“…being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will”
Eph. 1:11
“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom. 9:21
.
.
Subsection
Infralapsarianism & Supralapsarianism
Works Against the Roman Apologist Bellarmine (who treated of the Decrees of God)
.
.
Order of Contents
Predestination & Reprobation Contrasted
Articles
History of the Doctrine
What does the word ‘Sovereignty’ Mean?
.
.
Predestination and Reprobation Contrasted
R.A. Finlayson, was a Free Church of Scotland professor during the mid-1900’s.
Reformed Theological Writings of R.A. Finlayson, p. 265
Predestination & Reprobation Contrasted
1. The [Westminster] Confession does not teach or imply a double predestination. In an attempt to distinguish between election and reprobation we should use predestination for the elect and foreordination for the reprobate [as the Confession does].
2. Election and reprobation rest on different grounds: election on the redeeming love of God that undertakes the salvation of the lost; reprobation on the moral necessity to manifest to the universe the nature and consequences of sin in moral personality.
3. Means are used of God to fulfil the purpose of election, but God uses no means to fulfil His purpose of reprobation. It is left to sin to run its course and receive its wages.
4. The fruits of election are attributable to divine grace, the fruits of reprobation to personal sin. This means that while there is grace to some, there is injustice to none.
5. While God finds pleasure in the salvation of the elect, He has sworn by Himself that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. God does not need sin or its retribution for His self-manifestation, but its reality in the universe can serve that end.
6. That the elect will constitute a recreation of the race under a new Head is evident, while the reprobate are but the branches cut off from the tree of humanity. Christ will be revealed as the Savior of the world, though many are lost in the process.
.
.
Articles
1500’s
Beza, Theodore – ‘An Excellent Treatise of comforting such, as are troubled about their Predestination, Taken out of the Second Answer of Mr. Beza to D. Andreas, in the Act of their Colloquie at Mompelgart, etc.’ 4 pp. appended to William Perkins, A golden chaine: or The description of theologie containing the order of the causes of saluation and damnation, according to Gods word. A view whereof is to be seene in the table annexed. Hereunto is adioyned the order which M. Theodore Beza vsed in comforting afflicted consciences. (Cambridge, 1600)
Junius, Francis
’20 Theses of Dr. Francis Junius Concerning Divine Predestination’ a public disputation at Leiden in 1593 as found in The Works of James Arminius… Translated from the Latin, in 3 Volumes (Auburn & Buffalo: Derby, 1853), vol. 3, pp. 263-278 The words in italics are that of Junius; the words under those in plain font are Arminius’ commentary.
‘A Discussion on the Subject of Predestination between James Arminius, D.D., Minister of Amsterdam, and Francis Junius, Professor of Divinity at Leiden, Conducted by Means of Letters’ in The Works of James Arminius… Translated from the Latin, in 3 Volumes (Auburn & Buffalo: Derby, 1853), pp. 7-262
Rollock, Robert – A Brief Instruction on the Eternal Approval & Disapproval of the Divine Mind 1593/4 6 pp. trans. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman
Rollock, a fountain of reformed theology in Scotland, here treats of the important distinctions to be recognized within God’s decree of predestination, especially as it comes to be variously executed through time in providence. Of special interest is his formulations relating to what would be later known as the sincere free offer of the Gospel:
“Approval without the decree belongs to all good things with respect to themselves, though they are not at any time realized, of which sort are the conversion, faith, and salvation of reprobates; which God surely approves of simply, but does not decree to come about… 1 Tim. 2:4, ‘Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’”
Rollock’s early paradigm appears to have been influential through later reformed thought as reflections of it occur in later reformed scholastics, including in the Metaphysical Disquisitions of Samuel Rutherford at the end of his Latin treatise on Providence. More about that may be explored on our page On God’s Revealed Will.
.
1600’s
Perkins, William
A Golden Chain: or The description of theology containing the order of the causes of salvation and damnation, according to God’s Word (Cambridge, 1600)
Ch. 6, ‘Of God’s Works & his Decree’
Ch. 7, ‘Of Predestination & Creation’
Ch. 15, ‘Of Election, & of Jesus Christ the Foundation Thereof’
Ch. 35, ‘Of the Degrees of Executing God’s Decree of Election’
Ch. 36, ‘Concerning the First Degree of the Declaration of God’s Love’
Ch. 37, ‘Concerning the second degree of the declaration of God’s love’
Ch. 38, ‘Concerning the third degree of the declaration of God’s love’
Ch. 52, ‘Concerning the decree of Reprobation’
Ch. 53, ‘Concerning the execution of the decree of Reprobation’
Ch. 58, ‘Of the Application of Predestination’
Ames, William – ‘Of Predestination’ from The Marrow of Theology
Ames’ discussion is superb, especially his treatment of Reprobation.
Gomar, Francis – ‘A Disputation on God’s Predestination’ in the Works of Arminius, vol. 3 (1875), pp. 521-658 The 1875 edition of Arminius’ Works does not appear to be on the net, and this piece has not been found in the other editions of his works.
.
1800’s
Buchanan, James
The Doctrine of Natural Laws and Second Causes, p. 252, 11 pages, from his Modern Atheism, vol. 2
The Constitution of Man in its relation to the Government of God, p. 264, 18 pages, from his Modern Atheism, vol. 2
Theories of Chance and Fate, p. 303, 19 pages, from his Modern Atheism, vol. 2
Cunningham, William
God’s Providence and Man’s Sin, p. 625, 13 pages, from his Historical Theology, vol. 1
The Decrees of God and Predestination, 1863, p. 416, 73 pages, from his Historical Theology, vol. 2
Girardeau, John
The Doctrine of Election Stated and Proved, 1890 145 pp. from his Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism
The Doctrine of Reprobation Stated and Proved 17 pp. from his Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism
Waddell, James – ‘Re-Examination of Dr. Girardeau’s Views of the Freedom of the Will’ 1880 26 pp. from The Southern Presbyterian Review, 31.4, Oct., 1880, 690-716. Girardeau initially wrote two articles regarding the Fall of Adam in 1879 for The Southern Presbyterian Review. Waddell then responded with criticisms in the same journal. In two issues of the journal in 1880 Girardeau responded to Waddell. Here is Waddell’s response to Girardeau’s defense.
This article takes up the very interesting and somewhat complex issues regarding the nature of the decree of sin, whether it was permissive or not, and in what sense, the nature of its certainty, the relation of the decree to God’s foreknowledge, and Calvin’s interpretation of all of these things.
.
1900’s
Berkhof, Louis – The Divine Decrees and Predestination 1949, 55 paragraphs from his Systematic Theology
.
.
History of the Doctrine
Medieval Church
Article
Easterday, Kevin – ‘Thomas Aquinas and His Contribution to the Doctrine of Predestination’ a seminary paper for GPTS
“This paper examines the link of the Reformed doctrine of predestination to Thomas Aquinas, as articulated in his Summa Theologica.” – Blurb
Book
Stucco, Guido – The Doctrine of Predestination in Catholic Scholasticism: Views and Perspectives from the Twelfth Century to the Renaissance 2017 154 pp.
.
On the 1500’s
Sytsma, David – ‘Vermigli Replicating Aquinas: An Overlooked Continuity in the Doctrine of Predestination’ in Reformation & Renaissance Review 20, no. 2 (2018): 155-167
.
On the 1500’s-1600’s
Book
Stucco, Guido – The Catholic Doctrine of Predestination from from Luther to Jansenius 2014 310 pp.
.
On the 1600’s
Article
Walker, James – Ch. 2, ‘Predestination and Providence’ in The Theology and Theologians of Scotland: chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1888), pp. 36-65
.
Books
Stucco, Guido – When Great Theologians Feuded 2017 360 pp.
“This is a detailed account of the XVII century clash of views between the Jesuit Leonardus Lessius and the [Romanist] Dominican Thomas Lemos concerning grace and predestination.” – Blurb
.
.
What does the word ‘Sovereignty’ Mean?
William Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, 1893, reprinted 1993 by Banner of Truth, pp. 70-1
Sovereignty is a comprehensive term. It contains several elements.
First it denotes supremacy. A sovereign ruler is supreme in his dominions. All other rulers are under him.
Secondly, sovereignty denotes independence. Says Woolsey,
‘In the intercourse of nations certain states have a position of entire independence of others. They have the power of self-government, that is, of independence of all other states as far as their own territory and citizens are concerned. This power of independent action in external and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.’ (Political Science, i., 204)
Thirdly, sovereignty denotes optional power; that is, the power to act or not in a given instance. It is more particularly with reference to this latter characteristic of free alternative decision, that ‘the sovereignty of God in election’ is spoken of. In his election of a sinner to salvation, God as supreme, independent, and sovereign, acts with entire liberty of decision, and not as obliged and shut up to one course of action.
This is the common understanding and definition of sovereignty as applied to decisions and acts. Says Blackstone [one of the most influential writers on English law]:
‘By the sovereign power is meant the power of making laws; for wherever that power resides all other powers must conform to, and be directed by it, whatever appearance the outward form and administration of the government may put on. For it is at any time in the option of the legislature to alter that form and administration by a new edict or rule, and put the execution of the law into whatever hands it pleases, by constituting one, or a few, or many executive magistrates.’ (Introduction, 2)
Blackstone gives the same definition of sovereignty, when it is vested in a king (Book II., ch. vii.). The king has no superior to oblige or compel him to one course of action. He has independent and optional power.
.
.
.
“God decrees [evil] for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof; man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it.”
Jonathan Edwards
.
.
.
Related Pages