11
Nov

Donald Grohman on Dort and the 1649 Genevan Articles

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in Diversity at Dort

[comments below]

Introduction:

The following extracts are taken from Grohman’s dissertation.1 Some of the material is irrelevant, but included for the sake of context.

The historical context of the following “theses” relates to Alexandre Morus (1616-1670) who was a candidate for ministry in 1641. However, his application and acceptance into the Genevan church ministry was not readily accepted by the “venerable company” of Genevan pastors. He was suspected of being: 1) in agreement with Amyraut on universal grace; 2), that he agreed with Joshua de la Place on original sin; and 3), that he agreed with Piscator on the question of Christ’s active and passive obedience. The company of pastors drew up a list of theses which they demanded Morus sign and thereby assent to. After the theses, I have included Grohman’s comments regarding the theses’ statements relative to Dort and the death of Christ.

Grohman:

1) At the Council’s insistence the Company met on Monday, May 28, and agreed to draw up for Morus a list of theses containing the pure doctrine and rejecting the false doctrine. Theodore Tronchin and Antoine Léger, professors of theology, were appointed to write the theses.

These theses were read and approved at the Company meeting on June 1, and they were signed on behalf of the Company by the moderator Sartoria and the acting secretary Girard. The theses are organized under five headings original sin, predestination, redemption, the disposition of man to grace, and promises made to the faithful and their prerogatives. The theses are as follows:

Original Sin

I. The first sin of Adam (maraptoma) is imputed to his posterity by a just disposition and judgment of God, and corruption is poured-out on each and everyone who proceeds naturally from that source. Thus, there are three things which render man accused before God: (1.) The guilt flowing from the fact that we have all sinned in Adam; (2) the corruption which is the punishment of this guilt, imposed both on Adam and on his posterity; (3) the sins which men commit as adults.

2. The imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of the justice of Jesus Christ answer each other mutually. Just as Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, so the justice of Christ is imputed to the elect. The imputation in of Adam’s precedes corruption; the imputation of Christ ‘s justice precedes sanctification.

3. The imputation of Adam is sin and impure generation, which are certainly two ways of transmitting original sin, are interrelated and completely inseparable. Nevertheless, when they are considered as antecedent and consequent or cause and effect, to be sure, the corruption of nature in us is derived from Adam, because in him we have sinned and we have been made guilty.

Read the rest of this entry »

21
Jul

Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563) on John 17:9

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in John 17:9

Musculus (by way of Marlorate):

“I praye for them, I praye not for the world: but for them which thou haste giuen mee, for they are thine.”

…[Calvin] So that he plainly affirms that he prays not for the world: because he cared for his own flock only, which he had received of his Father’s hand, notwithstanding this might seem very absurd.

For there cannot be a better Rule of prayer devised, then if we follow Christ our Captain and master. But we are commanded to pray for all men, yea even for our enemies [Math. 5.4., 1. Tim. 2.1., Luk. 13.34.]. C. [Calvin] Furthermore Christ himself prayed after this Indifferently for all men saying, “Father forgive them: for they [know not] wotte not what they do.”

[Musculus] Moreover it is the office of a Mediator not only to pray but also to offer. And he offered himself upon the Cross for all men. For (as says Paul) “Christ died for all men.Finally Saint John says that he is the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” How then says he that he prays not for the world seeing he died for all men, and was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? C. [Calvin] this may be briefly answered, that these prayers which seem to be made for all men are notwithstanding restrained to the elect of God.

We ought to wish this and that man be saved and so to comprehend all mankind because yet we cannot distinguish the elect from the Reprobate yet notwithstanding we pray withal for the coming of God’s kingdom, wishing that he would destroy his enemies.

This is even as much as to pray for the salvation of all men whom we know to be created after the Image of GOD, and which are of the same nature we are of, and do leave their destruction to Judgment of GOD whom he knows to be reprobate. There was another certain special cause of this prayer, which ought not to be drawn into example. For Christ’s prayer proceeded not only from the bare sense of faith and love, but also from the feeling of his Father’s secret Judgments which are hidden from us, so long as we walk through faith.

M. [Musculus] Therefore because we know not who they are which so appertain unto the world that they can never be drawn away from the same, it is meet that we wish well unto all men, and to declare our good-will by prayer. C. [Calvin] Furthermore by these words we gather, that they whom it pleases, God to love out of this world shall be heirs of eternal life: and that this difference depended no upon man’s merits but upon the mere good-will and grace of God.

For the which place the cause of election in men must first begin with faith.

Christ plainly pronounces that they were the Father’s which were given unto him.

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), John 17:9; pp., 560-561. [Pagination irregular; stated pagination cited here; and underlining mine.]

20
Jul

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) on Hebrews 10:26-29

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in Hebrews 10:26 & 29

Baxter:

The 7th text, which I shall urge is, Heb. 10. 26, 27, 28, 29.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remains no more Sacrifice for sins, but certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery, indignation, which shall devour the Adversaries. He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy, under two or three Witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under Foot the Son of God, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was Sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?

Hence I raise two Arguments

1. Those who receive the mercies here mentioned are of the number of them for whom Christ died. But such are some Non-elect, Ergo, &c. The Blood of the Covenant is shed before it is sprinkled, or Sanctifies (shed physically or morally) and it cannot sanctify Men, before it is shed for them. For Sanctification, being some degree of application, presupposes It shed for them: I mean, If by Sanctification, be meant, either separation relative from the World to the Church, and to Christ secundum quid: Or else Sanctification real, by giving Men a temporary Faith and other Graces proportionable, and their escaping the pollutions of the World by that Faith. But some think that by Sanctification is meant that cleansing which immediately followed the Sacrifice (the word being used from the Jewish Sanctifyings;) and so by Sanctification, should be meant due conditional justification, or Cleansing which all Men have immediately from Christ crucified before any further personal application. And if this be so, then the Case is plain and past question.

The 2nd argument is from those words [there remains no more Sacrifice for sins, but, &c.] Here the Apostle proves the incurableness and desperateness of their case, in that there remains no more sacrifice: And this is proper to them when they are Apostates. Now if there were never any Sacrifice for their sins; then this reason will prove their case no more desperate since their Apostasy than before; nor will it prove the case of Apostates any more desperate than the case of all wicked Men for whom Christ died not. But that is contrary to the Text. It is either their own sin or the elects’ sin, or same other men’s for whom the Apostle says, there remains no more sacrifice. If other men’s, then that proves not their case any more desperate than it was: For a sacrifice for other men’s sins hinders nor their case from being desperate before: Besides, it is no loss to them to lose the hopes of life by such a sacrifice: For they could be no hopes. But it is mentioned here as their loss, and the sad consequence of their apostasy. If 100 soldiers be taken prisoners by the enemy, and their former prince shall redeem 50 of them by a ransom, and when he hath done shall send to all the 100 to come to him, and be true soldiers again; and hereupon they all come (though not all alike affected to him) and he tells them all [if ever you sleep on your watch and so be taken by the enemy again, or if you forsake my colors and persidiously turn to the enemy, there remains no more ransom for you,] would not any man wonder both how we 50 not ransomed should come out of prison at all? Or why the prince should tell them, There remained no more ransom for them when they were never ransomed at all? Doubtless the Holy Ghost doth not pronounce these apostates to be therefore miserable, because there remained no more sacrifice for other men’s sins: As if you should say to a man in a consumption, there is now no hope of your life, because the physician hath given one effectual receipt to your sick neighbor, and will give him no more.

But if it be acknowledged (as it must be) that the text means, there is no more sacrifice for the sins of these apostates; then it plainly intimates that there was once a sacrifice for their sin till they by rejection, deprived themselves of the benefit of it.

Read the rest of this entry »

8
May

Sources on 2 Peter 3:9

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in

2 Peter 3:9

  1. John Calvin (1509-1564) on 2 Peter 3:9
  2. Augustine Marlorate on 2 Peter 3:9
  3. The Geneva Bible and 2 Peter 3:9
  4. John Diodati on 2 Peter 3:9
  5. David Paraeus on 2 Peter 3:9 and Roms 2:4
  6. Thomas Adams on 2 Peter 3:9
  7. John Davenant (1572–1641) on 2 Peter 3:9
  8. Hugh Binning (1627–1653) on 2 Peter 3:9 and the Long-Suffering of God
  9. John Arrowsmith (Westminster Divine) on 2 Peter 3:9
  10. Richard Maden (ca. 1591-1677) 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
  11. Thomas Manton (1620-1677) on 2 Peter 3:9
  12. Edward Polhill (1622-1694) on 2 Peter 3:9, with Reference to John Calvin
  13. William Burkitt (1650-1703) on 2 Peter 3:9
  14. John Howe (1630-1705) on God willing the salvation of all men
  15. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) on 2 Peter 3:9 with Ezekiel 33:11
  16. Daniel de Superville (1657-1728) on 2 Peter 3:9
  17. Thomas Boston (1676-1732) on 2 Peter 3:9
  18. Charles Simeon (1759-1836) on 2 Peter 3:9
  19. Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) on 2 Peter 3:9
  20. Ichabod Spencer (1798-1854) on God’s Willingness to Save All Men With Reference to 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11, and Matthew 23:37
  21. Robert J. Breckinridge (1800-1871) on 2 Peter 3:9 in Relation to God’s Will for the Salvation of All Men
  22. Richard Fuller Referencing  Ezekial 33:11 and 2 Peter 3:9
  23. John Murray on 2 Peter 3:9
  24. Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) on 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11, and 1 Timothy 2:3-4
  25. Robert Letham on 2 Peter 3:9 in Response to John Owen on the Same
  26. O. Palmer Robertson’s Footnote Comment on 2 Peter 3:9
  27. Simon Kistemaker on 2 Peter 3:9
  28. Thomas Duke on 2 Peter 3:9
  29. Thomas R. Schrener on 2 Peter 3:9
  30. Steven Costley, Hermeneutics of 2 Peter 3:9—”Us all” or “you all”?
6
May

Sources on 2 Peter 2:1 (and Jude 4)

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in

2 Peter 2:1 (and Jude 4)

  1. Martin Luther (1483–1546) on 2 Peter 2:1
  2. John Calvin (1509-1564) on 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4
  3. Augustine Marlorate (1506-1562) on 2 Peter 2:1, by way of Jude 4
  4. John Diodati (1576-1649) on 2 Peter 2:1
  5. Andrew Willet (1562-1621) on 2 Peter 2:1 by way of Jude 4
  6. Thomas Adams (1583-1652) on 2 Peter 2:1
  7. Archibald Symson (1564-1628) on 2 Peter 2:1
  8. John Cotton (1585–1652) on 2 Peter 2:1
  9. The Westminster Annotations (Second Edition) on 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4
  10. Samuel Otes (1578/9-1658) on Jude 4
  11. 2 Peter 2:1 from the Henry Commentaries
  12. John Trapp (1601-1669) on 2 Peter 2:1
  13. Nathanael Hardy (1618-1670) on 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4
  14. John Mayer (1583-1664) on 2 Peter 2:1
  15. Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) on 2 Peter 2:1
  16. Richard Baxter (1615-1691) on 2 Peter 2:1
  17. William Burkitt (1650-1703) on 2 Peter 2:1
  18. James Richards (1767-1843) on 2 Peter 2:1
  19. Leonard Woods (1774-1854) on 2 Peter 2:1
  20. James M. Pendleton (1811-1891) on 2 Peter 2:1
  21. Douglas Kennard on 2 Peter 2:1