Blake:

Argument 5.

Fifthly, from verse 25, “If the breaking of the Jews be by blinding; ten the engrafting is by giving Faith, but the former us true, ver. 25. Ergo the latter.

Answer. Here is the third Argument, I grant conclusion, and return to the same answer. Jewish blindness keeps them out of a church-state, and so from all the Faith in the Covenant; and when the veil shall be taken away, they shall be reinvested in a church-state and Covenant-condition. For proof there is added, porosis, “blinding or hardening is,” verse 7, “opposed to that state which the Election obtained, by which,” ver. 8, “they had a spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, ears that they should not hear,” verse 10, “Whereby their eyes were darkened that they might not see,” from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation, Ames animad. in Remom. Script. Act 1. Cap. 16. Hoc ipsum ad reprobationen spectare Apostolus Paulus claré Opposition opposita sunt attributa: “If the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off to be by blinding, then the engrafting is by enlightening, and that enlightening is according to Election, and so is all one with giving of Faith.”

The proposition being; if the blinding be the effect of reprobation, and the breaking is by blinding, then engrafting is by enlightening, and that according to Election, then the assumption can be no other, but that blindness is the effect of reprobation, and the breaking off is by blinding. No one of the Contra-Remonstrates worthy the name of an adversary has taught this doctrine: It that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them, but that which they unanimously do disclaim. I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin, but never that it was the cause; and that sin is a consequent of it, but never the effect. Reprobation is the Act of God, and in case it be the cause of blindness, then God is the cause of blindness; so that the Contra-remonstrants have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them, that none of their adversaries (though they have turned every stone to do it) could never prove by them. And the other member, that casting away is by blinding, is little better. The Apostle speaks in another manner; Blindness was their guilt, and casting off, “because of unbelief they were broken off,” verse 20, upon this account “God did not spare them,” as it follows in the next verse. The work, and the wages, the guilt, and the punishment are not one: Unbelief and breaking off, are the work and the wages, the guilt and the punishment: breaking off then, as not blinding. The Apostle lays all at man’s door, makes this blindness the moving case, according to that of the Prophet, “Thy destruction us of thyself,” and God only the severe, but just Judge. Our Author lays all upon God, God’s reprobation causes blindness, and their breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but God’s, in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off is by blinding; here is no hand but God’s, in their destruction. And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied, so that blindness is no effect of reprobation, breaking off being not by blinding; what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced? Election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation, do not per omnia quadrare, otherwise as Election leads to salvation without any merit of works, so Reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin, which Contra-remonstrants unanimously deny, though we find it here affirmed. It is further said, that from verse 8, 10, of this chapter. Anti-Arminians gather absolute Reprobation, and then explaining what this absolute Reprobation is, in the words spoken to. But though much be spoke of the irrespective decree both between us and Arminians, and also among ourselves: yet I would fain learn what one Anti-Arminian ever made Reprobation absolute in this sense; Amesius is quoted, but the word [absolute] is not found in him; And Gomarus, a man for the irrespective decree as much as any (and upon that account entered his dissent in the Synod of Dort, where respective to reprobation was denied, and Sublapssarian opinions established) yet he peremptorily denies any reprobation absolute in this sense; “(a) Neither does God,” (says he) “absolutely and barely destinate any man to destruction, without subordinate means; but he destinates him to just destruction, that is by, and for, sin justly to be executed.” Analysis Epist. Ad Rom. Cap. 9, p., 60. Neither will he have this decree to effect the sin; that is the just Medium of destruction. In the same page he says; “(b) God does not decree to effect sin, but to suffer, or not to hinder, and to govern for his glory; Neither does God effect all that he doth decree, but those things which eh decreed to effect, of those he is the author, us all the good that is done: “But the evil which is decreed not to hinder in his creature, that he does not effect, because he did not decree to effect them; but only permits, and governs them; and at least justly according to his decree, punishes them.” And Doctor Prideaux, Lect. 1. de absoluto decreto. “(c) That necessary distinction between the effect and consequent (viz., of reprobation) loses not a few knots; which many understanding, or not duly heeding, are brought into straits by their adversaries. The condensation of water (that I may use Augustine’s instance), is consequent of the absence of the Sun, not an effect. The ruin of a house, of itself tending to decay, necessarily follows upon the want of repair, which the Master might do in case he pleased, but will not, neither is he bound. Sin, no otherwise follows upon reprobation; not as a cause efficient, but deficient, not whereby any thing is removed that is present, but that is not supplied which is wanting.” And Master Ball in his larger Catechism, p., 57, “Sin is the effect of man’s free will, and condemnation is an effect of justice inflicted upon man for sin and disobedience; but the decree of God which is good, is the cause of neither.” The signs of Reprobation may appear in those that are thus dischurched, according to that which is quoted out of Ames, but not as an effect of it. The severity which God shows in not sparing, but breaking off these natural Branches, is explicitly no more then that which Jesus Christ did threaten against them, Mat. 21:43. That the Kingdom of Heaven should be taken from them, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; the same which he threatens against Ephesus, Rev 2:5, in taking away their Candlestick, which is the effect of their own sin, and not of God’s decree.

Thomas Blake, Vindiciæ Foederis; Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of God Entered with Man-Kinde (London: Printed for Abel Roper, at the Sun against St. Dunstins Chirch in Fleet-street, 1658), 340-342  [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; Latin marginal references not included; square brackets original; and underlining mine.]

[Notes:  Fristly, the author Blake alludes to was Tombs.  Secondly, I have used the earlier edition, even though the later 1562 edition adds material, the comments which are of interest here on Reprobation and the causation of sin are identical.]

Thomas Blake (1596-1657) was a Puritan minister in the Church of England, who wrote and published a number of works in the middle of the 17th century. Blake was also closely connected to the Westminster Assembly, involved with debates arising out of the committee that examined the issue of infant baptism. Moreover, his writings on baptism carried the endorsement of several members of the Assembly. Source: sacra doctrina

Calvin:

VIII.2. God’s will that all be saved All this Pighius contradicts, adducing the opinion of Paul (I Tim 2.4): God wills all to be saved. That He does not will the death of a sinner is to be believed on His own oath where He says by the prophet: As I live, I do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live (Ezek 18.23, 33.1 I). But I contend that, as the prophet is exhorting to penitence, it is no wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be conditional. To the Ninevites, as also to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, God declared that He would do what He was not going to do. Since by repentance they averted the punishment promised to them, it is evident that it was not firmly decreed unless they remained obstinate. Yet the denunciation had been positive, as if it were an irrevocable decree. But after terrifying and humbling them with the sense of His wrath, though not to the point of despair, He cheers them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel there was room for remedy. So again with the promises which invite all men to salvation. They do not simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret counsel but what He is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance. But, it is alleged, we thereby ascribe a double will to God, whereas He is not variable and not the least shadow of turning falls upon Him. What is this, says Pighius, but to mock men, if God professes to will what He does not will? But if in fairness the two are read together: I will that the sinner turn and live, the calumny is dissolved I without bother. God demands conversion from us; wherever He finds it, a man is not disappointed of the promised reward of life. Hence God is said to will life, as also repentance. But the latter He wills, because He invites all to it by His word. Now this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought variable, because as lawgiver He illuminates all with the external doctrine of life, in this first sense calling all men to life. But in the other sense, He brings to life whom He will, as Father regenerating by the Spirit only His sons

Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God (London: James Clark, 1961), 105-106.

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The Two Parts of Predestination: Election and Reprobation

Predestination consists of two parts: election and reprobation. This is evident from texts in which both are mentioned simultaneously. “. . . vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: . . . vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory” (Rom. 9:22-23); “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7); “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Th. 5:9).

The Decree of Election

Various words are used to describe the decree of election, such as “purpose,” “foreknowledge,” and “predestination.” “…them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate” (Rom. 8:28-29). It is also referred to as being ordained to eternal life: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48); as being written in the book of life: “but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20); as obtaining salvation (1 Th. 5:9), and by the word “chosen”: “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4).

Election is the foreordination of God whereby He eternally, certainly, and immutably has decreed to lead some specific individuals, identified by name, unto eternal salvation, not because of foreseen faith or good works, but motivated purely by His singular and sovereign good pleasure to the glory of His grace.

( 1 ) Election is a divine deed. It has pleased the eternal God, who is all-sufficient in Himself, to communicate His goodness, having chosen some men to be the recipients of that communication. “He hath chosen us” (Eph. 1:4); He hath appointed us “to obtain salvation” (1 Th. 5:9). It is for this reason that they are called “His own elect” (Luke 18:7). God must not be perceived here as Judge, judging the deeds of men to either justify or damn them in consequence of this, but He must here be considered as sovereign Lord, who deals with His creatures as it pleases Him, electing the one and rejecting the other.

Read the rest of this entry »

à Brakel:

1)

The External and Internal Call

Thus far we have discussed the Surety of the covenant and the partakers of this covenant, the church. We shall now proceed to consider the ways in which the Lord brings these partakers of the covenant into the covenant, and how He leads them to the ultimate goal of eternal felicity. The first aspect of this way is the calling.

The Calling: God’s Declaration of the Gospel to Sinners

The calling is a gracious work of God, whereby He invites the sinner by means of the gospel to exchange the state of sin and wrath for Christ, in order that through Him he may be reconciled to God and obtain godliness and salvation. By means of this calling He also, by the Holy Spirit, efficaciously translates His elect into this state.

The calling is a gracious work of God: “And (the king) sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mat. 22:3, 14); “. . .Him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3); “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9).

God calls neither by the law of nature nor by the works of nature, whereby, in doing good, He nevertheless does not leave Himself without witness to the heathen (Acts 14:17). “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him” (Acts 17:27). For in all this Christ is neither proclaimed to them nor are they exhorted to believe in Him. The heathen are subject to the covenant of works, and whatever God does in and toward them has reference to that covenant. They are thus obligated to live according to this rule, “Do this and thou shalt live.” Therefore neither the law of nature, nor God’s works belong to the calling; the heathen are not called.

This call also does not occur by way of the moral law of Scripture. The moral law must be viewed in a twofold sense: It must be viewed either in its demands, whereby it reveals the perfect conditions of the covenant of works, or in its purpose, as having been given to the church as a rule of life and as the standard for true holiness. In its first sense the law is preached to convict man of sin (Rom. 3:20), thus bringing man to despair of being saved by his works. Here the function of the law ends. If, however, Christ is simultaneously preached by means of the gospel, man, being rejected by the law, is allured by the gospel. Thus, wherever Christ is preached, the law functions as a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (Gal. 3:24). The law, however, neither teaches about Christ nor calls to Him, and thus the moral law is not a functional element of the calling. This is different as far as the ceremonial law is concerned, which belongs to the gospel.

Read the rest of this entry »