[Note: the footnote value and content is reproduced here exactly as found in the original]

Robertson:

God’s commitment to maintain a universal witness to the whole of humanity through the ordering of creation later plays a significant role in the missionary mandate of the apostle Paul. In establishing that the gospel should be proclaimed among all nations, he appeals to the universal witness borne by God through creation (cf. Rom. 10:18 in its reference to Ps. 19:4). The world-wide scope of the testimony of creation provides the foundation for the universal proclamation of the gospel. The God who has commissioned the witness of himself to the ends of the earth through creation also has shown himself to be “Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon him” (Rom. 10:12).

This universal witness of the ordering of creation roots deeply in the covenanting word to Noah. By the provisions of the Noahic covenant God committed himself to a course of universal testimony. Creation’s witness of grace toward sinful man still provides the platform from which the universal proclamation of the gospel should be launched.¹⁸

______________________________

¹⁸ II Pet. 3:3-10 also appears to establish its base for the universal proclamation of the gospel on the covenant with Noah. Sinners may mock the word of new covenant prophecy concerning a consummating judgment (vv. 3, 4). But Noah’s flood indicates the certainty of God’s ultimate intentions (vv. 5, 6). As “by the word of God” (to tou theou logo) the world first came into being, so “by the same word” (to auto logo) the present universe is being sustained for the judgment of fire (vv. 5, 7). The reference to the “same word” refers broadly to the word of God which had been manifested so powerfully at creation. But it also appears to refer more specifically to the covenanting word spoken to Noah. On the basis of this post-diluvian word, the earth continues to be maintained to the present.

The longsuffering of God, who does not wish any to perish (v. 9), manifests itself in the context of this covenanting word that God will maintain the whole of creation until the judgment of fire (vv. 7, 10). In the cosmic context of these verses, describing the purposes of God respecting the whole of creation (vv. 6, 7), the “desire” of God that “all” should come to repentance should be interpreted universally. The fact that God may “desire” what he has not explicitly “decreed” simply must be taken as one of those areas of God’s purposes that cannot be comprehended by the finite mind. The context would not favor the limitation of this desire to the “elect,” despite the possibility that “longsuffering to you” could be interpreted as meaning longsuffering to the believing recipients of Peter’s letter. The point of the text is not that God is longsuffering toward the elect, not willing that any of the elect should perish. The present delay of judgment on the world indicates his longsuffering to the whole of humanity, despite the fact that ultimately not all shall be saved. Cf. John Murray and N. B. Stonehouse, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Phillipsburg, n.d.) pp. 21-26.

Source: O. Palmer Roberson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: NJ.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980), 122-123

Credit to Tony for the find.

Hermann Venema:

1) (2) God wishes his laws to be obeyed, and therefore wishes also his creatures to be incited in every way to the keeping of them. This purpose is greatly served by the prospect of rewards. But justice loves and demands these rewards. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 172.

2) 6. It is the will of God that those to whom the proposition of the Gospel is made should receive that declaration and apply it to themselves. Now this proposition, i.e., “he that believeth shall be saved,” is made indiscriminately to all, even to those who do not believe and who are not saved, and therefore according to the will of God it has reference to all whom it is made. If this be not admitted then we cannot hold that God seriously wills that all men should receive the proposition made to them. If, however, he does so will, then it must have reference to all who read or hear it, and this purpose by which he has ordained a connexion between faith and salvation must be general. We are aware, indeed, that there is a particular connection which has reference only to the elect; yet this proposition is made to all without distinction. For it would be absurd to suppose that God says to all believe and ye shall be saved and yet that he does not will that they should believe and be saved. But we have have said the offer is made to all by those who preach the gospel, who, though they know not who are elected and who are reprobate, yet proclaim the offer in the universal terms in which it is made in Scripture. If however it be said that, although the proposition be addressed to all, there is not a general purpose on the part of God and that he does not will that those who are not elected should believe that the proposition applies to them, what is this but treating them with mockery? Is this not, on God’s part, a representation or unfolding of his will different from what his will really is? But the simplicity and the truth of God forbid us believing that he would do so. Our Lord expressly says to Jerusalem “how often I would have gathered thy children together… and ye would not,” Matt. xxiii.37. God says of his vineyard “wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes,” Is. v.4. If therefore we would not impugn the sincerity of God we must hold that there is a general decree by which he has purposed to save them that believe.

7. Scripture assures us that the love of God towards men as such is universal–that he has “no pleasure in the death of him who dieth”–that is, “will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth”–that is, “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” Ezek. xviii.32; 1 Tim. ii.4; 2 Pet. iii.9. From these passages we infer that there is a general will or purpose of God held forth in the gospel by which he has linked together faith and salvation without excluding any man, and declares that it is agreeable to him that all should believe and live. If this be denied and that, according to his good pleasure, the proposition “he that believeth shall be saved” should not apply to them. What becomes, in this case, of his universal love? What are we to make of the passages in which he declares that he willith not the death of the sinner, that he will have all men to be saved? Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 305-306.

[Note: Venema’s use of ‘conditional decree’ language functions in the same way as we have seen it work in men such as Davenant.]

Venema :

1) Common grace, of which those who shall perish partake, consists in the offer of Christ made in the Gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded. In addition to this offer there is communicated a certain moral inward grace to which we shall advert more particularly when we come to treat of effectual calling.

But besides this common grace there is particular and efficacious grace which is bestowed only on some, and which is so intimately connected with salvation, that it begets faith in those to whom it is given, i.e., in the elect. This grace, as we shall afterwards show, is irresistible.

But it is asked whether this be consistent with the perfections of God–with his justice, goodness, and wisdom. There is reason especially to doubt that he deals unequally with men, all of whom are in precisely the same situation of unworthiness, wretchedness, and guilt, when he confers on some of them only common grace, while he bestows particular and efficacious grace on others. Such procedure savors of partiality and injustice.

we say that this unequal distribution of grace is in no way inconsistent with the justice of God and does not imply that he has a respect to men’s persons.

All men are equally undeserving of the grace of God, and therefore he cannot be charged with injustice in withholding from some that to which none have a right.

In conferring grace he may act according to his own pleasure, for none can lay claim to what he bestows. In this matter he acts as supreme Lord, who may do what he will with his own, and not as a Judge who has a regard to the merit or demerit of those with whom he has to do. In the latter case there would be some ground for the charge of partiality and injustice; but in the former there is none.

That there can be no possible color for such a charge is proved by the fact that men abuse the common grace bestowed upon them. If they made a right improvement of that, they might entertain the hope of receiving special grace. But they render themselves unworthy of a greater favor by their improvement of the less, and therefore no injustice is done when God withholds it from them.

Besides he cannot be said to be unjust because he renders to every one according to his works, and because, as Scripture says, to whom much is given, from them also much shall be required. We cannot now enter on an explanation of this. But we know generally that God will in his dealings strictly adhere to this rule.

Neither is this unequal distribution of grace inconsistent with his goodness.

This divine perfection is not absolute and without bounds, but is exercised in wisdom and in harmony with his other attributes. What the limits of that perfection are we know not, and therefore we cannot determine whether it require that all in this matter be treated alike and be made partakers of the same grace. But as it is exercised in a manner agreeable to his other perfections, the unequal distribution of special grace cannot be regarded as contrary to his goodness. And the less so on this ground, that he will sometime or other and in many ways manifest and vindicate his goodness. Of the time and way in which he will do this we are ignorant. But we know generally that he is good, and that when he thinks best he will furnish an illustration of this perfection which will carry conviction to every mind.

But this unequal communication of grace in harmony with the wisdom of God, which requires that he have certain reasons why he purposes so to act?

He has his reasons though they are unknown to us. In this matter certainly he does not act arbitrarily, but on good grounds confers special grace on some and denies it to others. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 298-300.

2) Special Predestination, or the special part of the decree of predestination, to which we shall now direct our attention, we regard as inseparably connected with the general decree. By this Special decree we understand the free, immutable, and eternal determination of the will of God to give to some of those to whom the offer of mercy was to be made that peculiar and efficacious grace which is connected with faith and salvation, and in the exercise of justice to withhold it from others on account of their abuse of his common grace, and because of this abuse, to doom them as unbelievers to destruction. Herman Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 314.

3) If it be asked why God ordained them to destruction as reprobation i i usually understood, we answer because he foresaw that they would not believe. If it be asked on what foundation this foreknowledge rests, we say on God’s denying them particular grace. If moreover it be asked why he denied them this grace, we reply because it was his good pleasure so to do. If finally the question be put whether his pleasure was arbitrary, we say that was not but that he acted agreeably to his wisdom and justice, that he had reasons of his own although they be unknown by us for withholding from them his efficacious grace. He never acts without the wisest reasons; for his wisdom is infinite, and as to the justice of his good pleasure we may say that it consisted i n his denying special grace to those who abused his common grace and i n his condemning them for that abuse. Herman Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 319.

4) As may be seen from what we have already said, the reason which we assign is widely different from that now mentioned. We hold that in addition to common there is also particular and efficacious grace, and we say that God chose Some men to eternal life, not because they would believe by the grace given to them in common with others, but because in the exercise of his good pleasure he would impart to them special grace,–that he ordained the rest to destruction, because, that grace being denied them, they would not believe but that this denial originated in his own wise and righteous pleasure, and because those who abused the common grace which they enjoyed rendered themselves unworthy of receiving special grace. The reason of the special decree is thus in our view to be sought in the good pleasure of God, without any reference to the character of the individuals. Not, however, as i f he acted arbitrarily in the matter, for he never does so in any case. He was guided in his determination by a regard to his wisdom and justice.

Our arguments in favour of this view of the subject are drawn partly from the propositions we have already laid down, and partly from Scripture.

The first proposition relates to the foreknowledge of God, which presupposes the future existence of all those things which it comprehends. If an event be uncertain, so also must the foreknowledge of that event. If the right or wrong use of common grace be dependent solely upon man’s will, it cannot be certainly foreknown by God.

The second proposition refers to particular and irresistible grace, which we hold is given, to all who believe, as we shall afterwards show. If this be admitted the opinion of the Remonstrants evidently must fall to the ground. For i f God has decreed grace of this kind, and if faith depends upon this grace, then unquestionably election cannot be said to rest upon God’s foresight of faith and upon man’s free-will, but upon the proper improvement of common grace.

Our third proposition is that faith is the immediate end of election. If so it cannot be the foundation on which election rests, as the Remonstrants maintain. So far was God from choosing man on account of foreseen faith, as one who would believe in the exercise of his own free will, and by the common grace bestowed upon him, that he rather appointed him in election particular grace having faith as its immediate end. There is thus obviously a wide difference between our opinion and that of the Remonstrants, because we affirm that faith is the immediate and direct end of election, which faith according to them is the foundation and moving cause of election. We conclude, therefore, that the reason which led God to choose some and to reject others was not the faith of the former and unbelief of the latter foreseen by him, but his own good pleasure in the exercise of which he purposed to dispense unequally his efficacious grace, by giving it to some and denying it to others, yet with a due regard to the dictates of his justice and infinite wisdom.  Herman Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 321.

Richard Muller:

Hermann Venema (1697-1787); studied at Groningen (1711-1714) and Franecker (1714-1718). In 1723 he succeeded the younger Vitringa as professor of theology at Franecker, a post he held until his retirement in 1774. His dogmatic work was published posthumously in English translation: Institutes of Theology (1850). Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:51 (first edition).

[Note: On the point that common grace bestows inward moral virtues, c.f., Turretin, Institutes, 2:588; and Calvin’s Doctrine of the Grace of God.]

Venema:

1) Those who hold a contrary opinion are mistaken i n their views of the nature of self-love. They do not distinguish between the love of human nature and the love of fallen human nature. It is impossible for man to divest himself of the former, without ceasing to be man ; because he cannot hate himself or his own flesh. Nay, the very fact that God loves his creatures and the works of his own hands proves, that we, who derive our being from him, should, in imitation of his example, love ourselves. In his fallen condition, man does not love himself as man–as the creature of God; but he does so for his own sake, and in order to gratify his own evil desires; he seeks salvation i n himself and not in God : and, if he worships him at all, he worships him because of some- reward whhich he hopes to receive at his hands. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by  Alex W. Brown,  (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 23.

2) The goodness of God, considered in its act must be distinguished into

(a) Benevolence
(b) Beneficence
(c) Complacency

(a) Benevolence is an inclination of the will to do good as far as it is possible and lawful to do so. It is called the love of God towards his creatures–the strong desire by which he is actuated to promote their happiness and perfection. It is universal in its extent, because it has for its objects creatures as such, inasmuch as they are the works of his hands. For the creator cannot hate what he he himself has made, but is naturally and necessarily led to preserve, to perfect, and to bless his own work. He is called love in the highest sense and without any restriction. “God is love,” 1 John iv. 8; “good and upright is the Lord,” Ps. xxc.8; there is none good but one, that is God,” Matt. xix.17; “he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,” Matt. v.45. Scriptures declares that he has “no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,” because he is his creature, Ezek. xviii.32; that he “will have all men to be saved,” 1 Tim. ii.4; that is he is “not willing any should perish,” 2 Pet. iii.9. It tells us that he “so loved the world that he gave his own begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,” John iii.16. This love is therefore universal, and prompted him to give Christ; and hence he is said to be “the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe,” 1 Tim iv.10. His love of benevolence to all appears in the command which he gave that the Gospel should be preached to every creature without exception, Matt. xxviii.19. It is said that he “will render to ever man” without respect of persons, “according to his deeds,” Rom. ii.6; that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,” 2 Cor. v.10.

Read the rest of this entry »