.

Subsections

Middle Knowledge
Things could be Otherwise  1

.

.

Order of Contents

Bible Verses
Articles  5+
Quotes  4
Latin  8+
Historical
Hypothetical Goods & Evils

.

.

Bible Verses on Possibilities, Hypotheticals, Counter-Factuals & on God’s Dominion over Them & All Things Actual

Old Testament

Gen. 50:20  “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.”

Deut. 10:14  “Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.”

Ruth 2:3  “And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz, who was of the kindred of Elimelech.”

1 Sam. 2:7  “The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.”

1 Sam. 6:8-12

“And take the ark of the Lord, and lay it upon the cart…  and send it away, that it may go.  And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us: it was a chance that happened to us.

And the men did so; and took two milch kine, and tied them to the cart…  And the kine took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh…”

1 Sam. 23:10-14

“Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.  Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard?…

And the Lord said, He will come down.  Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?  And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. 

Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go.  And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.  And David abode in the wilderness in strong holds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph.  And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.”

2 Sam. 16:10  “And the king said…  so let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David.”

1 Kings 22:28, 34

“And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me…  So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramothgilead…

And a certain man drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness…  and the king was stayed up in his chariot against the Syrians, and died at even…”

2 Kings 8:13  “And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?  And Elisha answered, The Lord hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.”

1 Chron. 29:11-12, 14, 16

“Thine, O Lord is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all.  Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all…

But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee…

O Lord our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own.”

Job 1:10-12

“Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 

And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.  So Satan went forth…“

Ps. 15:5  “He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.”

Ps. 24:1  “The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”

Ps. 75:6-7  “For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.  But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.”

Ps. 76:10  “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.”

Ps. 89:12  “The north and the south thou hast created them:”

Ps. 115:16  “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord‘s;”

Ps. 135:6  “Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.”

Prov. 16:4  “The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

Prov. 16:33  “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.”

Prov. 21:1  “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.”

Eccl. 5:19  “Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Isa. 10:5-7  “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.  I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.  Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.”

Dan. 4:35  “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

.

New Testament

Mt. 3:9  ” for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”

Mt. 6:10  “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”

Mt. 10:29-31  “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.  Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

Mt. 11:21-24

“Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.  But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.”

Mt. 19:26  “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

Mt. 26:42  “and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.”

Lk. 22:42  “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”

Acts 4:27-28  “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

Acts 15:18  “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Acts 17:25-26  “Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 27:30-31  “And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea…  Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.”

Rom. 4:17  “even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”

Rom. 8:28  “all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

Rom. 9:11  “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Rom. 9:16  “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Rom. 11:26  “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:”

Rom. 11:34-36  “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?  Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?  For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

Eph. 1:11  “…being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:”

James 4:13-15  “Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”

Rev. 4:11  “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

.

.

Articles

Medieval

Aquinas, Thomas

Summa, Part 1, Question 25, ‘The Power of God’

Article 2, ‘Whether his Power is Infinite?’
Article 3, ‘Whether He is Almighty?’
Article 4, Whether He could make the Past not to have been?’ [No]
Article 5, ‘Whether He could do what He does not, or not do what He does?’
Article 6, ‘Whether what He makes He could make better?’

.

1600’s

Voetius, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1, pt. 1  tr. by AI by Onku  (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648)  Latin

On the Power of God & on the Possible & Impossible, pt. 1  361
.       pt. 2  367
.       pt. 3  375
.       pt. 4  385-396

Charnock, Stephen –

Turretin, Francis – on the Absolute Power of God

Wishart, William – Discourse 6, ‘Of the Power of God’  ToC  in Theologia: or Discourses of God, delivered in 120 Sermons, vol. 1  (d. 1729), pp. 197-243

Wishart (1660-1729) was an influential Church of Scotland minister, professor and principal of Edinburgh University.  His work is similar to Charnock’s work.

.

1700’s

Witsius, Herman – ‘Vain Dreamers & Their Imaginary Worlds; or, the Lies of Lucian, Johannes Kepler & Other Raving Madmen, Exposed’  being Dissertation 8, sections 74-87  of Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed

Stapfer, Johann F. – ‘On the Attributes Dependent upon the Divine Intellect [on God as the Source of Possibility]’  in Universal Institutes of Polemical Theology, vol. 1  4th ed. (1757), section 3, propositions 321-70, pp. 78-90  trans. AI at Reformed Sources  Latin

Stapfer (1708-1775) was a Swiss reformed professor at Bern.

“§CCCXXII.  God, in knowing Himself, also knows whatever involves no contradiction, that is, what is possible in itself; for that is called possible which involves no contradiction.

§CCCXXIII. Things are therefore possible because God represents to Himself in His intellect that they involve no contradiction; consequently, something is possible because God represents it to Himself in His intellect as such.

§CCCXXIV. Hence it is evident that all possibility of things is from God, and that His intellect is the fountain or root of all possibility.”

De Moor, Bernhardinus – Didactic-Elencitc Theology: A Continuous Commentary on the Compendium of Johannes Marck…  (Leiden: Hasebroek, 1763)

ch. 4, ‘On God’

36. ‘God’s Knowledge of All Things Possible & of All Universals & Particulars’
36. God’s Knowledge of Free & Contingent Futures
36. The Socinian Denial of God’s Knowledge of Free & Contingent Futures
36. Remonstrant Hesitation concerning God’s Knowledge of Free and Contingent Futures
36. Answering Objections to God’s Knowledge of Free & Contingent Futures, pt. 1, 2, 3
37. ‘Defense of God’s Knowledge of Vision & of Simple Intelligence’

ch. 6, ‘On the Decrees’

7. ‘The Liberty of the Divine Decrees’
…
15. Connection of All Things
16. Things Possible, but not Future
17. Chief End of the Decree

ch. 7, ‘On Predestination’

8. ‘The Liberty of Predestination’

.

1900’s

Wolter, Allan B. – ‘On Actual & Possible Being’ & ‘On the Origin of Possibles’  in Little Summary of Metaphysics  (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1958), pp. 54-55

Wolter was a Scotist.

.

.

Quotes

Order of

Essenius
Leydekker
Muller

.

1600’s

1600’s

Andreas Essenius

‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’  Download  tr. Jonathan Tomes  (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653), Appendix  Latin

“I. Should the root of all possibility and impossibility be rightly established in God Himself?  Affirmative.”

.

Melchior Leydekker

Fax veritatis seu exercitationes ad nonnullas controversias quae hodie in Blegio…  (Leiden: Gaesbeeck & Lopex, 1677), pp. 242-46  tr. Aza Goudriaan, ch. 8, ‘Samuel Rutherford on the Divine Origin of Possibility’ in ed. Aaron C. Denlinger – Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology, 1560-1775  (Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2016), pt. 2, p. 154  Leydekker followed Rutherford on the subject.

“1) A thing is possible because God is able to produce it.  It is not, conversely, because it is possible that God is able to produce it.  This is proved by God’s priority and independence.

2) Intrinsic possibility is not prior in nature to extrinsic possibility, nor is it the cause of the latter.  On the contrary, since a thing can possibly be made by the truly and infinitely powerful God Himself, the source of all being, for that reason [the thing] is also intrinsically possible because the essence of God is the root and rule of all truth.”

.

2000’s

Richard Muller

Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms (Baker, 1985), p. 231

“potentia absoluta: absolute power; the omnipotence of God limited only be the law of noncontradiction.  According to his potentia absoluta, God can effect all possibility, constrained only by his own nature.  Things which are by nature evil and either impossible or noncompossible things (like square circles) fall outside of the realm of God’s power.  The term emphasizes the transcendence and omnipotence of God by setting God even above and beyond the laws he has ordained for the operation of his universe…”

.

.

Latin Articles

1300’s

Bradwardine, Thomas – Of the Cause of God

“While Rutherford in questions one to seven of his ‘Disuisitiones metaphysicae’ quoted Bradwardine without expressing any criticism, Leydekker distanced himself from what he considered to be Bradwardine’s voluntarism.  According to Leydekker, Bradwardine grounded impossibility in the will of God.  Leydekker preferred instead to view the power of God, not His will, as the foundation of possibility and impossibility…  Voetius had been more cautious about ascribing a voluntarist position to Bradwardine.”

.

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert

Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1  (Utrecht, 1648)

22. ‘Of the Power [Potentia] of God, & of Possibility & Impossibility’  402
23. Of the Same, Part 2  410
24. Of the Same, Part 3  410
25. Of the Same, Part 4  422

Rutherford, Samuel

A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence   (Edinburgh, 1649)

ch. 14, The reasons in favor of Middle Knowledge which are poorly understood from the Scriptures by the Jesuit François Annat, opponent of Doctor William Twisse, are explained. That matters move from the state of possibilities to the state of futurition only by means of the will of God from eternity; that created will is not the cause of secret and most high Election and Reprobation; and that the matter is not explained by means of a Middle Knowledge.  164

Metaphysical Inquiries

1 – Whether being is directly prior to non-being?  531

2 – Whether God is the Ruling cause of being and non-being?  532

3 – Whether God is the origin and cause of possibility and impossibility?  538

4 – Whether anything is impossible outside the extent it is originally impossible with God?  540

5 – Whether, from an hypothesis that there was no first cause, possibility or impossibility would therefore have existed in the nature of things?  545

6 – Whether a possibility is a reality?  557

7 – By what knowledge and will God lays hold on possibilities?  559

.

Strang, John – Book 1, ch. 13, ‘Whether All Moral Good & Evil is from the Free Will & Constitution of God?’  in Of the Will & Actions of God about Sin, in 4 Books: the Judgment of the Reformed Churches, especially of Scotland, humbly offered & most willingly submitted  (Amsterdam, 1657), pp. 81-97

“…Strang [on p. 88] quoted Rutherford’s ‘Disquisitiones metaphysicae’.  He commended Rutherford for having stated that there are certain things God cannot will because they are incompatible with His nature.  He added a significant caveat, however, saying that Rutherford had added some other remarks that seemed to undermine his own claim, although Strang wished to interpret them as being consistent with what Rutherford had said before.” – Goudriaan, ‘Rutherford on the Divine Origin of Possibility’ in ed. Denlinger, Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland, p. 152

Burman, Francis

A Synopsis of Theology, and especially of the Economy of the Covenant of God, from the beginning of ages to the consummation of all things, vol. 1  (Utrecht, 1671), Book 1, Locus 2

ch. 21, ‘Of the Intellect & Knowledge [Scientia] of God’, Theses 19-24

ch. 25, ‘Of the Omnipotence of God’, Theses 8-10

Burman (1628-79) was a Dutch, reformed, Cartesian theologian.

Wittich, Christoph – Ch. 14, Theses 199-205  in Peace-Making Theology, in which various theological problems that are commonly brought up between Reformed Theologians are Ventilated, while the [Helpful] Use of Cartesian Philosophy in Diverse Parts of Theology is Demonstrated, & the Dissertation on the Abuse of Cartesian Philosophy in the Things of Theology & Faith by Samuel Maresius is Modestly Responded to  (Doude, 1671; Leiden, 1675)

Wittich (1625-1687) was a Dutch, reformed, Cartesian theologian.

Leydekker, Melchior – Locus 5, Controversy 4, ‘Whether the Root & Foundation of Possibility is in the Decree of God & Will, or in his Omnipotence?  We deny the former & affirm the latter.’  in The Torch of Truth, or Theological-Philosophical Exercises on Some Controversies that are this day greatly moved in Belgium; Prefixed is a Preface on the State of the Belgic Church, & Appended is a dissertation on the Providence of God  (Leiden, 1677), pp. 242-47

This work intended to espouse “common reformed positions over against the innovations of Cartesian and Cocceian theology.”  Leydekker mentions on p. 242 Francis Burman and Christopher Wittich as Cartesian theologians who posited a voluntarist view of possibility.  Leydekker positively references Rutherford’s Treatise on Providence, p. 538, on p. 243.  A reformed Cartesian minister, Petrus Allinga, below, responded to this work of Leydekker.

“The Jesuits, he [Leydekker] writes, typically locate the ‘root of the possibility or impossibility of things outside of God’, in the things themselves that involve no contradiction…  Leydekker summarizes the reformed response to the Jesuits, which grounds both the possible and the impossible in God, in two points:

‘1) A thing is possible because God is able to produce it.  It is not, conversely, because it is possible that God is able to produce it.  This is proved by God’s priority and independence.

2) Intrinsic possibility is not prior in nature to extrinsic possibility, nor is it the cause of the latter.  On the contrary, since a thing can possibly be made by the truly and infinitely powerful God Himself, the source of all being, for that reason [the thing] is also intrinsically possible because the essence of God is the root and rule of all truth.’ [p. 243]” – Goudriaan, ‘Rutherford on the Divine Origin of Possibility’ in ed. Denlinger, Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland, p. 154

Allinga, Petrus – ch. 44, ‘Of the Distinction of Possibility & the Future’ & ch. 45, ‘Of the Root of the Possibility of Everything that is not God’  in The Torch of Disagreement Extinguished, or Pacifying Exercises on Some Problematic Questions which are now being greatly moved in Belgium  (Amsterdam, 1682), pp. 105-8

Allinga (1658-1692) was a Cartesian, reformed, Dutch minister, who is responding in this work to Leydekker above.

.

1700’s

Wolff, Christian – §192-94, pp. 167-68  in Natural Theology  (Frankfurt: 1739), vol. 1, pt. 1, ch. 2

.

.

Historical Theology

On the Medieval Age

Articles

Wolter, Allan – ‘Ockham & the Textbooks: on the Origin of Possibility’  Franziskanische Studien xxxii (1950), p. 90 ff.

Leff, Gordon – Bradwardine & the Pelagians  (Cambrdge Studies in Medieval Life & Thought, New Series, vol. 5) (rep. 2008; Cambridge, 1957), pt. 2

ch. 8, ‘The Pelagians’, pp. 130-39
ch. 13, ‘The Disputes & After’, pp. 256-57

Bradwardine (c.1290-1349) was a favorite of Rutherford.  Leff, in giving background to Bradwardine’s, Of the Cause of God, describes Bradwardine’s semi-pelagian opponents and their view that God’s absolute power allowed Him to act, or possibly act, against reason, opening up all manner of skepticism.

While Bradwardine does not specifically name his opponents from his own day, Leff indicates that the following may have been among them: Durandus, Ockham, Aureole, Holcot, Buckingham & Woodham.

Frost, Gloria Ruth – ‘Thomas Bradwardine on God & the Foundations of Modality’  in British Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (2013), pp. 368-80

Bradwardine’s view is very similar to Rutherford’s, the latter drawing on the former.

“rather than basing possibility and impossibility on repugnance and non-repugnance to being as such, Bradwardine based it on repugnance and non-repugnance to necessary being…  while Bradwardine thought that God was the ontological source of necessity, possibility and impossibility, he did not think that God freely decided the modal status of propositions.” – p. 378

.

On the 1600’s

On Rutherford

ed. Aaron C. Denlinger – Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology, 1560-1775  (Bloomsbury, T&T Clark, 2016), pt. 2

Burton, Simon J.G., ch. 7, ‘Samuel Rutherford’s Euthyphro Dilemma: A Reformed Perspective on the Scholastic Natural Law Tradition’, pp. 123-40

The Euthyphro dilemma is a philosophical problem that appears in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro.  Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”  Does God will something because it is right and good, or is it right and good because God wills it?  A third option is that rightness and goodness are aspects of God’s nature and therefore He always acts consistently with this, those things telling us something about God’s nature.  However, there are more qualified options.

Other theologians who dealt with this issue were:

John Strang, De voluntate et actionibus Dei circa peccatum, p. 88
John Brown of Wamphray, De causa Dei contra Antisabbatarios, p. 27
Voet

“For Rutherford if something is essentially good it cannot be said also to be freely good.  This is because everything that God freely decrees he is also able not to decree.” – p. 129

“Rutherford’s position is that God by creating rational creatures…  at once creates the common principles of the natural law.  Since they are part of the very constitution of the rational creature these are unable to be effaced…  However, taking up Menchaca’s own Ockhamist position, Rutherford agrees that it would have been quite possible for God to have created another species of rational creature distinct from man to whom he gave a diverse natural law…

Rutherford’s position is that the love of God and the subjection of the creature to the Creator is an essential part of any kind of natural law.  Rutherford therefore concurs with the prominent Dutch Reformed theologian Gisbertus Voetius that the dependency of the rational creature on its Creator in morality and in order to right reason is so necessary that its opposite implies a contradiction…  this law…  is immutable and antecedent to every act of the divine will [stemming from the divine nature], forming the cornerstone of the natural law.  What is left open to the divine decree is simply to select whether a particular act or its omission should be considered as due subjection and obedience to God, or not.  Thus while the divine will establishes the moral status of a complex act, it always does so against the backdrop of God’s own nature.” – pp. 132-33

“Rutherford states quite explicitly that it was Bradwardine who provided him with the solution to the philosophical conundrum of the ground of ethics…  Bradwardine offered a subtler threefold division…

Bradwardine’s basic distinction was between things which are reaonable naturally prior to the divine will, things which are reasonable naturally posterior to the divine will, and things which are said to be mixed.  Within the first category are contained necessary truths about God, such as his being and goodness, which obtain prior to any act of his will…  they are able to move the divine will.

Within the second category are contained things which are reasonable posterior to God’s will, and which depend on God’s will for their reasonable status.  These are therefore said to be caused by the divine will and can in no way move or determine it…  Bradward likens it to the situation of someone choosing between two equal alternatives.  For when someone chooses one of these, we say that this was a rational choice even though he could have also chosen the other.

Within the third category are included reasonable things which are said to be conditionally rather than absolutely necessary.  Thus while they do not themselves obtain naturally prior to the divine will, their reasonable status is crucially founded on truths which do obtain in this way…  the creature’s duty to love and obey God.  For althought the creature’s existence is dependent on the divine will, with the supposition that this creature is in existence it is absolutely reasonable that he should love and obey God and indeed this reasonable status cannot be changed even by God himself…  Rutherford therefore had no difficulty transposing this into his own theory of moral complexes.” – pp. 134-35

“In summary, for [John] Cameron, as for Aquinas, the fundamental core of ethics chiefly concerned immanent structures of divine rationality.  By contrast, for Rutherford, ethics was grounded in both human self-denial and subjection to God and the higher, transcendent and ultimately inscrutable rationality of the divine will.” – p. 138

Goudriaan, Aza, ch. 8, ‘Samuel Rutherford on the Divine Origin of Possibility’, pp. 141-56

This article survey’s Rutherford’s view of possibility from the first seven questions of his Metaphysical Investigations, appended to his Treatise on Providence.

“Therefore God will be prior to all possibilities. – Rutherford” – p. 142

“Rutherford argues that God’s being is the first principle of all things.  Accordingly, he corrects Aristotle who had famously established the law of non-contradiction as the first of principles…  He notes that Aristotle had stated elsewhere that being precedes non-being, and that the affirmative precedes the negative…  Rutherford argues, the law of non-contradiction cannot be the very first principle.  The law of non-contradiction is complex, not simple, and it involves the concept of being as well as the concept of non-being…

God’s existence is prior to the law of non-contradiction…  Possibilia are grounded in God’s omnipotence.  God likewise becomes the

‘Lord of impossibilities, by creating the specific forms of things from which incompossibilities result…  all possibilia are possible because God is omnipotent; God is not, conversely, omnipotent because they [i.e. the possibilia] are in themselves and intrinsically possible’.

The Lordship of God concerns both created beings and that which is not created; this Rutherford considers to be expressed in several biblical passages. (Disputatio, pp. 532-3, citing 1 Chron. 29:11-12, 14, 16; Deut. 10:14; Ps. 24:1; 15:5; 89:12; 115:16; Rom. 11:26; Prov. 16:4; Rev. 4:11.)” – pp. 142-43

“The impossible, as a contradiction between two different [more simple] forms, is posterior to the possible…  impossibility in the created realm is always complex…  ‘every simple being can be created’ by God.  Moreover, in a simple being ‘there are no two things of which one can be predicated of the other, there can be no affirmation of impossibility, no falsity, no negation, and therefore no incompossibility’.” – p. 144

“Rutherford addresses…  ‘whether possibilia are something real’.  They are not…  since they are just called ‘possible’ by a merely external reference to God’s omnipotence.” – p. 145

“he admits that propositions attributing essential predicates to a thing are necessarily true, and in this sense are ‘always’ true or true ‘abstracted from time’.” – p. 146

“[Rutherford says:] Nothing intelligible precedes in the proper sense the intellect of God…  There is no purely speculative knowledge in God that is separated from all praxis.” – p. 147

“As far as God’s will is concerned, ‘by loving his omnipotence, God necessarily also loves the initinite possibilia within.'” – p. 147

“Henry of Ghent, John Duns Scotus and Thomas Bradwardine had stated a few centuries earlier.  They explained the impossibility of something by the impossibility for God to do that thing.” – p. 149

.

.

On Hypothetical Goods & Evils

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Practical Theology  (RHB), vol. 2, bk. 2, ch. 15, section 17

“But this negative will in God is nothing other than that act of the will by which, most perfectly willing himself, he is averse to everything adverse to him and to his glory, which is the only end of all things…  He does this so thoroughly, that by most perfectly willing his own goodness, he is also most perfectly averse to whatever is adverse to him…

Thus, God’s negative will is occupied with what is evil in its own nature, not only because it is adverse to the norm of acting set before it by God, but also [insofar as it has not been decreed] because it could not be directed by the power of the creatures to a truly good end…  Even if an evil does not exist, or never will, God is still adverse to it, as it is inimical to his nature, since he would abolish and destroy it if it existed, just as he loves a good that will never exist, because, as it is congruent to his own goodness, if it existed he would conserve it, cherish it, and so forth.”

.

.

.

Related Pages