“…being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will…”
Eph. 1:11
“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom. 9:21
.
.
Subsections
Revealed Will vs. Will of Decree
Infralapsarianism & Supralapsarianism
Predestination of Angels
Unconditional Election
Christ’s Intercession: Not the Cause of Election
Reformed vs. Aquinas: 1, 2
Works Against Bellarmine: Decrees
.
.
Order of Contents
Predestination & Reprobation Contrasted
Articles 42+
Books 8+
Quotes 3
Latin 4+
History 8+
What ‘Sovereignty’ Means? 1
Threefold Distinction within God’s Decree 1
Speaking of Decree & Decrees 2
Election of Christ 1
Mysteriousness of Finer Points 1
Things could be Otherwise 1
Book of Life 1
Reprobation
God’s Hardening
.
Predestination & Reprobation Contrasted
Quote
R.A. Finlayson
Reformed Theological Writings of R.A. Finlayson, p. 265. Finlayson was a Free Church of Scotland professor during the mid-1900’s.
“Predestination & Reprobation Contrasted
1. The [Westminster] Confession does not teach or imply a double predestination. In an attempt to distinguish between election and reprobation we should use predestination for the elect and foreordination for the reprobate [as the Confession does].
2. Election and reprobation rest on different grounds: election on the redeeming love of God that undertakes the salvation of the lost; reprobation on the moral necessity to manifest to the universe the nature and consequences of sin in moral personality.
3. Means are used of God to fulfil the purpose of election, but God uses no means to fulfil His purpose of reprobation. It is left to sin to run its course and receive its wages.
4. The fruits of election are attributable to divine grace, the fruits of reprobation to personal sin. This means that while there is grace to some, there is injustice to none.
5. While God finds pleasure in the salvation of the elect, He has sworn by Himself that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God does not need sin or its retribution for His self-manifestation, but its reality in the universe can serve that end.
6. That the elect will constitute a recreation of the race under a new Head is evident, while the reprobate are but the branches cut off from the tree of humanity. Christ will be revealed as the Savior of the world, though many are lost in the process.”
.
Articles
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007)
ch. 7, ‘The Decrees of God’, pp. 133-50
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
ch. 8, ‘Predestination’, pp. 150-90
.
1500’s
Calvin, John
13. ‘Election & Predestination’ in Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), pp. 36-38
8. ‘Of God’s Predestination & Providence’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 414-58
Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 2, bk. 3
22. ‘This Doctrine confirmed by Proofs from Scripture’ 541
23. ‘Refutation of the Calumnies by which this Doctrine is always unjustly assailed’ 559
Articles concerning Predestination in Calvin: Theological Treatises tr. J.K.S. Reid in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), pp. 178-80
Melanchthon, Philip – 15. ‘Of Eternal Predestination & Reprobation’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 187-92
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583),
pt. 3, ch. 1. ‘Of the Eternal Predestination of God, wherein also are refelled the arguments which the adversaries make against the same’ 1-44
Discourses
’Of Providence & Predestination’ 129-31
Calvin, John & Theodore Beza – ‘Calvin & Beza on Providence: Translations by Knox’ trans. John Knox (1545, 1558, 1560; 2021)
These two valuable pieces on Providence by Calvin and Beza, though previously available in English, have lain in obscurity, so much so that most people likely do not know that they exist. They originally appeared, translated by John Knox from the French and Latin respectively, in the midst of Knox’s massive treatise on predestination. That treatise remains in old English, which is old enough and difficult enough that to many it is unreadable.
The Libertines, having such a high view of God’s eternal decree, held to what is known in philosophy as a form of Occasionalism, that all events that occur are directly and immediately worked by God. True secondary causation is eliminated. One main problem with this is that it makes God the Author of Sin, something that the Libertines expressly affirmed. Calvin here not only repudiates this blasphemy, but he also lays out three ways (and only three ways) in which God brings all things to pass through his providence, herein establishing true secondary causation.
Beza provides 29 propositions on providence from his work against Sebastian Castellio, touching upon similar themes as Calvin. Both Calvin and Beza’s pieces, while making some basic distinctions, expound the Lord’s providence in a way that is easy to grasp with illustrations from Scripture and human life.
Bullinger, Henry – 4th Sermon, ‘That God is the Creator of All Things & Governs All Things by his Providence; where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), vol. 3, 4th Decade, pp. 173-94
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Election’ 208.a
What it is to be chosen 208.a
Whether election be of God 208.b
How many fold the election of God is 208.b
When God chose us 209.a
In what respect God has chosen his 209.b
In whom we be elect 209.a
Whom God has chosen 211.a
What manner of persons God has chosen 212.a
To what purpose God has chosen us 213.a
Of the Reprobate 213.b
[Musculus had a supralapsarian tendency.]
‘Will of God’
Whether the will of God be the cause of all 389.a
Whether we may seek the cause of God’s Will 391.a
Whether the will of God may be hindered or letted 392.a
Beza, Theodore
A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), ch. 3
8. It was necessary that man should fall from his purity
16. How God turns man’s sin to his glory
pp. 75-87 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
‘An Excellent Treatise of Comforting Such as are Troubled about their Predestination, Taken out of the Second Answer of Mr. Beza to Dr. Andreas, in the Act of their Colloquy at Mompelgart, etc.’ 4 pp. appended to William Perkins, A Golden Chain: or The Description of Theology Containing the Order of the Causes of Salvation & Damnation… Whereunto is Adjoined the Order which Mr. Theodore Beza used in Comforting Afflicted Consciences (Cambridge, 1600)
Becon, Thomas – 3. ‘Of Election’ in Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844), The Common Places of Holy Scripture, pp. 316-19
Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, and of the Christian Doctrine, made in Form of Dialogue
6th Dialogue: Of the Creation & of the Providence & Predestination of God, & of the Vocation of Man
Of the Eternal Predestination of God
The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
Zanchi, Girolamo
‘Of Eternal Election & Predestination, & of Redemption made by Christ, out of Eph. 1’ (1579) in ‘Certain Positions’ appended to Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 388-90
Zanchi, Jerome – Sundry Positions out of the Praelections of Zanchi which were carped at by his Adversaries in Speculum Christianum, or A Christian Survey for the Conscience, containing Three Tractates… (d. 1590; London, 1614)
The Treatise of Grace stands upon these branches
The Treatise of the Predestination of the Saints, is severed into these special heads
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587)
1. Whether there be Predestination
2. That Predestination is
3. What the causes of Predestination, or Election & Reprobation are
4. What are the effects of Predestination
5. Whether Predestination be unchangeable
6. How far forth Predestination, or Election, and Reprobation is known unto us
7. Whether the Elect be always members of the Church and the Reprobate never
8. Whether the Elect may fall from the Church, and the Reprobate abide always in the Church
9. What is the use of this doctrine
Of Predestination in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
Prime, John – A Fruitful & Brief Discourse in Two Books: the One of Nature, the Other of Grace, with Convenient Answer to the Enemies of Grace, upon Incident Occasions Offered by the Late Rhemish Notes in their New Translation of the New Testament, & Others (London, 1583), bk. 2
‘Against curiosity in the search of unsearchable mysteries’
‘Of Election, Vocation & Reprobation’
Prime (c.1549-1596) was a reformed Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar.
Beza, Theodore
ch. 6. ‘On Predestination’ in Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), pp. 581-636
The debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard (1586) was principally between Jakob Andreas (the Lutherans calling for it) and Beza. The chapter contains their interchanged speeches on the topic.
‘An Excellent Treatise of Comforting Such as are Troubled about their Predestination, Taken out of the Second Answer of Mr. Beza to Dr. Andreas, in the Act of their Colloquy at Mompelgart, etc.’ 4 pp. appended to William Perkins, A Golden Chain… Hereunto is adjoined the order which Mr. Theodore Beza used in comforting afflicted consciences (Cambridge, 1600)
Finch, Henry – 2. Of the Purpose of God in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 1
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 11. ‘Of God’s Eternal Predestination’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 19-23
Junius, Francis
’20 Theses of Dr. Francis Junius Concerning Divine Predestination’ a public disputation at Leiden in 1593 as found in The Works of James Arminius… Translated from the Latin, in 3 Volumes (Auburn & Buffalo: Derby, 1853), vol. 3, pp. 263-278 The words in italics are that of Junius; the words under those in plain font are Arminius’ commentary.
‘A Discussion on the Subject of Predestination Between James Arminius, D.D., Minister of Amsterdam, & Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity at Leiden, Conducted by Means of Letters’ in The Works of James Arminius… Translated from the Latin, in 3 Volumes (Auburn & Buffalo: Derby, 1853), pp. 7-262
Rollock, Robert – ‘A Brief Instruction on the Eternal Approval & Disapproval of the Divine Mind’ (1593 / 1594; RBO) 6 pp. tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman
Rollock, a fountain of reformed theology in Scotland, here treats of the important distinctions to be recognized within God’s decree of predestination, especially as it comes to be variously executed through time in providence. Of special interest is his formulations relating to what would be later known as the sincere free offer of the Gospel:
“Approval without the decree belongs to all good things with respect to themselves, though they are not at any time realized, of which sort are the conversion, faith, and salvation of reprobates; which God surely approves of simply, but does not decree to come about… 1 Tim. 2:4, ‘Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’”
Rollock’s early paradigm appears to have been influential through later reformed thought as reflections of it occur in later reformed scholastics, including in the Metaphysical Disquisitions of Samuel Rutherford at the end of his Latin treatise on Providence. More about that may be explored on our page On God’s Revealed Will.
Perkins, William
‘Predestination’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 423
A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
ch. 3, ‘Of the Life of God’
…
6. Of God’s Works & his Decree
7. Of Predestination & Creation
…
15. Of Election & of Jesus Christ the Foundation Thereof
…
19. Concerning the Outward Means of Executing the Decree of Election, & of the Decalogue
…
35. Of the Degrees of Executing God’s Decree of Election
…
50. ‘Concerning the order of the causes of salvation according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome’
…
52. Concerning the Decree of Reprobation
53. Concerning the Execution of the Decree of Reprobation
54. Concerning a New Devised Doctrine of Predestination taught by some New & Late Divines
1. There is a certain universal or general election: God, without exception of persons, has decreed to redeem by Christ and to reconcile unto Himself all mankind fallen in Adam, the Reprobate and Elect
2. God did foreknow Adam’s Fall, but He did not by his eternal decree foreordain it; therefore his fall was without the agent permission of God
3. God, by reason of foreseeing the disobedience of some, or their contemning the Gospel, did decree their destruction and condemnation
4. God’s calling to the knowledge of the Gospel is universal, yea of all men and every singular person without exception
Conclusion
…
58. Of the Application of Predestination
Errors of the Papists in their distributing of the Causes of Salvation
1. Predestination is only of the Elect, the Reprobate they are only foreknown
2. Predestination is mutable: men are contingently predestinated, on God’s part and man’s: hence those appointed to salvation may be condemned, and those appointed to damnation may be saved
3. All men are predestinated, i.e. disposed and ordained of God so they might attain eternal life
4. Predestination’s last effects has this cause in man: in man’s freewill and works: whom God had foreseen that they would receive grace offered in Christ and lead their life according to the law, them He predestinated, not of works, but of his mercy, yet so, as that He had respect unto works
5. By Baptism rightly administered, not only the guiltiness, but also the corruption of original sin, is so washed away that it is not afterward properly accounted sin
6. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, especially for children
7. Man after Adam’s fall has freewill to do good and evil, though in a diverse manner: he has freewill to do evil simply, without any external aid: but to do well, none at all, but by God’s grace preventing or guiding: which grace every man has and it is in our freewill either to consent and together work with or not. Freewill’s power to do what is good and acceptable to God is only attenuated and weakened before conversion; hence man can of himself work a preparation to justification
8. The Holy Ghost does not give grace to will, but only does unloose the will which before was chained, and also does excite the same: so that the will by its own power, does dispose itself to justification
9. That preparation to grace, which is caused by the power of free-will, may by the merit of congruity deserve justification
10. The faith of the godly, or that which justifies, is that whereby a man does in general believe the promised blessedness of God, and by which also he gives his assent to other mysteries revealed of God concerning the same
11. Man’s love of God does in order and time go before his justification and reconciliation with God
12. Infused or inherent justice is the formal cause of justification, whereby men are justified in the sight of God
13. There is also a second justification obtained by works
14. Grace is quite extinguished, or rather utterly lost by any mortal sin
15. It is possible to fulfill the Law in this life
16. Works done in grace do condignly merit eternal life
17. Man knows not but by special revelation whether he be predestinated or not
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 36. ‘Of Predestination’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 421-51
For an entrance into this treatise what words must we consider?
Explain therefore these words
What is the order and process of these words?
Whether is there predestination or no?
What is predestination?
Is predestination but of mankind only?
How many degrees or parts of predestination are there?
What is the decree of predestination?
What is the primordial efficient cause of this great decree?
When began this decree?
What kind of decree is this?
How many kinds are there of this decree of predestination?
Whether reprobation be also subject to God his decree as election is?
What is election?
What is the principal cause of election?
What is the efficient enforcive or precedent cause thereof?
Does our election consist of our own faith, holiness, worthiness, lineage or works foreseen of God, or no?
Is the election of all men common or general, that is, does God ordain all men to salvation?
Of what sort of men is election?
Wherefore has not God elected all?
Is not Christ the Redeemer of all men?
Died not Christ for all men?
Is not the calling and promise general, Mt. 11:28, ‘Come unto Me all ye that are weary and laden’?
How does it then accord that God calls them to Him whom He knows will not come?
But so the kingdom of grace shall not be very large
By this means then shall not God be an accepter of persons?
But God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2:4
What is the execution of predestination?
Of how many sorts are those means?
How many are the proper and peculiar means ordained by God for the elect?
What is the proper end of election?
What are the marks of election?
What is reprobation?
What is the efficient cause of reprobation?
Are not some sins, as incredulity, etc. the causes of the decree why someone is rejected?
Is not God tainted with the note of injustice, if his will only be determined the cause of reprobation?
What are the common means of reprobation?
What are the particular means of the execution of God’s decree for the rejecting of some men?
Is the execution of reprobation, or the appointing of wicked means subject to the decree of God, as faith and other means of salvation is to the decree of election?
What is the end of reprobation?
After what manner is the administration and application of the doctrine of predestination to be taken in hand, either of pastors or of all men in private?
What ought to be the order of application?
But what if any shall not as yet feel these effects of faith of the Holy Ghost and of regeneration, or shall feel them weak, shall he therefore make account that he is of the number of the reprobate, or shall he despair of his salvation?
Is there a certain number as well of the elect as of the reprobate?
But are there few that shall be saved, Lk. 13:23, or is there a greater number of the elect than of the reprobate?
May the regenerate assuredly by faith make mention of their election, and may they glory thereof in the Lord?
May the elect perish?
But many seem possible to be blotted out of the book of life by the place in Ex. 32:32, ‘Blot me out of the book of life,’ and Ps. 69:29, ‘Let them be blotted out of the book of life’.
But does it follow of the doctrine of predestination that it skills not how any man live, seeing the elect can no more fall away whatsoever they do, neither can the rest be saved?
What is the use and fruit of this doctrine?
What is contrary to this doctrine?
Alsted, Johann H.
Scholastic-Didactic Theology: exhibiting Common Places by a Scholastic Method tr. by AI by Nosferatu Ref (Conrad Eifrid, 1618), chs. 4-12
4. ‘Decrees of God in General’ 1
5. ‘First Division of the Decree’ 9
6. ‘Providence’ 12
7. ‘Predestination in General’ 25
8. ‘Election of Christ’ 29
9. ‘Election of Angels’ 31
10. ‘Election of Men’ 32
11. ‘Reprobation of Angels’ 51
12. ‘Reprobation of Men’ 53-59
Polemical Theology, exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies, pt. 2, 4-6 (Partial) tr. by AI by Onku (Hanau, 1620; 1627)
pt. 2, 2. A Major catholic Symphony: Theological Common Places
14. ‘Election’ 47-50
pt. 4, Controversies with the Romanists Latin
3. ‘On Grace & the Predestination of God, & on the Free Will of Man’ Latin
pt. 6, sect. 1, Of the Dogmas of Jacob Arminius & his Disciples Latin
1. ‘Decree of Predestination’ 111-14
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1
ch. 6, ‘The Efficiency of God’, pp. 91-94
ch. 7, ‘The Decree & Counsel of God’, pp. 94-100
ch. 25, ‘Predestination’, pp. 152-57
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Walaeus, Anthony – 24. ‘On Divine Predestination’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 2, pp. 22-66
Ames, William – ‘Of Predestination’ from The Marrow of Theology
Ames’ discussion is superb, especially his treatment of Reprobation.
Wolleb, Johannes – Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1
3. ‘The Works of God, & the Divine Decrees in General’, pp. 45-50
4. ‘Predestination’, pp. 50-54
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Rutherford, Samuel
Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: The Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Johnson & Fentiman (1638-1642; RBO, 2019)
ch. 2, section 18, ‘On God’s Revealed Will & Will of Good-Pleasure’, pp. 54-56
ch. 4
12. ‘Whether God willed absolutely that men would do no more good than what they do? We affirm with a distinction against the Remonstrants.’, pp. 77-78
19. ‘Whether it would have been better for the reprobate to never have heard the gospel? We deny with a distinction against the Remonstrants.’, pp. 79-80
ch. 7
8. ‘Whether the Adversaries rightly infer this, that according to us, it is noxious for the unconverted to hear the Word and to use external means? We deny.’, pp. 85-86
Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 230-86
ch. 3, ‘On Election’
1. Whether election to salvation is two-fold; on the one hand indefinite and general, and on the other hand definite and special? We deny against the Arminians.
2. Whether election is of certain singular, definite persons? We affirm against the Arminians.
3. Whether election is revocable and incomplete for those who for a time believe, and complete and irrevocable for those whom God foreknew to be believing finally? We deny against the Arminians.
4. Whether the election of this one rather than that one to glory is only from the absolute good pleasure [of God]? Explained and affirmed against the Arminians.
5. Whether faith is a consequence of election? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
6. Whether election to glory is done from all eternity? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
7. What that good pleasure of God consists in which Paul speaks of in Rom. 9? Explained and proven against the Arminians.
8. Whether each and every mortal is either elect or reprobate? We affirm against the Arminians.
9. Whether Christ is the meritorious cause of election? We deny against the Arminians.
10. Whether, because God absolutely destined to eternal glory, Christ cannot therefore merit it? We deny against the Arminians.
11. Whether the promise of some conditional good can be subordinated by an immutable decree in such a way that that good which is promised is destined absolutely? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
12. Whether or not faith may at once be a required condition in a formal way and the thing which is promised and indeclinably brought about in us by God? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
13. Whether we invert the natural order because we state that the man who is to be created is the object of predestination? We deny against the Remonstrants.
14. Whether carefulness, fear, and caution in the use of means are in disagreement with absolute election to glory? We deny against the Remonstrants.
15. Whether the number of elect is precisely determined? We affirm against the Arminians.
ch. 4, ‘On Reprobation’
1. Whether reprobation is an eternal act in God? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
2. Whether God reprobated men absolutely from his choice alone? Whether sin is truly the meritorious cause of reprobation? We affirm the former; we deny the latter against the Remonstrants.
3. Whether the distinction between negative and privative non-election, or preterition, versus reprobation, is senseless? We deny against the Arminians.
4. Whether reprobation is indeed the lot of those who are outside of the church? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
5. Whether absolute reprobation is the prime cause of the enduring destruction of the better portion of mankind? We deny against the Remonstrants.
6. Whether God creates and stores up some men for destruction? We distinguish against the Remonstrants.
7. Whether on this account creation forbears to be good, because reprobates are created unto this end, that they be vessels of wrath for the manifestation of the glory of punitive justice? We deny against the Arminians.
8. Whether God stores up men, especially the truly reprobate, to sin? We distinguish against the Remonstrants.
9. Whether the absolute will of God is the cause of all things? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
10. Whether God needs the slavery of sin, according to us? We deny against the Remonstrants.
11. Whether God by the covenant of grace has abdicated his absolute dominion in the disposing of rational creatures exactly as He wills? We deny against the Remonstrants.
12. Whether God willed absolutely that men would do no more good than what they do? We affirm with a distinction against the Remonstrants.
13. Whether God does not absolutely will more to be converted and saved than are converted and saved? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
14. Whether the commands, promises, and threatenings of the gospel conflict with absolute reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.
15. Whether God absolutely, from eternity past, decreed the declaration of punitive justice? We affirm against the Arminians.
16. Whether absolute reprobation conflicts with the ministry of the Word? We deny against the Remonstrants.
17. Whether it conflicts with the blessedness of God for Him to absolutely put forth an end which cannot be reached without sin, which thing is ungracious of Him? We deny against the Remonstrants.
18. reprobates can be argued [to be so] from [their] ingratitude toward the mercy and merits of Christ? We affirm against the Remonstrants.
19. Whether it would have been better for the reprobate to never have heard the gospel? We deny with a distinction against the Remonstrants.
20. Whether the doctrine of absolute reprobation is an abyss of despair? We deny against the Remonstrants.
ch. 10, ‘Whether some Christian fate is to be admitted, although we shudder at the term’ in A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence, chs. 1-10 tr. by AI by Onku (Edinburgh, 1649), pp. 85-98 Latin
Gomar, Francis – ‘A Disputation on God’s Predestination’ (d. 1641) in the Works of Arminius, vol. 3 (1875), pp. 521-658 The 1875 edition of Arminius’ Works does not appear to be on the net, and this piece has not been found in the other editions of his works.
Maccovius, Johannes
ch. 7, ‘On Predestination’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 155-67
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a reformed, supralapsarian Polish theologian.
‘The Theological Disputation De Divina Hominum Praedestinatione [On the Divine Predestination of Humans] (1643), with Johannes Maccovius Presiding & Johannes Fridericus Herbst Responding’ trans. Ryan Hurd MAJT 30 (2019): 85-99
Leigh, Edward – A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 3
1. Of God’s Decree, & Especially of Predestination & the Parts thereof: Election & Reprobation 216
2. The Execution of God’s Decree 225-33
Heidegger, Johann H. – ‘Predestination of God & the Election of the Saints, on [Second] Helvetic Confession, ch. 10, latter part’ (1673) in Various Disputations tr. by AI by Onku (d. 1698), pp. 120-36 Latin
Here is the 2nd Helvetic Confession (1566).
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica at Discord (1675; London, 1683) Latin
Cause of predestination: whether in man is any cause of predestination 219
Eternal election and predestination of humans 228
Reprobation and its object, causes and effects: Roman Doctrine 236
Nature, object, cause and effects of reprobation: Reformed opinion compared with Roman 248
Order of divine decrees concerning the elect and reprobate: Roman & Reformed 261
Predestination and election of men: Remonstrants’ and Lutheran opinions 273-80
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Rijssen, Leonard – A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009)
ch. 5, ‘God’s Decree’, pp. 52-58
ch. 6, ‘Predestination’, pp. 58-66
Rijssen (1636?-1700?) was a prominent Dutch reformed minister and theologian, active in theological controversies.
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 4th Topic
1. ‘Are decrees in God, and how?’ 311
2. ‘Are the decrees of God eternal? We affirm against Socinus.’ 314
3. ‘Are there conditional decrees? We deny against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Jesuits.’ 316
4. ‘Does the decree necessitate future things? We affirm.’ 319
5. ‘Is the fixed and immoveable end of the life of each man with all its circumstances so determined by the decree of God, that he cannot die in another moment of time or by another kind of death than that in which he does die? We affirm against the Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 322
6. ‘Ought predestination to be publicly taught and preached? We affirm.’ 329
7. ‘In what sense are the words ‘predestination,’ prognoseos, ekloges and prosthesos used in this mystery?’ 331
8. ‘Was there a predestination of angels, and was it of the same kind and order with the predestination of men? The former we affirm; the latter we deny.’ 335
9. ‘Whether the Object of Predestination was Man Creatable, or Capable of Falling; or whether as Created and Fallen. The Former we Deny; the latter we Affirm.’ 341
10. ‘Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? We deny against the Arminians and Lutherans.’ 350
11. ‘Is election made from the foresight of faith, or works; or from the grace of God alone? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.’ 355
12. ‘Is the election of certain men to salvation constant and immutable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.’ 365
13. ‘Can the believer be certain of his own election with a certainty not only conjectural and moral, but infallible and of faith? We affirm against the papists and Remonstrants.’ 373
14. ‘Is the decree of reprobation absolute, depending upon the good pleasure (eudokia) of God alone; or is sin its proper cause? We distinguish.’ 380
15. ‘Is infidelity, or unbelief of the gospel, presupposed as a cause of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.’ 390
16. ‘Is the will of God to save persevering believers and condemn the unbelieving, the whole decree of reprobation? We deny against the Remonstrants.’ 392
17, ‘Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.’ 395
18. ‘Is any order to be admitted in the divine decrees, and what is it?’ 417-31
Le Blanc, Louis – Theses Theologicae... (London, 1683), pp. 127-32 tr. Michael Lynch
‘On Predestination & Election’, theses 1-11, 12-20, 21-29, 30-37
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan, France.
‘On the Cause of Predestination’, theses 1-5
‘On Predestination in the Roman Catholic & Reformed Schools’, theses 1-5, 6-10, 11-17, 18-25, 26-31, 32-37
‘On Reprobation in the Reformed School’, theses 1-6, 7-11, 12-16, 17-23, 24-29, 30-36, 37-43, 44-47, 48-51, 52-57
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 3, pt. 1, bk. 3
ch. 1, ‘The Actions & Decrees of God’ 1
ch. 2, ‘Predestination’ 25
ch. 3, ‘Election’ 49
ch. 4, ‘Reprobation’ 77-101
Heidegger, Johann H. – 5. ‘On the Decrees of God’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 35-41
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999)
ch. 5, ‘The Decrees of God: General Observations’
ch. 6, ‘Eternal Predestination: Election & Reprobation’
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
Turretin, Jean-Alphonse – ch. 9. “A difference not fundamental with Lutherans (on the Supper, Christ’s Person and Predestination)” in A Discourse concerning Fundamental Articles in Religion, in which a Method is laid down for the more effectual uniting of Protestants and promoting a more general toleration amongst them… (1720)
De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary (d. 1780)
ch. 6, ‘On the Decree’
Outline
1. Divine Decrees as Internal Acts ad Extra
2. The Term, “Decrees”
3. Existence of the Decrees
4. Definition for “Divine Decrees”
5. General Nature of the Divine Decrees
6. Eternity of
7. Liberty of
8. Wisdom of
9. Independence of
10. Immutability of
11-13. Object of, pt. 1, 2, 3
14. Order of
15. Connection of All Things
16. Things Possible, but not Future
17. Chief End of the Decree
ch. 7, ‘On Predestination’
1. Outline
2. Term “Predestination”
2. Homonymy of “Predestination”
3. Double Meaning of “Predestination”
4. Reality of Predestination
5-6. Definition of “Predestination”, pt. 1, 2
7. Eternity of Predestination
8. Liberty of
9. Wisdom of
10. God’s Independence in Predestination
11-12. God’s Independence in Predestination Defended, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
13-14. Immutability of Predestination, pt. 1, 2
15-18. Object of, pt. 1, 2, 3, 4
19. End of
20. Term, “Election”
21. Definition of “Election”
22. Predisposing Cause of Election
23-25. Object of Election, pt. 1, 2, 3
26. End of Election
27-28. Certainty of Election, pt. 1, 2
29. Term, “Reprobation”
30. Definition of “Reprobation”
31. Predisposing Cause of Reprobation
32-33. Object of, pt. 1, 2
34. Ultimate End of
35. Proximate End of
36. Subjective Uncertainty of
37. Sublimity, Necessity & Usefulness of the Doctrine of Predestination
Venema, Herman – Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850)
15. The Decrees of God (Counsel of Divine Will, Existence of Decrees, Proved from Reason & Scripture, Exposition, Presuppositions in a Decree, Definition of, its Object, End & Means, its Object Universal, End in Reference to God & External Things, Means by which Executed) 268
16. The Decrees of God (Efficient & Moving Cause of Decrees, Opinions, When Formed, Opinions, Eternity of Proved, Manner of Formation, Not Essential to God, Occupied Whole Mind of God, Order & Steps of, Socinian Objection to Eternity of All Decrees, Conditional Decrees Refuted, Immutatability of) 278
17. Predestination (Preliminaries, Names of Doctrine, General, Special, Predestination, Election & Reprobation, General & Special Predestination, Definition of General Predestination, its Ends & Means, Scripture Proof, Supralapsarianism & Sublapsarianism) 294
18. Predestination (Special Predestination, Difference from General, Substance & Form of, its Objects, Ends & Means, its Reason, Origin & Immutability, Scripture Proofs, Objections Answered, Practical Use) 314
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
1800’s
Alexander, Archibald – God, Creation & Human Rebellion: Lecture Notes of Archibald Alexander from the Hand of Charles Hodge (1818; RBO, 2023)
7. ‘Decrees’, pp. 112-17
8. ‘Predestination’, pp. 117-21
9. ‘Election’, pp. 121-28
10. ‘Reprobation’, pp. 128-32
Buchanan, James – Modern Atheism, vol. 2
The Doctrine of Natural Laws & Second Causes, p. 252 ff. 11 pp.
The Constitution of Man in its Relation to the Government of God, p. 264 ff. 18 pp.
Theories of Chance & Fate, p. 303 ff. 19 pp.
Cunningham, William – Historical Theology (1863)
God’s Providence & Man’s Sin in vol. 1, p. 625 ff. 13 pp.
The Decrees of God & Predestination in vol. 2, p. 416 ff. 73 pp.
Girardeau, John – Calvinism & Evangelical Arminianism (1890)
The Doctrine of Election Stated and Proved 145 pp.
The Doctrine of Reprobation Stated & Proved 17 pp.
Waddell, James – ‘Re-Examination of Dr. Girardeau’s Views of the Freedom of the Will’ (1880) 26 pp. in The Southern Presbyterian Review, 31.4 (Oct., 1880), pp. 690-716. Girardeau initially wrote two articles regarding the Fall of Adam in 1879 for The Southern Presbyterian Review. Waddell then responded with criticisms in the same journal. In two issues of the journal in 1880 Girardeau responded to Waddell. Here is Waddell’s response to Girardeau’s defense.
This article takes up the very interesting and somewhat complex issues regarding the nature of the decree of sin, whether it was permissive or not, and in what sense, the nature of its certainty, the relation of the decree to God’s foreknowledge, and Calvin’s interpretation of all of these things.
Vos, Geerhardus – Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 1
ch. 4, ‘Of God’s Decrees in General’ 87
ch. 5, ‘The Doctrine of Predestination’ 107
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Divine Decrees & Predestination’ in Systematic Theology (1949) 55 paragraphs
.
Books
800’s
Gottschalk – Gottschalk & a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin in Mediaeval Philosophical Texts in Translation, Issue 47 Ref (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010)
Gottschalk (c. 808-868) taught double predestination following the later Augustine.
.
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – Predestination & Justification Buy (Davenant Press, 2018) 296 pp.
Calvin on Secret Providence tr. James Lillie (NY: 1840) 125 pp. ToC Note that the chapter titles are false accusations against Calvin.
Knox, John – An Answer to the Cavillations of [an Anabaptist] Adversary Respecting the Doctrine of Predestination (1560) in The Works of John Knox, 5:7-468
“While living in Geneva about 1558, Knox was asked by persons back in England to answer a book circulating there titled Careless by Necessity. This work, written by an Anabaptist, denied the doctrine of Predestination. Knox complied…
This work is the longest of Knox’s writings… On Predestination is in the form of an ‘answer’, and is disputational in structure. Knox alternately [block] quotes an assertion from his ‘Adversarie’ [in the order of the adversary’s book] immediately following it with his ‘Answer’.” – Brian L. Dole, ‘John Knox on Predestination’
See extended excerpts from this work, the font of which is otherwise difficult to read, at, Excerpts from John Knox’s Work on Predestination.
Beza, Theodore
The Treasure of Truth Touching the Groundwork of Man’s Salvation… (London, 1576) no page numbers This is very similar to or the same as A Brief Declaration of the Chief Points of Christian Religion… (London: Man., 1613).
7. ‘What way this doctrine may profitably be openly set forth and taught’
8. ‘How every several person may apply with some profit this general doctrine to himself’
A Short Sum of the Whole Matter
Notes Appertaining to the Matter of Election John Fox
A Brief Treatise, with certain Answers to the Objections of the Adversaries of this Doctrine Anthony Gilby
An Evident Display of Popish Practices, or Patched Pelagianism. Wherein is Mightily Cleared the Sovereign Truth of God’s Eternal Predestination, the Stayed Groundwork of our Most Assured Safety by Christ (London, 1578) 263 pp. ToC
Zanchi, Girolamo – The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated & Asserted… trans. Augustus Toplady (d. 1590; NY: George Lindsay, 1811) 300 pp. ToC
This edition, while helpful for the purpose, yet is not reliable as to the exact words of Zanchi, as Toplady gratuitously added his own material without notice.
.
1600’s
Perkins, William – A Christian & Plain Treatise of the Manner & Order of Predestination & of the Largeness of God’s Grace (d. 1602; London: Kingston, 1606)
Gifford, George – The Great Mystery of Providence, or the Various Methods of God in Ordering & Over-Ruling the Actions of Wicked Men & Devils to Great & Glorious Purposes… being the Substance of Several Sermons (d. 1620; London: 1695) 32 pp. ToC
.
1700’s
Holtzfus, Barthold – Theological Treatise on Predestination, Election and Reprobation of Men, for Promoting Ecclesiastical Concord 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Nosferatu (Leiden, 1703) 191 pp. Latin
Holtzfus (1659-1717) was a reformed professor of philosophy and theology at Frankfurt. He was a hypothetical universalist. A summary of his positions is given in ‘To the Reader’ on pp. 186-91.
.
Quotes
Order of
Polanus
Baxter
Owen
.
1600’s
Amandus Polanus
‘Analytical Theses on Colossians, containing the Exordium of the Epistle’, pt. 2 (on Col. 1:12-13) $3 Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Basel: Johannes Schroeter, 1601), XII, Consequences
“4. Eternal life does not come to anyone by chance, for it is a lot that God, according to the good pleasure of His will, assigns only to those whom He has decreed and not to others. If the entire plan of the lot is from Jehovah in the distribution of earthly inheritances [Prov. 16:33], then much more does the heavenly inheritance depend on His good pleasure. Therefore, it should never be admitted that some were saved in the past or are being saved now by the chance mercy of God.”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface, n.p.
“I had never read one Socinian, nor much of any Arminians… and I remembred two or three things in Dr. [William] Twisse (whom I most esteemed) which inclined me to moderation in the five Articles [disputed between Arminians and the Reformed]… 2. That he reduces all the decrees to two, de fine et de mediis [of the end and of the means], as the healing way…”
.
John Owen
p. 15 in Exercitation 26 in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews… vol. 2 ed. W.H. Goold in Works (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), vol. 19, Preliminary Exercitations
“Our work is, to inquire wherein, how, and whereby, God has revealed his eternal counsels, to the end that we may know his mind, and fear Him for our good.”
.
Latin
1600’s
Alsted, Henry
Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626)
ch. 5, ‘Decrees of God’, pp. 32-35
ch. 6, ‘Decree of Providence’, pp. 35-38
ch. 7, ‘Decree of Predestination’, pp. 38-44
ch. 17, ‘On Predestination’ in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 94-105
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’
ch. 3, ‘Of the Certain Election of Men unto Eternal Life’, pp. 121-44
ch. 4, ‘Of Reprobation’, pp. 144-53
Rutherford, Samuel – The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668)
ch. 3, ‘On Election’, pp. 238-76
ch. 4, ‘On Reprobation’, pp. 276-97
Voet, Gisbert – Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1 Abbr.
section 1, tract 2, V. Of the Decrees or the Immanent Actions of God’
section 2, tract 1, 1. Of Predestination in General
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 4. Decrees of God & Predestination in A Syllabus of Controversies in Religion which come between the Orthodox Churches & whatever other Adversaries, for material for the regular disputations… customarily held in the theological school of the academy at Basil (Basil, 1662), pp. 13-16
.
History of the Doctrine
Medieval Church
Articles
Easterday, Kevin – ‘Thomas Aquinas & His Contribution to the Doctrine of Predestination’ a seminary paper for GPTS
“This paper examines the link of the Reformed doctrine of predestination to Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in his Summa Theologica.” – Blurb
Cavalli, Francis B. – ‘Aquinas & Calvin on Predestination: Is There Any Common Ground? [Yes]’ in Reformed Faith & Practice, vol. 1, issue 2 (2016)
“The conclusion reached in this paper is that there are more similarities than disparities between Aquinas and Calvin on the doctrine of predestination. Some degree of continuity ought to be expected given that both men interpret the Apostle Paul’s teaching on predestination through the lens of Augustine to one degree or another. In some respects, Thomas reflects a more faithful reading of Augustine than Calvin since he recognizes the role of merit in the soteric process and leans in the direction of a single predestinarian view. However, Calvin does more justice to Augustine’s emphasis on human depravity and the necessity of saving grace to rescue man from destruction. As it pertains to this doctrine, the theology of Thomas… It would be a serious misrepresentation to classify his position as Semi-Pelagian…
A comparison of views between these theological titans reveals several notable areas of incongruity.
First, Thomas sees predestination as a part of God’s providence and focuses on causality while Calvin posits predestination, not providence, as determinative of our final end and approaches it soteriologically.
Second, Thomas follows Augustine and argues that the attainment of glory is realized in conjunction with acquired merit through grace and the gift of perseverance. Calvin, on the other hand, is irreconcilably opposed to the role of human merit both prior to and subsequent to justification.
Third, our election in Christ is vital for Calvin while Thomas hardly speaks to this at all.
Fourth, Thomas by and large embraces a doctrine of negative or passive reprobation whereby God permits the reprobate to fall away leading to damnation. Calvin advocates double predestination, arguing that God actively wills the destruction of the reprobate irrespective of works.
Fifth, while Thomas identifies no practical end for this doctrine, it serves as a ground of assurance in Calvin’s theology.
While these differences are not inconsequential, areas of agreement should be given greater weight. Both share the same outlook on the cause, extent, and end of election, namely, God’s unmerited favor toward a select number of individuals freely chosen for eternal life for the purpose of manifesting his goodness in their redemption. Thomas and Calvin mutually affirm the total inability of man to please God without special grace, unconditional election, the limited efficacy of Christ’s atonement, efficacious grace, and the perseverance of the elect. One might deduce from these propositions a Thomistic version of TULIP. In the final analysis, Thomas and Calvin locate the source and means of salvation squarely in God’s sovereign grace. Man can neither initiate his salvation nor realize its consummation apart from grace. Individuals possess eternal life only because God has foreordained them to this end according to his good pleasure.”
.
Book
Stucco, Guido – The Doctrine of Predestination in Catholic Scholasticism: Views & Perspectives from the Twelfth Century to the Renaissance (2017) 154 pp.
.
Latin Books
Maugin, Gilbert – Works & Fragments written in the 9th Century on Predestination & Grace, by Old Authors, vol. 1, 2 (Paris: Billaine, 1650)
Maugin (d. 1674) was a Romanist who published this “with the approval of the faculty of the sacred doctors” at Paris.
.
On the 1500’s
Sytsma, David – ‘Vermigli Replicating Aquinas: An Overlooked Continuity in the Doctrine of Predestination’ in Reformation & Renaissance Review 20, no. 2 (2018): 155-67
Beeke, Joel – ‘Theodore Beza’s Supralapsarian Predestination’ in Reformation & Revival Journal, vol. 12, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 69-85
.
On the 1500’s-1600’s
Articles
Selderhuis, Herman J. – ‘Calvinismus Heidelbergensis: The Heidelberg Theological Faculty & the Discussions about Predestination, 1583–1622′ in Calvin Studies XII: Papers Presented at a Colloquium on Calvin Studies at Erskine Theological Seminary, Due West, South Carolina, January 27–28, 2006, pp. 55–71
Johnson, Charles – ‘Thomas & TULIP’ (2020) 20 paragraphs at Reformed Theology Delatinized
“This article will address the claim that Thomas Aquinas held to an Augustinian doctrine of predestination essentially compatible with that of the Reformed Churches, showing in what ways Thomas’s doctrine is compatible with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches and important ways in which it differs.”
.
Book
Stucco, Guido – The Catholic Doctrine of Predestination from Luther to Jansenius (2014) 310 pp.
.
On the 1600’s
Articles
Walker, James – ch. 2, ‘Predestination & Providence’ in The Theology & Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth & Eighteenth Centuries (1888), pp. 36-65
Denlinger, Aaron C. – ‘Swimming with the Reformed Tide: John Forbes of Corse (1593-1648) on Double Predestination & Particular Redemption’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66/1 (2015), pp. 67-89
.
Books
Stucco, Guido – When Great Theologians Feuded (2017) 360 pp.
“This is a detailed account of the XVII century clash of views between the Jesuit Leonardus Lessius and the [Romanist] Dominican Thomas Lemos concerning grace and predestination.” – Blurb
.
History of Reprobation
Early Church to Synod of Dort
Sammons, Peter – Reprobation: from Augustine to the Synod of Dort: The Historical Development of the Reformed Doctrine of Reprobation Pre (V&R, 2020) 151 pp. ToC
.
What does the word ‘Sovereignty’ Mean?
William Shedd
Calvinism: Pure & Mixed (1893; Banner of Truth, 1993), pp. 70-71
“Sovereignty is a comprehensive term. It contains several elements.
First it denotes supremacy. A sovereign ruler is supreme in his dominions. All other rulers are under him.
Secondly, sovereignty denotes independence. Says Woolsey,
‘In the intercourse of nations certain states have a position of entire independence of others. They have the power of self-government, that is, of independence of all other states as far as their own territory and citizens are concerned. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.’ (Political Science, i., 204)
Thirdly, sovereignty denotes optional power; that is, the power to act or not in a given instance. It is more particularly with reference to this latter characteristic of free alternative decision, that ‘the sovereignty of God in election’ is spoken of. In his election of a sinner to salvation, God as supreme, independent, and sovereign, acts with entire liberty of decision, and not as obliged and shut up to one course of action.
This is the common understanding and definition of sovereignty as applied to decisions and acts. Says Blackstone [one of the most influential writers on English law]:
‘By the sovereign power is meant the power of making laws; for wherever that power resides all other powers must conform to, and be directed by it, whatever appearance the outward form and administration of the government may put on. For it is at any time in the option of the legislature to alter that form and administration by a new edict or rule, and put the execution of the law into whatever hands it pleases, by constituting one, or a few, or many executive magistrates.’ (Introduction, 2)
Blackstone gives the same definition of sovereignty, when it is vested in a king (Book II., ch. vii.). The king has no superior to oblige or compel him to one course of action. He has independent and optional power.”
.
On the Threefold Distinction within the Decree of God
Article
van Mastricht, Petrus – ch. 1, sections 15-16 & 28 in Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3
Muller, Richard –
.
Why We Speak of One Decree & Decrees Plural
Articles
1600’s
van Mastricht, Petrus – ch. 1, sections 26 & 28 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3
.
1700’s
De Moor, Bernard – Continuous Commentary, ch. 6, ‘On the Decree’
2. The Term, “Decrees”
14. Order of the Divine Decrees
.
On the Election of Christ
Article
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H. – 8. ‘Election of Christ’ in Scholastic-Didactic Theology: exhibiting Common Places by a Scholastic Method tr. by AI by Nosferatu Ref (Conrad Eifrid, 1618), chs. 4-12, pp. 29-31
.
On the Mysteriousness of the Finer Points of God’s Decrees and Knowledge
Quote
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology Plain, Pure, Peaceable, for pacification of the dogmatical Word-Warriors who, 1. by contending about things unrevealed or not understood, 2. and by taking verbal differences for real. pt. 1, sect. VII, pp. 121-23 HT: Nosferatu
“135. Should I proceed to explain to you all or half of the questions about which the sharpest-witted Schoolmen merely dream concerning the knowledge and decrees of God, I would tire myself and the reader to little purpose; such as, An scientia actualis aliorum sit de Essentia Dei? (Is the actual knowledge of other things part of God’s essence?), An Essentia Dei sit Motivum adaequatum ejus scientiae? (Is God’s essence the adequate motive for His knowledge?), An Deus cognoscat creaturas ex seipso, aut ex alio per discursum? (Does God know creatures from Himself, or from something else through reasoning?), An & quomodo scientia Dei possit dividi in plures? (If and how can God’s knowledge be divided into multiple parts?), An & quomodo Deus cognoscat Mala? (If and how does God know evil?), An & quomodo Deus cognoscat negationes & privationes? (If and how does God know negations and privations?), An Deus cognoscat Entia rationis? (Does God know beings of reason?), An habeat in se Entia Rationis? (Does He have beings of reason within Himself?), De scientia Media (On middle knowledge), An scientia Visionis sit causa futurorum? (Is the knowledge of vision the cause of future things?), An futura causa scientiae? (Are future things the cause of knowledge?), An scientia simplicis intelligentiae sit causa futurorum & practica? (Is the knowledge of simple intelligence the cause of future things and practical?), An Deus cognoscat futura compenendo & dividendo? (Does God know the future by composing and dividing?), An Deus cognoscat praesentia eadem indivisibili cognitione, qua ipsa praenovit futura? (Does God know present things with the same indivisible cognition with which He foresaw the future?), An Deus noverit Infinita scientia simplicis intelligentiae? (Does God know infinite things with the knowledge of simple intelligence?), An eadem cognitione se & creaturas cognoscat? (Does He know Himself and creatures with the same cognition?), An existente objecto pro solo imperio Voluntatis Divinae possit non esse in Deo aliquis actus scientiae divino intellectui possibilis? (If an object exists solely by the empire of the Divine Will, is it possible that there is no act of knowledge in God, possible to the Divine intellect?), etc., with a multitude of lesser questions that arise from dealing with these; and with as many more about predestination, God’s decrees or volitions, predetermination, etc. I think your patience has already been sufficiently tested.
136. If you say that by reciting these difficulties, I am only confusing people’s understanding rather than clarifying the matters at hand, I answer: If you get lost in them, I achieve my goal, which is to make you aware of how inappropriate it is that the peace of the Church and the concord and communion among brethren should be based on such a multitude of difficult and unsearchable things—some of which are vain, and others beyond human understanding. Should we call one another by sect names and reproach our brethren as if it were for God’s truth and glory until all these controversies are cleared up for everyone? I, who admit that they are beyond my reach and acknowledge my ignorance of many of them, am still censured by my brethren for being too scholastically curious for merely mentioning or engaging with them; yes, even for deciding cases that can and must be decided. And of all our present ministers, I am confident that not one in fifty (if even one in a hundred) has thoroughly studied them or ever will. Now, if the Church is to have love and concord, how will it be achieved? Of those few (one in a hundred who studied them thoroughly), six men will likely hold three different opinions. And what will the other ninety-nine do who have never studied them? Either they must know what they have never studied and be right where they do not understand what they are saying, or else they must unite by implicit faith. And in whom should that be? In the Church? Which Church is it? Are not many churches of many minds? If in the Papal Church, it has more sense than to decide such controversies, so that their doctors are still almost sectarian, divided to this day.
137. And if anyone dreams that the controversies between Calvinists and Lutherans (or Arminians) and between Dominicans and Jesuits can be resolved for either side without engaging with these questions, that person is too ignorant to be fit to speak confidently on the matter. Let them try to engage in a dispute with any capable adversary, and they will be led to these issues whether they want to or not.
138. But if it is someone so confident in either position that they believe their side or opinions are so great and clear that the contrary positions are unworthy of our tolerance and communion, I must be frank enough to say that they exhibit such ignorance and pride as to make their own fitness for communion much more questionable. For is it not the most odious ignorance for a person not to recognize their own ignorance of so many mysteries that no mortals know? And is it not loathsome pride for people to be so confident in these false notions and arrogate to themselves a knowledge that human existence is incapable of attaining?
139. And I am filled with shame to see that, although there has been some recent turmoil against the Jansenists, all these sects (Dominicans, Jesuits, Scotists, Nominals, etc.) manage to live in communion despite their differences, while Protestants have pursued the same differences with all the bitterness you can find in German historians and theologians (such as Schlusselburgius, Calovius, and many others), in the sad history of the Low Countries, and in Heylin’s Life of Archbishop Laud. You can still hear it in all parties today, in their ignorant censures of one another, using the names of Calvinists and Arminians. And yet, we rightly condemn the Church of Rome for its uncharitable cruelty against dissenters, while in doing so, we condemn ourselves.”
.
God’s Decree & All Created Things could be Otherwise, in Some Respect
Quote
On the Middle Ages: on Scotus & Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358)
Christopher Schabel, “Gregory of Rimini”, 3.1, ‘Foreknowledge & Contingency’ (2022) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“So the problem becomes, if God knows that Socrates will run, and the proposition ‘Socrates will run’ is true, will not Socrates run necessarily?
Rimini’s answer is a version of the opinio communis [common opinion], a position with roots in Scotus and the Parisian tradition but which Ockham and later Oxford scholars refined with their focus on propositions…
The opinio communis relies on God’s freedom to save contingency in the world: everything other than God is ultimately contingent, because God wills and acts freely and contingently in creating, and so it is logically possible for the things in the world not to have been or to have been otherwise. At the same time, the common position affirms God’s immutability and determinate knowledge of such things. The upshot is that true propositions about future contingents have always been true and are immutably true, even determinately true, but that they are only contingently true and not necessarily so. So Gregory denies [Peter] Auriol’s equation of necessity and immutability.
Gregory’s position relies on interesting uses of common logical devices and distinctions developed at Paris and Oxford over the preceding century, such as the distinction between the composite and divided senses of propositions, and that between conditional and absolute necessity. The purpose of these distinctions was to offer a way of explaining the contingency of events, but in doing so they assumed the ultimate contingency of everything except God. However, far from being an affirmation of the ‘radical contingency’ of the world, as some historians have claimed, it was in fact the only way for most theologians to save at least some contingency from the threat of absolute logical and divine determinism.
In fact, Gregory and others admitted that, assuming God’s knowledge of the future, the future was necessary ex suppositione [from a supposition], although not absolutely, because it is logically possible for immutable God to know otherwise. Peter Auriol, and later Peter de Rivo, Pietro Pomponazzi, and Martin Luther, would consider these efforts feeble and deluded. The three Peters resorted to alternative theories that others considered equally feeble and deluded, whereas Luther simply accepted the conclusion that all attempts to save meaningful contingency governed by human free will were doomed to failure.
What is interesting about Gregory’s treatment, again, is not his originality, but the clarity and precision with which he presented the common position. He even pointed out problems in the discussions of those with whom he broadly agreed, such as [William] Ockham. True, almost all of what Rimini said could be found in Marchia, Massa, Ockham, Landulph Caracciolo, Adam Wodeham, and others, but not in such an organized fashion.”
.
.
On the Book of Life
Articles
1500’s
Zanchi, Jerome – Sundry Positions out of the Praelections of Zanchi which were carped at by his Adversaries in Speculum Christianum, or A Christian Survey for the Conscience, containing Three Tractates… (London, 1614)
The Whole Treatise of the Book of Life is Distinguished into these Positions
Axioms which were propounded touching the Book of life, to be disputed upon in the Schools
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 36. ‘Of Predestination’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 421-51
May the elect perish?
But many seem possible to be blotted out of the book of life by the place in Ex. 32:32, ‘Blot me out of the book of life,’ and Ps. 69:29, ‘Let them be blotted out of the book of life’.
.
.
On Reprobation
Quote
1600’s
William Twisse
The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath… (Oxford: L.L., 1653), pt. 1, ‘The Discourse Itself’, p. 69
“1. According to my ordering of the decrees divine:
In no moment of nature or reason is the decree of damnation precedent to the decree of permitting infidelity, or leaving the infidelity of some men uncured, to wit, by denying them faith, by denying the grace of regeneration.
But the decrees of creating all in Adam, of permitting all to fall in Adam, in bringing all men forth into the world in the state of original sin, of leaving this original sin uncured in them, and last of all, of damning them for their sins; are decrees not subordinate, but coordinate, as decrees de mediis [of means, or middle things], tending jointly to one supreme end, which is the manifestation of God’s glory upon them in the way of justice-vindicative, as also to show the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy whom He has prepared unto glory (Rom. 9:22), to wit, by beholding in others that miserable condition, which through God’s mere grace and goodness they have escaped.
2. According to the Contra-Remonstrants [Anti-Arminians] tenet, I answer:
1. Many of them do not maintain that infidelity is consequent to the decree of damnation, but in the foresight of God, precedent rather: as appears by the British [delegation of] divines [to the Synod of Dort], their Theses de Reprobatione; and Alvarez professes the same. The denial of grace, and so the permitting of natural infidelity to remain uncured, they make consequent (as it seems) to a negative decree of denying glory. And to the decree of permitting infidelity, they make the foresight of infidelity subsequent; and this foresight of infidelity they make precedent to reprobation, as it signifies the decree of damnation.
And thus far I agree with them, that in no moment of nature, or sign of reason did God ordain any man to damnation, but for sin; and consequently in no moment of nature, or sign of reason, did the decree of damnation go before the foresight of sin or infidelity.”
.
.
On God’s Hardening of Persons
Quote
1600’s
William Twisse
A Treatise of Mr. Cotton’s clearing certain doubts concerning Predestination together with an Examination thereof (London: J.D., 1646), 4th Doubt, pp. 189-94
“If you say that though such righteousness in Saul was no moving cause to God to give him saving grace: in like manner I say that no sin in Pharaoh was a moving cause in God to deny him saving grace:
For if it were, then either by necessity of nature, or by the constitution of God. Not by necessity of nature; for undoubtedly God could have pardoned this sin of his, and changed his heart, as well as he pardoned the sins of Manassah, the sins of the Jews in crucifying the Son of God, Acts 2, the sins of Saul in persecuting God’s saints; and changed all their hearts. Nor by any constitution of God; for show me if you can any such constitution of God.
And if you would but explicate wherein the hardening of Pharaoh did consist, I presume it would clearly appear that the mere pleasure of God’s will is the cause of it; like as it is the mere pleasure of God that He does not harden others in like manner…
…
All confess that God is not the cause of hardness of heart in any man, but man being born in hardness of heart, Eze. 36:31[?]. God is said to harden, not infundendo malitiam, sed non infundendo gratiam [not by infusing malice, but by not infusing grace]: By leaving him thereunto, whereby it comes to pass that naturally it is increased, especially in case a man be moved to courses contrary to his corrupt humors, whether by God’s Word, or by his works, and God does not by grace correct those corrupt humors which are so contrariant to good motions; good motions, I mean such as have their course only in the way of instruction and persuasion; In this case, thus to move and to deny grace is to harden. But when God does forbear thus to move, and gives men over to follow the swing of their own lusts, this I confess is to harden in greater measure, and properly a punishment.
But this was not the manner of Pharaohs hardening. For long after the ninth chapter of Exodus we read how God continued to admonish Pharaoh by his servant Moses to let his people go; neither ceased He this discipline till the ten plagues or nine of them at the least were fulfilled. And like as to shew mercy is not to move only to obedience, but effectually to work men to obedience, so the hardening of man in opposition thereunto, consists not in not moving unto obedience, but rather in not working unto obedience, although they be moved thereunto both in the way of instruction and exhortation.
As for the punishing of sin with sin in the hardening of the creature, let us understand ourselves aright, and not confound ourselves when we need not. Is it a sober speech to say that God punishes his denial of grace with denial of grace? or that God punishes the sins of the heathen with the denial of that grace, which they never enjoyed?
But as for the punishing of sin with sin, this is a large field of God’s providence, consisting in diverse kinds, and it is no way fit to consider them without distinction. God made the unnaturalness of Senacherib’s sons a scourge to chastise Senacherib’s unnaturalness towards God; one mans sinful act to be the punishment of another’s. Here is one kind utterly distinct from that you treat of.
Again, some say (and I think justly) and Augustine acknowledges it, that every man’s sin may be a just punishment unto him in respect of a former, as Rom. 1:25. When men for their idolatry were given over to vile affections, to defile themselves in abominable manner, it is said that herein they received in themselves, such recompence of their error as was meet. So 2 Thess. 2:10-11, because men received not the truth of God with love, God is said to send them strong delusions that they should believe lies.
…For to punish is either to inflict evil, which formerly they suffered not, or to withdraw some good which formerly they enjoyed… we see hereby apparently how God can punish sin with sin in this kind, not by denial of grace which they never enjoyed, but by denying some outward means of grace which formerly they enjoyed. And withal it appears that this is nothing to our present purpose, who treat of obduration as it consists in or is joined with the denial of saving grace, in proper opposition to the showing of mercy or affording saving grace…
I say also that God’s punishing consists in denying, or not maintaining some kind of grace, or rather not so much to be called grace as a natural restraint, not from sin in general (for that cannot be but by saving grace), but from some sins in special, which are foul in the judgment of a natural man’s conscience; such as are those unnatural defilements the apostle speaks of, Rom. 1. Now God in a natural manner restrains men from such excess, either for fear of shame of the world or by reason of some natural detriment that may arise thereby, or by the ministry of his angels restraining the temptations of Satan in this kind; And it is found by experience that Nemo repente fit turpissimus, but they grow to extremes by degrees, and the longer a man lives, the worse he grows, if grace correct not the course of corrupt nature, according to that saying, Nemo senex metuit Jovem.
Now if God shall forbear this restraint, and give them over to the power of Satan, they shall be exposed to the commission of such abominable things, and therein they shall receive in themselves a just recompence of their former errors.”
.
.
.
“God decrees [evil] for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof; man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it.”
Jonathan Edwards
.
.
.
Related Pages