Wollebius:

III. Besides the will of God, there are no causes which can be contrary to his will. Many things indeed can be contrary to what God wants [voluntas signi], which nevertheless conform to the divine plan [voluntas beneplaciti]. God did not will man’s sin, and indeed most strictly forbade it. Nevertheless, at the same time he decreed it according to his will [beneplaciti], as a means of revealing his glory.

IV. Both good and evil, therefore, result from the decree and will of God; the former he causes, and the latter he permits.

V. Nevertheless, the decree and will of God are in no sense the cause of evil or sin, although whatever God decrees takes place of necessity. Since evils are decreed not effectively, but permissively, the decree of God is not the cause of evil. Nor are the decrees of God the cause of evil on account of the inevitability of their result, since they bring about results not by a coercive necessity but merely by an immutable one.

Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in John W. Beardslee III, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1977), 48. [Originally published in 1626. Keep in mind this is a smaller dogmatic work and so his comments on various topics will not be extensive.]

Aretius:

Benedict Aretius* has similar expressions on1 Tim. ii. “Christ,” says he, “died for all, yet notwithstanding all do not embrace the benefit of his death, because by their own wickedness, and the corruption of their nature, they despise the offered grace.

Source: John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 338.

*ARETIUS (Benedict) an Ecclesiastic of Berne, in Switzerland, eminent as a botanist and theologian. In the former science he published an account of Alpine plants, which is highly spoken of. In Divinity, on which he gave lectures at Marpurg, his works are–A Commentary on the New Testament, and Examen Theologicum, in folio, which it is said was printed twelve times in three years. He died in 1674.

Richard Muller says of Aretius:

Benedictus Aretius (1505-1574); studied at Strasburg and Marburg; served as professor of logic at Marburg and, beginning in 1564, as Wolfgang Musculus’ successor as professor of theology in Bern. His major dogmatic work was Examin theologicum (1557) and SS. theolgiae problemata, seu loci comunes (1573). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 1:42 [first edition].

Some titles by Aretius, demonstrating his influence:

Sermones tres de coena Domini.
In d. Mosis Pentateuchum, hoc est, priscam dei legem, Benedicti Aretii theologi Bernesnis commentarii breues ac dilucidi
Commentarii in Evangelivm Matthaei
Commentarii in euangelium Domini Nostri Iesv Christi secundum Marcum
Commentarii in evangelium Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundùm Lucam
Commentarii in qvatvor Evangelistas : a Benedicto Aretio Bernensi … conscripti.
Commentarii in sacram Actuum Apostolicorum historiam : facili & perspicua methodo conscripti
Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Romanos : facili et perspicua methodo conscripti
Commentarii in epistola D. Pauli ad Galatas
Commentarii in secundam epistolam D. Pauli ad Corinthios
Commentarii in Epistolas D. Pauli ad Philippenses, Colossenses et in utramque ad Thessal.
Commentarii in epistolas Pauli ad Timoth., ad Titum et ad Philem. … cum indice rerum memorabilium.
Commentarij in euangelium … secundum Ioannem

Wollebius:

The actual providence of God is that work by which God not on preserves his creatures, but governs all things with unlimited [immensus] wisdom, goodness, power, justice, and mercy.

I. To deny providence is to deny God.

II. Actual providence differs from eternal providence as the execution of a decree differs from the decree.

III. In eternal providence what God intends to do, in actual providence what he wants, is uppermost.

IV. Providence consists not only of knowledge, but of the governance of all things, from the greatest to the least.

V. The providence of God does not destroy secondary causes, but upholds them.

VI. From the standpoint of providence, events which are contingent with respect to secondary causes are necessary. But it is the necessity of immutability, not of coercion.

VII. The providence of God is very different from Stoic fatalism. Stoic fatalism binds God in the net of secondary causes; Christian [teaching] subordinates secondary causes to the absolutely free will of God, which employs them freely, not of necessity, not because them, but because he wants them.

VIII. Both good and evil deeds are controlled by the providence of God.

IX. Good deeds are controlled by his effective act, under which heading belong the divine prevenience [praecursus] , concurrence [concursus] and support [succursus].

X. Evil deeds are controlled by realized [actuosus] permission, and hence by allowing, limiting, and directing them.

XI. The providence of God is always free from disorder and sin, even in connection with disorderly and sinful acts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ames:

37. Because of this setting apart whereby God does not bestow blessedness upon some persons, he is said to Hate them, Rom. 9:13. This hatred is negative or privative, because it denies election. But it has a positive content, for God has willed that some should not have eternal life.

38. In this is found, nevertheless, the second difference (in reason) between election and reprobation, namely, that the love in election bestows good on the creatures directly, but the hatred in reprobation only denies good–it does not bring or inflict evil because the creature himself deserves it.

William Ames, The Marrow of Theology (Durham, North Carolina: Labyrinth Press, 1983), 156.