R. L. Dabney (1820–1898) on the Double Payment Fallacy

Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ’s satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent; but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Saviour, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369.

R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, Second Edition (Presbyterian Publishing Company, 1878), 521.

Related to this argument, Dabney said:

15. Is Justification by Grace Licentious in Tendency?

We have reserved to the close the discussion of the objection, that this doctrine of justification, by faith on Christ’s righteousness, tends to loosen the bonds of the moral law. There are two parties who suggest this idea—the legalists, who urge it as an unavoidable objection to our doctrine; and the Antinomians, who accept it as a just consequence of the doctrine. Both classes may be dealt with together, except as to one point growing out of the assertion that Christ fulfilled the preceptive, as well as bore the penal law in our stead. If this be so, says the Antinomian, how can God exact obedience of the believer, as an essential of the Christian state, without committing the unrighteousness of demanding payment of the same debt twice over? I reply, that it is not a pecuniary, but a moral debt. In explaining the doctrine of substitution, I showed that God’s acceptance of our Surety’s work in our room was wholly an optional and gracious act with Him, because Christ’s vicarious work, however well adapted to satisfy the law in our stead, did not necessarily and naturally extinguish the claims of the law on us; was not a “legal tender,” in such sense that God was obliged either to take that, or lose all claims. Now, as God’s accepting the substitutionary righteousness at all was an act of mere grace, the extent to which He shall accept it depends on His mere will. And it can release us no farther than He graciously pleases to allow. Hence, if He tells us, as He does, that He does not so accept it, as to release us from the law as a rule of living, there is no injustice.

Dabney, Systematic and Polemic Theology, 648.

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

Thomas Watson (1620–1686) on the Sufficiency and Efficiency of Christ’s Death

Obj. It is said, Christ died for all; “‘he is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world,” John i. 29., how doth this consist with God’s truth, when some are vessels of wrath, Rom. ix. 22.”

Ans. 1. We must distinguish of world. The word is taken either in a limited sense, for the world of the elect; or in a larger sense, for both elect and reprobates. “Christ takes away the sins of the world,” that is, the world of the elect.

A. 2. We must distinguish of Christ’s dying for the world. Christ died sufficiently for all, not effectually. There is the value of Christ’s blood, and the virtue; Christ’s blood hath value enough to redeem the whole world, but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe. Christ’s blood is meritorious for all, not efficacious. All are not saved, because some put away salvation from them, Acts xiii. 46., and vilify Christ’s blood, counting it an unholy thing, Heb. x. 29.

Thomas Watson, “A Body of Practical Divinity,” in The Select Works of Thomas Watson (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 71–72; some reformatting.

Note: Watson’s language either reflects the classical construction or it represents a transitional category. The determinant will be the meaning of his language of “dying for all” as to the sufficiency, and Christ’s blood is “meritorious for all” (which clearly does not reflect the revised construction), and his wider theological statements. For now I will will list him in the classical category.

“The cross,” saith Austin [Augustine], “was a pulpit, in which Christ preached his love to the world.” That Christ should die, was more than if all the angels had been turned to dust; and that Christ should die as a malefactor, having the weight of all men’s sins laid upon him, that he should die for his enemies, Rom. 5:10. The balm-tree weeps out its precious balm, to heal those that cut and mangle it: Christ shed his blood, to heal those that crucified him.

Thomas Watson, The Select Works of the Rev. Thomas Watson, Comprising His Celebrated Body of Divinity, in a Series of Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, and Various Sermons and Treatises (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 119.

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

A. C. De Jong on What Constitutes a True Offer; By Way of Herman Hoeksema

Hoeksema has always maintained that there are four indispensable elements which constitute the idea of offer. First of all, the term contains the idea of an honest and sincere desire on the part of the offerer to give something. Without such an earnest will and desire on the part of him who makes the offer, the offer would not be honest or upright. Second, there is included in the idea of offer the fact that the offerer possesses that which he extends to some person(s). In the event of acceptation the offerer must be in a position to impart that which is offered. Third, the offerer reveals by his offer the desire that it be accepted. This means that God “de ernstige begeerte openbaart, dat alle menschen zullen zalig worden, ieder, hoofd voor haofd on ziel voar ziel.” Four, the one who offers something does so either unconditionally, or upon the condition that he is aware that the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition. This would imply that God knows that all men are able to accept the offer of grace. If anyone of these elements is eliminated from the concept, the idea of offer is no longer retained. It is apparent that so conceived the idea of a gospel offer would deny such Biblical truths as unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity and irresistible grace.

A. C. de Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K Schilder (Franeker: T. Wever, 1954), 43.

Original post here (click). See also here (click).

William Bates (1625–1699) on General and Special Love

2. The next general consideration is this; the glory of God is that which will bear a proportion to that love of God which he hath to his people. It shall be a noble expression of that love, and suitable to it. Now to make you a little to understand the force of this: God hath a general love to his creatures, and a special love to his children, to those who are his friends and favourites.

(1.) There is a general love that God bears to mankind in this lower world, as they have the title of his creatures: that love hath declared itself in making this world so pleasant an habitation for man as he is in his natural state. Now pray consider with yourselves; God hath made a thousand things in this world, which are not absolutely necessary for the support of our lives, but for the refreshment, and comfort, and pleasure of them; and this is from his general love to mankind. How many stars are there that adorn the firmament in the night? which are a most pleasant, spectacle, but are not so absolutely necessary for lights. And how many things are there which ate for pleasure and delight, which are not necessary for the support of life.

(2.) God hath a peculiar love to his children, and that love he hath designed to glorify in heaven: therefore you shall find, Eph. 1:6. the great work of redemption, both as to the accomplishment of it, and the actual bestowing the fruits thereof upon us; the great end of it is said to be to the praise of the glory of the grace of God; the glory of his love; that love which warmed his breast from eternity with thoughts of compassion towards man; this love he will glorify in heaven; and he hath prepared such glory and joy for them, that they shall know he will love them like a God in an infinite and inconceivable manner. Do but a little ascend in your thoughts thus; ‘Hath God made a beautiful world, so full of comforts and refreshment; hath he made this, and given it to rebellious contumacious sinners, those that live in open defiance of his laws and government? What then hath he prepared for those that love and serve him, in the kingdom above?’

William Bates, “The Everlasting Rest of the Saints in Heaven,” in The Whole Works of the Rev. William Bates, ed. W. Farmer, 4 vols. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1990), 3:40.

Original post here (click). Also here.

John Owen (1616–1683) on General Love

It is well if he know what it is that he aims at in these words; I am sure what he says doth not in the least impeach the truth which he designs to oppose. The name and nature of God are everywhere in the Scripture proposed unto us as the object of, and encouragement unto, our faith, and his love in particular is therein represented unchangeable, because he himself is so; but it doth not hence follow that God loveth any one naturally, or necessarily. His love is a free act of his will; and therefore, though it be like himself, such as becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined on any object, nor limited as unto the nature, degrees, and effects of it. He loves whom he pleaseth, and as unto what end he pleaseth. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated; and those effects which, from his love or out of it, he will communicate unto them, are various, according to the counsel of his will. Some he loves only as to temporal and common mercies, some as to spiritual grace and glory; for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy.

John Owen, “A Vindication of Some Passages in a Discourse Concerning Communion with God,” in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1851), 2:344–45.

1. That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all, is granted; but that God loveth all and every man alike, with that eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.

John Owen, “VINDICIÆ EVANGELICÆ; Or, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined,” in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), 12:552; italics original.

Love toward all mankind in general we acknowledge to be required of us, and we are debtors in the fruits of it to the whole creation of God: for he hath not only implanted the principles of it in that nature whereof we are in common partakers with the whole race and kind, whereunto all hatred and its effects were originally foreign, and introduced by the devil, nor only given us his command for it, enlarging on its grounds and reasons in the gospel; but in his design of recovering us out of our lapsed condition unto a conformity with himself, proposeth in an especial manner the example of his own love and goodness, which are extended unto all, for our imitation, Matt. 5:44, 45. His philanthropy and communicative love, from his own infinite self-fulness, wherewith all creatures, in all places, times, and seasons, are filled and satisfied, as from an immeasurable ocean of goodness, are proposed unto us to direct the exercise of that drop from the divine nature wherewith we are intrusted. “Love your enemies,” saith our Saviour, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

John Owen, “A Discourse Concerning Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity,” in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1862), 15:70–71; italics original.

Original post here (click).

Jonathan Edwards on Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 (With Reference to 1 Timothy 2:3–4 and 2 Peter 3:9)

[Prop.] I. God oftentimes uses many means with wicked men to bring ’em to forsake their sins. This is what God declares in his Word, that he hath no pleasure in death of a sinner, but that he should forsake his sins, and live. Ezek. 18:23, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” And again in the thirty-second verse, “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” And ch. 33, [v.] 11, there God swears the same thing: “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, Ye house of Israel?” Surely it would be horrid presumption in us to call this in question, after God has sworn by his life to the truth of it. The same we are told in the New Testament by the Apostle. 1 Tim. 2:3–4, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” And therefore God appears in his providence slow to wrath, and is wont to use many means with sinners to bring them to forsake their sins, before he gives them up. Thus God’s Spirit strove long with the old world, before he destroyed them. Gen. 6:3, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” For God sent Lot, a preacher of righteousness,⁴ to turn the inhabitants of Sodom from their sins, before he destroyed them. So he did not destroy hardhearted Pharaoh, till he had used many means to make him willing to comply with God’s commands.

So God did not destroy Jerusalem and Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, till he long used means with them to turn them from their sins, sending one Prophet after another, rising early, and sending and using corrections and providential warnings, and all manner of means.

So Christ did not give up the Jews in his time to judicial blindness, till he had used great means with them; often taught them, and warned them, and wrought many and great miracles before them.

And still God is wont to be using many and great means with many wicked men to bring them to forsake their sins, and continues using means with them for a long time. He commands them to forsake their sins, and uses the authority of a lord and sovereign. He makes glorious promises to them to win and draw them, promises them eternal honor, and riches, and pleasures. He denounces awful threatenings to their continuing in sin, threatenings of misery infinitely dreadful.

He counsels and exhorts with the kindness of a friend, tells them of the advantages of a way of obedience, and is much in warning them, and tells them of the danger of going on in sin. Sometimes he corrects them for their sins, that they may be made sick of them. He lays them under sore afflictions, that they may see the ill consequences of sin, and to bring them to be more solemn and thoughtful. Sometimes he heaps mercies and good things upon them to draw them.

And sometimes he takes away their neighbors by death. Sometimes he takes away persons in the midst of their youth to warn [them]. Sometimes he sets before them instances of sudden death. Sometimes God sets before them the dreadful effects of other men’s sins: he causes them to see instances of the death of wicked men: he lays men on a deathbed in a Christless condition, and in dreadful fear and terror in apprehension of approaching death, to warn them to get ready for death. And sometimes he sets before them instances of the death of those that die in the Lord, that die comfortably and joyfully, and are willing to leave the world to whom death is no terror, [and] depart in a sweet peace and composure, to draw them to seek to get into a like happy state, that their last end may be like theirs.

Besides the warning they have from the written and preached word and providence, they have many counsels and friendly reproofs from their godly friends and neighbors. And sometimes God gives them the warnings of dying persons that have their dying circumstances to enforce and give solemnity to their warnings. And sometimes God converts others of their neighbors and companions to give an example to stir them up. And sometimes he pours out his Spirit on many round about them, that they may be moved by it to seek salvation for themselves.

And besides this, he from time to time moves in their consciences. They have a great deal of opposition from their consciences in going on in sin: their consciences don’t let them alone, but are often reproving them and chastising them: they have many inward goads and stinging reflections.
———————————————
4 The phrase, found only in 2 Pet. 2:5, applies to Noah, not Lot, though the latter is called “that righteous man” (v. 8).

Jonathan Edwards, “The Dreadful Silence of the Lord (Jeremiah 44:26),” in Sermons and Discourses, 1734–1738, ed. M. X. Lesser and Harry S. Stout, vol. 19 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2001), 111–13. See also here (click).

Original post here (click).

No Atonement for the House of Eli (1 Sam 3:14) and the Argument for Limited Atonement

Definition

• By “limited atonement” and “limited satisfaction,” I mean the doctrine that Christ was only punished for the sins of the elect. That is, Christ only sustained a penal relationship with them, and them alone.

The Argument

NKJ 1 Samuel 3:14 “And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

In brief, it is argued that because it is stated that there was no atonement for the House of Eli, this entails or suggests a limited satisfaction with regard to the work of Christ. That is, that the satisfactory work of Christ is limited to the elect alone, to the exclusion of the non-elect. The suggestion is something like: If the House of Eli can be excluded from atonement in the Old Testament, then the non-elect can be excluded from the Christ’s satisfaction in the New Testament.

Responses

1. The context is because of their sin, the house of Eli was precluded from obtaining atonements (probably forgiveness) for their sins. At one time there were atonements or forgiveness available to them for their sins, then on account of their sins, at a later time, there was not an access to atonement as it was denied or withdrawn from them.
2. For the argument for “limited atonement” to work, one would have to show that at no point was there access for the house of Eli to atonements for sin. This would then indicate that they were denied access to atonements a priorily, even before they were born, etc. But having access to atonement removed, is not the same as never having an atonement made available to them in the first place.
3. Even if we grant that a priorily, there was no atonement (i.e., atonements) for the House of Eli, that would not prove “limited atonement,” properly speaking. It would only prove that a certain segment of the class “non-elect” were not died-for. It would not prove that all the class, non-elect, were not died-for. Here I am simply inverting Owen’s logic, when he concedes that even if a given passage in Ezekiel 18 proves that God wished the salvation of the House of Israel, one could not universalize the text to claim that God wished the salvation of all men, or specifically of all non-elect.
4. Relative to (3), the OT sacrifices were a type to Christ’s future sacrifice, and even though they were limited to the Israel of God, Christ’s sacrifice, on the other hand, is for the world (John 1:29; 3:14–17; 1 John 2:2). Therefore, any limitation in the type does not necessarily entail to a corresponding limitation in the anti-type. We have plenty of examples of this, the flood, the Ark, the Bronze Serpent, and so forth. With regard to Christ, the anti-type is expansive and global.
5. The case of the house of Eli parallels the warning passages in Hebrews. I need not labor all of them as mentioned in the book of Hebrews. However, one does stand out as relevant—Heb 10:26:

   For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins… (emphasis added)

   The Greek for “no longer,” is οὐκέτι, which is an adverb of time. Οὐκέτι never means, “no other.” Thus, there was a sacrifice for their sin, but now, due to their sin, there is no longer a sacrifice for their sin; it has been withdrawn. This seems on all accounts to be the most natural reading of the text. In short, then, due to sin, access to atonement has been withdrawn from these apostates. The thought here is the same as that which lies at the back of John’s claim that there are some for whom there is no forgiveness, so do not pray for them (1 John 5:16).
   
   Given the force of Heb 10:26, the case is the same with the House of Eli. Because of their sin, access to atonement(s) as a means of forgiveness has been withdrawn. Understood in this manner, there is here no argument for limited satisfaction. On the other hand, it actually entails the converse, a satisfaction was made even for those who are finally impenitent, which due to sin, access to atonement, having once made for them, is now to be removed.
6. If the argument is that Christ’s satisfaction did not cover the sins of the House of Eli, therefore Christ’s satisfaction is limited in itself, per se, then this is rebutted easily enough by the following points:

• While the Old Testament sacrifices of the atonement may be denied to the house forever, this does not necessarily entail that Christ’s satisfaction is likewise denied to them.
• It would still be wrong to generalize from the House of Eli to the totality of the non-elect.
• It remains most probable that the access to the benefit of the Old Testament atonements are denied to Eli’s house as a means for forgiveness, not necessarily that, absolutely considered, there was no provision of satisfaction obtained for his house per se given the fact of the yearly sacrifice which was made for all the people and for all their sins (Lev 16:21).
• It still remains the case that this proves that there once was an atonement for that house, but that it has access to it has been withdrawn due to sin.
• What is more, given the force of Ezek 18:14–20, there is good reason to believe that the judgement on the fathers may be removed from the righteous sons.
• Given that it is most probable that the members of the House of Eli are probably all dead, such an argument seems rather moot, if not even irrelevant.

Conclusion

If all one wants to do is to show that there are some people for whom there is no access to atonement, we agree with that general statement.

If, however, one wishes to use this case to argue for the wider claim that Christ did not die for the non-elect, one would have to prove (2), above, and then engage in a generalization fallacy that this is applicable to all the non-elect. However, that generalization would, itself, beg the question, formally.

Original post here (click).

John Calvin (1509–1564): God Gives Men Time to Repent

1)

Moreover, the Lord here commends his own long-suffering. Even then the Amorites had become unworthy to occupy the land, yet the Lord not only bore with them for a short time, but granted them four centuries for repentance. And hence it appears, that he does not, without reason, so frequently declare how slow he is to anger. But the more graciously he waits for men, if, at length, instead of repenting they remain obstinate, the more severely does he avenge such great ingratitude. Therefore Paul says, that they who indulge themselves in sin, while the goodness and clemency of God invite them to repentance, heap up for themselves a treasure of wrath, (Rom. 2:4;) and thus they reap no advantage from delay, seeing that the severity of the punishment is doubled; just as it happened to the Amorites, whom, at length, the Lord commanded to be so entirely cut off, that not even infants were spared. Therefore, when we hear that God out of heaven is silently waiting until iniquities shall fill up their measure; let us know, that this is no time for torpor, but rather let every one of us stir himself up, that we may be beforehand with the celestial judgment. It was formerly said by a heathen, that the anger of God proceeds with a slow step to avenge itself, but that it compensates for its tardiness by the severity of its punishment. Hence there is no reason why reprobates should flatter themselves, when he seems to let them pass unobserved,¹ since he does not so repose in heaven, as to cease to be the Judge of the world; nor will he be unmindful of the execution of his office, in due time.² We infer, however, from the words of Moses, that though space for repentance is given to the reprobate, they are still devoted to destruction. Some take the word עון, (ayon,) for punishment, as if it had been said that punishment was not yet matured for them. But the former exposition is more suitable; namely, that they will set no bound to their wickedness, until they bring upon themselves final destruction.
_______________
1 “Eo dissimulante.”
2 “Nec officii sui in tempore obliviscatur.” The sense given in the translation would perhaps scarcely have been elicited from these words, without the aid of Calvin’s own French translation, which thus renders the passage, ‘Et ne s’oublie point de faire son office en temps due.’ The Old English version, by adhering to a barely literal rendering, deprives the sentence of all meaning; “neither doth he in time forget his duty.”—Ed.

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis,” trans. John King, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1:419–20 (Gen 15:16); italics original.

2)

18. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken. The gradation of punishments, which is here mentioned, shews that they are so tempered by God’s kindness, that He only lightly chastises those whose stupidity or hardness of heart He has not yet proved; but when obstinacy in sin is superadded, the severity of the punishments is likewise increased; and justly so, because those who, being admonished, care not to repent, wage open war with God. Hence the more moderately He deals with us, the more attentive we ought to be to His corrections, in order that even the gentle strokes, which He in His kindness softens and tempers, may be enough. Paul says that hypocrites heap up to themselves a treasure of greater vengeance, if they take occasion from His forbearance to continue unmoved, (Rom. 2:4, 5;) for those who do not repent, when admonished by light chastisements, are the less excusable. Wherefore let us give heed to that exhortation of David, that we “be not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding, whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle;” because “many sorrows shall be to the wicked.” (Ps. 32:9, 10.)

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony,” trans. Charles William Bingham, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 3:233 (Lev 26:18); italics original.

3)

Seven years, then, shall pass away, says he, until thou shalt know that there is a lofty ruler in the kingdoms of men. This is the end of the punishment, as we have previously said, for I need not repeat my former remarks. But we must remember this—God mitigates the bitterness of the penalty by making it temporary. Then he proposed this end to induce Nebuchadnezzar to repent, as he required many blows for this purpose, according to the old proverb about the fool who can never be recalled to a sound mind without suffering calamity.

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel,” trans. Thomas Myers, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 12:290–91 (Dan 4:28–32); italics original.

4)

Now let us see what is the application of this doctrine as to both people. When the Israelites and the Jews lived in exile, it was of great benefit for them to have this testified, that God was hiding his face for a time, that he might afford them time to repent; this is one thing.

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets,” trans. John Owen, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 13:213 (Hos 5:15).

5)

Before them, he says, the fire will devour, and after them the flame will burn. He means that the vengeance of God would be such as would consume the whole people: for God had in various ways begun to chastise the people, but, as we have seen, without any advantage. The Prophet then says here that the last stroke remained, and that the Lord would wholly destroy men so refractory, and whom he could not hitherto restore to a sound mind by moderate punishments. For he had in a measure spared them, though he had treated them sharply and severely, and given them time to repent. Hence, when the Prophet saw that they were wholly irreclaimable, he says, that it now only remained that the Lord should at once utterly consume them.

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets,” trans. John Owen, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 47 (Joel 2:3 [1–11]); italics original.

6)

And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent. This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles,” trans. John Owen, in Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 22:419 (2 Pet 3:9).

The Torrance Edition:

We must think in the same way about the duration of the whole world as of any single human life. God sustains men by prolonging each man’s life for him to repent. Likewise He refrains from bringing forward the end of the world, so as to give everyone time for repentance. This is a very useful admonition, so that we may learn to use time properly, otherwise we shall justly pay the penalty of our laziness.

John Calvin, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St Peter,” trans. William B. Johnston, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 12:364 (2 Pet 3:9).

Original post here (click).

Peter van Mastricht (1630–1706) on Cameron and Amyraut as “Reformed” and “Orthodox” (Informal References)

1)

XXV1. Quest. Fourth. Does the physical operation of regeneration effect the will immediately? The rank Pelagians, with the Socinians, allow no physical operation of God at all in regeneration; but hold only to a moral and external operation. The Semi-Pelagians, with the Jesuits and Arminians, allow some physical efficiency in regeneration; but such as affects not the will, or free will; but only other faculties of the soul. Some of the Reformed, v.g. John Cameron, and many others allow indeed a physical operation upon the will; but that only by the medium of the understanding, which God, in regeneration so powerfully enlightens, and convinces that the will cannot but follow it’s own last practical dictate. The synod of Dort, with most of the Reformed, extend the physical operation of regeneration to the will, and that immediately, as it begets in the will a new propensity towards spiritual good, which, in my judgment, is most agreeable to truth.

Peter van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration (New-Haven: Printed and Sold by Thomas and Samuel Green, in the Old-Council-Chamber, 1770), 37–38. [Some spelling modernize; marginal header not included; italics original.]

2)

But as to the baptism of infants, here the orthodox are divided; some deny that regeneration can precede baptism, which therefore, as they suppose, only seals regeneration as future, when the elect infant shall arrive to years of discretion, so as to be capable of faith and repentance; thus the celebrated Amyraldus. But he inaccurately confounds regeneration, which bestows spiritual life in the first act or principle (by which the infant is effectually enabled, when he arrives to the exercise of reason, to believe and repent), with conversion; which includes the actual exercises of faith and repentance; which cannot take place before the years of discretion.

van Mastricht, A Treatise on Regeneration, 46–47. [Some spelling modernized and italics original.]

Note: Mastricht’s Treatise on Regeneration is an extract from his Theologia theoretico-practica which was translated and published separately in 1770.

3)

The Reformed universalists distinguish between objective and subjective grace: they make the former universal and state that the latter is proper only to the elect.²⁵
_______________
25 E.g. Moises Amyraut (1596–1664), De libero hominis arbitrio (Saumur: Jean Lesnier, 1667); another form of Reformed universalism is represented by John Davenant (1572–1641), Dissertationes duae, prima de morte Christi … altera de praedestinatione et reprobatione (Roger Daniel, 1650).

Petrus van Mastricht, Faith in the Triune God, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester and Michael T. Spangler, vol. 2 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), 367.

4)

It is asked: 1. Is God not occupied with free choice except by moral providence? A comparison of opinions XI. This chapter is not so troubled with controversies particular to it. Yet at the same time it is asked, first, whether God is not occupied with the first determination of free choice except by his moral providence, to the exclusion of physical providence. The Pelagians and Pelagianizers—Socinians, Jesuits, Arminians, and others—in favor of free choice so urge moral governance that from free actions, as regards their first determination, they entirely exclude physical governance, when they state that he governs only by persuasions, to which they are able to yield or not to yield. Among the Reformed, those who receive the idea of universal grace and want the will to follow indeclinably the last judgment of the practical intellect, such as the renowned Cameron, Amyraut, and others, state that God so powerfully affects the intellect by his persuasions that he cannot but thoroughly move the will, but yet he does not immediately touch the will by conferring to it a new propensity in conversion, or by physical operation exciting and rousing that propensity once conferred, thus turning the will.

Petrus van Mastricht, The Works of God and the Fall of Man, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd M. Rester, vol. 3 of Theoretical-Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021), 361.

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

Peter Lombard (1100–1160) on the Death of Christ: Christ Died for All Sufficiently, for the Elect Efficiently

Primary Source:

1. ON THE HANDING OVER OF CHRIST, WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE FATHER, THE SON, JUDAS, AND THE JEWS. And so Christ is the priest, as he is also the victim and the price of our reconciliation. He offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.

Peter Lombard, The Sentences. Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2010), 86; Sententiarum libri quatuor, 3.20.5. “Christus ergo est sacerdos, idemque et hostia pretium nostrae reconciliationis: qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed Trinitati obtulit pro omnibus, quantum ad pretii sufficientiam; sed pro electis tantum salutem effecit.”

Secondary sources:

1. David Paraeus (from his contribution to Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism):

Lombard writes as follows: “Christ offered himself to God, the Trinity for all men, as it respects the sufficiency of the price; but only for the elect as it regards the efficacy thereof, because he effected, and purchased salvation only for those who were predestinated.”

Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888), 224; Sixteenth Lord’s Day, Q. 40, §3.

2. G. Michael Thomas:

“He offered himself for all as far as the sufficiency of the price is concerned, but, as far as efficacy is concerned, for the elect only.” Libri Sententiarum Quatuor, in J. Migne (ed.), Cursus Completus Patrologiae, Paris 1845.

G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536–1675) (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1997), 5, 9n10.

Original post here (click).