17 And loe, there came a voyce from heauen, saying: This is my beloued sonne in whom I am well pleased.

{And loe, there came a voyce.} M. Math. does not say simply that a voice was heard from heaven, but that a voice cam from heaven. C. For out of that division and opening of the heavens (which we touched even now) cam this voice, whereby he might have greater majesty.

{This is my beloued sonne.}

M. This testimony of the Father being brought from the heavens to the earth, as concerning his son, has a declaration of his will towards mankind, with a declaration also of Christ, the only begotten son of God. C. For the title of (son) does only pertain unto Christ, truly and naturally: but yet the son of God was made manifest in our flesh, that by the same right that God was Father unto him, he might make him our Father also. Wherefore God bringing unto us a mediator, in the title and commendation of his Son, does show himself to be a Father to us all. The Greek word does signify more then my beloved Son, in the superlative degree, my best beloved Son. For Christ is so called, because when we were hateful and odious unto God, it was necessary that his Fatherly love should flow from Christ unto us.  M. As if the Father should have said: “He whom I have sent unto you, and caused to come in your flesh, is my only beloved Son: In whom you may see how greatly I love mankind, and his salvation, wherefore see that you cleave unto him by faith.” But S. Paul does very well interpret this place saying: “By his grace he made us accepted through the beloved, [Eph. 1.].

{In whom I am well pleased.}

The Greek word does signify a mind so inclined, that it has a singular and ready good will and affection, separated from all anger and displeasure.

Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiasticall exposition of the holy Gospel after S. Iohn, trans., Thomas Timme (Imprinted at London by Thomas Marshe, Anno Domini. 1575), 56. [Some spelling modernized.] [Key: B=Bucer; C=Calvin; E=Erasmus; M=Musculus; P=Melanchthon; S=Sarcerius; R=Brentius; BV=Bullinger; Z=Zwingli; V=Theodorus; A=Marlorate.] [See also Musculus on the love of God to mankind.]


Augustine Marlorate on John 3:16-17

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in John 3:16


16. For so GOD loued the worlde, that hee gaue his onelye begotten Sonne that all that beleeue in him shoulde not perish, but haue euerlastig life.

R. Our Savior Christ, goes on still in the former disputation, still more plainly opening and declaring, that righteousness comes not by the Law, that is to say, by faith in Christ: and therewithal shows the first cause and principal original of our salvation, and that because we should not be the least in doubt.

No peace
of Conscience without
God’s love.

For our minds have no peaceable rest or quietness in which they may stay themselves, until we come to the free love of God. Therefore as the whole substance of our salvation consists in no other than in Christ, so we must so whereby Christ is united unto us, & why he is offered to us to be our savior.

Love in
God and
faith in us brings
us life eternal.

Both these thing are bear distinctly put down unto us: the first is a lively faith in Christ: the second is the love of God, by which he so loved the world that he sent life to the same by his only Son to save mankind from destruction. And this order is diligently to be noted. For when the original of our salvation comes in question, by and by, according to our natural ambition, burst forth devilish imaginations of or own merit. We fain that God is therefore merciful, because he has respect to none but those whom he judges worthy.

Mercy of God
makes man’s
merits frustrate.

But the Scripture does everywhere extol his mere and simple mercy, which clean abolishes all merits. And this is the very meaning of our Savior in these words, when he appoints the cause in God’s mercy. M. Therefore the love of God with the which he has loved the world, has so determined, that the world should be saved by the sending of the Son. And our Savior does slightly pass over this love, but does diligently amplify and inculcate the same, when he makes mention of sending of the only begotten son of God: who was given unto us, as a most certain and undoubted pledge of his Fatherly love toward us. R. Whereof then comes salvation, whereof comes justification? Whereof comes the hope of eternal life? Come these from the worthiness or merits of men? God forbid: but they have their original of the love of God. For we had always abode, so much as we could, in our sins, in death, and in hell, except God of his entire love, with the which he loved us being as yet miserable sinners, had not given his only begotten Son for us. Hereupon the Apostle says: “In this is love, not that we first loved him” (for the flesh is utterly void of the knowledge of God) “but because he loved us first, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” [1. Joh. 4:10.] And the Apostle Paul says: “GOD commends or declares his love toward us, in that when as yet we were miserable sinners, Christ died for us,” [Rom. 5:8.] C. Without all doubt where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which brings with it death. Therefore it is only mercy which reconciles us unto God, that therewithal we might be restored unto life. If any man demand in whom this love is founded, the Apostle Paul answers: “That it is founded in the purpose of his will.” Notwithstanding this manner of speech seeing to be contrary to many testimonies of Scriptures, which place the first and principal foundation of God’s love towards us, in Christ, and do show that without him, we are displeasing and hateful unto GOD.

Read the rest of this entry »


Augustine Marlorate (1506-1562) on the Death of Christ

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in For Whom did Christ Die?


Christ came for the salvation of the whole world:

1) 44. And he sayde vnto them. These are the wordes which I spake vnto you whylest I was yet wyth you, that all muste needes bee fulfylled which were written of mee in the law of Moises, and in the prophets and in the Psalmes.

R. [Brentius] After that our Saviour Christ had proved by manifest and evident signs to his Disciples, that he was resen from death to life, he proceeds to set forth that which was th emost necessary of all others to enlarge the Borders of his Kingdom, and to set forth the glory of his majesty on Earth.

For Christ came not into this world to profit the nation of the Jews only, but that he might be salvation to the whole world. Christ rose again from death, not that this one Jew or that may have life, but that the happiness of everlasting life might be offered to all nations. A. [Marlorate] For so it was prophesied before I have given the all light to the Gentiles, that thou may be my salvation to the whole world.

R. [Brentius] And there is not a more convenient Instrument whereby these things may be revealed to the whole world, and to all nations then the preaching of the gospel [Esai. 49.6.]. Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiastical Exposition of the Holy Gospel after S. Marke and Lvke, trans Thomas Timme (Imprinted at London in the Fleetesteate neare, unto S. Dunstanes Church, by Thomas Marsh, 1583), Luke 24:44; p., 334.

Christ died for the salvation of all mankind:

1) Therefore works do not justify, that is to say, they do not make us the more acceptable unto God: the which works can be nothing else but sin, condemning, if so be they be wrought before thou be purified, and regenerated by the Spirit of God: because that an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. But the Lord describing his judgment, says (after the manner of men): that every man shall be judged, according to his works: even as we commonly are wont to judge.

Neither does he say, that every man shall receive according to his works, as though our works were the first cause of our salvation. For the special cause why we obtain everlasting life, is the voluntary & free will of God: and the second cause are the merits of Christ, for he died for salvation of all mankind: but this also is a free gift of good will of God. The third cause, our faith, by the which we embrace and receive this good will of God, and the merits of Christ. Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiastical Exposition of the Holy Gospel after S. Mathew, gathered out of all the singular and approued Deuines (which the Lorde hath geuen to his Churche) by Augustine Marlorate. And translated out of Latine into Englishe, by Thomas Tymme, Minister, Sene and allowed according to the order appointed (Imprinted at London in Fletestreate near vnto S. Dunstones churche, by Thomas Marshe, 1570), Matt. 16:27; pp., 373-374. [Some spelling modernized.].

2) {Thou wente one of the twelue}

C. [Calvin] What fruit reprehensions bring forth, we here see The disciples are still & silent, nor for shame, but for true obedience sake. For they stand so much to the judgement of Christ, that after they knkow that the thing which displeased them, pleased him, they are quiet. Even so ought we do when we have recieved a fall, being taught not to be ashamed to rise from our error. On the contrary part we see what good reprehension does in the minds of obstinate: for the admonition of Christ did profit so little to turn the heart of Judas, or to make it better, that he went by & by void of care, to make a most wicked bargain with the enemies of Christ. But it was a wonderful & monstrous insensible dulness, that in the loss of the ointment that he thought he had gotten an honest excuse to so wicked a fact: & futher that he being admonished by the words of Christ, knew not what to do. The only mention of his burial had been enough to mollify and iron heart: when he might have gathered thereby that Christ offered himself a sacrifice for the salvation of mankind. Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiastical Exposition of the Holy Gospel after S. Mathew, gathered out of all the singular and approued Deuines (which the Lorde hath geuen to his Churche) by Augustine Marlorate. And translated out of Latine into Englishe, by Thomas Tymme, Minister, Sene and allowed according to the order appointed (Imprinted at London in Fletestreate near vnto S. Dunstones churche, by Thomas Marshe, 1570), Matt. 27:14, p., 625. [Some spelling modernized.]

Read the rest of this entry »


Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) on Infra- and Supralapsarianism

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in God who Covenants


65. Indicate beforehand what is not at issue in the difference between the two parties.

a) The question in the first place is not whether there is a temporal sequence in God’s decrees. With Scripture everyone Reformed confesses the absolute eternity of God’s being. It is an eternity elevated above all temporal duration, in which a thousand years are as yesterday when it has passed and as a watch in the night (Psa 90 :4). In this eternity everything is present that is hidden in the depths of the divine mind or has ever passed over from it into time as a work of His creative omnipotence. What will happen at the consummation of the ages is in that respect not sooner than that which took place at the dawn of creation. Every conception as if the differing parts of God’s decree arise by stages of His observation must be rejected as incompatible with this eternity. That there would have first been a decree of creation, then of the fall, and then of predestination, or that these parts would have followed one another in reverse temporal order-both are in conflict with Scripture. It may be impossible for our thinking, bound by time, to grasp this eternity of divine life, nevertheless we must acknowledge it and may maintain nothing that is in conflict with it. To express it as briefly as possible: There are in God not many decrees, but it is one, single, completely present decree.

As a matter of fact, all this is already contained in the names of supra- and infralapsarianism. If it was a matter of a temporal order it should have been called ante- and postlapsarianism. The question would then have to be, “Do you believe in predestination before or after the decree of the fall?” Now, however, not a time but a space image has been chosen, apparently to avoid every trace of a temporal conception in conflict wi th God’s eternity.

b) Nor is the question whether creation and the fall of man fall under the decree of God. With respect to creation, nobody doubts that. But whoever would deny that for the fall would become un-Reformed instead of infralapsarian since he would abandon one of most momentous turning points in world history, on which the work of redemption is entirely dependent and with that the course of well nigh all things, to chance. Almost all the Reformed confess unanimously with Calvin, “Man falls according to God’s decree, but he falls by his own guilt.” In His decree God has not only known of and reckoned with the fall, but since all things must have their certainty and fixity in His counsel, if we do not wish to posit a second ground of things beside God, then it also cannot be otherwise for the fearful fact of sin. That, too, must receive its certainty from God’s decree. However great and however insurmountable the difficulties that follow closely on this position, still nothing may diminish it. Whoever begins to doubt here stands on the edge of a bottomless dualism. Only in the beginning, when theological perception was not entirely clear, could one remove the fall from the absolute decree of God. Augustine did this, who thought that for the events following the fall, God’s foreknowledge rested on His decree while, conversely, for the fall the decree was dependent on a foreseeing. This and the other point {the apostasy of the saints} were the two weak points in Augustine’s soteriology. Among truly Reformed theologians, only a few spoke of a foreseeing. Walaeus (Leiden Synopsis, xxiv, 23) says, “God, foreseeing with the infinite light of His knowledge how it would happen that man created after His image stood, together with his entire posterity, to misuse his free will, has deemed that it better accorded with His omnipotent goodness to show beneficence to the wicked, rather than not to allow there would be evil, as Augustine rightly reminds us.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Name Index [M-N]

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in



Macleod, Donald

Donald McLeod on the Westminster Confession and the Extent of Christ’s Redemption

Maden, Richard (ca. 1591-1677)

Richard Maden on the Death of Christ and the Will of God for the Salvation of All Men

Richard Maden on God’s Will for the Salvation of all Men: With Reference to Psalm 18:13, Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:2-4, and 2 Peter 3:9

Richard Maden God’s General and Antecedent Love to Mankind

Makemie, Francis (1658-1708)

Francis Makemie on the Revised Sufficient-Efficient Form

Manton, Thomas (1620-1677)

Thomas Manton on General Love

Thomas Manton on Moral and Natural Ability: Informal Reference

Thomas Manton on Ezekiel 18:23

Thomas Manton on John 3:16

Thomas Manton on 2 Peter 3:9

Thomas Manton on Christ Suffering the Tantundem, not the Idem of the Law’s Punishment

Marbeck, John (ca. 1510-ca.1585)

John Marbeck on the Grace of God

John Marbeck on Reprobation by way of Peter Martyr and John Knox

John Marbeck on the Providence of God

John Marbeck: God is not the Author or Proper Cause of Sin

John Marbeck on What Faith Is

Marlorate, Augustine (1506-1562)

Augustine Marlorate on the Death of Christ

Augustine Marlorate on the Love and Goodwill of God to Mankind

Augustine Marlorate on the Well-Meant Offer

Augustine Marlorate on Ezekiel 18:23

Augustine Marlorate on Matthew 23:37

Augustine Marlorate on John 3:16-17

Augustine Marlorate’s Passing Reference to 1 Timothy 2:4

Augustine Marlorate on 2 Peter 2:1, by way of Jude 4

Augustine Marlorate on 2 Peter 3:9

Marshall, Walter (1628-1680)

Walter Marshall on God’s Will for the Salvation of All Men, With Refernece to Ezekiel 33:11, Matthew 23:37, and 1 Timothy 2:4

Walter Marshall on Faith as Assurance

Martyr, Justin (100-165)

Justin Martyr: Selective Suggestive Comments Regarding the Work of Christ

Mason, Erskine (1805-1851)

Erskine Mason on the Extent of the Atonement

Erskine Mason on the Removal of Legal Obstacles

Erskine Mason on the Satisfaction of Christ in Relation to the Free Offer

Erskine Mason on the Distinction Between Atonement and Redemption

van Mastricht, Peter (1630-1706)

Peter van Mastricht on Cameron and Amyraut as “Reformed” and “Orthodox” (Informal References)

Maxey, Anthony (d1618)

Anthony Maxey on Christ Knocking on the Doors of Sinners’ Hearts

Mayer, John (1583-1664)

John Mayer on 2 Peter 2:1

Mayhew, Experience (1673-1758)

Experience Mayhew on the Death of Christ

Experience Mayhew on God’s Love to Mankind With Regard to Matt 12:37, John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 3:9

Experience Mayhew on Common Grace

Experience Mayhew on Divine Permission of Sin

Experience Mayhew on the Sufficiency of Christ’s Death

Experience Mayhew on William Twisse on “Each Man is Bound to Believe that Christ Died for Him”

M’Cheyne, Robert Murray (1813-1843)

Robert Murray M’Cheyne on the Offer and Call of Christ

M’Crie, Charles Greig (1836-1910)

Charles Greig M’Crie on the Covenant of Redemption in the Sum of Saving Knowledge

Melancthon, Philipp (1497-1560)

Philipp Melancthon on the Free Offer With Reference to John 3:16

Mitchell, Alexander F. (1822-1899)

Alexander F. Mitchell and J. P. Struthers (1851-1915) on Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession

Alexander F. Mitchell on Confessional Subscriptionism and the Westminster Confession

Moo, Douglas J.

Douglas Moo on the Two Moments of Reconciliation

Moore, Jonathan

Jonathan Moore on Hypothetical Universalism and the Synod of Dort

Jonathan Moore on Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession of Faith

More, John (d. 1592)

John More (d. 1592) on Romans 2:4 (Homiletic Reference)

Morris, Leon (1914-2006)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) on John 1:29

Leon Morris on John 3:16-17 (with John 12:46-50)

Leon Morris on Ephesians 2:3

Du Moulin, Pierre (The Elder) (1568-1658)

Pierre Du Moulin (The Elder) on Reprobation

Muller, Richard

Richard Muller on Dort: What Dort Actually Does and Does Not Affirm

Richard Muller on Amyraut

Richard Muller on Non-Amyraldian Precedents to Hypothetical Universalism

Richard Muller on Hypothetical Universalism and the Reformed Tradition

Murray, John (1898-1975)

John Murray on the Well-Meant Offer

John Murray on the Covenant of Works

John Murray on Psalm 81:13, Deut., 5:29, and Isaiah 48:18

John Murray on Ezekiel 18:23,32; and 33:11

John Murray on Matthew 5:44-48

John Murray on Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34

John Murray on Romans 2:4

John Murray Commenting on Romans 9:22-24

John Murray on 2 Peter 3:9

Musculus, Wolfgang (1497-1563)

Wolfgang Musculus on the Redemption of Mankind

Wolfgang Musculus on the Revealed Will

Wolfgang Musculus on the Goodness of God

Wolfgang Musculus on the Love of God

Wolfgang Musculus on John 3:16

Wolfgang Musculus on John 17:9

Wolfgang Musculus on 2 Corinthians 5:14

Wolfgang Musculus: 1 Timothy 2:4 and the Preaching of the Gospel ‘Unto All’

Wolfgang Musculus on 1 John 2:2

Newcomen, Matthew (c.1610–1669)

Matthew Newcomen (Westminster Divine) on God’s Love to Mankind

Newton, John (1725-1807)

John Newton on John 1:29