Martin Bucer (1491–1551) on Romans 2:4

Don’t Presume on God’s Patience. Martin Bucer: As we said before, this creates a dilemma. You know that God will punish sins, but despite this, as long as God is putting off exacting punishment from you on account of his leniency, you continue in every respect to live sinfully. Therefore, either you must think that you will escape God’s judgment, or you despise the goodness of God. The former is impossible, while the latter renders you liable to even more serious punishments. They were able to reason along these lines: “Since God treats us so indulgently and blesses us so abundantly, why should we have such a great fear of his judging us? Why should we not trust that we will escape it? For the things that he confers on us are not evidence of a wrathful Being or of One about to exact punishment.” The apostle therefore answers, “On account of this very thing—that while God shows you so much leniency and directs you to himself by such profuse goodness, you, hardened in your ungodliness, will not allow yourselves to be moved by these things to repentance for your perversities—there hangs over you a more severe judgment, and the wrath of God will make up for this slowness of punishment with an intolerable severity. Therefore, while you continue to despise the goodness and leniency of God that is, as it were, urging you to come to your senses out of your sins, you are doing nothing else than depositing something more everyday to the cumulative weight of your punishment, which will be unleashed on you all at once when the determined time for this judgment arrives.” Therefore we have this proposition: the more amply you enjoy the benefits of God while living in an ungodly way, and the less you feel sorry for evil, the more severe will be the punishments for your ungodliness that will be meted out to you. But, in case you may be entertaining doubts, let it be far from any of you to conclude that when that time comes you will escape the judgment of God. Commentary on Romans (1562).¹²
_______________
12 Bucer, Metaphrasis et Enarratio, 92 (this is a reprint of the 1536 edition).

Gwenfair Walters Adams, Timothy George, and Scott M. Manetsch, eds., Romans 1–8: New Testament, vol. VII of Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019), 85–86.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) on Romans 2:4 and God’s Wish

Don’t Mistake God’s Long-Suffering for Approval of Your Sin. Heinrich Bullinger: It is as if they were saying, “If he does not leave evil unpunished, but we are evil men and women, why are you being so dishonest with us? Certainly such a long time passing without our being punished is a powerful argument that we are not the kind of people you say we are, Paul.” This is like a benign creditor whose debtor denies that he owes him anything since he has not demanded the payment of the debt for a very long time. He will answer: “Is this how you thank me for my goodness and delay, by now denying me what is owed because I, having compassion on you, have for so long put off demanding it back?” Indeed, Paul vehemently sets his oration ablaze with an interrogation, as if he were saying, “With what impudence, may I ask, do you dare to invoke the long-suffering of the most blessed God as a defense of your ungodly behavior? As if he favors your misdeeds because until now he has employed such abundant goodness toward you! He is not delaying your punishment because he is pleased with your manner of life, but rather because by his long-suffering he wishes [voluit] to call you to your senses. For in the same way that God does not desire iniquity, he also “does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live.” Commentary on Romans (1582).¹⁰
_______________
10 Bullinger, Commentarii in Omnes Epistolas, 15; citing Ezek 18:23.

Gwenfair Walters Adams, Timothy George, and Scott M. Manetsch, eds., Romans 1–8: New Testament, vol. VII of Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019), 85.

Bio:
Wiki

Donald W. Sinnema (b. 1947) on the Compromise at the Synod of Dordt on Article II

When the Canons were being drafted, the difficulties remained especially with Art. II. In response to the first committee draft, the majority of the synod wanted to restrict the universal statements of Scripture to the elect alone. The British delegation, on the contrary, contended that such universal statements should neither be explained nor restricted to the elect. This would lay a foundation for preaching the gospel to all people, and it would in large part avoid giving offense to Lutherans (Limborch: 1684, 565–566).

In preparing the final draft of the Canons, the final difficulties had to do with rejections two and six of the Rejection of Errors section. The debate on the last rejection six centered on the scholastic issue of the nature of the necessity—absolute or hypothetical—of Christ’s incarnation for the sufficiency of the price of human redemption. On 18 April, as the last changes were being made to the Canons, the British theologians debated the matter at length over against the rest of the synod. They thought rejection six was a matter of scholastic speculation, and so they argued that this rejection should be omitted from the Canons. Most other synod delegates wished to retain this rejection. The president proposed that it be expressed in such a way that everyone would be satisfied. On 23 April, the synod, on the recommendation of the drafting committee, finally decided to delete this last rejection (Balcanqual: 1673, 2:144, 148–150, 153–154; Sinnema: 2011, 304–306; Lynch: 2019, 169–172).¹⁶

The final version of chapter II of the Canons accepted the received distinction between the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and the efficacy of his death only for the elect. But this chapter is also clothed with universal language and emphases, reflecting the influence of the British and Bremen theologians.
_______________
16. On this issue, see also Gatiss: 2013, 143–163.

Donald Sinnema, “Doctrinal Dissension among Delegates at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619),” in A Landmark in Turbulent Times: The Meaning and Relevance of the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), ed. Henk van den Belt, Klaas-Willem de Jong, and Willem van Vlastuin, Refo500 Academic Studies 84, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022), 186–87.

Richard Muller on Solutio, Solutio Idem, and Solutio Tantundem

solutio: solution, explanation, payment. In the doctrine of the death of Christ, a distinction is sometimes made between regarding his payment for sin as a solutio idem or solutio eiusdem, a payment in the same kind, namely, an exact or precise payment; or a solutio tantundem or solutio tantidem, a payment of the same value, namely, an accepted equivalent. Thus, in the first case, the solutio idem or eiusdem, Christ’s death would be regarded as a full satisfaction, effective in and of itself because it is understood to be the same (idem) as the debt. In the second case, the solutio tantundem or tantidem, as proposed by Grotius and some of the Reformed, Christ’s satisfaction is willed by God as an acceptable payment, albeit not absolutely identical to the offense but of the same value. The concept of a solutio tantundem was crucial to Grotius’s defense of the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction against the Socinians, who had argued the unacceptability of satisfaction theory on the ground that Christ’s suffering was not the same as the penalty of death for sin. Whereas Grotius can be read as viewing the tantundem as an acceptation of Christ’s death as equivalent, Reformed advocates of this solution typically insisted on the tantundem as fully equivalent in value. See acceptatio; acceptilatio.

Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 339.

A Podcast on Problems with the TULIP

On Jul 28, 2024, I participated in a discussion on the “Prostestant Perspective” podcast with Oz, as well as with Edwin from “Scholasticism Reformed” and Edgar from “Reformed Polemics” on the issue of “The Problems With TULIP: A Reformed Discussion.” Here is that discussion:

Two Podcast Interviews on the Theology and Varieties of Hyper-Calvinism

Back in July, I participated in a video interview on “The Protestant Perspective” channel, with Oz and Austin Brown, on the subject of hyper-Calvinism. We had a lot to cover, and so did 2 very long recordings on the history and theology of hyper-Calvinism, with its variations, etc. Here are the two videos:

Part 1 Streamed live on Jul 16, 2024:



Part 2 Streamed live on Jul 20, 2024:



To study the issue further, and to see some of the sources I quoted in these interviews, see my posts here (click) on the topic of hyper-Calvinism.

John Flavel (1630–1691) on Christ’s Willingness to Receive Sinners

Quest. 13. But how may it appear that he is willing to receive me?

Answ. Make trial of him thyself. If thou didst but know his heart to poor sinners, you would not question it. Believe what he saith in the gospel; there thou shalt find that he is a willing Saviour; for therein thou hast, first, his most serious invitations, Mat. 11:28. “Come unto me, ye that are weary and heavy laden.” Isa. 55:1. “Ho! every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters.” These serious invitations are, secondly, backed and confirmed with an oath, Ezek. 33:11. “As I live, I desire not the death of a sinner.” Thirdly, Amplified with pathetical wishes, sighs and groans, Luke 19:42. “Oh! that thou hadst known, even thou, at least, in this thy day.” Fourthly, Yea, delivered unto them in undissembled tears, Matt. 23:37, 38. “He wept over it, and said, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” Fifthly, Nay, he hath shed not only tears, but blood, to convince thee of his willingness. View him in his dying posture upon the cross, stretching out his dying arms to gather thee, hanging down his blessed head to kiss thee; every one of his wounds was a mouth opened to convince thee of the abundant willingness of Christ to receive thee.

John Flavel, “A Sober Consideration of the Sin of Drunkenness,” The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, 6 vols. (London; Edinburgh; Dublin: W. Baynes and Son; Waugh and Innes; M. Keene, 1820), 5:337. In question 9, on page 336, Flavel described sinners not yet damned as saying to themselves, “I have the [may be’s] of mercy, and they [the damned] have not. Oh! what would they give for a possibility of salvation?”

Bio:
Wiki
DNB