.
Subsections
Foundation in God
Improperly God’s Will
Has Purpose
Semiotics
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 8+
Quotes
History 2
Latin 5
.
Articles
1100’s
Lombard, Peter – The Sentences tr. Giulio Silano (c. 1150; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007), vol. 1, bk. 1, Trinity
45. God’s Will
1. On God’s will, which is God’s essence, and on its signs
2. That though for God it is the same to will as to be, yet God cannot be said to be all which He wills
3. On the understanding of these expressions: God knows, and/or God Wills”, “God knows all and/or wills something”
4. That God’s most highly good will is the cause of all which naturally are, the cause of which is not to be sought, because it is the first and most high cause of all
5. In what manners is (the term) God’s “will” accepted
6. That God’s preception, prohibition, permission, counsel, and operation are sometimes understood by the name of “will”
7. Whether God wills from all persons that to be done those things which He commands, and/or not to be done those things which He prohibits
46. Evil & the Efficacy of the Divine Will
1. That God’s will, which He Himself is, can be cancelled in nothing
2. In what manner is this to be understood: “I willed to gather thy children together, and thou wouldst not”, and this: “He who wills all men to come to be saved”
3. Whether evils come to be done by God willing and/or nilling
4. In what manner is this saying of St. Augustine to be understood: “It is good that evils come to be”
5. On the multiple acceptation of the term “good”
6. That evils have value for the university of things
7. That the cause that man is worse, is not in God
47. Efficacy of the Divine Will
1. That the will of God regarding a man is fulfilled whithersoever he turns himself
2. In what sense certain things are said to be done “against” God’s will
3. For what reason did God command to all to do good and avoid evil, but does not will that this be fulfilled by all
48. Conformity of our Will to the Divine Will
1. That man sometimes with goodwill wills something other than God wills, and with bad-will sometimes wills the same which God wills
2. That God’s will is fulfilled through the evil wills of men
3. Whether it pleased holy men that Christ would suffer and die
4. Whether we ought to will the sufferings of the saints
.
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas
art. 4, ‘Whether God’s will is distinguished into the will that is his good pleasure and the will that is a sign?’ in Commentary on the Sentences, pt. 1, dist. 45, question 1, What the Will of God is
Summa, pt. 1, quest. 19, The Will of God
art. 11, ‘Whether the will of sign is to be distinguished in God’
art. 12, ‘Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the divine will?’
Disputed Questions, On Truth, question 23
art. 3, ‘Whether God’s will is fittingly divided by the will of good-pleasure and the will of sign?’
art. 7, ‘Whether we are bound to conform our will to the divine will?’
.
1300’s
Scotus, John Duns
Ordinatio, tr. Peter Simpson (2013 / 2023), bk. 1, dist. 26-48
46. Whether God’s will of good-pleasure is always fulfilled? 197
47. Whether divine permission is some act of the divine will? 198
48. Whether a created will is morally good whenever it conforms to the uncreated will? 200
.
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 1, 17. ‘Whether God be the Author of Sin’
‘Of the Will-Signified, and the Will Effectual’ 201
‘Another Discourse’ 205
.
1600’s
Maccovius, Johannes
A Theological Collection of all that which is Extant, including Theological Theses through Common Places in the Academy of Franeker (Franeker, 1641), First Part, Collection 1, ‘of Predestination’
Disputation 2, ‘Of the Will of Sign’, pp. 4-8
Rutherford, Samuel – 2. ‘What is the nature of the permissive will of God, and of the will of good pleasure and sign. The Remonstrants, Arminians are called to the discussion’ in A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence, chs. 1-10 tr. by AI by Onku (Edinburgh, 1649), pp. 11-20 Latin
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. Dennison Buy (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3rd Topic, ‘The Will of God’, 15th Question, ‘May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.’, pp. 220-26
“I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which He comprehends all things by a single and most simple act that He sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).
…
XVIII. There cannot be contrariety between these two wills because they do not will and nill the same thing in the same manner and respect…
…
XIX. Although God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to nill it by the beneplacit will, yet there is no contradiction here….”
.
1900’s
Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald – The One God: a Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas’s Theological Summa (Herder Book, 1943), ch. 19, The Will of God
11. Whether the will of expression is to be distinguished in God 588
12. Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the divine will 589-91
Garrigou-Langrange was an influential Thomist professor.
.
Quotes
Order of
Aquinas
Ames
Rutherford
Turretin
Howe
.
1200’s
Thomas Aquinas
Summa, pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11
“The will of God is one, since it is the very essence of God. Yet sometimes it is spoken of as many, as in the words of Ps. 110:2: ‘Great are the works of the Lord, sought out according to all His wills.’ Therefore sometimes the sign must be taken for the will…
Some things are said of God in their strict sense; others by metaphor, as appears from what has been said before (q. 13, art. 3). When certain human passions are predicated of the Godhead metaphorically, this is done because of a likeness in the effect. Hence a thing that is in us a sign of some passion, is signified metaphorically in God under the name of that passion… In the same way, what is usually with us an expression of will, is sometimes metaphorically called will in God; just as when anyone lays down a precept, it is a sign that he wishes that precept obeyed. Hence a divine precept is sometimes called by metaphor the will of God, as in the words: ‘Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven’ (Matt 6:10)… Therefore in God there are distinguished will in its proper sense, and will as attributed to Him by metaphor. Will in its proper sense is called the will of good pleasure; and will metaphorically taken is the will of expression [signi], inasmuch as the sign itself of will is called will…
Expressions [signa] of will are called divine wills, not as being signs that God wills anything; but because what in us is the usual expression [signa] of our will, is called the divine will in God. Thus punishment is not a sign that there is anger in God; but it is called anger in Him, from the fact that it is an expression [signum] of anger in ourselves.”
.
1600’s
William Ames
The Marrow of Theology (1997), bk. 1, ch. 7, p. 100
“53. Those means through which that will is revealed are the ‘intention of the sign’ [voluntas signi]–rightly so called not only by metaphor because they show men what they mean, but also by metonymy because they are the effects or adjuncts or partial declarations of God’s own will.
54. There are five signs included in that old verse: He instructs, forbids, permits, counsels, and fuliflls. Because counseling coincides with instruction, it would have been better to have substituted: He promises.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Apologetic Exercitations for Divine Grace, Exercitation 2, ch. 1, pp. 201-2
“Hence is that, Aquinas, Valentia, Durandus and Suarez† want the will of God divided thus: it is the will improperly and the division is by a homonym in homonyms, so that the will of sign is the will improperly. Thus Durand, on folio 13, ‘A command,’ he says, ‘is not directly and always a sign that the one commanding wants the thing commanded to be, but only that He wants to oblige the subject.’
† Aquinas, in pt. 2, q. 9, art. 11; Valentia, tome 1, disp. 1, q. 19, punc. 2; Durandus, bk. 1, dist. 48, q. 3; Suarez, tome 1, Of the Attributes of God, bk. 3, ch. 8.”
.
A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence (Edinburgh, 1649), Metaphysical Inquiries, p. 605 Trans. T. Fentiman. A ‘metonymy’ is something that is indirectly named by something closely related to it. Rutherford here delineates the eternal foundation of the will of sign, namely what Rollock had elucidated, the will of approval in God, which wills the goodness of things in and of themselves.
“[Margin note:] How far the will of sign may be a will
Question 33, Whether the will of sign may improperly and metonymically be the will of God?
Response: The will of sign, according as it designates what is the pleasing and acceptable revealed will of God to us, that which is of our duty, so it is called the approving will, contradistinguished from the will of good-pleasure [of decree], and refers to two things:
1. To that which we ought to believe or do, inasmuch as that is obliging of consciences, since we ought to will to please God and will the reward of obedience following.
2. It refers to obedience, and this so far as God displays that to us by an act, either through special grace or a common concursus.
The first will is of complacency and is properly called will, whose object is the duty of the rational creature. In this way God sincerely [serio] approves and wills obedience, and is pleased in this moral good as a rule and norm, and it is not less a will than that which is called of good-pleasure [or the will of decree].
But the latter way is not an executing will as the will of good-pleasure is, nor does God will, intend or decree through grace or concursus, to work in the creatures that which He commands or prohibits, because He commands or prohibits it.
And in this way the will of sign is so far improperly called ‘the will of sign’; indeed, the punishment is called the wrath of God, because assuredly God punishes that which is done, as men are accustomed to do such being angry and in the passion of wrath, being aroused and agitated, although nonetheless, passions do not occur in God.”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. Dennison Buy (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 3rd Topic, ‘The Will of God’, 15th Question, ‘May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.’, pp. 222, 224
“XX. The will of sign which is set forth as extrinsic ought to correspond with some internal will in God that it may not be false and deceptive; but that internal will is not the decree concerning the gift of salvation to this or that one, but the decree concerning the command of faith and promise of salvation if the man does not believe (which is founded both upon the connection established by God between faith and salvation and the internal disposition of God by which, as He loves Himself, He cannot but love his image wherever He sees it shining and is so much pleased with the faith and repentance of the creature as to grant it salvation).”
.
1700’s
John Howe
The Redeemer’s Tears Wept Over Lost Souls, in Works (d. 1705), vol. 2, pp. 358-361 on Lk. 19:41-42
“But when expressions that import anger, or grief, are used [Gen. 6:6; Jud. 10:16; Ps. 78:40; 95:10; etc.], even concerning God Himself, we must sever in our conception everything of imperfection, and ascribe everything of real perfection. We are not to think such expressions signify nothing, that they have no meaning, or that nothing at all is to be attributed to Him under them.
Nor are we, again, to think they signify the same thing with what we find in ourselves, and are wont to express by those names. In the divine nature, there may be real, and yet most serene complacency and displacency, viz. that are unaccompanied with the least commotion, and import nothing of imperfection, but perfection rather, as it is a perfection to apprehend things suitably to what in themselves they are. The holy Scriptures frequently speak of God as angry, and grieved for the sins of men, and their miseries which ensue therefrom: and a real aversion and dislike is signified thereby, and by many other expressions which, in us, would signify vehement agitations of affection that we are sure can have no place in Him. We ought, therefore, in our own thoughts to ascribe to Him that calm aversion of will, in reference to the sins and miseries of men in general…
….
so these expressions, though they signify not in God such unquiet motions and passions as they would in us, they do signify a mind and will, really, though with the most perfect calmness and tranquility, set against sin and the horrid consequences of it, which yet, for greater reasons than we can understand, He may not see fit to do all He can to prevent. And if we know not how to reconcile such a will in God, with some of our notions concerning the divine nature; shall we, for what we have thought of Him, deny what He has so expressly said of Himself, or pretend to understand his nature better than He Himself does?”
.
The Reconcileableness of God’s Prescience of the Sins of Men with the Wisdom and Sincerity of His Counsels, Exhortations, and Whatsoever Means He Uses to Prevent Them, Section 19, page 51-2
“It seems, I confess, by its more obvious aspect [in the term ‘will of sign’, which is often misunderstood], too much to countenance the ignominious slander which profane and atheistical dispositions would fasten on God, and the course of his procedure towards men; and which it is the design of these papers to evince of as much absurdity and folly, as it is guilty of impiety and wickedness: as though He only intended to seem willing of what He really was not; that there was an appearance to which nothing did subesse [exist under].
And then why is the latter called voluntas [will]? unless the meaning be, He did only will the sign; which is false and impious;”
.
The Redeemer’s Tears Wept Over Lost Souls, Appendix, “How God is said to Will the Salvation of them that Perish”, pp. 386-8
“Shall it be said that sin does not displease God; that He has no will against sin; it is not repugnant to his will? Yes; it is to his revealed will, to his law. But is that an untrue revelation? His law is not his will itself, but the signum [sign], the discovery of his will. Now, is it an insignificant sign? A sign that signifies nothing? Or to which there belongs no correspondent significatum [signification]? –nothing that is signified by it? Is that which is signified (for sure no one will say it signifies nothing) his real will, yea or no? Who can deny it? That will, then (and a most calm, sedate, impassionate will it must be understood to be), sin and consequently the consequent miseries of his creatures, are repugnant unto.
…
Therefore, it seems out of question, that the holy God does constantly and perpetually, in a true sense, will universal obedience, and the consequent felicity of all his creatures capable thereof; i.e. He does will it with simple complacency, as what were highly grateful to Him, simply considered by itself. Who can doubt, but that purity, holiness, blessedness, wheresoever they were to be beheld among his creatures, would be a pleasing and delightful spectacle to Him, being most agreeable to the perfect excellency, purity, and benignity of his own nature, and that their deformity and misery must be consequently unpleasing?”
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 5, ‘The Attributes of God’, section 25 in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Bizer (1950; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 85-88
“The former will [of command] is called by the [Medieval] Scholastics, on the authority, it is thought, of Hugh of St. Victor, voluntas signi, whether because it is signified by some sign, like a word, precept, interdict, etc.; or because it signifies God’s will as the effect and adjunct of it…” – p. 88
Muller, Richard – 1. “Voluntas beneplaciti and voluntas signi” in PRRD (Baker, 2003), vol. 3, ch. 5.4, Will and Freedom, E. The Ad Intra–Ad Extra Distinctions, pp. 457-59
.
Quotes
Richard Muller, PRRD, vol. 3 (Baker, 2003), Part 2, ch. 5.4, E., ‘The Ad Intra–Ad Extra Distinctions’, section 1
p. 458
“The term voluntas signi, literally, the will of the sign, is closely related to the term signum voluntatis, the sign of the will or purpose. It indicates an overt sign or indication that someone wills something and can therefore be understood as a revealed will or, specifically, as a revealed precept or ‘preceptive will’–thus, what is literally called the ‘signified will’ is a will that God makes known and in effect ‘signifies’ what is commanded… The voluntas signi, therefore, is not a ‘mere sign’ but one that corresponds with something that is truly in God.”
.
“In light of such problems, Leigh, Maccovius, and Twisse (very much following the tradition) indicate that the voluntas propositi or beneplaciti [proposed will or of good pleasure, i.e. the will of decree] alone is properly called the will of God, ‘which none can resist, Rom. 9:19,’ whereas the voluntas signi or commandment is only ‘improperly’ called God’s will… Baxter does agree with Twisse, however, that the commandments or signs of God are only improperly designated as the divine will.”
.
Latin Articles
1100’s
Lombard, Peter – Libri IV Sententiarum, vol. 1 (bks. 1-2) 2nd ed. (c. 1150; Florence: College of St. Bonaventura, 1916), bk. 1
45. God’s Will
1. On God’s will, which is God’s essence, and on its signs
2. That though for God it is the same to will as to be, yet God cannot be said to be all which He wills
3. On the understanding of these expressions: God knows, and/or God Wills”, “God knows all and/or wills something”
4. That God’s most highly good will is the cause of all which naturally are, the cause of which is not to be sought, because it is the first and most high cause of all
5. In what manners is (the term) God’s “will” accepted
6. That God’s preception, prohibition, permission, counsel, and operation are sometimes understood by the name of “will”
7. Whether God wills from all persons that to be done those things which He commands, and/or not to be done those things which He prohibits
46. Evil & the Efficacy of the Divine Will
1. That God’s will, which He Himself is, can be cancelled in nothing
2. In what manner is this to be understood: “I willed to gather thy children together, and thou wouldst not”, and this: “He who wills all men to come to be saved”
3. Whether evils come to be done by God willing and/or nilling
4. In what manner is this saying of St. Augustine to be understood: “It is good that evils come to be”
5. On the multiple acceptation of the term “good”
6. That evils have value for the university of things
7. That the cause that man is worse, is not in God
47. Efficacy of the Divine Will
1. That the will of God regarding a man is fulfilled whithersoever he turns himself
2. In what sense certain things are said to be done “against” God’s will
3. For what reason did God command to all to do good and avoid evil, but does not will that this be fulfilled by all
48. Conformity of our Will to the Divine Will
1. That man sometimes with goodwill wills something other than God wills, and with bad-will sometimes wills the same which God wills
2. That God’s will is fulfilled through the evil wills of men
3. Whether it pleased holy men that Christ would suffer and die
4. Whether we ought to will the sufferings of the saints
.
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas
art. 4, ‘Whether God’s will is distinguished into the will that is his good pleasure and the will that is a sign?’ in Commentary on the Sentences, pt. 1, dist. 45, question 1, What the Will of God is
Summa, pt. 1, quest. 19, The Will of God
art. 11, ‘Whether the will of sign is to be distinguished in God’
art. 12, ‘Whether five expressions of will are rightly assigned to the divine will?’
Disputed Questions, On Truth, question 23
art. 3, ‘Whether God’s will is fittingly divided by the will of good-pleasure and the will of sign?’
art. 7, ‘Whether we are bound to conform our will to the divine will?’
.
1300’s
Scotus, John Duns
All the Works new. ed. (Paris, 1891), vol. 10, Ordinatio, bk. 1 Detailed ToC
46th Distinction 762
47th Distinction 771
48th Distinction 777
pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11, ‘Whether the will of sign is to be distinguished in God?’ in Summa (Rome: Sallustiana, 1900), vol. 1, pp. 510-12
Scotus (c. 1265/66–1308) was a Scottish, Romanist priest and Franciscan friar, university professor, philosopher and theologian.
.
1500’s
Luther, Martin – Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard in D. Martin Luthers Werke (1510-1511; Weimar: Hermann Bohlau, 1893), vol. 9, bk. 1
Cajetan, Thomas – pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11, ‘Whether the will of sign is to be distinguished in God?’ in Commentary on the Summa (Lyra: Joseph van In, 1892), vol. 1, p. 219
Cajetan (1469–1534) was an Italian philosopher, theologian, a master of the Order of Preachers and cardinal from 1517 until his death. He is now best known as the spokesman for Romanist opposition to the teachings of Luther and the Protestant Reformation while he was the Pope’s legate in Augsburg.
Daneau, Lambert – A Threefold Commentary on the First Book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which is on the True God… (Geneva: Eustathius Vignon, 1580)
45. God’s Will
Lombard 702
4. 709
5. 711
6. 713
7. 714
Censure 715
46. Evil & the Efficacy of the Divine Will
Lombard 720
2. 731
3. 732
5. 733
6. 733
7. 735
9. 736
10. 737
12. 737
14. 738
Censure 738
47. Efficacy of the Divine Will
Lombard 741
1. 745
2. 746
Censure 747
48. Conformity of our Will to the Divine Will
Lombard 748
2. 753
3. 754
5. 754
Censure 755-57
Daneau (c. 1530 – c. 1590) was a French jurist and reformed theologian, who taught for a time in Leiden and other places.
.
1600’s
Suarez, Francis – bk. 3, ch. 8, ‘Of the will of sign and good-pleasure, and antecedent and consequent’ in Commentaries & Disputations on the First Part of Thomas the Divine, on God One & Three (Moguntia: Balthasar, Lippi, 1607), pp. 148-49
Suarez (1548-1617) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement.
Rutherford, Samuel
Exercise 2, ‘Of Notions of the Divine Will’, ch. 1, ‘Of God’s Revealed Will [Signi] and His Will of Good-pleasure’ in Apologetic Exercises for Divine Grace (Amsterdam, 1636; 1651), pp. 213-238
“From this, these things we posit, saying:
1. God seriously wills, that is, He loves, approves and by an act of complacency He lifts up for the obedience of reprobates, insofar as it is a good and holy thing, whether the obedience may come forth by the act, or not…
…
5. For God to intend and decree the death of a sinner, and for God not to delight in the death of a sinner, as He swears in Eze. 33:11, are in no way contradictions.” – p. 232-233
A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence (Edinburgh, 1649)
Metaphysical Inquiries
10 – Whether the Creator may be able to command something injurious to the creature [No], and what sort of right does God have in the creatures? 573
To what extent justice belongs to God essentially, and what follows. 584
Whether the Will of Sign is the Will of God improperly and metonymically? [Yes; Rutherford explains that the Approving will that lies behind it in God is properly called his will, though the communication directing that to the creature, by creaturely signs and commands, is not properly God’s will as God has not willed it to be in the event.] 605
Whether the act, or whether truly the lawlessness or malice of the act may be formally prohibited? 608
Whether God properly dispensed with the law when He commanded Abraham to slay his only begotten son? It is minimally true. 610
Whether the will of sign & the permitting will may coincide? 611
Concerning the conflict in God’s will as it is falsely imputed to our side, pp. 613-615
Salmanticenses (Antonio de la Madre de Dios) – pt. 1, q. 19, art. 11, ‘Whether the will of sign is to be distinguished in God?’ in A Theological Course new ed. (1637; Paris: 1876), vol. 2, p. 235
Salmanticenses. The work sought to maintain strict scholastic Thomism.
Trigland, Sr., Jacob – ‘Of the Will of Sign & of Good-Pleasure’, pp. 158-64 in Meditations of Jacob Trigland on Various Opinions on the Will of God & Universal Grace, where is yet something of Middle Knowledge (Leiden, 1642)
Trigland here affirms arguments of the Medieval Scholastics that the Will of Sign always externally signifies something of the internal will of God and his good-pleasure. He then gives counter arguments to those who deny such.
“Rightly therefore and truly we say those signs truly and properly are signs of the divine will.” – p. 163
Strang, John
Of the Will & Actions of God Surrounding Sin in Four Books: the Judgment of the Reformed Churches, especially of the Scottish, is humbly offered and with much pleasure submitted (1657)
bk. 1, The state of the controversy is explicated and some things are premitted which serve the coming disputation 1
6. Refutation of those who attribute to God a will of beneplacitum, according to the modes of beneplacitum and sign 34-43
Strang (1584-1654) was a Scottish minister and principal of Glasgow University. This work of his was an infralapsarian response to Rutherford’s Treatise on Providence (which cause him a bit of turmoil with the covenanters).
.
1700’s
Holtzfus, Barthold – in ch. 8, ‘Of the Will of God & of the Distinctions of the Divine Will’ in A Theological Tract on God, Attributes and the Divine Decrees, Three Academic Dissertations (1707), pp. 109-122
Thesis 7 on Good-Pleasure & Sign
.
.
.
Related Pages
Revealed Will vs. Will of Decree
Gospel Call as God’s Desire, Wish & Pleasure