revival of the semi-Pelagian heresy, whose dangers were already well known to the true Church. For months they labored, and at last brought forth the famous “Canons” which redefined the essential doctrines of their belief, and rejected the errors of the heretics.⁹ All the delegates to the Synod signed their names to each of the articles of the Canons, and at the conclusion of the Synod there were tears of rejoicing and prayers of thanksgiving; medals were struck to commemorate the happy issue of the crisis. A considerable number of Arminians were denied the right to exercise their pastoral functions; many also were placed under surveillance or sent into exile; for political reasons the worthy Oldenbarneveldt was decapitated.

Read the rest of this entry »