“Behold, I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive Him: on the left hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold Him: He hideth Himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him: but He knoweth the way that I take: when He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.”
Job 23:8-10
“Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass.”
Ps. 37:5
“What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.”
Jn. 13:7
.
.
Subsections
Conservation
Reformed Freedom of Choice vs. Determinism
Concurrence, Secondary Causes & Occasionalism
Reformed vs. Aquinas
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 32+
Books 3
Quotes 4
Latin 6+
Historical 4
Rutherford’s Propositions
Can’t Move Apart from God’s Will 1
Physical Pre-Motion 2
Romanist Views 2
Submitting to Providence 2
Portents 5+
.
.
Articles
See also ‘Expositions of the Lord’s Prayer’ on the 4th and 6th Petitions.
.
Medieval
Aquinas, Thomas – A Compendium of Theology
ch. 129, ‘Movement of Man’s Will by God’
ch. 131, ‘Immediate Disposing of All Things by God’
.
Anthology of the Post-Reformation
Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 12, ‘Providence’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 251-81
Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.
.
1500’s
Calvin, John
Canon 6 in Antidote to the Canons of the Council of Trent in Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (1547)
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. 1, bk. 1
16. ‘The World, created by God, still cherished and protected by Him. Each and all of its parts governed by his Providence’ 230
17. ‘Use to be made of this Doctrine’ 246
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
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583)
pt. 1
16. ‘Of the Providence of God’ 167
‘Of three sorts of Gods working about his creatures’ in 17. ‘Whether God be the Author of Sin’ 181-201
Discourses
’Of Providence & Predestination’ 129-31
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
Sundry judgments of the providence of God 424.a
What providence is 425.b
Which be the kinds of providence 426.a
The providence of Creation 426.a
Of conservation 426.b
The providence of governance and rule 428.a
That we must not abuse the doctrine of God’s providence 430.a
How the providence of God does agree with hap and chance 432.b
Beza, Theodore
Ch. 1, 3. Of the Eternal Providence of God in A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565)
pp. 59-75 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573)
The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith
6. Of the Providence of God 7-8
The Summary of the Christian Doctrine, set forth in Form of Dialogue & of Catechism
Of the Creation of the World & of the Providence of God
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
Olevian, Caspar – An Exposition of the Apostle’s Creed (London, 1581), pt. 1
Five chief points of the doctrine of God’s providence
The first point of doctrine concerning Gods providence
Is God therefore the Author of sin?
Arguments taken out of the New Testament, whereby it is plainly showed that God does so work, that He remains void of sin
The second point of doctrine concerning the providence of God
The third point of doctrine concerning God’s providence
The fourth point of doctrine concerning God’s providence
The fifth point of doctrine concerning God’s providence
The first use, or fruit of that doctrine concerning the providence of God
The second fruit
The last fruit of the doctrine concerning the providence of God
Olevian (1536–1587) was a significant German reformed theologian, and has been said to be a co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism along with Zacharias Ursinus (though this has been questioned).
Ursinus, Zachary
The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587)
Of God’s Providence
1. Whether there be any Providence of God
The reasons drawn from the works or effects of God, for proof of his providence
Reasons drawn from the properties or nature of God
2. What the Providence of God is
1st Sophism: Of confusions and things disordered in nature
2nd Sophism: Of the cause of sin
3rd Sophism: Of contradictory wills
4th Sophism: Of Contingency and liberty or freeness
5th Sophism: Of the futility or unprofitableness of means
6th Sophism: Of the merit of good & evil
3. Why the knowledge of this doctrine concerning God’s providence is necessary
9. Of God’s Providence in Rules & Axioms of Certain Chief Points of Christianity in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
That Providence does not Derogate from Prayer in A Collection of Certain Learned Discourses… (Oxford, 1600)
Zanchi, Girolamo
Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599)
ch. 6, ’Of Providence & Government of the World’ 26-31
‘Certain Propositions’, ‘Of God’s Providence’ 384-87
The Discourse touching the blinding of the Wicked, consists of these Propositions in 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)
Finch, Henry – 5. Of his General Government of the World in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 3
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 10. ‘Of God’s Providence’ 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. 17-19
Perkins, William – ‘Gods Providence’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 91
Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.
Zanchi, Jerome – Of God’s Providence, Year 1576 in H. Zanchius his Confession of Christian Religion… (1599), pp. 384-6
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – 14. ‘Of the Government of the World, or of God’s Providence’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 139-54
Has God so thus left his workmanship whereby He has made all things, as a builder leaves his house when he has built it?
By what name is the government of the world called?
How many parts be there of God’s providence?
Why is God said to govern all things wisely, freely, powerfully and well?
How many sorts are there of God’s providence?
What is the universal providence?
Whence prove you this universal providence of God?
What is God’s special providence?
Show me some testimonies of this particular providence concerning all creatures?
Paul has this speech, 1 Cor. 9:9, ‘Does God take care of oxen?’ Does he in these words exclude them from the providence of God?
Seeing all things are ruled by the providence and appointment of God, whence comes such confusion and disorder in the world that for the most part it goes well with the wicked and ill with the good?
There is no doubt but all the actions of the godly are directed by God, but does God also work in the hearts of the wicked (as Augustine speaks in the book of Grace and Freewill) and does He decree and govern their works?
But do we not make God the author of evil by this means?
But are not they which commit evil deeds excused hereby?
Were it not better to refer these things to prescience, whereby God foreknows all things indeed before they come to pass, but does not decree them?
Is it true therefore that God wills not iniquity, Ps. 5:5?
Are there granted two contrary wills in God, when by his secret will He is said to govern and rule those things which, notwithstanding, He forbids openly in his law?
Do all things come to pass by the providence of God, as all contingency and fortune is taken away?
How does this necessity differ from the Stoics’ Fate?
Does nothing come to pass by chance or fortune?
Is not free-will taken away by this unchangeable providence of God and administration of all things?
Do not these places of Scripture seem to make against Gods providence, where it is said it repented God, Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11, and those abrogations of his decrees which are recorded, Jn. 3:4,10; Isa. 38:1,5?
Is it not unseemly for the highest Majesty of God to abase itself, even to take care of these lowest things?
What is the peculiar providence of God?
Show me some testimonies of this?
Does God govern all things by Himself alone without means, or by means and second causes?
Why does God ordinarily use middle or second causes, seeing He can do all things by Himself without means?
If therefore the determination of God be unchangeable, and all things come to pass infallibly by the counsel and will of God, is there any place left for our deliberations, counsels, commands, prayers, teaching, cautions and endeavors?
But why does He use no means at some times?
What is the use of this doctrine?
What things are opposite to the providence of God?
Alsted, Johann H.
7. ‘Providence of God’ in 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, pp. 24-26 Latin
6. ‘Providence’ in chs. 4-12, pp. 12-25 in Scholastic-Didactic Theology: exhibiting Common Places by a Scholastic Method tr. by AI by Nosferatu Ref (Conrad Eifrid, 1618)
Ames, William – The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 1
ch. 9, ‘Providence’, pp. 107-10
ch. 10, ‘Special Government of Intelligent Creatures’, pp. 110-113
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.
Rivet, Andrew – 11. ‘On the Providence of God’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 260-84
Wolleb, Johannes – 6. ‘The Actual Providence of God’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 58-61
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology 3rd ed. (1634)
Outline
Doctrine of Providence, pt. 1, 2, 3
Wendelin (1584-1652)
Maccovius, Johannes – ch. 8, ‘On Providence’ in Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological & Philosophical Distinctions & Rules (1644; Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009), pp. 167-77
Maccovius (1588–1644) was a reformed, supralapsarian Polish theologian.
Hoornbeek, Johannes – ‘Theological Disputation on the Efficacy of God’s Providence in Relation to Evil’ tr. by AI by Nosferatu (Utrecht: Johann a Waesberge) 6 pp. Latin
Leigh, Edward – ch. 9. Of God’s Providence in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 3, pp. 295-303
Rijssen, Leonard – ch. 8, ‘Providence’ in A Complete Summary of Elenctic Theology & of as Much Didactic Theology as is Necessary tr. J. Wesley White MTh thesis (Bern, 1676; GPTS, 2009), pp. 77-82
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, 6th Topic
1. ‘Is there a providence? We affirm.’ 489
2. ‘Is the providence of God rightly called ‘fate,’ and is a fatal necessity properly ascribed to it? We distinguish.’ 494
3. ‘Do all things come under providence—small as well as great, contingent and free, natural and necessary? We affirm.’ 497
4. ‘Is providence occupied only in the conservation and sustentation of things; or also in their government (through which God Himself acts and efficaciously concurs with them by a concourse not general and indifferent, but particular, specific and immediate)? We deny the former and affirm the latter, against the Jesuits, Socinians and Remonstrants.’ 501
5. ‘Does God concur with second causes not only by a particular and simultaneous, but also by a previous concourse? We affirm.’ 505
6. ‘How can the concourse of God be reconciled with the contingency and liberty of second causes—especially of the will of man.’ 511
7. ‘Do sins fall under providence, and how is it applied to them?’ 515
8. ‘Whether it follows and can be elicited by legitimate consequence from our doctrine that we make God the author of sin. We deny against the Romanists, Socinians, Remonstrants and Lutherans.’ 528
9. ‘Is there a use and abuse of the doctrine of providence?’ 535
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 3, pt. 1, bk. 3
ch. 10, ‘The General Providence of God’ 309
ch. 11, ‘Special Providence’ 349-68
Heidegger, Johann H. – 7. ‘On the Providence of God’ in The Concise Marrow of Theology tr. Casey Carmichael in Classic Reformed Theology, vol. 4 (1697; RHB, 2019), pp. 49-55
.
1700’s
à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 11, ‘The Providence of God’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 331-55
a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.
Turretin, Jean-Alphonse – Dissertations on Natural Theology tr. William Crawford Ref (Belfast: Magee, 1777)
4. Providence of God according to Nature’s Light 140
5. Vindication of Divine Providence according to Nature’s Light 167
6. Manner of Divine Providence according to the Nature’s Light 212-29
Venema, Herman – Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850)
24. Providence of God(Defined, Doctrines of Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotelians, Platonists, Proved from God’s Nature, Nature of Things, Conscience, Experience, Objects of Providence, All Existing Things, Manner of Preservation: Internal & External, Opinions, Things in Motion, Manner God Influences These, Miracles, Men, their Condition & Free Actions) 395
25. Providence of God(Moral Providence, God as Teacher, Lawgiver & Judge, Providence regarding Men’s Free Actions, Concursus, Extremes to be Avoided, Considered Practically, Objections Answered) 409
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 – 12. ‘Providence’ in God, Creation & Human Rebellion: Lecture Notes of Archibald Alexander from the Hand of Charles Hodge (1818; RBO, 2023), pp. 141-60
Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 7, ‘Providence’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 1, pp. 193-212
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – ‘Providence’ in Systematic Theology (1949) 32 paragraphs
.
.
Books
1500’s
Zwingli, Ulrich – Zwingli on Providence & Other Essays ed. William J. Hinke Buy (NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1983) 300 pp. ToC
Calvin on Secret Providence trans. James Lillie (NY: 1840) 125 pp. ToC Note that the chapter titles are false accusations against Calvin.
.
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence, chs. 1-10 tr. by AI by Onku (Edinburgh, 1649) 102 pp. Full ToC Latin
1. What the providence of God is 1
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 11
3. On the new figment of middle knowledge 20
4. That middle knowledge overthrows the dominion of
God 33
5. The arguments of Diego Ruiz, Fasolus, Petrus de Arubal, Pesantius, and others contending for middle knowledge are drawn to the discussion 47
6. On the nature of permission 62
7. 1. Whether Permission is bare non-violence, or non-necessitation of the will, as the Jesuits, Pennottus, Pesantius, Ruiz, Arminians want. 2. Whether permission and impedition of sin are done by God only in a persuasive way? 67
8. Whether sin necessarily follows from permission 72
9. Whether the permission of sin is absolute and depending on the free good pleasure of God, or conditional relying on the determination of the created will causing that permission. Gabriel Pennottus, Ruiz, Smising, Arminius and others
are invoked for their part 79
10. Whether some Christian fate is to be admitted, although we shudder at the term 85-98
Flavel, John – Divine Conduct, or the Mystery of Providence, wherein the Being & Efficacy of Providence is Asserted & Vindicated: the Methods of Providence as it Passes through the Several Stages of our Lives Opened: & the Proper Course of Improving All Providences, Directed in a Treatise upon Psalm 57:2 (London, 1678) Index This is also in Flavel’s Works, vol. 4
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Hoornbeek
Baxter
Ryle
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutheford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 21
“Many things are ascribed to God only, by reason of a special and admirable act of providence — as the saving of the world by Christ, the giving of Canaan to Israel, the bringing his people out from Egypt and from Chaldee, the sending of the gospel to both Jew and Gentile, etc.; but, shall we say that God did none of these things by the ministry of men, and weak and frail men?”
.
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), Appendix, ‘An Introduction to the Doctrine of Scandal’, Question 6, pp.
81–82
“God places acts of providential necessity as emergent significations of his approving will, which are so to us in place of a divine commandment of God’s revealed will, and these providential acts of necessity do no less oblige us to moral obedience than any of the express written commandments of God.”
.
Johannes Hoornbeek
‘Theological Disputation on Faith’ tr. Onku with AI (Leiden: Johann Elsevir, 1661), Things Annexed Latin
“6. Secondary causes are aroused to act by divine providence, applied to a certain object, ordered to a certain end.”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology (London: White, 1675), sect. 3, ‘The several inadequate conceptions which in order make up our knowledge of God’, p. 5
“31. VI. God’s causal relations to his creatures are in general those named by St. Paul, Romans 11:36: “Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things.” And he is:
1. The first efficient,
2. The supreme dirigent,
3. The ultimate final cause of all things.
32. God’s efficiency is terminated: 1. On the things in their being, 2. In their action and operation.
1. And in the first respect he is the cause:
1. Of their existing essence, 2. Of their order, 3. Of their goodness or perfection. And so he is, 1. The Creator and conserver, 2. The ordinator, 3. The benefactor of all the world.
And in the second respect (as to action) he is:
1. The actor or motor of all things (by his active power);
2. The governor of all (according to their several natures) (by his wisdom);
3. The perfecter of all things in their attaining or fruition of their proper end (by his goodness).
33. VII. As to man in special, God is now fundamentally related to him as his Creator, his Redeemer, and his Regenerator or Sanctifier, eminently ascribed distinctly to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From this flows natura, medela, salus [nature, healing, salvation], or nature, redeeming grace, and renewing grace (holiness and glory), that is, love begun here and perfected in heaven.
34. VIII. From creation there results a threefold moral right and relation of God to man:
1. He is our absolute owner or Lord to dispose of us and act us by his power.
2. He is our supreme rector, morally to rule us as intellectual free agents, eminently by his wisdom.
3. He is our lover and ultimate end, as he is goodness and love itself. To love him and be loved by him perfectly forever, being amantissimus et amabilissimus [most loving and most lovable] in his goodness.
35. He that leaves out any one of these relations of God to man (to be our owner, ruler, and lover and end) leaves out that which is essential to our God, as the word is relatively used in the precepts and promises of Holy Scripture.”
.
1800’s
J.C. Ryle
“We are told that when [Jesus] talked of going back to Judea, his disciples were perplexed. The servants of Christ are often placed in circumstances just as puzzling and perplexing as those of the disciples. They are led in ways of which they cannot see the purpose and object; they are called to fill positions from which they naturally shrink, and which they would never have chosen for themselves.
Thousands in every age are continually learning this by their own experience. The path they are obliged to walk in is not the path of their own choice. At present they cannot see its usefulness or wisdom. At times like these a Christian must call into exercise his faith and patience. He must believe that his Master knows best by what road His servant ought to travel, and that [Jesus] is leading him, by the right way, to a city of habitation. He may rest assured that the circumstances in which be is placed are precisely those which are most likely to promote his graces and to check his besetting sins.
He need not doubt that what he cannot see now, he will understand hereafter. He will find one day that there was wisdom in every step of his journey, though flesh and blood could not see it at the time. If the twelve disciples had not been taken back into Judea, they would not have seen the glorious miracle of Bethany.
If Christians were allowed to choose their own course through life, they would never learn hundreds of lessons about Christ and his grace, which they are now taught in God’s ways. Let us remember these things. The time may come when we shall be called to take some journey in life which we greatly dislike. When that time comes, let us set out cheerfully, and believe that all is right.”
.
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Henry – Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626)
ch. 6, ‘Decree of Providence’, pp. 35-38
ch. 9, ‘Providence of God’, pp. 47-50
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 1, ‘Knowledge of God’
ch. 6, ‘Of the Causes & Adjuncts of Divine Providence’, pp. 171-92
ch. 7, ‘Of the Governance of Rational Creatures in General & in Specific, & of the Governance of Them Before the Fall’, pp. 192-95
ch. 13, ‘Of the Governance of Rational Creatures After the Fall in General & of the Parts of Renewed Men in Specific’, pp. 237-40
Rutherford, Samuel
An Examination of Arminianism (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), ch. 2, ‘On God’, Heading 5: On God’s Will & its Execution. The sections with an * have been translated into English.
13. Whether whatsoever is in God, so far as it is, such as decrees, willings and actions, be God? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 169
14. Whether in God there is an antecedent and consequent will, according to the Arminian sense? We deny against the Arminians. 170
15. Whether to take pity and do good is essential to God, and even necessary, as much as for the sun to give light? We deny against Jackson and the Anabaptists. 174
16. Whether God punishes men unwillingly? We deny against the Remonstrants. 175
16. [sic] Whether God is immutable? We affirm against the Arminians. 175
17. Whether there is a primary intention in God which sometimes fails, with a secondary intention following it? We deny against the Arminians. 179
* 18. Whether a distinction between the will of God’s good pleasure [beneplaciti] and his revealed [signi] will is to be admitted? We affirm with a distinction. 181
* Whether in the calling of all in the visible Church is the intention of God that all and every person obey and be saved. The Remonstrants affirm; we negate. 183
* Whether because God amiably invites and by supplications solicits, entreats and calls upon reprobates, and as He mourns over them, is grieved by them and laments on account of the disobedient, whether He, therefore, intends the obedience of them? The Remonstrants affirm; we negate. 183
* 19. Whether a distinction of will between effecting and permitting is commendable? We affirm with a distinction against the Arminians. 184
20. Whether God indeed absolutely decreed all contingencies from all eternity? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 185
21. Whether the conditional decree of the Arminians suffices to save God’s providence of future contingencies? We deny against them. 191
22. Whether fortune reigns according to the Arminians? We affirm against them. 193
23. Whether the dominion of his providence in free acts, according to the view of the Jesuits and Arminians, consists with God? We deny against them. 196
24. Whether such a dominion consists with God as that He be able to effect things so that a free act be rather than not be, according to the Scriptures? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Jesuits. 197
25. Whether God’s dominion requires that all free acts of creatures be principally and determinately from Himself? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Jesuits. 200
* 26. Whether God wills sin to exist, He permitting it? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 203
27. Whether God wills sin as it is a penalty for sinning? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Jesuits. 210
28. Whether sin is a penalty for sin? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 211
29. Whether God is a bare permitter, and an accidental cause of hardening? We deny against the Remonstrants. 213
30. Whether there are other evil acts of the hardened which do not increase their damnation? We deny against the Remonstrants. 214
* 31. Whether God impels persons to sins which He forbids? We affirm with a distinction against the Remonstrants. 216
32. Whether God absolutely foreordained the sufferings in the death of Christ, but not really the unjust actions? We deny against the Remonstrants. 216
33. Whether God forbids acts [considered materially in themselves], or rather the malice of an act, in his law? We deny the former; we affirm the latter against the Remonstrants. 218
* 34. Whether the act and the lawlessness are distinguishable in all sins? We affirm against the Arminians. 219
* 35. Whether sin is opposed to God in its essence? We deny against the Remonstrants. 220
36. Whether God concurs with material acts of sin by a universal, indifferent, and determinate concurrence through secondary causes? We deny against the Jesuits and Remonstrants. 221
* Whether because God would predetermine the will to material acts of sin, therefore He is the author of sin? 224
37. Whether an obligation as first cause excuses God so that an evil action be not imputed to Him, even though He gives a general concurrence to it? We deny against the Jesuits and Arminians. 224
38. Whether God’s good pleasure is the first cause of all moral goodness in creatures? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 226
39. Whether God’s predetermination is the fate of the Stoics? We deny against the Remonstrants. 227
* 40. Whether each wicked action, which is from sinning instruments, is done by God as by the principal agent? We affirm with a distinction against the Remonstrants. 230
41. Whether our people are Libertines in this doctrine? We deny against the Remonstrants. 231
* 42. Whether that distinction is frivolous by which it is taught that God hates sin, and yet wills its existence? We deny against the Remonstrants. 233
43. Whether all acts of good and evil are particularized and determined by God even as far as the numerical singleness and unity of acts [generally]? We affirm against the Jesuits and Arminians. 234
44. Whether [God’s] permission is a bare, non-efficient one, and a dereliction of will, the nature of it being indifferent? We deny against the Jesuits and Arminians. 235
Whether the permission of sin works only by persuasion? So says Arminius; we deny. 236
* 45. Whether sin necessarily follows upon God’s giving permission by a logical necessity? We affirm against the Remonstrants. 236
A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence (Edinburgh, 1649)
2 – What is the permissive nature of the will of GOD, and of the will of sign and the will of good pleasure: the Arminian Remonstrants are invoked for their part. 3
6 – Concerning the nature of permission 67
7 – Seven questions that are to be urged concerning permission:
Q. 1 – Whether permission is merely non-violentation or non-necessitation of will; as the Jesuits Penotto, Pesantius & Ruiz and the Arminians would have it?
Q. 2 – Whether permission and hindrance of sin are accomplished with God by way of persuasion? 73
8 – Q. 3 – Whether sin still necessarily follows from the ordained permission of God by necessity of consequence, even though not by causal obligation. 80
9 – Q. 4 – Whether permission of sin is absolutely dependent on the free good pleasure of God, or whether it arises conditionally for the determination of a created will that is alleging said permission? Gabriele Penotto, Diego Ruiz de Montoya, Theodorus Smising, Jacob Arminius, and others are invoked for their part. 86 [The remaining three questions are discussed in this same place.]
10 – Whether that which is to be admitted is some Christian concept of fate? 99
11 – The opinion of Englishman Thomas Jackson concerning fate and necessity is examined. 118
16 – Whether Evangelicals [the Reformed] rightly prove from the Scriptures that GOD, Himself permitting, wills sin to occur. The passage Genesis 45, regarding the selling of Joseph into slavery, is judged and vindicated. 189
17 – Whether, from other Scriptures, Evangelicals rightly prove that God, Himself permitting, wills sin to occur? The passage Acts 2:23 & 4:27, regarding Christ having been crucified from the definite council and foreknowledge of God, is judged and vindicated. 199
18 – Whether, supposing that Gof had stored up the damned unto the day of destruction and had permissively ordained them unto sin, it would then follow that God would be the Author of sin? The passage Prov. 16:4 (“The LORD hath made all things for himself…”) is judged and vindicated. Likewise the passage Rom. 9:17 (“Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up…”). Also, the passage 1 Pet. 2:8 is judged and vindicated. Bellarmino, Ruiz, Louis le Mairat (1577-1664), Arubal, Fasolus, and the Arminians are invoked in parts. 211
19 – Whether God therefore is the agent principally, when Devils and damned persons sin, so that He is nevertheless free from every fault of sin, yet they the instruments of sin are tainted with the entire charge? 247
20 – Whether sin is the penalty of sin? Whether God wills sin insofar as it is the penalty of sin? Bellarmino, Diego Ruiz, Leonardus Lessius, Gabriele Penotto, Louis le Mairat, Philipe de Gemache, and also the Arminians are invoked in parts. 261
21 – That God does not harden men by bare permission. Regarding the method of hardening, the Jesuits and Arminians are invoked in parts. 287
22 – Whether the free Good Pleasure of God is the first Principle of every moral virtue in created beings? 312
23 – It is proven by other arguments that God wills sin to take place, Himself permitting. 356
24 – The same thing is proven by other arguments. 358
Metaphysical Inquiries
8 – Whether God exercises providence in all things by necessity of nature or by freedom? 561
9 – Whether God’s free good pleasure is the cause of beings, of gradations of being, and of particular forms in natural things, moral things, supernatural things, and artificial things? 563
10 – Whether the Creator is able to inflict injury to the creature,and what right God has in the creatures? 573
To what extent justice belongs to God essentially, and what follows. 584
Whether the decree of God removes ability from a secondary cause? 586
By what power may something result unto illustrating the glory of God out of sin? 590
Whether a creature may be able to work without a first cause concurring? 592
Whether God ought to be said to move the sun to illumination if He be not the author of that illumination, according as it is from the sun? 596
Whether Adam sinned freely because he sinned by the remote predeterminate motion of God? 597
Whether or not that subtraction [of grace], preceding the sin, was the punishment of sin? I respond negatively. 597
In what way, therefore, was Adam able to will if he had so willed to stand? 597
Whether there is such a thing as a contingent future and what it is? from an anonymous debater. 597
Whether orderliness, in itself, unto good, may come by sin, or whether it comes truly by accident? 604
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
A thing that is to be future, of what does it consist of from eternity? 605
It is said, no? Therefore, the future is in no way real. 606
Whether the future was from eternity from a second cause, or whether from the first cause? 607
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 God certainly has a positive dominion and rule in non-entities never created? It is most certain. 610
Whether the active hardening of God is formally a positive act? & whether it is an immanent or transient act? 611
Whether the will of sign & the permitting will may coincide? 611
Additions:
Concerning the conflict in God’s will as it is falsely imputed to our side. 613
Concerning the will of approval and the will of good pleasure, a debater is examined who says that God wills every possibility. 615
The Permitting Will of God does not have a purely negative being about sin 619
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 3 Abbr.
1. Of Providence in General
2. Of Providence in Specific: of Conservation
. Of Annihilation
3. Of Providence Strictly So-Called, or of Governance
The Object of it
Acts of Providence: of Premotion & Concursus
. The Mode of Operating
. About Rational Creatures
. About Man (Animal & Civil Life, Eternal Life, Marriage,
. Public Things, Wars)
. Physical Acts Before & After Conversion
. Moral Acts around Salvation
. About Irrational Creatures
. An Indirect Act, or of Permission
. Further are these
[Sic] 5. Of Adjuncts & Consequences of Providence
Of Necessity & Contingency
Of Chance, Fortune & Fate
Of the Use & Practice of this Doctrine
48. ‘An Explanation of Eccl. 9:11’ in Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667), pp. 739-45
“I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.” – Eccl. 9:11
Wettstein, Gernler & Buxtorf – 6. Providence 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. 19-21
.
1700’s
Hottinger, Johann J. – A Theological Exercitation on the Immediate Operation of God in the Soul of Man (Zurich, 1714) 54 pp.
.
.
Latin Book
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – A Scholastic Disputation on Divine Providence… (Edinburgh, 1649) 620 pp. ToC English ToC
.
.
Historical Theology
On the 1500’s-1600’s
Article
Matava, R.J. – ‘A Sketch of the Controversy de auxiliis‘ in Journal of Jesuit Studies (Apr, 2020)
Abstract: “In the 16th century, the Dominicans and the Jesuits engaged in a polarized theological debate about how God can move the human will in a way that neither compromises human free choice nor makes God the author of moral evil. This debate, called the “controversy de auxiliis,” was never resolved. In 1607, Pope Paul V decreed that neither side was heretical and forbade further publishing on the issue without his explicit permission. This article explains the main theological points of the various Dominican and Jesuit actors, the human factors that contributed to the debate…”
.
Book
ed. Ballor, Gaetano & Sytsma – Beyond Dordt & de Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant & Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries in Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Buy (Brill, 2019) 368 pp.
de Auxillis means ‘on helps’, referring to certain gracious gifts or helps of God with respect to certain abilities of man in salvation according to the Roman Catholic tradition.
Blurb: “An exploration of post-Reformation inter-confessional theological exchange between Reformed, Dominican, Arminian, and Jesuit theologians on controversial soteriological topics. These essays bring theological works into meaningful points of contact in a European-wide struggle with the legacy of Augustine.”
“The title of the book mentions two of the most important events among Protestants and Roman Catholics in the early modern period dealing with the nature of divine grace: The Synod of Dordt [1618-19] and the Congregatio de Auxiliis [1582-1611]… to view them… as snapshots of the history of dogma which represent a larger conversation in these Western traditions… Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis reminds us that just as the early modern theologians read outside their own tradition to understand it more fully, so contemporary Protestants and Roman Catholics will best understand our own traditions by reading earnestly outside of them.” – Michael Lynch
.
On the 1600’s-1700’s
Goudriaan, Aza – Ch. 3, ‘The Providence of God, Secondary Causality, & Related Topics’ in Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, 1625-1750… Pre Buy (2006)
.
On the 1600’s
Sturdy, Robert C. – Freedom from Fatalism: Samuel Rutherford’s (1600-1661) Doctrine of Divine Providence Pre (V&R, 2021) This is a book version of his dissertation: Ref.
For a glimpse into the work, see the popular survey given in this blog review, pt. 1, 2 et al.
.
Rutherford’s 4 Propositions
Influences of the Life of Grace… (London, 1659), pt. 2, ch. 1, pp. 122-27
Proposition 1. God by order of nature first acts upon the creature and gives his stirring-up influence to it. We cannot, in genere causae physicae [in the genera of a physical cause], first breath upon God; He prevenes the sun, and the Sun rises or rises not, as the Lord pleases to act upon it; but no second causes do prevene the first or universal cause… the host of creatures in Heaven and in earth, and the sea are all dead, passive sleepy cyphers and can do nothing, if the Lord do not stir them.
2. Though the Lord’s promise and his free decree has tied Himself (in a manner) to be prevented by a moral cause, yet that moral cause, even the praying man, stirs not until God first prevent him to pray. Hence the Lord moves and wheels about the heart and will of the man, who is most free…
3. Because God only is Lord and Master of free-will and of the actings of all creatures, we are not to be idle and upon that account to act nothing, for then should not the husbandman plow, sow and labor; for God only is Lord and Master of the actings of the husband-man, and without the influences and blessing from on high, the husband-man’s labors from the beginning of the year to the end, were no better than to plant vine-trees in the bottom of the river Euphrates, or to sow barley or wheat in the ocean sea.
4. Hence to have, or not to have the influence of God, is not commanded in the Word, nor have we any physical power over the Lord’s acts of omnipotency; for we do not formally love God and keep his commandments in a way commendable (if we speak of the moral cause of obedience), because He works in us both to will and to do, but because He has commanded us to love Him and to keep his commandments, Jn. 14:15; Ps. 119:4-6.
.
Nothing can Move Apart from God’s Will
Quote
2000’s
Edward Feser
Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Ignatius Press, 2017), ‘The Divine Attributes’, ‘Omnipotence’
“….we have seen that anything that exists or could exist other than God would have potentials that need actualization, parts that need to be combined, and an essence distinct from its existence, and would therefore be contingent. We have also seen that such things can exist, even for an instant, only insofar as they are caused by that which is purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, and absolutely necessary; and we have seen that there cannot in principle be more than one such cause. It follows that anything that exists or could exist other than God depends at every instant on God for its existence.
Recall also the principle agere sequitur esse [action follows existence], according to which a thing’s attributes and activities cannot go beyond its nature. When we combine this principle with the thesis that the sheer existence of anything at any moment depends on God’s causing it to exist, we get the result that the operation or activity of anything at any moment also depends on God.
For if a thing could not even exist for an instant apart from God, how could it act at any instant apart from God? If the thing has no independent capacity for existence, where could an independent capacity for action possibly come from? Existing, after all, is more fundamental than acting, since it is presupposed by acting.
So, if a thing’s essence gives it no capacity even to exist apart from God, it cannot intelligibly give it power to act apart from God. So, everything that exists or could exist other than God depends at every instant not only for its existence, but also for its capacity to do anything, on God.”
.
.
On Physical Pre-Motion
See also Rutherford’s Propositions above.
.
Article
1600’s
Heidegger, Johann H. – ‘A Dissertation on Determining Grace, or so-called Physical Predetermination’ (1667) in Various Disputations tr. by AI by Onku (d. 1698), pp. 246-63 Latin
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Tupikowski, Jerzy – ‘Banezianism’ in Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy (PEF) 2 pp.
Banez was a Thomist. The Reformed largely shared the Thomist view, minus the part about merit.
.
.
Historical Theology: Romanist Views
On the Post-Reformation
Articles
Aichele, Alexander – pt. 1, ‘Freedom of Will & God’s Providence’ in A Companion to Louis de Molina Pre (Brill, 2014), pp. 3-54
Freddoso, Alfred J. – ‘Suarez on God’s Causal Involvement in Sinful Acts’ 86 paragraphs
Tupikowski, Jerzy – ‘Banezianism’ in Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy (PEF) 2 pp.
.
How to Submit to Hard Providences & on Resignation
See also, ‘On Affliction & Suffering’.
.
Articles
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel
pp. 141-58 of Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647) Including answering 9 objections and giving 13 rules
“It becomes us, as Christ’s example goes before us, to submit in the hardest and most bloody providences, to the straight and holy will of God:
1. Christ presses He has no will divided from God’s will; He lays down his glory, his heaven, his life, his fruition of the sweet influence of an highest vision, love, presence, feeling of God in a personal union at the feet of God, that the Lord may carve and cut and dispose of Him and his blood as He thought good.
2. All the difficulty in us, in whom dwells a body of sin is to answer the objections that flesh and blood has against a sad providence, which I will labor to do, and then give some rules for direction.” – p. 141
Letter 361, Nine Reasons for Resignation, for Mistress Craig, upon the death of her hopeful son, who was drowned while washing himself in a river in France in Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Anderson & Ferrier, 1894), pp. 699-701
Bridge, William – Soul Resignation into the Hands of God on Lk. 23:46 in Works, vol. 5, pp. 150-64
Brooks, Thomas – The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod on Ps. 39:9 in Works, vol. 1, pp. 285-398
Bates, William – The Great Duty of Resignation on Mt. 26:39 in Works, vol. 2, pp. 135-294
.
1700’s
Boston, Thomas – The Nature & Obligations to Resignation to the Will of God on 2 Sam. 15:26
.
1800’s
M’Dowell, John – On Resignation on Ps. 39:9 in The New Jersey Preacher, or Sermons on Plain & Practical Subjects, vol. 1 (1813)
Bonar, Archibald – On Resignation on 2 Sam. 15:25-26 in Sermons, vol. 1 (1753-1816)
Bonar was an evangelical Church of Scotland minister and uncle of Horatius & Andrew Bonar.
Spurgeon, Charles – Job’s Resignation a sermon on Job 1:20-22
.
Book
1700’s
Boston, Thomas – Crook in the Lot
.
Latin Article
Voet, Gisbert – ‘On Self-Abnegation, Resignation, Mortification & Hatred of Oneself’ in Select Theological Disputations, vol. 4 (Utrecht, 1667), 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 1st Commandment’, p. 777
.
On Signs, Portents & Omens
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert
Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 5
I. Of the Nature of a Miracle, of Displaying Things & Portents
II. On Signs of the Times & Premonitions of Death
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht: Waesberg, 1655)
vol. 2
57. ‘Of Signs, First, of Miracles, Wonders & Portents of Nature’, pp. 902-22
58. pt. 2, pp. 922-36
59. Appendix, ‘On the Panic of Terror’, pp. 936-43
60. Second, ‘Of Signs of the Times & Forebodings of Death’, pp. 943-64
11. Historical-Theological Appendix: ‘On Sneezing’ [sometimes it was considered to be an omen], pp. 132-39
.
.
.
“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… 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…
Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria… For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent… Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it?… or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.”
Isa. 10:5-15
“I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me.”
Ps. 57:2
“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.”
Gen. 50:20
.
.
.
Related Pages