Florus of Lyon (ca.800–ca.860): Sermon on Predestination

A note about this sermon:

Florus (c.800-860) served as deacon and teacher in the church at Lyons under the bishops Agobard, Amolo, and Remigius. He wrote several treatises related to the Gottschalk predestination controversy, some of which have been passed down under the names of Amolo and Remigius. Florus wrote this Sermon on Predestination (Sermo de praedestinatione) in response to certain persons who asked him about divine foreknowledge, predestination, and free will. In a codex at Trier, it was attached to Amolo’s Letter to Gottschalk (Epistola ad Godescalcum). Its concern that predestination does not mean a person is unable to change his spiritual status, and its comments about Gottschalk in the closing paragraph, suggest that it was written about the same time as Amolo’s letter, circa 851-852. Between 853-855, serving under Remigius, Florus concerned himself with responses to Hincmar, Pardulus, Rabanus, and Eriugena, and took a more mediating position with regard to Gottschalk. Edition: PL 119:95-102; PL 125:57-9; PL 116:97-100 (attributed to Amolo).

Francis X. Gumerlock, “Florus of Lyon—Sermon on Predestination,” in Gottschalk & A Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin, ed. & trans. V. Genke and F. X. Gumerlock (Mediæval Philosophical Texts in Translation 47; Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010), 206.

 

SERMO FLORI DE PRÆDESTINATIONE, SICUT EST DE EBONIS SCRINIO SUMPTUS.

______________________________

Almighty God, since He is most truly the true and only God, has by His own eternal and unchangeable knowledge foreknown all things before they were done, as the Scripture testifies, saying, “Eternal God, who understandest secret things, who knowest all things before they are done.” He foreknew, therefore, without doubt, both the good deeds that the good would do, and the evil which the wicked would do: in the good He wrought by His grace that they should be good, but in the case of the wicked He did not cause that they should be wicked (which be far from Him!) but merely foreknew that they would be such through their own fault. For the foreknowledge of God has not imposed upon them such a necessity that they could not be otherwise than wicked; but only what they would be of their own freewill; this He, as God, foresaw by virtue of His Omnipotent Majesty. Whence the Scripture, pointing out to us His spotless justice, says of Him, “He hath commanded no one to act wickedly, neither hath He give to any man licence to sin.” So that inasmuch as unrighteous men act wickedly, and turn the space of this life, which God has given them to use for good purposes, to evil pursuits, the fault is not God’s, but their own, and so they are rightly damned by His justice. Moreover, the same Almighty God foreknew that the damnation of those would be eternal, whom He foresaw would persist in their own wickedness; but that this would be in consequence of their own deserts, and not (which be far from Him) from His own injustice, Who has ordained nothing contrary to justice, and who will reward every man according to his works; that is to say, He will give to those who do good works, eternal blessings, and to those who do evil, eternal misery. Therefore in regard of the good, He altogether foreknew both that they would be good by His grace, and by the exercise of the same grace would receive eternal rewards; that is, that both in the present life they would live rightly, and in the future would be rewarded blessedly,—but both from the gift of the mercy of God. Whence the Apostle calls them vessels of His mercy, saying, “That He might shew the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy which He hath prepared for glory.” On the contrary, however, He both foreknew that the wicked would be wicked through their own depravity (malitia), and would be punished with eternal vengeance by His justice. Just as He foreknew concerning the traitor Judas, that “it was he who should betray Him,” as the Gospel says, “when he was one of the twelve,” for He foreknew his eternal damnation when He said, “Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed. It were good for him if that man had not been born.” And so in the case of the wicked Jews, He undoubtedly foreknew what their impiety would be, of which He spoke beforehand in the Psalm,—“They gave Me gall to eat, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.” He foreknew also their subsequent damnation, concerning which He added in the same Psalm,—“Let them be wiped out of the book of the living, and not be written among the righteous.” But in their case, as in the case of all the ungodly, wickedness arises from their own depravity, and then condemnation follows from the Divine justice. In this manner we must think of the predestination of God, because in the case of the good He has predestined both their goodness which should spring from the gift of His grace, and their eternal reward for the same goodness; that by His gift they should be made good, and by His gift should be rewarded. Whence the Apostle says, “Who hath predestined us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself;” and in another place, “Whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.” He has therefore predestinated His elect, both that now they should be received into the adoption of sons of God by the grace of baptism, and hereafter be made conformable to the image of the Son of God. He has predestinated altogether that both here they should be good, not of themselves, but through Him; and that there they should be blessed, not by themselves, but by Him. In either case, therefore, He foreknew and predestinated His future blessings in them and concerning them; but in the wicked and impious, Almighty God did not predestinate wickedness and impiety, that is, that they should be wicked and impious, and that they could not be otherwise: but those whom He foreknew and foresaw would be wicked and impious through their own fault, He predestinated to eternal damnation by just judgment; not because they could not be otherwise, but because they would not. They themselves are therefore the cause of their own damnation, but God is the just Judge and Orderer of the damnation itself; for He has not predestinated what is unjust, but that which is just. He has predestinated therefore crowns for the righteous, and punishment for the ungodly, since each is just.

And the Apostle, commending this justice to us, says, “Is God unjust who taketh vengeance? God forbid.”

*                *                *                *                *                *
Almighty God is not then the cause of death or perdition to any man, but the wicked procure for themselves death and perdition by their own deeds and words, while by acting wickedly, and more wickedly persuading others, they bring damnation both on themselves and others; while, loving the way of iniquity and perdition, they turn aside from the right path, and hasten as it were with their hands joined, with a like consent in wickedness, to everlasting damnation; and being confederate with death, and enemies of eternal life, themselves, according to their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath. In which day of the just judgment of God, because every one receives according to his works, no one is condemned by a foregone judgment (præjudicio) of God, but by the desert of his own iniquity. For He has not predestinated that any one should be wicked, but He has predestinated with regard to every wicked man that he should not go unpunished; because also every just law has not a fault (crimen), lest it should be unjust, and yet it punishes the guilty (criminosum), that it may be truly just. He, therefore, who says that they who perish are predestinated to perdition, and that therefore it cannot be otherwise, must likewise affirm this is the case of the righteous also, as if they are therefore saved, because, being predestinated to salvation, they could not be otherwise than saved. He, therefore, who talks so confusedly and foolishly, takes from the one the merit of damnation, and from the other the merit of salvation. And so what else is his meaning, but that, according to him, since the necessity of perdition is imposed on those who perish, so on those who are saved is imposed the necessity of salvation? And so neither can the one be damned with justice, because they could not be righteous; nor the other rewarded with justice, because they were not able to be anything but righteous. So that in either case both perdition and salvation does not result from the judgment of their own actions, but from the fore-judgment (præjudicio) of the Divine pre-ordination. And then, where will be that “who will render to every one according to his works?” and again, “Is God unjust who taketh vengeance? God forbid?” For the cause of the perdition of those who perish is openly referred to God, if He has so predestinated them to destruction that they are not able to alter their condition. But to think or speak this is horrible blasphemy. But the faith of the Catholic Church, of which we ought to be the sons and followers, thus commends itself to us to be most firmly held, as we have briefly pointed out above according to the authority of Holy Scripture, viz., that Almighty God foreknew in the case of the wicked their wickedness, because it is of themselves, but did not predestinate it, since it is not of Him; but their punishment He both foreknew, because He is God, and predestinated, because He is just, so that in themselves lies the deserving of their own damnation, and in Him the power and judgment of justly condemning. For God does not predestinate anything but what He designs to do; but He foreknows many things which He does not design to do, as all the wickedness which wicked men do, and not He. Also, that the wicked themselves do not therefore perish because they could not be good, but because they would not be good, and through their own fault arrived at the condition of vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and continued in the mass of damnation, either by original or actual deserving of it. In the case of the good, however, Almighty God, as it has been sufficiently shewn above, both foreknew and predestinated that in the present life they should by His grace be good, and in the future also happy. For of each kind of their good, that is, both their present and future, He Himself is the Author and Giver, and therefore without doubt, of each the Foreknower and Predestinator; since they themselves by themselves not only could be otherwise, but also were otherwise, before that they were made righteous, from being unrighteous, by Him who justifies the ungodly. So that, whether in those who are saved or in those who perish, their own free-will is rewarded and their own free-will is condemned. But in the one, since by the grace of God our Saviour the will is healed, so that from wicked and depraved it becomes good and right, there can be non doubt that it is most worthily rewarded. But in the others, since the will does not submit to receive healing by the Saviour, most justly by the same Judge will feel eternal damnation.

And this in few words is the whole, which, according to the truth of the Catholic Faith, must be held concerning free-will. That is to say, that god has constituted every man capable of free-will; but because by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, since all have sinned, so the free-will, belonging to the whole human race, being vitiated and corrupted by the fault of his sin, is so blinded and weakened that it suffices man for evil doing, that is, for the ruin of iniquity, and can be free to this alone; but to well-doing, that is, for the exercise of virtue and shewing forth the fruit of good works, in no way can it rise or be strong, unless by the faith of the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, it be restored, illuminated, and healed, as the Saviour Himself promises in the Gospel, saying, “If the Son shall set you free, then shall ye be free indeed.” And the Apostle says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” And that the human will is freed, illuminated, and healed by this grace of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ, let that joyful exclamation of the Psalmist testify, “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom then shall I fear?” Let him, therefore, who desires to receive this grace of liberty, so that he may become truly free to live piously and righteously, not presume on his own strength, but commit himself faithfully to Him to be healed and strengthened, concerning Whom the same Psalmist says, “Order my steps in Thy word, and so shall no wickedness have dominion over me.”

“Letter of Florus,” in Henry G. Newland, ed., A New Catena on St. Paul’s Epistles: A Practical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians (Oxford: J. H. and J. Parker, 1860), 15–20. The Latin text can be found here: Florus Lugdunensis Diaconus, Sermo de praedestinatione, Migne, CXIX. col. 95–102. His other works in Latin can be found here (click). Another English translation was done by Francis X. Gumerlock. See “Florus of Lyon—Sermon on Predestination,” in Gottschalk & A Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin, ed. & trans. V. Genke and F. X. Gumerlock (Mediæval Philosophical Texts in Translation 47; Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010), 206–211. For more that may possibly be written by Florus (or Remegius) regarding predestination, see also “A Reply to the Three Letters,” in Early Medieval Theology, ed. George E. McCracken, trans. Allen Cabaniss (The Library of Christian Classics; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 148–175.

Bio:
Wiki
Schaff
Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent)
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theoloogical and Ecclesiastical Literature

Other biographical information:

Florus of Lyon (Florus Magister, Florus Lugdenensis, ca. 800–ca. 860) was a Spanish scholar and deacon of Lyon. He seems to hve owed his ecclesiastical career to Agobard of Lyon and remained unwaveringly loyal to him throughout his life. It has proved difficult to document Florus’s early years, but it seems reasonable to assume that he had come to Lyon early in life, perhaps for his education or to begin his ecclesiastical career. Florus clearly benefited from an education in the classics, as well as a deep grounding in the church fathers. He became particularly adept at liturgical issues, a skill that was put to the test when Agobard was exiled in 835 and Amalarius of Metz was appointed the episcopal administrator. Amalarius began to disseminate a quite different understanding of the Mass, one that was far more allegorical than Florus could stomach. Florus published his rebuttal to Amalarius’s Service Book (Liber officialis) and eventually accused Amalarius of heresy. Florus was successful in having Amalarius and his book formally condemned at the Council of Quierzy in 838, which resulted in Agobard returning to Lyon. However, the eventual victory was Amalarius’s because his approach to explaining the Mass eventually becaue the common way in medieval Christianity.

In keeping with his liturgical interests, Florus compiled a martyrology for the Lyonnais church, drawing upon a similar work of the Venerable Bede. Florus’s avid reading of patristic sources led him to publish a compilation on the Pauline Epistles, a text that very much anticipates the Ordinary Gloss. Florus also wrote in support of Gottschalk of Orbais in the controversy over the doctrine of predestination.

James R. Ginther, “Florus of Lyon,” in The Westminster Handbook to Medieval Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 69.

FLORUS (d. c.860). Scholar and controversialist. Nothing is known of his early life before he became a deacon of Lyons during the period when Agobard was its bishop (816-40). After Agobard’s deposition (he was later reinstated) in 835 because of his opposition to the schemes of Empress Judith, Florus defended the rights and independence of the Church of Gaul in De iniusta vexatione ecclesia Lugdonesis. His other writings included a defense of moderate predestination against the extreme views of Gottschalk, three treatises on liturgy, a commentary on the epistles of Paul, some additions to the Martyrology of Bede, and a collection of poems.

J. D. Douglas, ed., “FLORUS,” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 381.

Florus (d. c.860), deacon of Lyons. Little is known of his life, but he was prob[ably] born in the region of Lyons. He served successive Abps. of Lyons, Agobard, Amolo, and Remigius, and was a canon of the cathedral church. His works on canon law, liturgy, and theology, which he appears never to have signed, were written in their service. When Amalarius was made administrator of the see of Lyons and tried to make changes in the liturgy, Florus attacked him in a series of works, one of which, the ‘Expositio Missae’, continued to be read. He took part in the controversy on predestination, defending Gottschalk and attacking Johannes Scottus Erigena. He was deeply versed in patristic writings, and the manuscripts at Lyons contain many traces of his editorial work. He compiled various Expositions on the Pauline Epistles, based on the writings of different Fathers; the one based on works of St Augustine circulated widely under the name of Bede.

F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, ed., “Florus,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 620–621.

Thomas Anyan (c.1580–1632) on the Will of God and Reprobation

For the will of God toward, mankind is (if I may so speak) Orbicular, environing universal man, with Mercies and Judgements, with Salvation, and Damnation: if with repentance and works of righteousness we turn to the right hand, we shall find a Merciful Father, and be accepted of him; but if we remain obdurate in our sin, and turn to the left hand, we shall see an Angry Judge and rue the punishments of his wrath. Which change and alteration is in us, not in God; God doth not bow to man, but man doth come to God; nor doth God leave any man of any nation, but man doth revolt from his Creator. Not only the Schools, but Expositors both Orthodox & Romish, stand at this day much distracted, with a diversity, or at least a divers conceit of the Will of God; of his Antecendent, and Consequent, Hidden and Revealed will, of his Absolute, and Conditional Will: whereas to speak properly, God’s Will is one and the same, nor can he be said to have two Wills, no more than to have two Wisdoms, two Mercies, two Goodnesses, or a diversity of other [of] his Essential Attributes. But as the Wisdom of God (to instance in that Attribute) is by St. Paul termed πολυποίκιλος, Eph. 3.10. which some render Multiformis, others Multis modis varia, and our English Manifold; which is yet but one: so the Will of God being one and the same in itself, may yet in respect of us, and the diverse effects thereof, be termed πολυποίκιλος, Manifold, and Divers. The ground of all these Distinctions is taken out of Damascene [i.e. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, ii. 29], and by Damascene out of Chrysostome, Hom. 1. in Epist. ad Eph. [or here; see also his Homily 18 on Hebrews], There is in God (saith he) a two-fold Will, θέλημα - οιον, θέλημα πρῶτον, το μη απολεσθαι ημαρτηχότας. There is in God a two-fold Will, a First and a Second; the first and principal will of God doth immediately proceed from God himself, whereby he desireth to do good unto all, τὸ μη απολεθαι ἡμαρτηχότας, & it is Voluntas simplicis complacentiæ, and may be termed Voluntas benefactiendi. His secondary will doth proceed from contingent causes without God, and is occasioned by us, and it may be termed Voluntas iustitiæ, which doth arise from our sins, which God cannot but put in execution without prejudice to his Justice. The first is the Will of God, wherein he taketh delight and pleasure, and is by the same Father termed Θέλημα προηγουμενον, the principal will of God. That which hath been spoken I thus bring home to my text. That it is the Will of God to leave many of most nations in the corrupt mass of perdition, I well know: but that it is his principal Will, his εύδοχια, or Voluntas simplicis complacentiæ, to decree the absolute reprobatio of any man of any nation, I utterly deny. Deus non est prius ultor, quam homo est peccator, saith Aug. ep. 105 [Letter 105]. Man deserves his punishment, before he hath it, & God makes no man a reprobate without just cause. The word Reprobation or Reprobate is in Scripture seldom used to this purpose, & the Greek word Αδοκιμος will hardly carry it, signifying as well Improbus, or Reprehensione dignus, as a Reprobate, and therefore should be used more sparingly, and not so absolutely determined of. In the Fathers the opposite to Predestination to life eternal is Predestination to a second death; and to Election to grace, they oppose Dereliction in the Mass of perdition, seldom Reprobation. In those parts of St. Austin, which I have read, I never met with the word Reprobus as opposite to Elect, but once; & whosoever hath spent most hours in reading the works of that Judicious Father, did never in that sense read it twice.

Thomas Anyan, A Sermon Preached at Saint Marie Spittle, April 10, 1615 (Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1615), 23–25.

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on Reprobation and the Loving Heart of God

Consider, 1. That the simple act of reprobation, it is a leaving or passing by, not a cursing of the creature.

Consider, 2. Neither doth this act alienate the heart of God from the reprobate, nor tie him up from loving, favouring, or blessing of him; no, not from blessing of him with the gift of Christ, of faith, of hope, and many other benefits. It only denieth them that benefit, that will infallibly bring them to eternal life, and that in despite of all opposition; it only denieth so to bless them as the elect themselves are blessed. Abraham loved all the children he had by all his wives, and gave them portions also; but his choice blessing, as the fruit of his chiefest love, he reserved for chosen Isaac. Gen. xxv. 5, 6.

John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Whole Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (1875; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:338.

Bio:  

Wiki

Note: The Reformed scholastics generally distinguish between preterition and pre-damnation in God’s eternal decree touching the non-elect. By the term “reprobation” above, Bunyan clearly has in mind the notion of simple preterition (negative reprobation), or the divine decree not to grant certain blessings, such as faith, to the non-elect. He’s not dealing with God’s purpose to give the non-elect over to damnation on account of sin (i.e. pre-damnation). Pre-damnation is always on account of sin (even in William Twisse’s supralapsarian construct), and so is conditional, but preterition is unconditional, and is therefore a simple passing-by.

Update (re: predamnation and Twisse):

Notice what Nicholas Byfield (1579–1622) said about preterition and predamnation:

Fifthly, that whereas Divines make two parts of the decree of reprobation, Preterition and Predamnation; all Divines [even the supralapsarians] are agreed for the latter [predamnation], that God did never determine to damne any man for his owne pleasure, but the cause of his perdition was his owne sinne. And here is reason for it: for God may, to shew his soveraignty, annihilate his creature; but to appoint a reasonable creature to an estate of endlesse paine, without respect of his desert, cannot agree to the unspotted justice of God. And for the other part of passing over, and forsaking a great part of men for the glory of his justice, the exactest Divines doe not attribute that to the mere will of God, but hold that God did first looke upon those men as sinners, at least in the generall corruption brought in by the fall. For all men have sinned in Adam, and are guilty of high treason against God.

Nicholas Byfield, A Commentary Upon the First Three Chapters of the First Epistle General of St. Peter (London: Printed by Miles Flesher and Robert Young, 1637), 312.

Notice that Byfield says all divines are agree on the cause of predamnation being sin. They know that to say otherwise entails blasphemy, since it would be against God’s just nature. It is also worth noting that the terminology of “predamnation” (prædamnatio) is frequently used among the Reformed orthodox. It’s in Lucas Trelcatius, Franciscus Junius, Francis Turretin (Institutes, 1:381, 382, 389), Richard Stock, Edward Leigh, Nathanael Homes, Adam Martindale, Johannes Wollebius, Thomas Manton, James Ussher, George Newton, John Trapp, and Edward Polhill, just to name a few. William Cunningham noted that there are “two distinct acts, which Calvinistic theologians usually regard as included in what is commonly called the decree of reprobation, namely, first, praeteritio, or passing by, which is an act of sovereignty; and secondly, praedamnatio, which is a judicial act, described in the [Westminster] Confession as ‘ordaining them to dishonour and wrath for their sin’” (Historical Theology, 2:422–23). For more on this, it is worth consulting Donald W. Sinnema, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine (PhD diss. University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, 1985).

On a discussion board, someone has posted this quote from William Twisse, as if it is contrary to what I said:

In like sort, if I am demanded whether God did decree, of the mere pleasure of his will, to refuse to give grace and glory unto some, and to inflict upon them damnation. To this I cannot answer at once, there being a fallacy in the demand. But distinguish them: I answer and say, that, as touching the point of denying grace, God doth that of his mere pleasure; but as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure, but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency, and all the bitter fruits that shall proceed from them. So that reprobation, according to our tenet rightly stated, is the decree of God partly to deny unto some, and that of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, for the curing of that infidelity and hardness of heart, which is natural unto all, and partly to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin, to wit, in infidelity and impenitency, and all the fruits that proceed therehence.

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:5–6.

This quote actually substantiates my point about Twisse. Notice that, with respect to “denying grace,” i.e. negative reprobation, Twisse says this is of God’s mere pleasure. There is no cause in the creature that moves God either to elect some unto faith or to refuse others the grace of faith. However, “as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure [i.e. without a cause], but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency,” and all sin that proceeds from this. Twisse then distinguishes between senses of “reprobation” in the decree of God: 1) to deny unto some, of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, and 2) “to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin,” etc. 

The first sense is of God’s “mere pleasure,” or without a cause in the creature, but the second sense is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on account of sin in the creature. So, it is fair to say that, according to Twisse, the first sense, or negative reprobation, is unconditional (i.e. without a cause in the creature) and the second sense, or positive reprobation, is conditional (i.e. with a cause in the creature). As Twisse elsewhere said, “...God in this decree of condemnation hath alwayes the consideration of that sinne for which hee purposeth to damne them; for, undoubtedly, hee decrees to condemne no man but for sinne. It is impossible it should be otherwise; condemnation, in the notion thereof, formally including sinne” (A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof [London: Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646], 111; emphasis mine).

As Richard Muller has rightly noted, Twisse also distinguished between an unconditional election or predestination to faith and a conditional election or predestination to salvation. Zanchi and Bucer also made this distinction. Election to faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but election to salvation is through the instrumentality of faith and repentance, and so “conditional” in that instrumental sense, even though God grants the meeting of the condition in the elect. Corresponding to this in the case of the non-elect or reprobate, the denial of the grace of faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but the decree to damn is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on condition of final impenitence, infidelity, and all the sinful fruits that stem from unbelief.

Note what Twisse said:

In this respect of another will of God, I willingly confess, one may be accounted predestinate absolutely, and another reprobated absolutely, to wit, in respect of the will of giving the grace of faith and repentance unto one, and denying it to another [i.e. preterition, or negative reprobation]: And that because faith and repentance are not given and denied upon any condition, but absolutely, according to the mere pleasure of God; as we are ready to maintain. But herehence no species of contradiction arises, for like as it is not contradiction to say that God wills absolutely unto Paul the grace of faith and repentance, and conditionally wills unto him and everyone salvation, to wit, upon the condition of faith and repentance: In like sort, there is no contradiction to say that the same man predestinated absolutely unto faith, and conditionally unto salvation: In like sort it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith, and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation. And lastly, in like manner, there is no contradiction to say, that the same man is predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation; and yet absolutely reprobated from faith: especially seeing it is all one, to be predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation, and conditionally to obtain damnation: for he that is ordained to be saved in case he do believe, is therewithal ordained to be damned in case he believe not: The ground whereof is, that of our Savior “whosoever believes shall be saved, whosoever believes not shall be damned.” Now if God may both will unto a man salvation conditionally, to wit, upon the condition he believes, and yet withal will the denial of faith absolutely unto him, without all contradiction, (as I have already proven) it follows, that without contradiction, a man may be said both to be predestinated to obtain salvation conditionally, viz. In case he do believe, and so to be predestinated absolutely, to be hardened, or to have the grace of faith denied to him. So that this Author’s conclusion depends merely upon confusion of different denominations of a man said to be absolutely, or conditionally predestinated: which may be in respect of different things whereto he is predestinated, to the one absolutely, to the other conditionally, and consequently without all contradiction. For he that is absolutely reprobated from the grace of faith, may yet be conditionally predestinated unto salvation. For to be conditionally predestinated unto salvation, is to be conditionally predestinated unto damnation, and what sober man will say man will say, that there is any contradiction in this, to say that the same man is both conditionally reprobated unto damnation, and absolutely reprobated from faith. Faith being such a gift of God, that like as God absolutely bestows it on some, so as absolutely he denies it to others. But as for condemnation, that is inflicted on none but for sin, like as salvation is bestowed on none of ripe years, but as reward of obedience. In like manner, God decreed not either to bestow the one, or inflict the other but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other. Now if such confusion be committed in these denominations of the predestinate and reprobate, absolutely and conditionally, one the part of things willed by God, as namely in respect of grace and glory on the one side, and in respect of the denial of grace and glory, together with inflicting damnation on the other; How much more must this confusion be augmented, if not only different things willed by God (as before mentioned) are confounded, but over and above the act of God’s will is confounded with things willed by him. For as the act of God’s will, that it admits no condition, I have formerly demonstrated by diverse arguments…

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:176.

This represents what Twisse is saying above:

ELECT	NON-ELECT
Unconditionally predestined to faith.	Unconditionally denied the grace of faith.
Conditionally predestined to salvation.	Conditionally predestined to condemnation.

One can summarize Twisse’s view by saying, as Edwin H. Palmer said in his Twelve Theses on Reprobation, “Reprobation as preterition is unconditional, and as condemnation it is conditional” (The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972], 129).

Robert Reymond, a supralapsarian, said something similar:

And, while it is true that God’s determination to pass by the rest of mankind (this “passing by” is designated “preterition” from the Latin praeteritio) was grounded solely in the unsearchable counsel of his own will, his determination to ordain those whom he had determined to pass by to dishonor and wrath (condemnation) took into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.

Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 345.

Twisse said:

For as for God’s purpose to damne, we willingly professe, that as God damnes no man but for sin, so he purposeth to damne no man but for sinne. But as for his purpose to give or deny the grace of regeneration, the grace of faith and repentance, we as readily profess, that not the purpose only, but the very giving of faith and repentance, for the curing of infidelity and hardnesse of heart in some, and the denying of it unto others, so to leave their naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart uncured, proceeds merely according to the good pleasure of his will, according to that of the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth; And by a cloud of testimonies out of Austin we can prove, that in this very sense he understood the Apostle in that place.

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:109.

Commenting on supralapsarianism and Twisse’s view, John Gill said:

I answer, the Supralapsarians distinguish reprobation into negative and positive; negative reprobation is non-election, or preterition, a passing by of some, when others were chosen; the objects of this decree, are men considered as not yet created, and so neither wicked nor righteous. Positive reprobation is the decree of damnation, or that which appoints men to everlasting ruin, to which it appoints no man but for sin. It is therefore a most injurious representation of the Supralapsarians, that they assert that God has reprobated, that is, appointed innocent persons to eternal destruction; when they, over and over, say, as may easily be observed in the writings of that famous Supralapsarian, Dr. Twiss, that God has not decreed to damn any man, but for sin: and that the decree of reprobation is of no moment, or reason of nature, before, and without the consideration of sin. Now, if it is not incompatible with the justice of God, to damn men for sin, it can be no ways incompatible with his justice, to decree to damn men for sin.

John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 157.

We see in Twisse and others that God’s determination to damn is on account of their sin, or, as Reymond put it, positive reprobation takes “into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.” To say Twisse’s view is an “unconditional determination to damn men on account of sin” is incoherent, and not representative of Twisse’s thought. If God is taking into account men’s sin when he purposes to damn them, then that is clearly a condition in them, and so it is a conditional determination to damn men on account of sin. As Twisse said above, “God decreed not either to bestow the one [salvation], or inflict the other [damnation] but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other.” According to Twisse, “it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith [i.e. preterition], and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation.”

Henry Hickman’s (d.1692) Reply to Peter Heylin (1599–1662) on John Hooper (c.1495/1500–1555), Hugh Latimer (c.1487–1555), John Calvin (1509–1564), and Reprobation

I have all this while said nothing of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer, out of whose Writings the Doctor hath transcribed so much. And truly the things transcribed out of them are so impertinent that it would be no hazard to my Reader if I should wholly pass them over in silence. Yet I will not; but first shall say something of the men, secondly of their writings. Latimer was once a very hot Papist, as himself acknowledgeth against himself. Being converted from Popery, he was as zealous for the Reformed Religion; boldly reproving the sins of all, whether Rulers or Ruled. In his Sermons he used a style, which perhaps was then accounted elegant; but would now be judged ridiculous, at least unbeseeming the Pulpit. Hooper I look upon as one that feared the Lord from his youth; for he chose from his youth to leave Oxford, that he might not ensnare his conscience. Beyond the Seas he fell into acquiantance with the learned Henry Bullinger; and returned not into England till the Reign of King Edward: when he gained more love from the Laicks, than Clergy, being a stiff Non-conformist. Hand in drawing up the Articles of Religion he had none, one of them being diametrically opposite to his declared judgment; yet because he was very great, both for piety and learning, as his writings evidently show, therefore his judgment is not to be sleighted. And if Dr. Heylin have proved, or any one else can prove, that he and Latimer held the opinions afterwards called Arminian; I will grant that those opinions were not by the Protestant Church in King Edward’s time adjudged intolerable. Whether they held them or no? must be considered. First, I yield that they both asserted Universal Redemption. This being granted, the Doctor dare say, that

Dr. H[eylin]. Part 2. page 50.

He, (Mr. Hickman he means,) will not be confident in affirming, there can be any room for such an absolute Decree of Reprobation, antecedaneous and precedent to the death of Christ, as his great Masters in the School of Calvin have been pleased to teach him.

Ans. Mr. Hickman’s mind is best known to himself, so are his great Masters in the School of Calvin, if he ever had any such; but this I am confident of, that Calvin’s Decree of Reprobation may be maintained, and yet Universal Redemption not denied. Monsieur Amyrald [Amyraut], as great a Scholar as this last age hath afforded, hath in a whole Book defended Calvin’s absolute Decree against Mr. Hoard; yet the same Amyrald most strenuously defends Universal Redemption. Two Dissertations also of Bishop Davenant are published by careful and faithful hands: in the first, he sets himself to assert Universal Redemption by Christ; in the second, to assert Personal, both Election and Reprobation.

Let us see now what the Doctor can find in Latimer and Hooper.

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 37.

Latimer in his Sermon on Septuages. rebukes those vain Fellows who abuse Election and Reprobation to carnal Liberty, or Presumption.

Answ. Why so doth Calvin, so doth Ursin[us], so do our Divines at the Synod of Dort.

Dr. H. page 38.

Hooper in his Preface to the ten Commandments, saith, “We must not extenuate Original Sin, nor make God the Author of Evil; nor yet say, that God hath written fatal Laws, with the Stoicks, and in the necessity of destiny violently pulleth one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell.”

Answ. All this is just according to Calvin’s method. No Calvinists say, that God’s Decree offereth violence to Man’s Will, or pulleth a man into Heaven. Only they say, that Electing love makes men willing, and that Holiness is an effect of Election. As for Sin, that, they say, is not an effect of Reprobation, but only a Consequent. I, but

Dr. H. page 39.

Bishop Latimer teacheth us, that we are to enquire no further after our Election, than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Answ. Why so teach the Calvinists too, that our Election is not to be known, but by our knowledge of our interest in Christ. But the Anticalvinist will not say with Latimer, If thou findest thy self in Christ, then art thou sure of eternal life: He saith, A man may be in Christ, and be a Reprobate; a man may be in Christ to day, and in Hell to morrow.

Perhaps the Doctor will find more against Calvinistical Reprobation; or if he do not, he must be concluded to have beaten the Air. First we must hear what he makes Calvinistical Reprobation to be. ‘Tis that, he saith,

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47.

By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained, and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments, without any respect had unto their sins and incredulities. This is generally, he saith, maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin.

Ans. If it be so, then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin; for I never heard or read of any such Reprobation: nay, I never read of any person whatsoever, that asserted such a Reprobation. Sundry famous Schoolmen, quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione, were of opinion, that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation, he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself; and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin’s, in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione & Gratia: But the Calvinists (as many as I have met with) say, that as God never actually damned any man but for sin, so he never decreed to damn any but for sin. All that they say is but this, that Whereas Judas and Peter were both alike corrupted by the fall, and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace, the reason why God determined effectually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Judas, was the mere good pleasure of his will. The Calvinists are not engaged to say, that God reprobates any man who was not worthy to be reprobated. All that their opinion obligeth them to, is but this, Not to make sin the cause of preterition or non-election, comparatively considered. And against such preterition there is nothing in the Prayers of our Church, nothing in Latimer, nothing in Hooper, nothing in Cranmer, nothing in the whole Tenth Chapter of the Doctor’s second Part. And it is a wonder, that so ancient a Divine should trouble himself in so many pages to do execution upon a mere Chimæra: and yet this employment was so pleasing and acceptable to him, that he falls to it again in his Eleventh Chapter; In which, page 64, he makes the main Controversie in the Point of man’s Conversion to move upon this hinge, Whether the influences of God’s grace be so strong and powerful, that withall they are absolutely irresistible, so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same? But they that have either read the determinations of the Synod of Dort, or Calvin’s own Institutions, know, that the Controversie moves upon no such hinge: but this is the Question, Whether when converting Grace hath produced the whole effect God designed it unto, man still remains unconverted, and indifferent either to turn himself or not turn himself unto God? If converting Grace do leave a man thus indifferent, they say, that Conversion is rather to be ascribed to man than God; and that Paul made himself to differ from other Persecutors, and not God. But they never say, that God forceth or offereth violence unto the natural faculty of the will, or destroyeth any liberty that is essential to it. If any violence be offered, it is only unto corrupt lusts, and sinful inclinations; in which, I hope, I may have fair liberty to say, that the freedom of man’s will doth not consist. Let but any one fairly and impartially state this Question, by drawing Propositions concerning it out of the Writings before mentioned, and he will find nothing in Hooper or Latimer contradictory. The tenth Article of King Edward’s he will find perfectly to express the mind of the Calvinists. And so I might dismiss this matter, had not the Doctor thought meet page 67, as also in another Writing, to smite at us with a Dilemma, or something like a Dilemma, grounded upon the omitting of this Article in Queen Elizabeth’s time. Either this Article did favour Calvinism, or it did not: If it did not, why do the Calvinists alledge it? If it did, why is it in our latter Editions of the Articles left out? We have learnt from Logick, that such Dilemmas are not to be used, which may be inverted or retorted upon those that make them; and such is the present Dilemma, apparently, notoriously such. For thus I argue, Either this Article is Anti-calvinistical, or it is not: If it be not, why doth the Doctor produce it as such? If it be, why did our Reformers in Queen Elizabeth’s time (who were, as he would fain persuade us, Anticalvinistical) leave it out? He must either answer for himself, or not expect that we should answer for our selves: which yet we could easily do, did any Law of Disputation require it of us; for this might be the reason of the omission, because there was nothing in King Edward’s tenth Article, but what doth naturally and lineally descend from our present seventeenth Article.

Henry Hickman, Historia Quinq-Articularis Exarticulata; Or, Animadversions on Doctor Heylin’s Quinquarticular History (London: Printed for Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange, 1674), 179–183.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Note: William Lorimer, Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller, in addition to Hickman above, all claimed that John Hooper and Hugh Latimer taught universal redemption, in the sense that Christ satisfied for the sins of all men.

John Murray’s Caution on the “Reprobation” Term

Since most Calvinists today use the word “reprobate” in a loose manner, and employ it to reference God’s pretemporal decree in regard to the non-elect, this word of caution by Murray is needful:

In distinction from Dordt (cf. Arts. VI, XV, and XVI)¹ the [Westminster] Confession does not use this term [reprobation]. This restraint must be commended. Although the Scripture uses the term that is properly rendered ‘reprobate’ (cf. Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16), yet its use is such that the elements entering into the decree of God respecting the non-elect could not legitimately be injected into it. The presumption is that the Westminster divines hesitated to employ it for this reason. Biblical terms should not be loosely applied.
_______________
1. Calvin frequently uses the term ‘reprobation’. Cf. citations given above.

John Murray, “Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster on Predestination—A Comparative Study,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 4:210.

In an official letter of the pastors of Zürich to Geneva during the Bolsec controversy, they, according to Venema, said, “Those who are reprobate (reprobi) are not defined in terms of a decree of reprobation but as those who do not believe the word of God (verbo Dei non credunt) and impiously live in opposition to God” (Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 59n7). See “Réponse des ministres de Zurich à ceux de Genève,” in Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia [CO], ed. Baum, Cunitz & Reuss et al., vol. 8 (Brunschweig: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900), 231.

R. B. Kuiper (1886–1966) on Common Grace

The term common grace is used in different senses in different theologians. Wesleyan Arminianism teaches that, although man is by nature totally depraved, God bestows on every individual at birth sufficient grace to receive Christ in faith of his free volition. Because such grace is said to be bestowed on all, it is denominated “common.” It is further contended that he who exercises that grace by believing in Christ is in consequence born again. The Reformed position, on the other hand, insists that only he who by the grace of the Holy Spirit has been born again is capable of saving faith. Therefore it rejects the Wesleyan Arminian concept of common grace and employs that term in a radically different sense. It distinguishes sharply between common grace and special or particular grace and ascribes renewing quality only to the latter.

God’s Favor to All

Scripture teaches unmistakably that God bestows His saving grace upon the elect, but it teaches just as clearly that He manifests an attitude of favor to all men. The Psalmist sang: “The Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all” (Ps. 145:8, 9). In Jesus’ command to His disciples, “Love your enemies … that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 5:44, 45), the love of God for His enemies is undeniably implicit. God’s universal love is basic to the doctrine of common grace.

Scripture ascribes to the goodness of God the blessings of nature granted to all. Immediately after the Deluge God promised that the earth would not again be destroyed by a flood but that, so long as the earth remained, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night would not cease (Gen. 8:21, 22). Paul told the people of pagan Lystra and Derbe that God never left Himself without witness but did good, giving rain and fruitful seasons, and thus filling men’s hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14:17). And in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stated that God in love causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good, and rain to descend on the just and the unjust (Mt. 5:45).

Vestiges of God’s Image

When man fell into sin, God permitted him to retain certain vestiges of the Divine image in which he had been created. Prominent among those vestiges is a "sensus Deitatis." According to Romans 1:19-21, the heathen have some knowledge of God. In his Institutes of Christian Religion Calvin insisted that "a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart," even on the hearts of those who "seem to differ least from the lower animals" (I, iii, 1). Nor did God deprive man at his Fall of the precious gift of reason. It continued to be exercised by the offspring of ungodly Cain as well as by the descendants of godly Seth. In fact, in the early history of mankind the former excelled in the arts and sciences (Gen. 4:20–22). Calvin said: "In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we should avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or contemn truth wherever it appears." Referring to pagan lawgivers, philosophers, rhetoricians, physicians, and mathematicians, he declared: "We cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration" (Inst., II, ii, 15). Fallen man also continues to to be a moral being; that is to say, he has a sense of right and wrong, a conscience which tells him it is right to do the right, wrong to do the wrong. The Gentiles "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another" (Rom. 2:15).

By no means does the fact of man's retention of vestiges of the Divine image detract from his total depravity. His Fall resulted in the complete loss of true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). The Apostle Paul charged the heathen with suppressing the truth by their wickedness (Rom. 1:18, RSV) and changing the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25); and of both Jew and gentile he said: "There is none righteous, no, not one. . . . There is none that seeketh after God. . . . There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:10, 11, 18). Hence Calvin, having lauded the wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit to the pagans of antiquity, went on to say: "Still, though seeing, they saw not. Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller who sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their writings as if by chance. . . . To the great truths, what God is in himself, and what he is in relation to us, human reason makes not the least approach" (Inst., II, ii, 18). The Canons of Dort having granted that there remain in fallen man "the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior," go on to assert: "But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God" (III–IV, 4).

Restraint of Sin

God graciously restrains sin both in the individual and in the race. That truth is plainly implicit in the divine assertion, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6:3). With reference to Sarah, Abraham's wife, God said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her" (Gen. 20:6). And Scripture teaches that human government was ordained by God for the punishment of evil as well as the encouragement of that which is good (Rom. 13:1–4). Were it not for the Divine restraint of evil, human intercourse on this sin-ridden earth would be utterly chaotic. Since there is Divine restraint, a more or less orderly society occurs.

Encouragement to Good

Scripture teaches not only that God holds sin in check in the lives of the unregenerate; it ascribes to them the exercise of love and the doing of good. Said Jesus to His disciples: "If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what than have ye? for sinners even do the same" (Luke 6:32, 33). Here it becomes necessary to distinguish between "love" and "love," "good" and "good." Elsewhere, Scripture says of the unregenerate: "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12); and they are described as "haters of God" and "hating one another" (Rom. 1:30; Tit. 3:3). Only those who are born again are capable of "spiritual" good; that is to say, good motivated by love for God or that love for men which springs from love for God. The Heidelberg Catechism defines good works as "those which are done from true faith, according to the law of God, and to his glory" (Answer 91). Such works only the regenerate can perform. Yet, by virtue of the common grace of God others can and do perform good that may be denominated "civic" or "natural." But, though there is an outward conformance to precepts of God, there is something essentially lacking in them. Of such good the Westminster Confession of Faith says: "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing to God" (XVI, 7).

Sincere Offer of the Gospel

A most significant aspect of the doctrine of common grace is what Reformed theology designates "the universal and sincere offer of the Gospel." On the basis of Scripture, Reformed theology holds that from eternity God elected certain persons to eternal life and decreed that the others would because of their sins perish everlastingly. The latter phase of divine predestination is variously described as "preterition," "rejection," or "reprobation." Also on the basis of Scripture Reformed theology holds that "as many as are called by the Gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in his Word what is acceptable to him; namely, that all who are called should come unto him" (Canons of Dort, III-IV, 8). Yet such passages as Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Mt. 11:28; 23:37; and II Pet. 3:9 teach unmistakably that God not only promises eternal life to sinners in the case that they repent and believe, but most cordially invites all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe in order that they may be saved. The last-named passage says in so many words that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Thus Divine reprobation and the Divine offer of the Gospel admittedly constitute a paradox. Human reason has proved unable to harmonize them fully with each other. Here, as indeed everywhere, Reformed theology subjects human logic to the Divine logos. Commenting on Ezek. 18:23, Calvin said: "God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who are perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. . . . If any one should object, 'then there is no election of God, by which he has predestined a fixed number to salvation,' the answer is at hand: the prophet does not here speak of God's secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent, and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects, 'this is making God act with duplicity,' the answer is ready: that God always wishes the same thing though by different ways and in a manner inscrutable to us. Although, therefore, God's will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction and wishes them to perish" (Calvin's Commentaries in loco).

Contrast With Saving Grace

Common grace as described in the foregoing paragraphs differs essentially from particular or saving grace. No amount of common grace will save a sinner from sin and death. Yet common and saving grace are closely related. They may be said to be independent. Saving grace presupposes common grace. For example, a covenant of nature, which God established with Noah and his descendants, guaranteed the continuity of the human race (Gen. 8:21–9:17). With that covenant as a background, God subsequently established a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed, and in so doing guaranteed the continuity of the church (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:1–7). Had there been no human race, there could have been no church. in another example it may also be asserted without hesitation that because of His elect God frequently bestows blessings on men in general. For the sake of ten righteous persons God would have spared wicked Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:32). Jesus' saying, "Ye are the salt of the earth" (Mt. 5:13) indicates that God for the present bears with this sinful world because of the presence in it of His children as a preservative. The tribulation that will come to pass toward the end of time will be shortened for the elect's sake (Mt. 24:22). Whether it is solely for the sake of His chosen people that God dispenses the blessings of common grace to mankind is definitely another matter. So sweeping an assertion would be unwarranted.

Historical Survey

Although the doctrine of common grace is found by suggestion in some of Augustine's writings, it never came to be elaborated by the Church of Rome. Rome's disparagement of the natural, in contradistinction to the spiritual, accounts for that neglect. The anabaptists, instead of correcting that error, compounded it by positing an antithesis of the spiritual and the natural. To the present day a powerful strain of this persists in much of Protestantism. Hence, many Protestants—perhaps most of them—show little interest in the doctrine of common grace. The 16th-century Reformers, notably Calvin among them, may be said to have discovered that doctrine. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th it was elaborated and strongly stressed by such Dutch Calvinists as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. The former wrote three large volumes on this subject.

More recently, the present century witnessed considerable controversy on common grace among American Calvinists, particularly in the Christian Reformed Church. In 1920 Ralph Janssen, Professor of OT at Calvin Seminary, was charged with leanings toward higher criticism. Although he was exonerated by the Synod of that year, charges against him persisted. He retorted that his critics were neglecting the doctrine of common grace, and he quoted Kuyper and Bavinck to that effect, under both of whom he had studied at the Free University of Amsterdam. When he refused to defend himself at the Synod of 1922 because, as he contended, certain members of that Synod had by their denial of common grace disqualified themselves for proper evaluation of his teaching, that body found him guilty as charged. However, the very next Synod, that of 1924, found two of his most vehement critics, Henry Danof and Herman Hoeksema, guilty of denying the historic Reformed doctrine of common grace. These men insisted that an attitude of favor on the part of God to the non-elect is out of the question and that they are incapable of doing good whatsoever. Under three heads, Synod emphatically reaffirmed the doctrine of common grace. It also recommended further study of the subject. Attempts in that direction were subsequently made by Herman Kuiper, Cornelius Van Til, James Daane, William Masselink, and Alexander De Jong, among others. Discussion has brought to the fore the importance of the time factor. It is obvious that, although God from eternity decreed unalterably the damnation of certain men, so long as the non-elect have not in actual historical fact finally rejected Christ by unbelief, God does not exclusively regard them nor deal with them qua reprobate, but in many ways manifests His goodness to them. Yet that leaves the paradox of Divine reprobation and common grace unsolved. It has become increasingly clear that this paradox must be permitted to stand without modification. It behooves Christians to beware of detracting from either of its elements.

A significant question demanding further consideration than so far received is whether Christ merited the blessings of common grace for the non-elect by the Atonement. That God ever beholds His elect in Christ is perfectly clear. For Christ's sake He blesses them with natural blessings as well as spiritual. Does God also for the sake of Christ bestow some good things on the non-elect? Calvin has not answered that question explicitly. William Cunningham has said: "Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other" (Historical Theology, II, 333). Robert S. Candlish observed that the entire history of the human race from the Apostasy to the Final Judgment is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. He has asserted: "These come to them through the mediation of Christ" (The Atonement, 358 f.). Also, L. Berkhof, while admitting that Reformed theologians generally have been hesitant to say that Christ's atoning blood merited the blessings of common grace for the reprobate, has concluded that undoubtedly significant benefits accrue from Christ's death to the entire race of men (Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1938, 438).

R. B. Kuiper, “Common Grace,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4 vols., ed. Philip E. Hughes (Marshallton, Delaware: The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1972), 3:48–53.

Common Grace

The Reformed doctrine of common grace is not as yet a finished product. Rather, it is in process of development, witness Cornelius Van Til’s contribution in a number of articles on that theme, which were first published in The Westminster Theological Journal and subsequently appeared as a book,⁸ and James Daane’s evaluation of Van Til’s doctrine of common grace in A Theology of Grace.⁹ It may, however, be asserted without hesitation that God in His longsuffering does not yet see fit to pour out upon the reprobate the full content of the vials of His righteous judgment, but is “the Saviour,” that is, the Preserver, “of all men” (I Tim. 4:10); that for the present He takes an attitude of benevolence, which Scripture does not hesitate to denominate “love,” toward all men, including His enemies, in virtue of which He dispenses certain blessings to them as, for instance, rain and sunshine (Matt. 5:43–48); that He restrains sin in the reprobate, as a result of which more or less orderly human society remains possible (Gen. 6:3; 20:6); and that He endows the unregenerate not only with natural talents in such fields as science and art (Gen. 4:20–22), but also with certain virtues which enable them to do so-called civic good (Luke 6:33), although not such good as is prompted by faith in God and love for Him and is known as spiritual good. The question whether this goodness of God to men in general is properly called “grace” or should be denominated otherwise is relatively unimportant if only it be maintained, as Reformed theologians have consistently done, that the difference between saving grace and common grace is not quantitative but qualitative. No amount of common grace equals so much as a grain of saving grace.

What has been said is admittedly an incomplete statement of the doctrine of common grace, and the theme under discussion does not require a fuller statement. What the theme does demand is a consideration of the question whether or not the blessings of the common grace of God are a product of the atonement.

One can hardly escape the impression that a number of Reformed theologians have fought shy of that question. It has difficult aspects. However, Scripture teaches repeatedly that God shows mercy to the wicked because of the righteous. In answer to Abraham’s intercessory prayer God assured him that He would spare Sodom for the sake of but ten righteous men that might conceivably be found within it (Gen. 18:32); and a plain implication of Jesus’ words addressed to His disciples, “Ye are the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), is that because of the presence of His people, acting as a preservative, God has not yet spewed this insipid and putrid world out of His mouth. This teaching of Scripture points plainly to some connection between the atonement and the common grace of God. In Calvin on Common Grace Herman Kuiper says guardedly that Calvin “does create the impression that he believed that the non-elect enjoy within the limits of this present life certain fruits of the mediatorial labors of Christ by which He acquired heaven and earth as the inheritance of God’s children.” He proceeds: “Calvin does not say this in just so many words but he does suggest the thought that Christ, into whose hands the Father has delivered all things, so dispenses temporal gifts that the ungodly receive the crumbs which fall from the table which he has prepared for those whose sins He bore on the cross.”¹⁰ Berkhof tells us: “Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, and impenitent, and the reprobate also share.”¹¹ In support of this observation he quotes William Cunningham to the effect that “many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other.”¹² He further cites Robert S. Candlish to the effect that “the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning.”¹³

The final sentence of the quotation from Candlish is particularly significant for the present discussion. The blessings of common grace, although resulting only indirectly from the atonement, were most surely designed by God to result from the atonement. The design of God in the atoning work of Christ pertained primarily and directly to the redemption of the elect, but indirectly and secondarily it also included the blessings of common grace. Berkhof’s statement that “all that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ”¹⁴ is not too sweeping. God planned it thus.
_______________
8. Common Grace, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1947.
9. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1954.
10. Calvin on Common Grace, Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, Goes, 1928, p. 214.
11. Systematic Theology, p. 438.
12. Historical Theology, Edinburgh, 1871, II. 333.
13. The Atonement, Edinburgh, 1861, pp. 358f.
14. Systematic Theology, p. 439.

R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?: A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 81–84.

Bio:
Wiki

Andrew Swanson’s Caution Concerning the Doctrine of Reprobation and Romans 9

Let it never be forgotten that the one who wrote Romans 9 does so with the deep compassion that shines forth in his confessions of Romans 9.1–3 and 10.1. May God help all who would embrace this doctrine to embrace it in the same spirit as their Lord and the Apostle Paul!

Andrew Swanson, “The Doctrine of Reprobation and Its Practical Implications,” Banner of Truth 158 (November 1976): 24.

Andrew Swanson on God's Hate and Love in Romans 9

The distinctive feature of God's 'hate' is the abiding nature of his wrath resting upon those whom he hates, John 3.36. God is not only angry when they sin, as he is in the case of the elect [Ex 4.14, Num 12.9, Ps. 38.1 and Isa 54.8], but this is his fixed disposition towards them, Psalm 7.11. While it is true that the effects of this anger are not always recognised or felt by the non-elect, the fact remains that the wrath of God abides on them and what is true in time will in eternity be both recognised and felt for ever. It would be quite wrong, however, to conclude, as some have done, that the non-elect are utterly destitute of God's favour, kindness or mercy. Just as God can consistently display his wrath upon the objects of his everlasting love, so he can, and does, display abundant tokens of his love of benevolence on those who are the objects of his everlasting hate.

Andrew Swanson, "The Doctrine of Reprobation and its Practical Implications," Banner of Truth 158 (November 1976): 21.