Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622) on God’s General and Special Love

3 Bounty.

God’s virtues in respect of his will are bounty, and justice: Bounty is that, by which out of love, God procures to every creature the good thereof, and it is common, and particular. Common bounty is towards all creatures, even such as offend him, directing them to their natural good, and sustaining them therein, so long as justice suffers, Luke 6:36. God cannot hate his creatures, as his works, for so they carry a similitude of God, the first cause [Eze. 33:11]: and none can hate himself, or his similitude, for a similitude is something of himself. God’s bounty to his creatures presupposes not any debt or duty, which implies imperfection; and if God were bound to his creatures, he should depend on them, and be imperfect.

God’s bounty which is infinite, gives creatures good things, of nature, of sour, and body, and of outward things.

Such is God’s bounty, as the creatures suffer no evil, unless God’s justice require it, or a greater good confirm it; of this virtue God is called patient, and long-suffering.

Particular, or special bounty, is that whereby God loved some men (in Christ) fallen into sin, and furnishes them to eternal salvation [Eph. 2:4–5]. God’s special bounty, is the first beginning, both of salvation, and of the means thereto. This bounty is no inherent quality in us, but we are the object of it, it is a grace making us grateful, not finding us so.

Henry Ainsworth, The Old Orthodox Foundation of Religion: Left for a Patterne To a New Reformation (London: Printed by E. Cotes, and are to be sold by Michael Spark at the Blue Bible in Green Arbour, 1653), 16–17. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Original post here (click).

Gryffith Williams (c.1589–1672) on John 17:9

1. In that they say, for whom Christ died, for them he intercedes and prays, and for whom he prays not, for them he died not; for none would offer the sacrifice of his body for them, for whom he would not offer the sacrifice of his lips: but for the wicked and reprobates he prays not, “I pray not for the world,” Joh. 17:9, therefore, for the wicked reprobates he died not.

I answer: that for whom he died with a special intent to work the effectual application of his death, thereby to save them, for them he prayed, that so, his death might be effectual for them, &., contra for whom he prayed not, I confess he died not with an intent to work the effectual application of his death, thereby to save them, but only to procure them a sufficient remedy to be saved, if they would, thereby to show his love, in giving this remedy, and to make them without excuse for neglecting the same.

Gryffith Williams, The Delights of the Saints (London: Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at the signe of the pide Bull neere Saint Austins gate, 1622), 37. [Italics original and underlining mine.]

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) on God’s Providence With Regard to Sin and Divine Permission

Synopsis Purioris Theologiae:

20 At this point we should see whether sins, too, fall under divine providence. We assert that it is wrong to say God provides sins in the sense that to provide means to attend and to care for. But we do not doubt that it may, and indeed should be said that God exercises providence concerning sins. For He foresees sins in advance, and wills to permit them; and as they are seen beforehand, He destines them to some universal or particular good, whether for a display of his mercy or justice, or for some other good. And so it is rightly said that He exercises providence regarding them, since He disposes to do well regarding them. But if one considers only that which is real in sin and ‘positive,’ as they say, what others call ‘the matter’ of sin, namely, as an entity or as an action, in this sense sins can be said even to be provided by God, but only in a relative sense and not in itself. That is because the formal structure of sin exists in the absence of being and of good, in a certain deformity and disorderliness, which does not come from God and so cannot have been provided for by Him.

21 Here is a place for a distinction in the ways God handles providence when He implements it—it is either effective, or permitting. The first is the one whereby God works effectually, and in all things generally and individually perfects his work (namely all things both general and specific in nature), not only the essential good—the substances, motions, actions and completions of things—but also the moral good, such as all civic and spiritual virtues. Because, as the highest good, He is also the author and source of all good.

22 The second is attributed to God also in Scripture, in which it is often said that He permits something; not only when He allows us to obtain what we wish in actions and affairs that are good, or middling actions that make no difference, for which the permission is linked to God’s approval and effective operation (Hebrews 6:3 and 1Corinthians 16:7). But even when He does not prevent the evils and the sins which He forbids (though He is able to), as He does not have a law about hindering things. For this permission is granted; nevertheless, the things that are permitted by it are not approved continuously. In this way the following texts are interpreted: Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 16:13; Acts 14:16; Romans 1:24 and 28; Psalm 81:13.

23 We acknowledge that this permission for all sins belongs to God’s providence. For although sins are evil, and accordingly cannot be provided by God, nevertheless the permission of them is good. So then, God both wills and directly decrees the permission, and ordains it for some good purpose that is greater than that of which the absence is the evil that is permitted. For since God is good to the highest degree, He would in no way permit there to be anything evil in his workings, unless He were not so almighty that even concerning evil He would still do good, as Augustine justly states (Enchiridion, chapter 11).

24 And so we think that God’s permission is not idle, or that something happens without the will of God, or without his care, or that He is neglecting anything that happens. And accordingly his permission should not be understood as opposed to his will and counsel. For it is in accordance with his will and after taking counsel that God grants permission. And He powerfully controls direction over sins, and it is not unusual for Him to apply his permission to carry out his judgements, occasionally even as a recompense for previously committed sins. In this sense the Schoolmen acknowledge that God “possesses a practical knowledge of sins, insofar as He permits, or prevents, them, or—once committed—appoints a goal for them” (Thomas Aquinas 1.14. art. 16).

25 In addition to this we state that before they occur, and while they are occurring, God in his great and most holy wisdom directs the arguments and opportunities that are like incentives to an act that does not happen without sin on the creatures’ part, yet these opportunities are not evil in and of themselves, so that He does not refuse his concurrence to the act as such (though not as sin). We state “that He presides (as Bellarmine himself admits) over wrongful wills, and rules and governs them, is invisibly at work in them, so that from his divine providence, though evil by their own vice, they are led more to the one than to the other.” Likewise he adds that God “bends and twists the wills” of the ungodly (On the Loss of Grace and the State of Sin, chapter 13), not shunning those types of expressions, instead using even harsher ones than those he adopts from others and distorts into a false accusation.

26 The goal of this teaching is the same as that of teaching that God has created everything: the glory of God, to which is joined the salvation of the elect, who derive manifold benefits from it. By his government of everything the elect come to acknowledge God as most wise, good, and powerful, the Lord of all things, upon whom all creatures depend. They learn to place their trust in Him like a Father who in all things provides for their best interests, as they rest securely in the protection of the one to whose judgement they subject themselves. They are patient in times of adversity, as they raise their eyes up to the prime cause, acknowledging and correcting their own sinful ways. They are grateful in prosperous times, bringing praise to his name; they fear and honour God in whose hand are all creatures, and with the utmost love they follow after Him whom they know exercises his particular care for those who are his own, and who has prepared for them an inheritance in heaven.

27 If anyone desires more and expects answers to all the minor questions arising from human reason, let him listen to the same person whom we praised at the outset of this disputation, Salvian: “I can say with sufficient reason and confidence: I do not know what is hidden, and I am ignorant of the counsel of the divine. In support of this position the revelation of the heavenly statement is sufficient for me: God says that by Him all things are observed, by Him all things are governed, and by Him all things are judged. If you wish to know what it is you must hold on to, you have the sacred writings. There is a perfect reason to hold on to what you have read. However, I do not wish that you ask me for what reason God so performs the things about which we are speaking. I am only a man; I do not understand the secret things of God. I do not make bold to search into them and therefore I am afraid even to attempt it, because if you desire to know more than is permitted to you, that too is a kind of irreverent impudence. Let it be sufficient for you that God bears witness that all things are performed and managed by Him” (On God’s Government, book 3).

28 Since these things are so, “we recoil in terror from the madness and folly [the words are those of Isidore of Pelusium, book 3 Epistle 154] of those who posit either that there is no God, or that there is one, yet who by no means whatsoever founded the world. Or that if He had founded it, does not govern it at all; or that if He governs it, He takes delight in those who embrace vice. Or that if He does not enjoy it, that He forfeits rule over it to others; or that if He has not forfeited the rule, that it was snatched away from Him against his will. Or that if the rule was not snatched away, that He is unwilling to avenge evil-doers; or that if He did wish to avenge, that He is not able to. Or that if He is able to, He has been idle for a very long time. Or that if He has nothing more valuable to do, that He is being over-ruled by the motion of the stars; or if He is not being over-ruled, that He wishes to be idle and lazy.” And if the mouths of the wicked spew forth any other blasphemies like this, they will in the end realize that:

Great in Heaven Is God who beholds and rules over every thing, To whom belongs the glory for ever and ever.

Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius, & Andreas Rivetus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, 3 vols. (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 1:277–283. [Some minor reformatting; editorial and translator footnotes not included, Latin text not included; textual notation not included; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Original post here (click).

Revisiting John 17 and Jesus’s Prayer for the World

Revisiting John 17 and Jesus’s Prayer for the World
Regarding Jesus’s prayer in John 17, the following claims are always alleged, assumed, and asserted, even though they are never supported by any confirming evidence:

1. That this is a specific and effectual high priestly prayer on the part of Jesus.
2. That the “world” of 17:9 respects the world of the reprobate.
3. That those “given” in verse 9 represent the totality of the elect.
4. That the extent of the high priestly intercession delimits the scope of the satisfaction.
5. That the two parallel clauses in verses 21 and 23 are systemically overlooked or misread.

This short essay will not attempt to answer 1–4, specifically, but will rather focus on point 5: That the two parallel clauses in verses 21 and 23 are systemically overlooked or misread.

The verses read:

17:21: that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe [πιστευω] that You sent Me

17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know [γινωσκω] that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

Or in short:

21 so that the world may believe [πιστευω] that You sent Me.

23 so that the world may know [γινωσκω] that You sent Me.

Some writers, like John Calvin and John Gill, attempt to divert the import of believe and know, in verses 21 and 23. It is interesting that Calvin notes that “world” in v. 21 and v. 23 must be the world of the reprobate, given its usage throughout the chapter. But yet, when it comes to πιστευω and γινωσκω, he drops this rule and makes them refer to something other than true saving faith. He said:

The verb, to believe, has been inaccurately [imprecisely; Parker translation] used by the Evangelist for the verb, to know; that is, when unbelievers, convinced by their own experience, perceive the heavenly and Divine glory of Christ. The consequence is, that, believing, they do not believe, because this conviction does not penetrate into the inward feeling of the heart. And it is just vengeance of God, that the splendor of Divine glory dazzles the eyes of the reprobate, because they do not deserve to have a clear and pure view of it. He afterward uses the verb, to know, in the same sense. [John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, 2:184.]

Gill does something similar (See John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series [London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809], 89; John 17:21). After saying that “world” in v. 21 may mean the rest of the elect, he prefers that it means the remaining Jews and Deists who will be forced to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah at the last day. That has to be a very eccentric and strained reading of the text.

I do not believe that they are warranted to change the normal meanings of believe and know, as used by John in his gospel, such that they mean something other than saving or salvific belief and knowledge.¹ That is, anything other than that they should really believe and know, and this for themselves.

It is interesting that there is actually a parallel usage right in the text itself.

17:8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood [γινωσκω] that I came forth from You, and they believed [πιστευω] that You sent Me.

Or simply:

8b truly understood [γινωσκω] that I came forth from You …

8c and they believed [πιστευω] that You sent Me

Jesus uses the two verbs believe and know as respecting the same reference. The 11 apostles (at least) had come to know and believe that Jesus had been sent from the Father.

In verses 21 and 23, we see the exact same sentiment repeated but now applied to the world. The order may be reversed but the sentiment is the same, and repeated for emphasis, as with the first instance.

We also see the same exact sentiment in the summary statement of v. 25:

O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known [γινωσκω] that You sent Me.

In short:

25 and these have known [γινωσκω] that You sent Me

What is more, if we look outside of John chapter 17, we find other examples of the same sentiment, with the same verbs, as we find in John 17:8, 21, 23, and 25.

John 6:69 And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

John 16:27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

John 16:30 Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.²

Given these verses, it is likely that this expression had a thematic or formulaic meaning for John. To believe and to know that Jesus has been sent from the Father is the same as to believe in him for salvation. Indeed, what we see here is the language of personal confession. As the John 17 comments are part of a wider or general thematic intent in John, it is more likely that the comments in John 17 fit into that theme, rather than just asserting, rather atextually, that with regard to John 17:21 and 23, either that John incorrectly used the word “believe” (Calvin), or that his intent was to jump to the final eschaton, where it is alleged, that the “world” (namely Jews and Deists) will finally come to know and believe, against the desire of their hearts, that Jesus was the Messiah after all (Gill).

Both Calvin and Gill have trapped themselves at this point because they have bought into the idea that kosmos in verse 9 denotes the non-elect, rather than the world of mankind, alive, living in rebellion and opposition to God and his church. The sort of equivocation Calvin and Gill call for is not derived from the text but from something outside of the text of Scripture altogether. Certain false lexical and theological constraints have, as it were, hijacked what should have been their correct exegesis and biblical theology.

However, once the meaning of kosmos throughout the chapter is allowed to assume its normal Johannine meaning, and once the meanings of the verbs believe and know are allowed to be read consistently (as defined by context and usage rather than atextual interpolations), then according the standard rules of hermeneutics, the strict particularist reading of this passage really has no footing in this chapter. For without doubt, if Christ prays for the world, that they should know and believe, then he has most assuredly died for the world. For how could Christ pray for a man for whom he has not died?

Given that meaning is determined by context and usage, it’s clear that there is here a prayer that the world truly believe and know that Jesus has been sent from the Father, just as the Apostles now believe and know that Jesus is sent from the Father. This cannot mean bare knowledge of facts or “historical belief” or “historical knowledge,” or a belief in terror or dread at the last judgment, but true and proper saving belief. Furthermore, we know that this is a prayer for the world’s salvation because of the clear presence of the subjunctives (v. 21, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύη; and v. 23, ἵνα γινώσκη ὁ κόσμος). Christ prays that future believers be one for the purpose that the world may believe and know that Jesus has been sent from the Father. And having recognized this, we can discern in what sense he does and does not pray for the world. While it is true that Jesus in this prayer does not pray in behalf of the world as he prays in behalf of present and future believers, nonetheless, his prayer does have regard for the world in that it is a prayer for the benefit of the world, namely their salvation.

Lastly, given the two clauses in John 17, it becomes more doubtful that the prayer of John 17 should considered specifically an effectual “high priestly” prayer. Rather it is a personal prayer of the Son as general mediator between God and mankind.
________________________
1. Needless to be said, by this I do not mean that all will be saved (Universalism) but that the aim of Christian unity, in this prayer, is that the world similarly come to a true and living faith in Christ.

2. Another verse of interest is John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” I do not think that either Calvin or Gill’s lines of interpretation would do justice to this verse. More likely the meaning is that “all men” know that Christians are the followers of Jesus in marvel and wonder (not in fear and dread), and that the aim of “loving one another” is the conversion of all men.

Original post here (click).