Anthony Hoekema (1913–1988) on Article 8 and the Mission Focus of the Canons of Dort

Article 8, dealing with the so-called well-meant gospel offer, is of crucial importance for the work of missions: “As many as are called by the gospel are earnestly called.¹¹ For God earnestly and most sincerely reveals in His Word what is pleasing¹² to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He also earnestly promises to all those who come to Him and believe rest of soul and eternal life.” Here the Canons express a most significant biblical insight. One is reminded of such passages as II Corinthians 5:20 (“So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God”) and II Peter 3:9 (“The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance”). If, now, the salvation of sinners is pleasing to God, certainly we who love the Lord should be eager to bring the gospel message to all men. Here again we note that this eagerness, this missionary passion, is clearly implied, but not expressly stated. Article 8 also tells us something about the way in which the missionary should present the gospel. As an ambassador for Christ he should urge men to be reconciled to God, not just because he, the missionary, desires this, but because this is what God himself desires.
_______________
    11 The Latin original here has serio vocantur. It is highly interesting to note that at this point the Synod of Dort took over the very language of the Remonstrants. In one of the statements the latter group had earlier submitted to the Synod, called “The Opinions of the Remonstrants” (Sententiae Remonstrantium, which can be found in translation in Crisis in the Reformed Churches [Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, Inc., 1968], pp. 222-29), they had said, “Whomever God calls to salvation, He calls seriously [serio vocat], that is, with a sincere and completely unhypocritical intention and will to save” (III-IV, 8). The Remonstrants were here saying: We believe that when God calls anyone to salvation he seriously and sincerely desires that such a person should be saved. In response to this statement, the Synod of Dort said in effect: On this point we have no argument; we agree with you one hundred percent. And thus it happened that the very words of one of the Arminian documents became part of the Canons of Dort!
    12 The translation of the Canons found in the Psalter-Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church has here: “what is acceptable to Him.” This is, however, a very weak and inaccurate rendering of the Latin word gratum. In my translation, therefore, I have used the English word pleasing to render the Latin gratum. I believe that this word brings out more clearly what the Synod meant to say: the salvation of sinners in response to the gospel call is not just something mildly acceptable to God (suggesting, perhaps, that God isn’t too happy about this turn of events, but is willing to tolerate it), but it is something highly pleasing to Him.

Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Mission Focus of the Canons of Dort,” Calvin Theological Journal 7.2 (November 1972): 217–218.

Bio:

Wiki

Theopedia

Patrick Fairbairn (1805–1874) on the Will of God; With Reference to Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11, and 1 Timothy 2:4

Ezek. 18:23:

What a beautiful simplicity and directness in the statement! It is like the lawgiver anew setting before the people the way of life and the way of death, and calling upon them to determine which of the two they were inclined to choose. Then, what a moving tenderness in the appeal, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord God.” You think of me as if I were a heartless being, indifferent to the calamaties that befall my children, and even delighting to inflict chastisement on them for sins they have not committed. So far from this, I have no pleasure in the destruction of those who by their own transgressions have deserved it, but would rather that they turn from their ways and live. Thus he presents himself as a God of holy love,—love yearning over the lost condition of his wayward children, and earnestly desiring their return to peace and safety,—yet still exercising itself in strict accordance with the principles of righteousness, and only, in so far as these might admit, seeking the good of men. For however desirous to secure their salvation, he neither can nor will save them, except in the way of righteousness.

Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), 199.

Ezek. 33:11:

A yearning tenderness here manifests itself, still seeking, notwithstanding all that has taken place, the return of those who survived to the way of peace. But with that tenderness, what a stern and unflinching holiness! There can be no relaxation or abatement mentioned in respect to this, not even amid the moanings of pain and cries of distress which arose from the people,—no return to life possible but through a return to righteousness. God is anxious, as a kind and affectionate parent, to see them restored to a happy and prosperous condition; he would not have them ignorant of that. But they must also know that in God’s sight there was a higher thing still, which he could on no account sacrifice for the sake of the other; he must maintain in his dealings with them the honour of his authority and the rectitude of his government; and only if they turn from their wicked ways, can he turn from his fierce displeasure. Here, therefore, stands the one door-way of escape; and the prophet, in entering upon the second department of his ministerial calling, must begin by reiterating the message with which he entered on the first (chap. iii. 18–21), and which he had also subsequently repeated and enlarged upon (chap. xviii.)—the message, namely, that each should be dealt with according to his ways. The righteousness of the righteous should not deliver him if he turned aside to transgression; but neither would the wickedness of the wicked prove his destruction, if he sincerely repented of his sins and laid hold of the covenant of God. These are God’s terms now, as they have been all along; the Lord’s servant has no other to offer; and if they are not concurred in, recovery is impossible.

Ibid., 360.

1 Tim. 2:4:

Then follows the reason why such conduct [i.e. making intercession for all men] meets with God’s approval as right and proper: who willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth—ἐπίγνωσιν, knowledge in the fuller sense, knowledge that reaches its end, saving knowledge; and the governing verb, it will be observed, is θέλει, not the stronger βούλεται, which would have expressed will with an implied purpose or intent (see at ver. 8). Nothing can be better than the comment of Chrysostom here: “Imitate God. If He is willing that all men should be saved, it is meet to pray for all. If He willed that all should be saved, do thou also will it; but if thou willest, pray; for it is the part of such to pray. . . . But if God wills it, you will say, what need is there for my prayers? This is the great benefit both for you and for them: it draws them to love; thyself, again, it prevents from being treated as a wild beast; and such things are fitted to allure them to faith.” There seems no need for going beyond this practical aspect of the matter; and either to press the passage on the one side, with some, to universalism,—as if it bespoke the comprehension of all within God’s purpose of salvation,—or, on the other, to limit it, so as to make, not strictly all men, but only all sorts of men (with Calvin and others), the object of the good contemplated, is equally to strain the natural import of the words. It seems to me unnatural to understand the all men, twice so distinctly and emphatically expressed, as indicative of anything but mankind generally—men not merely without distinction of class or nation, but men at large, who certainly, as such, are to be prayed for. As the objects of the church’s intercessions, there can be no difference drawn between one portion and another; and we are expressly taught to plead for all, because it is the will of God that they should be saved—σωθηναι: not His will absolutely to save them, as if the word had been σώσαι; but that they may be brought through the knowledge and belief of the truth into the state of the saved. And the whole character of the gospel of Christ, with its universal call to repent, its indiscriminate offers of pardon to the penitent, and urgent entreaties to lay hold of the hope set before them, is framed on very purpose to give expression to that will; for, surely, in pressing such things on men’s acceptance, yea, and holding them disobedient to His holy will, and liable to aggravated condemnation, if they should refuse to accept, God cannot intend to mock them with a mere show and appearance of some great reality being brought near to them. No; there is the manifestation of a benevolent desire that they should not die in sin, but should come to inherit salvation (as at Ezek. xxxiii. 11), if only they will do it in the way that alone is consistent with the principles of His moral government and the nature of Christ’s mediation. This, necessarily, is implied; and it is the part of the church, by her faithful exhibition of the truth in Christ, by her personal strivings with the souls of men, and earnest prayers in their behalf, to give practical effect to this message of goodwill from Heaven to men, and to do it in the spirit of tenderness and affection which itself breathes.

Such appears to be the fair and natural interpretation of the apostle’s declaration, and the whole that it properly calls us to intermeddle with. It is true that all whom God wills to be thus entreated and prayed for shall not actually be saved—not even many who have enjoyed in the highest degree the means and opportunities of such dealing. And seeing, as God does, the end from the beginning, knowing perfectly beforehand whom He has, and whom He has not destined to salvation, grave questions are ready to arise as to whether the work of Christ can be really sufficient to meet the emergency occasioned by the ruin of sin, or whether God be sincere in seeking through His church the salvation of all,—questions which touch upon the deep things of God, and which it is impossible for us, with the material we now possess, to answer satisfactorily to the speculative reason. Knowing who and what He is with whom in such things we have to do, we should rest assured that His procedure will be in truth and uprightness; and that the mysteries which meanwhile appear to hang around it will be solved to the conviction of every reasonable mind, when the proper time for doing so shall have arrived. But enough is known for present duty. God has unfolded for one and all alike the terms of reconciliation: He is willing, nay desirous, for His own glory’s sake, that men should everywhere embrace them; and for this end has committed to His church the ministry of reconciliation, charging it upon the conscience of her members to strive and pray that all without exception be brought to the saving knowledge of the truth. What more can be required for faith to rest on, and for the interecessions and labours of an earnest ministry?

Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1874), 113–115.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Theopedia

A. C. Denlinger on Robert Baron (c.1593/6–1639) and God’s Universal Saving Will

God’s Universal Will to Save

Baron’s discussion of ‘the true sense of that statement “God wants all to be saved”’ occurs in the context of lengthy reflections about ‘whether God, who wants all to be saved (as the Apostle says in 1 Tim. 2), has denied the nations destitute of faith in Christ the means necessary unto salvation’.²⁶ Having previously argued that explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who is revealed only in the gospel, is necessary for salvation, Baron notes ‘an infinite multitude in the New World and the more remote parts of Asia and Africa who lack the light of the gospel’.²⁷ God’s providential withholding of the gospel from so many persons seems hard to reconcile with God’s desire for their salvation.

In formulating a response to this ‘serious and difficult question’ Baron takes his cues primarily from Augustine’s fifth-century disciple Prosper of Aquitaine, who ‘contemplated this mystery more than all the Fathers of the ancient church’.²⁸ In his work De vocatione omnium gentium, Prosper advanced three assertions which, in Baron’s judgement, comprise the right theological response to the question at hand. ‘The first is that God wills all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.’²⁹ With Prosper, Baron understands ‘all men’ in the apostolic affirmation quoted (1 Tim. 2.14) to mean every human person without exception; no one is excluded in the divine will to save.³⁰ ‘The second is that no one is actually saved or comes to a knowledge of the truth by his own merits or abilities, but only by the power and operation of divine grace’.³¹ Third and finally, ‘no one in this life can know exactly why God does not administer means of grace equally to all, or why God, who wants all to be saved, does not save all’.³²

Prosper’s assertions do not serve to alleviate the tension inherent to the question at hand; they serve to state it with greater force and clarity. His first and second assertions, in particular, establish an apparent contradiction between God’s sentiments and his actions towards humankind, or at least towards those who are not ultimately saved. God loves them and wills their salvation. God denies them a particular grace without which they will not be saved. His third assertion, far from serving to resolve this paradox, asserts the futility of attempting – at least ‘in this life’ – to reconcile these seemingly contradictory truths.

According to Baron, then, the proper dogmatic response to the apparent contradiction between God’s universal will to save and God’s sovereign discrimination in the distribution of his saving grace is to assert both truths with equal rigour. Neither truth, in other words, should be watered down or washed away in service to the other. This, of course, requires a rather careful balancing act; Baron proceeds by identifying two categories of theologians who ‘shrink back from the moderation and modesty of St Prosper’ on this issue, exalting one dogmatic truth at the expense of the other.

On one hand are ‘those who affirm that God’s grace for the obtaining of salvation is universal, so that its efficacy in some persons rather than others depends upon the freedom of man’s will’.³³ Baron has in mind certain medieval scholastics as well as contemporary Jesuit thinkers who:

explain and confirm their opinion with that well-known axiom facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam. If, they say, the nations were to make good use of those natural gifts and means of salvation originally distributed to them, then God, who does not deny grace to those who do what lies within them, would grant them fuller grace, … and lead them finally to a knowledge of Christ.³⁴

Those advancing this position, Baron notes, deny that man can properly (or condignly) ‘merit grace through a good use of free will’. They affirm, however, that man might, ‘by virtue of his natural abilities’, render himself ‘disposed to grace’ –or at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ – which God in turn will grant according to his promise.³⁵

In Baron’s judgement such doctrine ‘is clearly semi-Pelagian, and hence contrary to Scripture and the general consensus of the Fathers’. He rejects it on the grounds that it makes God a debtor to man in the distribution of his saving grace: ‘If God has regard to deeds performed by the virtues of [human] nature when he confers helping grace upon some and denies the same to others, then our calling unto salvation in some way depends upon our works, contrary to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 11.6, Eph. 2.8–9, 2 Tim. 1.9, and Tit. 3.9.’ Moreover, such a doctrine creates space for human boasting: ‘The one who is called has distinguished himself [by his proper use of natural gifts] from the one who is not, contrary to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 4.7: “Who has set you apart from others? And what do you have that you have not received?”’³⁶

While rejecting the positive assertion that man might elicit saving grace from God through the right use of natural gifts, Baron acknowledges some truth in the inverse claim that man’s abuse of natural gifts ‘provides a peculiar reason that he is denied grace’.³⁷ ‘Sacred Scripture’, notes Baron, ‘clearly testifies that man’s prior rejection of God is a cause of divine dereliction: “Because you have forsaken Jehovah, he has forsaken you” (2 Chron. 24.20).’³⁸ But two caveats are required. First, it should be noted that God also, and justly, denies men grace because ‘they have sinned in Adam’s loins’, regardless of their subsequent abuse of natural gifts.³⁹ In other words, actual sins merely aggravate the culpability established by original sin. So ‘Thomas, following Augustine, says that grace is justly withheld from those to whom it is not given as punishment for previous sin, even original sin’.⁴⁰ It should be noted, secondly, that human sin – whether original or actual – provides no ‘exact or adequate explanation for why certain men are denied grace, since … grace is given to other men who are no less unworthy’.⁴¹

Equally removed, on the other hand, from Prosper’s ‘moderation and modesty’ are those who ‘recklessly affirm that no divine grace whatsoever extends to those who have not received the gospel’, and that, ‘in the end, God in no way wants them to be saved’.⁴² Here Baron has in mind certain Reformed peers who, he says, interpret the biblical phrase ‘God wants all to be saved’ to mean not that God wants ‘every person’ to be saved, but that he wants ‘every kind of person, i.e. individuals from every nation, rank and position’ to be saved; thus they ultimately understand ‘all’ as a reference ‘only to the elect’, who in fact receive the means necessary to salvation. According to Baron, ‘the principal reason they cling so tenaciously to this stern doctrine’ is recognition that ‘if God wants some to be saved who are not actually saved, it follows that in God there is somehow an ineffective will, a desire for things to happen which never in fact occur, and this seems absurd’.⁴³

In response to these theologians Baron argues that God has granted some grace even to those who are not ultimately elected to eternal life – ‘not only to the reprobate living within the church, but also to the nations’ – and has done so from a genuine desire that they seek him. Concerning ‘the reprobate within the church’: these ‘are granted certain gracious assistances, not only externally but also internally (Heb. 6.4–5)’.⁴⁴ Baron appeals to those theologians who belonged to the British delegation to the Synod of Dort, who in their suffrage on the articles of that Synod affirmed that ‘God truly and earnestly calls and invites the reprobate within the church to faith and repentance, and neither deserts them nor desists from pushing them forward in the way of true conversion until they first desert him by voluntarily neglecting or rejecting his grace’.⁴⁵ He anticipates an objection: ‘You will say it follows that the reason one rather than another is converted is to be found not in God, but in men themselves; one made good use, another bad, of that initial grace given to them.’ Baron unequivocally rejects such an implication, insisting that both ‘the elect who are actually converted’ and ‘the reprobate’ equally ‘abuse that initial grace’. Indeed ‘all [within the church] are called by God in a certain manner which they resist’, but while God ‘justly deserts some because they have first deserted him’, others are ‘not deserted, but are led by an extraordinary and peculiar grace of God to genuine faith and repentance, and are saved’.⁴⁶

Those outside the church have some grace and certain gifts entrusted to them as well; they have ‘the law of nature written on their hearts (Rom. 2.14–15)’ and some further ‘witness to God (Acts 14.17)’ through ‘the works of creation’. Baron quotes Rom. 1.19–20: ‘What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.’⁴⁷ He discovers in Acts 17.27 a clear statement of the purpose for such divine self-disclosure: ‘It is said that God offers these means to them “in order that they might seek him”.’ Nevertheless some – Baron specifically names contemporary English divine William Twisse – discover in the ultimate clause of Romans 1.20 (‘so that men are without excuse’) a rather different purpose for God’s witness to himself in creation; they insist that ‘these means are imparted to [those who are not ultimately saved] merely in order to render them anapologia, that is, inexcusable before God’.⁴⁸

Baron takes strong exception to this interpretation of the final clause of Romans 1.20: ‘These words should not be understood to indicate cause, but only consequence; in other words, they should not be read as naming the reason that God manifests his invisible qualities to the nations, but only as naming the actual outcome of that manifestation.’ It is man’s sinful response to God’s self-disclosure through ‘the works of creation’ that properly renders man anapologia in the judgement; thus ‘inexcusability before God’ is ‘only secondarily and per accidens, not per se, an end of God’s manifestation’.⁴⁹ He highlights the support his reading of Romans 1.20 finds in the biblical commentaries of Reformed theologians Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Augustin Marlorat, Wolfgang Musculus and David Pareus.⁵⁰ And he discovers a further argument in his favour in the claim of Rom. 1.21 that ‘those who knew God’ through his self-disclosure in creation ‘did not give thanks to God.’ He explains:

If God offered these means [of knowing him] to those who are perishing only to the end of rendering them inexcusable, then those means offered to them would not have the proper character of gifts, and consequently, those who abused those means and rendered themselves anapologia or inexcusable would be falsely accused of ingratitude towards God.⁵¹

The charge of ingratitude against those who squander the gift of God’s testimony to himself in creation assumes that such testimony flows from a genuine desire for their good and well-being.

As noted above, Baron perceives the fundamental objection against a universal salvific will in God to be that it credits God, at least by implication, with an ineffective will; he tackles this problem in a discrete section titled ‘whether there is in God a certain will which is ineffective or conditional’.⁵² Baron answers ‘yes’ to that question. God genuinely wills the salvation of all, but all are not saved; something, therefore, renders that divine will ineffective. He recognizes, however, that ‘Arminians, Lutherans, and some Romanists’ also affirm an ineffective will in God, and he is keen to dissociate his view from:

those who teach that God equally or indifferently seeks and intends the salvation of all, so that the reason one is saved rather than another is to be sought not in God’s eternal election or the measure and quality of grace which men in time receive, but in the free volition of men themselves, presupposing some grace.⁵³

In contrast to any such scheme of grace and salvation, Baron affirms that:

God generally wills all to be saved by his conditional or ineffective will, but he also specifically intends and seeks the salvation of certain men by his effective will, and he decrees the salvation of certain men prior to any foreknowledge of faith, repentance, or good works which they in time will perform.⁵⁴

The arguments that Baron subsequently advances serve to demonstrate the reality of some ineffective will in God per se, regardless of its orientation towards the salvation of all. He notes, for example, that God ‘loves and prescribes many good works in his law’. If God loves certain works, he must genuinely desire their performance by men. But ‘many good works which God prescribes do not happen’. Thus, Baron reasons, ‘it is necessary to attribute to God a certain will or volition which is, in fact, ineffective’.⁵⁵ Likewise, ‘God often, in sacred scripture, promises men good things, some temporal and some eternal, which in fact they never receive because they fail to fulfil some condition which is attached to the promise’. So, for example, ‘God promised Cain his favour and acceptance, adding the condition “if you do well” (Gen. 4); God promised the Israelites that he would dispel the remaining nations from the land, adding the condition “if you cling to Jehovah” (Josh. 23. 5, 8)’. Similarly, ‘Adam and his posterity were promised immortality on condition of obedience’. Such conditional promises, Baron reasons, require recognition of ‘a certain ineffective will in God’, for a promise made to man without some corresponding desire that man fulfil the prescribed condition and inherit that which is promised would be ‘false, deceitful, and hypocritical’.⁵⁶

Baron also appeals to authorities in support of his doctrine: ‘A conditional or ineffective will in God for the salvation of all is acknowledged not only by the sacred Fathers, … but also by many orthodox theologians.’ Among the Fathers he names Chrysostom, Jerome, Prosper, John of Damascus, ‘and, indeed, Augustine himself ’ as supporters of his doctrine. Among orthodox Reformed theologians he names Jerome Zanchi, Amandus Polanus and Musculus.⁵⁷ Lucas Trelcatius, he notes further, ‘distinguishes between an absolute and a conditional divine will, even if he does not explicitly say that God, by virtue of his conditional will, wants all to be saved’.⁵⁸ Pareus, moreover, ‘not only acknowledges a conditional will (which he also calls “antecedent”) in God, but also asserts that, according to it, God wills all to be saved by faith, i.e., on the condition that they believe in the Son of God’.⁵⁹ So also Daniel Chamier ‘distinguishes between … God’s will of approbation and his will of decree, and says that God, by virtue of the former, wills all to come to salvation’.⁶⁰

Baron addresses, finally, two objections to the doctrine of an ineffective or conditional will in God. Some theologians, he notes first, refuse to attribute an ineffective will to God because they deem such ‘to be an imperfection’. He responds that ‘an ineffective will is only an imperfection when it exists in one who is unable to procure that which he wills’. God, of course, is able to accomplish whatever he desires. Hence his will for certain outcomes remains ineffective merely by virtue of his own free decision not to achieve his desire.⁶¹ In other words, what trumps God’s (ineffective) desire for some end is not a force or forces outside of God, but God’s own effective desire for some other end.

‘Some say’, secondly:

that if God wants all to be saved on condition of faith and repentance, it follows that God’s decision concerning the salvation of men remains in suspense until he foresees who will fulfil that condition and who will not. Consequently, the reason he elects one man and not another lies in those men themselves; that is, God foresees that one man and not another will fulfil that condition of faith and repentance under which he wants all to be saved.

Baron again rejects the claim that a doctrine of a divine, ineffective will only properly fits in such a heterodox scheme of election. He argues: ‘Just as God from eternity wills to grant men salvation on condition of faith and repentance, so also from eternity, and without any foresight of human volitional consent, he resolves to grant certain men the most effective resources to fulfil that condition, and denies the same to other men.’ God, in other words, also has an effective will, by which he determines without regard to future human decisions that some men will indeed be saved and others will not. Baron concludes his defence of God’s ineffective, universal will to save by stressing again the proper relationship between divine election and human faith: ‘God has not elected any man to glory because he foresaw that that man would fulfil the condition of faith and repentance. On the contrary, he himself causes the condition to be fulfilled in a man because he has elected that man to glory.’⁶²
_______________
27. Ibid., p. 29. For Baron’s argument regarding the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, see pp. 22–9.
28. Ibid., pp. 29–30, 48.
29. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 686).
30. See Prosper, De vocatione, 2.2 (PL vol. 51, pp. 687–8).
31. Baron, Septenarius sacer, p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, pp. 686–7).
32. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 687).
33. Ibid., p. 31.
34. Ibid., p. 35.
35. Ibid., pp. 35–8. In addition to the medieval scholastics Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel, Baron names the Jesuits Luis de Molina and Leonard Lessius as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself ‘disposed or prepared for grace’ (pp. 35–7). He names the Jesuits Francisco Suarez and Diego Ruiz de Montoya as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ (pp. 37–8).
36. Ibid., pp. 36–7.
37. Ibid., p. 45.
38. Ibid., p. 40. Baron also references Prov. 1.24.
39. Ibid., p. 45.
40. Ibid., p. 46, citing Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2a2ae, 2, 5, ad primum.
41. Ibid., p. 41.
42. Ibid., p. 31.
43. Ibid., p. 31.
44. Ibid., p. 47. Baron does not define these ‘external’ or ‘internal’ graces specifically; presumably he has in mind the general call of the gospel and some internal promptings of God’s Spirit towards repentance. He distinguishes these ‘assistances’ from the God’s ‘efficacious call’ to the elect.
45. Ibid., p. 47, paraphrasing the delegates’ 3rd and 4th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles; see Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005), pp. 253–4.
46. Ibid., p. 47, referencing the British delegation’s 6th and 7th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles at Dort; see Milton, British Delegation, pp. 255–6.
47. Ibid., p. 31.
48. Ibid., p. 31. See William Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae, potestatis, ac providentiae Dei (Amsterdam: Ioannem Ianssonium, 1632), lib. 1, pars 2, sect. 12.
49. Ibid., p. 34.
50. Ibid., pp. 33–4.
51. Ibid., p. 33.
52. Ibid., pp. 49–54.
53. Ibid., p. 49
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., p. 50.
56. Ibid., pp. 50–1.
57. Ibid., pp. 52–3, citing Zanchius, De natura Dei (Heidelberg: Iacobus Mylius, 1577), lib. 3, ca. 4, q. 3; Polanus, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanau: Wechelianis, 1609), lib. 2, ca. 19; Musculus, Loci communes (Erfurt: Georgium Bauuman, 1563), ca. De volunte Dei, ca. De remissione peccatorum.
58. Ibid., p. 53, citing Trelcatius, Institutio theologiae (London: Iohannis Bill, 1604), lib. 1, disp. De Deo.
59. Ibid., citing Pareus, Roberti Bellarmini … de gratia et libero arbitrio libri VI...explicati et castigati studio (Heidelberg: Iohannis Lancelloti, 1614), lib. 2, ca. 3.
60. Ibid., citing Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, sive, controversiarum de religione advresus Pontificios corpus (Geneva: typis Roverianis, 1626), tom. 3, lib. 7, ca. 6, and tom. 2, lib. 3, ca. 9, para. 19.
61. Ibid., pp. 53–4.
62. Ibid., p. 54.

Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c.1596–1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 87–94.

For more on Baron and the extent of the atonement, see here (link).

Bio:

Wiki

DNB (2) 

George Downame (c.1563–1634) on the Love and Favor of God

God loveth and favoureth [Wis. 11:24] all his creatures, he is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works, Psa. 145:9. giving all things to all, Acts 17:25. yet among the bodily creatures he respecteth and favoureth men chiefly, 1 Cor. 9:9; Psa. 8:4; Matt. 6:26, 30; Prov. 8:31, for which cause φιλανθρωπία (love of mankind) is attributed to him. Among men he favoureth the faithful more than the rest, 1 Tim. 4:10. who are therefore called the favourites of God, as I have shown before. Among them the Lord especially favoureth Ministers and Magistrates, Psa. 105:15. who are also called the favourites of God, not only in respect of justifying grace (which is equal in all to whom it is vouchsafed) but also in respect of their functions, and the gifts of grace bestowed on them for the good of others, Deut. 33:8; 2 Chron. 6:41; Psa. 4:4, 132:6, 16. To which purpose Augustine saith well, God loveth all things which he hath made; and among them he loveth more the reasonable creatures; and among them he loveth more amply those, who are the members of his only begotten Son; and much more his only begotten himself, the son of his love [Omnia diligit Deus, quae fecit; et inter ea magis diligit creaturas rationales; et de illis eas amplius quae sunt menbra unigeniti sui. Et multo magis ipsum unigenitum]. And generally, by how much the better any man is than others, it is an evidence, that he is so much graced and favoured of God: the grace and favour of God being the cause of their goodness, and consequently the greater favour of greater goodness.

George Downame, A Treatise of Justification (London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Nicolas Bourne, and are to be sold at his shop, at the South Entrance of the Royall Exchange, 1633), 114–115. [some English updated]

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Leonard H. Verduin (1897–1999): A Chronology of His Life and a Bibliographic Index

[Work in Progress]
by
Tony Byrne

Introduction

Early in my Christian life, because of the so-called Lordship salvation debate, I began researching the issue of the differing views throughout church history on the continuities and discontinuities between the OT and NT. When I began to investigate the Reformation era and the “Anabaptists,” Leonard Verduin’s (pronounced as Ver-dine, according to James White and these audio recordings) writings were particularly helpful, especially his insights on the theme of church-state relations. Since the early 1990’s, he has been one of my favorite authors. I love his writing style and historical honesty. Consequently, I wish to honor this man by providing the church with a biographical sketch of his life and a chronological bibliography of his writings. John Stead rightly said:

It is unfortunate that his [Verduin’s] works have not received greater circulation. He reads all the languages of the Reformation fluently, thereby allowing him access to the actual writings and documents. In my estimation, his historiography is of the highest quality. What Paul Johnson did for historiography in exposing the utopian schemes of the twentieth century, Verduin does in the bringing forward the great contributions of the dissenters from A.D. 313 to the founding of this nation [the U.S.].

John P. Stead, “Developing a Biblical View of Church and State,” in Think Biblically: Rediscovering a Christian Worldview, ed. John MacArthur (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 350n3.

It is hoped that the following information will help his works to receive greater attention and circulation. This index is original research. Please do not copy or reproduce without my permission or without linking back to this post.

I. Biographical Information

A Chronology of His Life

• He was born on March 9, 1897 on a truck farm in South Holland (Cook County), Illinois. He was the son of Cornelius Verduin and Aartje Swets. His father was one of the first, if not the very first, children to be baptized in the CRC by Rev. Koene Vanden Bosch of Noordeloos, Michigan. Leonard’s paternal and maternal grandparents had been involved in the secession of 1834 and were among those who went to the New World to escape persecution. Leonard was the 8th of nine children born of this marriage. He had a brother named John and one named Harry. Leonard’s great-grandfather Willem Verduin emigrated from Holland to America in 1848.
• Baptized around 3 years old since his father, at the time, was having doubts about infant baptism.
• For a short time, Leonard and his parents lived on a farm in the Sioux Indian reservation in Todd County, South Dakota. In 1983 he said he still spoke a little Sioux. It was here that Leonard met and married Hattie Timmermans in 1918. The Verduins eventually reared 5 children. He had sons named Arthur, Cal, and Ron. His great granddaughter is Elizabeth.
• In 1920 he moved to Hull, Iowa, where he attended Western Academy, a Christian Reformed high school, though his first year of high school was by correspondence. Hattie ran a restaurant there, and Leonard finished the rest of his high school requirements in two years and graduated  with the first class from Western Academy.
• After teaching a year, during which he took correspondence courses with the University of Chicago, Leonard moved to Grand Rapids and started Calvin College in 1923
• After three years he graduated from Calvin College (A.B.) in 1926, and then went to seminary.
• Earned a Th.B degree from Calvin Theological Seminary in 1929.
• Ordained in 1929.
• Pastored in Corsica, South Dakota from 1929 to 1941 (serving the Corsica CRC).
• In 1941 he was appointed full-time director of student work at the CRC.
• Appointed chaplain at the campus chapel in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1942. The history of the chapel can be read here. Verduin was the first student chaplain in the CRC. He served at the CRC campus chapel at Ann Arbor, Michigan from 1941–62 (according to Haan). He often compared Ann Arbor to the Athens of Paul’s day. What began in 1941 as a small gathering of students in the university’s Women's League soon grew to a larger gathering that met at the Student Religious Center, and then to a sizable group that held its meetings in a large home that once had served as the governor’s mansion and now doubled as a parsonate. Finally, in 1949, a comely stone chapel was built on the university campus, where it stands today as a witness to the Reformed faith.
• Invited John Christian Wenger to his home in Ann Arbor in August of 1942. Around this time he might have also had contact with prominent Mennonite scholar Harold S. Bender.
• During this time in Ann Arbor (1946) he received a master’s degree in history (A.M. from the University of Michigan), and he developed a wide range of linguistic skills, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German (medieval and modern), and French. He already knew Dutch. It was in Ann Arbor, too, that Verduin did much of the research for his books. The University of Michigan has a marvelous library, one that contains a wealth of materials on the Synod of Dort. It also has a vast amount of material on the early history of the Dutch in Michigan and bales of letters written by them, materials which Verduin reported on as part of the requirements for a Master of Arts degree in history.
• Around 1946, Verduin accepted the task of translating the works of Menno Simons.
• In May 1948, he completed the task of translating some 300 pages of the second part of the 1681 Dutch edition of Simons’writings.
• Stayed in the Netherlands 1950–1951 on a Fulbright scholarship to study the Protestant Reformation in that country, and perfected his academic Dutch.
• In October 1954, Verduin completed translating most of the first part of the 1681 edition of Simons’ work. Over the next few years he translated several additional items.
• His translation of The Complete Writings of Menno Simons came out in 1956.
• Served on a three-person synodical committee (Belgic Confession Revision Committee) in 1957 to consider a possible revision.
• In 1961, the Synod disagreed with Verduin’s recommendations for the revision and proposed  changes to Article 36 without explanation.
• Retired as chaplain in 1962. According to Arthur, his son, Verduin was offered an academic position at Goshen College in Indiana, but he declined, preferring to enjoy his retirement. Since his retirement in 1962, the Verduins spent summers in Grand Rapids and winters in a mobile home park in Apache Junction near Phoenix, Arizona. He loved the nearby primitive areas and often went hiking there. He sometimes taught courses at the University of Arizona.
• Published The Reformers and Their Stepchildren in 1964.
• Published Toward a Theistic Creationism in 1969.
• Published Somewhat Less Than God in 1970.
• Published The Anatomy of a Hybrid in 1976.
• In June 1977 (at age 80), Verduin, as one of seven members, was appointed to a special committee with the task of preparing a fresh translation of the Belgic Confession that would match the contemporary language of the Heidelberg Catechism and the canons of Dort. The committee started its deliberations in September of 1977 and concluded its work in 1985.
• Verduin celebrates his 85th birthday in the Palm Lane Christian Reformed Church in Scottsdale, Arizona on March 9, 1983. Soon Mr. and Mrs. Verduin will celebrate their 64 wedding anniversary. They worship at the Palm Late CRC during the winter.
• Gertrude Haan writes her profile on Verduin and it is published in The Banner on August 1, 1983. Leonard was 86 and his wife, Hattie, was 85. They are described as the oldest couple in the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church. The Rev. William D. Buursma served as pastor to the retired couple. Verduin, in 1983, said that he still speaks a little Sioux.
• His wife, Hattie, whom he was married to for almost 70 years, passed away on July 27, 1987.
• Published Honor Your Mother in 1988.
• In 1997 (at age 100), he and his oldest son, Arthur, traveled to Sarasota to meet John J. Overholt.
• Published That First Amendment and the Remnant in Sarasota in 1998.
• Died November 10 (or 11?), 1999 at the age of 102 in Payson, Arizona.
• Eulogies were given by Rev. Don Postema and Rev. William Buursma on November 18, 1999.

Sources for Biographical Information

Margaret Meyering, “Verduin’s 85th Birthday Celebrated,” The Banner 117.15 (April 19, 1982): 22.

Gertrude Haan (former associate editor of The Banner), “A Prophet in Athens: Profile of Rev. Leonard Verduin,” The Banner 118.28 (August 1, 1983): 14–15.

Leonard Verduin, “Things Remembered,” Origins 18.1 (Spring 2000): 10–11. Written at age 100.

William Buursma, “Rev. Leonard Verduin, 1897–1999,” Origins 18.1 (Spring 2000): 7–9.

Gerlof D. Homan, “Torn Between Two Faiths? American Calvinist Leonard Verduin’s Anabaptist-Mennonite Connection,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 78.2 (April 2004): 271–295.

Christian Reformed Church Ministers Database

Leonard Verduin Collection, Heritage Hall, Hekman Library

Pictures of the Rev. L. Verduin

II. Books

The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980. This book emerged out of a series of lectures sponsored by the Calvin Foundation in Grand Rapids in the fall of 1963.

Toward A Theistic Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1969.

Somewhat Less Than God: The Biblical View of Man. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970.

The Anatomy of a Hybrid: A Study in Church-State Relationships. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. (Logos version)

Honor Your Mother: Christian Reformed Church Roots in the Secession of 1834. Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications, 1988.

That First Amendment and the Remnant. Sarasota, FL: Christian Hymnary Publishers, 1998/2007.

Common Grace and Its Bearing on Church and State: A Paper Read Before the Theology Forum. Mennonite Hist. Library, n.d.

III. Book Contributions

Leonard Verduin, “Tests for the Proper Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,” in Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 3: Sermons on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Lord’s Days 25–31), ed. Henry J. Kuiper (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1938), 108–119.

Leonard Verduin, “Luther’s Dilemma: Restitution or Reformation?,” in The Dawn of Modern Civilization: Studies in Renaissance, Reformation and Other Topics Presented to Honor Albert Hyma, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1962).

Also in “Luther’s Dilemma: Restitution or Reformation?,” in Essays on Luther, ed. Kenneth A. Strand (Ann Arbor, MI: 1969), 73–96.

The Complete Writings of Menno Simmons, trans. Leonard Verduin (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1956/1966/1984/1986).

The Church Orders of the Sixteenth Century Reformed Churches of the Netherlands: Together with their Social, Political, and Ecclesiastical Context , trans. and ed. by Richard A. DeRidder with the assistance of Peter H. Jonker and Leonard Verduin (Grand Rapids, MI: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1987).

IV. Journal Articles

“Whom Say Ye That I Am?,” Christianity Today 2.12 (April 1932): 6–8.

Unknown title, The Banner (March 3, 1933).

Unknown title, The Banner (July 24, 1934).

“Orphan Missions,” Banner 71 (January 17, 1936): 61.

“Cremation and the Resurrection Body: A Discussion,” The Calvin Forum 4.4 (November 1938): 91.

“Ostrich Nurture,” The Banner 6 (July 1939): 627.

“Was Warfield Right?,” The Calvin Forum 6.4 (November 1940): 77.

“Who is This ‘Son of Man’?” The Calvin Forum 6.5 (December 1940): 91–93.

“From Michigan’s University Campus,” The Calvin Forum 7.3 (October 1941): 51–52.

“A Century of American University Education,” The Calvin Forum 8.8 (March 1942): 169.

“A chapel of our own at Ann Arbor: a brief history of the work at Ann Arbor,” Banner 77 (April 10, 1942): 348–49.

“From a University Center,” The Calvin Forum 9.1–2 (August–September 1943): 28.

“The New Minister,” The Calvin Forum 9.9 (April 1944): 188–191.

“From A University Campus,” The Calvin Forum 10.3 (October 1944): 54.

“An Ann Arbor Letter,” The Calvin Forum 11.5 (December 1945): 99.

“At Michigan’s University,” The Calvin Forum 11.8 (March 1946): 174.

“Christian Civilization,” The Calvin Forum 11.9 (April 1946): 198.

“Early Dutch Protestantism and Toleration,” The Calvin Forum 12.7 (February 1947): 137–140.

“An Ancient Version of Obbe Philips’ Confession,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 21.2 (April 1947): 120–122.

“On Detesting Anabaptists,” The Calvin Forum 13.9 (April 1948): 183–186.

“Anabaptism and Community of Goods,” Gospel Herald 41.30 (July 1948): 691, 704.

“And Behold It Was Very Good,” His: Student Magazine of the IVCF 9.4 (January 1949): 2–5.

“Was Calvin a Philosopher? A Symposium,” The Calvin Forum 14.10 (May 1949): 211–215.

“Christianity and the Inquisitive Urge in Man,” The Calvin Forum 15.1–2 (August–September 1949): 15–17.

“Christianity and the Acquisitive Urge in Man,” The Calvin Forum 15.3 (October 1949): 48–50.

“Menno Simons’ Theology Reviewed,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 24 (January 1950): 53–64.

“Puritan-Anglican Controversy: A Review of ‘The Admonition Controversy’ by Donald Joseph McGinn (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1949),” The Calvin Forum 15.8 (March 1950): 176.

“As to Being Sectarian,” The Calvin Forum 16.10 (May 1951): 210–213.

“Communism—God’s Servant?,” The Reformed Journal 1.3 (May 1951): 13–14.

“Church and State—A Historical Survey: I. The Apostolic Age,” The Reformed Journal 2.10 (October 1952): 12–13.

“Church and State—A Historical Survey: II. The Fallen Church,” The Reformed Journal 2.11 (November 1952): 12–14.

“Church and State—A Historical Survey: III. The Reformers,” The Reformed Journal 2.12 (December 1952): 6–8.

“Church and State—A Historical Survey: IV. After the Reformation,” The Reformed Journal 3.1 (January 1953): 9–12.

“Religion and the State University,” The Calvin Forum 18.6 (January 1953): 105–107.

“The ‘Absolute’ Antithesis,” The Reformed Journal 3.6 (June 1953): 10–13.

“Biblical Christianity and Culture Composition,” The Reformed Journal 3.10 (October 1953): 1–5.

“Luther, the Fortunate,” The Reformed Journal 4.6 (June 1954): 8–10.

“Pharisaitis,” The Calvin Forum 19.11 (June – July 1954): 219–220.

“Luther Was Not Alone,” The Reformed Journal 4.7 (July–August 1954): 6–8.

“As Sons of Olevianus (Part I),” The Reformed Journal 5.1 (January 1955): 13–16.

“As Sons of Olevianus (Part II),” The Reformed Journal 5.2 (February 1955): 11–15.

“As Sons of Olevianus (Part III),” The Reformed Journal 5.3 (March 1955): 13–16.

“As Sons of Olevianus (Part IV),” The Reformed Journal 5.4 (April 1955): 12–15.

“Reformed Faith and Symmetrism,” The Reformed Journal 5.9 (October 1955): 1–3.

“Correspondence: German Churches,” The Christian Century 72.44 (November 2, 1955): 1275.

“On the IUS Reformandi,” The Reformed Journal 6.2 (February 1956): 15; see also “The Interesting Quotation,” Progressive Calvinism 2.4 (April 1956): 122–123. The editor is quoting from Verduin’s 1956 article in The Reformed Journal.

“Daane’s A Theology of Grace: a Symposium,” The Calvin Forum 20.9 (April 1956): 181.

“Apostate from Reformed Principles?,” The Reformed Journal 6.5 (May 1956): 10–13.

“Foundation of American Freedom,” The Reformed Journal 6.9 (September 1956): 17–19.

“Toward a Theistic Creationism (Part I),” The Reformed Journal 6.10 (October 1956): 6–9.

“Toward a Theistic Creationism (Part II),” The Reformed Journal 6.11 (November 1956): 9–13.

“Reformed Theology and First Amendment,” The Reformed Journal 8.3 (March 1958): 6–9.

“Letters to the Editor: Too Far,” The Christian Century 75.20 (May 14, 1958): 593–94.

“Does Our Theology Hamper Our Missions?,” The Reformed Journal 8.6 (June 1958): 3–6.

“On Confrontation,” The Reformed Journal 8.9 (September 1958): 14–17.

“Scripture and Saaso,” The Reformed Journal 8.10 (October 1958): 20–23.

“Calvin on Secession,” The Reformed Journal 9.5 (May 1959): 8–10.

“A Note on Chapels,” The Reformed Journal 9.7 (July–August 1959): 17–18.

“Christian Truth is an Ellipse,” The Reformed Journal 9.9 (October 1959): 6–8.

“The Concept of Infallibility in the Christian Tradition,” The Reformed Journal 9.11 (November 1959): 15–17.

“A Theological Note on the Incarnation,” The Reformed Journal 9.12 (December 1959): 11–12.

“Karl Barth’s Rejection of Infant Baptism,” The Reformed Journal 10.2 (February 1960): 13–17.

“Letters to the Journal,” The Reformed Journal 10.4 (April 1960): 23.

“Toward a Biblical View of Marriage,” The Reformed Journal 10.6 (June 1960): 5–9.

“The Chambers of Rhetoric and Anabaptist Origins in the Low Countries,” in Mennonite Quarterly Review 34.3 (July 1960): 192–196.

Daily Manna Calender (Aug? or Sept?, 1960): ?

“This Infallible Rule,” The Reformed Journal 10:11 (November 1960): 12–15.

“None Except Reformed,” The Reformed Journal 11.1 (January 1961): 22–23.

“Which Belgic Confession? (Part 1),” The Reformed Journal 11 (September 1961): 16–20.

“Guido de Brès and the Anabaptists,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 35.4 (October 1961): 251–266.

“Which Belgic Confession? (Part 2),” The Reformed Journal 11 (October 1961): 19–22.

“A Memo on Menno (book review),” Christianity Today 6.3 (November 10, 1961): 60–61.

“Which Belgic Confession? (Part 3),” The Reformed Journal 11 (November 1961): 14–17.

“Which Belgic Confession? (Part 4),” The Reformed Journal 11 (December 1961): 17–20.

“Which Belgic Confession? (Part 5),” The Reformed Journal 12 (January 1962): 15–19.

“Books in Review: Heretics??? A Review of ‘Even Unto Death: The Heroic Witness of the 16th Century Anabaptists,’ by John Christian Wenger (John Knox Press, 1961),” Christianity Today 6.9 (February 2, 1962): 44–45.

“Thou and Thy House,” The Reformed Journal 12.3 (March 1962): 12–15.

“Back to Dordt?,” The Reformed Journal 12.7 (July–August 1962): 4–7.

“The Church’s Return to the Womb,” The Reformed Journal 13.2 (February 1963): 6–9.

“The Heidelberg Catechism in the Perspective of History,” The Reformed Journal 13.5 (May–June 1963): 6–9.

“Baptism and Original Sin (Part 1),” The Reformed Journal 13.7 (September 1963): 19–23.

“Baptism and Original Sin (Part 2),” The Reformed Journal 13.8 (October 1963): 18–21.

“Of Moats and Drawbridges,” The Reformed Journal 14.4 (April 1964): 19–21.

“Books in Review: Gospel on Campus: A Review of ‘On the Work of the Ministry in University Communities,’ by Richard N. Bender (The Methodist Church, Division of Higher Education, 1962),” Christianity Today 8.18 (June 5, 1964): 30–31.

“Education in a ‘Christian’ Society,” The Presbyterian Guardian 33 (November 1964): 139–141, 148–151.

“Man, a Created Being: What of An Animal Ancestry for Man?,” Christianity Today 9.17 (May 21, 1965): 9–16.

“On being ‘Pink’,” The Reformed Journal 15.9 (November 1965): 8–11.

“Letter to the Editor: ‘On the Stepchildren of the Reformation’,” Torch and Trumpet 15.10 (December 1965): 21–22.

“‘Liberalisme’ in South Africa,” The Reformed Journal 16.7 (September 1966): 9–12.

“The Reformed Churches and South Africa (I),” The Church Herald (Jan 6, 1967): 4.

“The Reformed Churches and South Africa (II),” The Church Herald (Jan 13, 1967): 12.

“On Reconciling a Mother and a Daughter,” The Reformed Journal 17.3 (March 1967): 10–12.

“Man and Christian Perspectives” (6-6-1967). Seminary Events 1421 (audio recording).

“The Gospel and Apartheid,” The Reformed Journal 17.6 (July–August 1967): 11–13.

“Retarded Socialization,” The Reformed Journal 17.10 (December 1967): 9–11.

“War and the New Morality: A Comment,” The Reformed Journal 18.2 (February 1968): 29–30.

“Letters to the Journal,” The Reformed Journal 20.2 (February 1970): 30.

“The ‘If’ of the Gospel,” The Reformed Journal 20.4 (April 1970): 8–10.

“The Great South African Divide,” The Reformed Journal 20.6 (July–August 1970): 13–15.

“Response,” The Reformed Journal 20.7 (September 1970): 24.

“Report from South Africa,” The Reformed Journal 20.8 (October 1970): 16.

“Report from South Africa (2),” The Reformed Journal 20.9 (November 1970): 19–20.

“Review of ‘The New Left and Christian Radicalism,’ by Arthur Gish (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970),” The Reformed Journal 21.1 (January 1971): 23–25.

“Report from South Africa (3),” The Reformed Journal 21.3 (March 1971): 18–20.

“A look at Red China,” Banner 107 (March 24, 1972): 20–21.

The Banner 106 or 107 (April 14, 1971 or 72?): ?.

“Report from South Africa (4),” The Reformed Journal 21.7 (September 1971): 28–29.

“Report from South Africa (5), The Reformed Journal 21.9 (November 1971): 24–25.

“On the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” The Banner (November 19, 1971?): 20–23.

“Leonard Verduin on Report 36: Reply,” The Banner 107.18 (May 5, 1972): 25.

“Reply,” The Banner 107.24 (June 16, 1972): 21.

“In Defense of Words,” The Banner 107.27 (July 7, 1972): 10–11.

“Of Beards & Bonnets,” The Banner 107.34 (September 8, 1972): 16–17.

“Mountains,” The Banner 107.35 (September 15, 1972): 11.

“Wild-Life,” The Banner 107.38 (October 6, 1972): 13.

“Reply,” The Banner 107.38 (October 6, 1972): 21.

“One-Navelism,” The Banner 107.42 (November 3, 1972): 16–17.

“A Review of ‘Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation,’ by Carl Bangs. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1971,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 47.1 (January 1973): 71–72.

“On Getting Past Sirens,” The Banner 108.10 (March 9, 1973): 6–7.

“On Gerrymandering (1),” The Banner 108.15 (April 13, 1973): 12–13.

“On Gerrymandering (2),” The Banner 108.16 (April, 20, 1973): 12–14.

“On Gerrymandering (3),” The Banner 108.17 (April 27, 1973): 12–13.

“The Case for ‘Close’ Communion,” The Banner 108.20 (May 18, 1973): 14–15.

“Paradise,” The Banner 108.22 (June 1, 1973): 11.

“Pack Rat,” The Banner 108.30 (July 27, 1973): 9.

“Will the Real CRC Please Stand Up?,” The Banner 108.32 (August 24, 1973): 16–17.

“Well,” The Banner 108.35 (September 14, 1973): 9.

“Infant,” The Banner 108.38 (October 5, 1973): 9.

“Infant,” The Church Herald (Nov 30, 1973): 3.

“Once,” The Banner 109.1 (January 4, 1974): 9.

“Canals,” The Banner 109.3 (January 18, 1974): 9.

“Road-Runner,” The Banner 109.9 (March 1, 1974): 14.

“That First Commission (1),” The Banner 109.10 (March 8, 1974): 10–11.

“That First Commission (2),” The Banner 109.11 (March 15, 1974): 10–11.

“That First Commission (3),” The Banner 109.12 (March 22, 1974): 12–13.

“A Review of ‘South African Dialogue: Contrasts in South African Thinking on Basic Race Issues,’ ed. Ν J Rhoodie Philadelphia Westminster, 1972,” The Reformed Journal 24.4 (April 1974): 26–27.

“This Nation Under God,” The Church Herald (June 28, 1974): 12–13.

“Vacation Religion,” The Banner 109.27 (July 5, 1974): 4–5.

“Day 13,” The Banner 109.27 (July 5, 1974): 21.

“False Advertising,” The Banner 109.30 (July 27, 1974): 6–8.

“Reader Reaction: ‘Verpakkingsmateriaalhermeneutick,’” The Reformed Journal 24.6 (July–August 1974): 11–13.

“Crisis,” The Banner 109.37 (September 27, 1974): 19.

“The AACS and the Word ‘Word’,” The Banner 109.40 (October 18, 1974): 13–14.

“Is the ‘Race Problem’ a Problem of Race?,” The Banner 109.44 (November 15, 1974): 14–15.

“Why is the Third World Poor?,” The Banner 110.2 (January 10, 1975): 4–5.

“Manzanita,” The Banner 110.3 (January 17, 1975): 3.

“Untimely,” The Banner 110.4 (January 24, 1975): 3.

“Automation,” The Banner 110.5 (January 31, 1975): 3.

“Pass,” The Banner 110.7 (February 14, 1975): 3.

“Dossier,” The Banner 110.10 (March 7, 1975): 3.

“Thorns,” The Banner 110.13 (March 28, 1975): 3.

“Hedgehog,” The Banner 110.15 (April 11, 1975): 3.

“Humus,” The Banner 110.17 (April 25, 1975): 3.

“Schism,” The Banner 110.18 (May 2, 1975): 3.

“Now,” The Banner 110.19 (May 9, 1975): 3.

“Rattlers,” The Banner 110.20 (May 16, 1975): 3.

“Barrel Cactus,” The Banner 110.21 (May 23, 1975): 3.

“Confession,” The Banner 110.23 (June 6, 1975): 3.

“Saguaro,” The Banner 110.24 (June 24, 1975): 3.

“Day 1,” The Banner 110.27 (July 4, 1975): 6.

“Mayhem in the Cathedral,” The Banner 110.32 (August 22, 1975): 4–6.

“What Has Jerusalem to do With Pretoria,” The Reformed Journal 25.7 (September 1975): 11–13.

Leonard Verduin (writing as “Dispersion”), “Letters to ‘The Church That is in Babylon’ (1),” The Banner 110.36 (September 19, 1975): 6–7, 27. Verduin wrote anonymously three times as the “Dispersion” on the editorial page of The Banner. See the reference to this fact in “Just Between Us,” The Banner 110.44 (November 14, 1975): 2.

Leonard Verduin (writing as “Dispersion”), “Letters to ‘The Church That is in Babylon’ (2),” The Banner 110.38 (October 3, 1975): 6–7.

“Under Which ‘Sign’?,” The Banner 110.42 (October 31, 1975): 3.

Leonard Verduin (writing as “Dispersion”), “Letters to ‘The Church That is in Babylon’ (3),” The Banner 110.43 (November, 7, 1975): 10–11.

“Mistletoe,” The Banner 110.48 (December 12, 1975): 3.

“Lariat,” The Banner 111.8 (February 20, 1976): 3.

“Vinegar,” The Banner 111.10 (March 5, 1976): 3.

“Wildebeest,” The Banner 111.18 (April 30, 1976): 3.

“Review of ‘Anabaptists—Four Centuries Later,’ by J. Howard Kaufman and Leland Harder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1975),” Calvin Theological Journal 11.1 (April 1976): 95–102.

“Sect,” The Banner 111.21 (May 21, 1976): 3.

“Discrimination,” The Banner 111.24 (June 11, 1976): 3.

“Tenses,” The Banner 111.27 (July 2, 1976): 20.

“Mogollon Rim,” The Banner 111.30 (July 23, 1976): 3.

“These My Brethren”: Who are They? (Readers Respond),” The Reformed Journal 27.7 (July 1977): 5–7.

“The Heritage of Pietism,” The Banner (July 29, 1977): 4–6.

“Review of ‘Kingdom, Cross, and Community: Essays for G. F. Hershberger,’ by J. R. Burkholder and Calvin Redekop (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1976),” Calvin Theological Journal 13.1 (April 1978): 60–65.

“Review of ‘Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity,’ by F. Ernest Stoefler (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976),” Calvin Theological Journal 13.1 (April 1978): 65–67.

“The Career of a Creed,” The Banner 115.12 (March 1980): 14–?

“To see what he would call them,” Banner 116 (February 2, 1981): 14–15.

“A third way (book review),” Banner 116 (February 16, 1981): 16.

“The roots of ‘heresy’: A Review of ‘Dutch Anabaptism: Origin, Spread, Life, and Thought (1450–1600),’ by Cornelius Krahn (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1968),” The Reformed Journal 31.11 (November–December 1981): 32–33.

“Panel Discussion on The Christian and Social Responsibility” (6-3-1981). Seminary Events 206 (audio recording).

“Why be a Mennonite?: A Review of ‘An Introduction to Mennonite History,’ ed. Cornelius J. Dyke (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1967),” The Reformed Journal 32.3 (March 1982): 25.

“A Review of ‘De Fryske Minnisten en Harren Sosiëteit,’ by J. S. Postma (Franeker: T. Wever Publishing House, 1980),” Mennonite Quarterly Review (April 1983): 167–168.

“In Tryst with Luna,” The Banner 118.28 (August 1, 1983): 16.

“A Review of ‘Dopers-Calvinistisch Gesprek in Nederland,’ ed. H. B. Kossen, et al. (The Hague: Boekencentrum, 1982),” Mennonite Quarterly Review 58.3 (July 1984): 320–321.

“CRC: Hewn from the Rock,” The Banner 8, vol. 119, no. 36 (October 1984): 8–9.

“In His Image,” The Reformed Journal 35.5 (May 1985): 9–12.

“Readers Respond: Why Christians Should Feel Alone,” The Reformed Journal 37.7 (July 1987): 7–8.

“Did the Advent Abort?” The Reformed Journal 37.12 (December 1987): 10–12.

“A Review of ‘Mennonite Identity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,’ ed. Calvin Redekop Lanham, MD (University Press of America, 1988),” Calvin Theological Journal 24.1 (April 1989): 188–190.

“More on Judeopathy,” Perspectives 7.6 (June 1992): 10–11.

V. Miscellaneous writings

“Notes on Anabaptist Origins,” Unpublished paper in box 41, folder 4. Herald S. Bender Papers, Archives of the Mennonite Church USA, Goshen, Indiana.

“The Early History of the Text of the Belgic Confession,” box 579, folder 2, Papers of the Belgic Confession Translation Committee, CCA.

“Minority Report,” box 579, folder 5. Papers of the Belgic Confession Translation Committee, CCA.

Verduin to John C. Wenger, Nov. 18, 1947. Box 12, folder 32. Wenger Papers, Archives of the Mennonite Church USA, Goshen, Indiana.

For many other miscellaneous writings, see here (click).

Thomas Jackson Crawford (1812–1875) on the Distinction Between God’s Desires and Purposes

(3.) It may be alleged, however, that the invitations of the Gospel, besides being expressive of the undisputed fact that whosoever complies with them shall obtain the offered blessings, are also indicative of A DESIRE on the part of God that all sinners to whom they are held out should comply with them; and how, it may be asked, can such a desire be sincere, if it be the purpose of God to confer only on some sinners that grace by which their compliance will be secured?

Now, without pretending that we are able to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we are not prepared to admit, what the question evidently assumes, that God can have no sincere desire with reference to the conduct of all His creatures, if it be His purpose to secure on the part of some, and not on the part of all of them, the fulfillment of this desire. For how does the case stand in this respect with His commandments? These, no less than His invitations, are addressed to all. Both are alike to be considered as indications of what He desires and requires to be done by all. Nor are there wanting, with reference to His commandments, testimonies quite as significant as any which are to be found’ with reference to His invitations, of the earnestness and intensity of His desire that the course which they prescribe should be adopted by all who hear them. Take, for example, these tender expostulations: “O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” [Deut. v. 29.]. “O that my  people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!” [Ps. lxxxi. 13.]. “O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the wav& of the sea!” [Isa. xlviii. 18.].

But while the commandments of God are thus indicative of what God desires, approves of, and delights in, as congenial to the goodness and holiness of His moral nature, they are certainly not declarative, at the same time, of what He has fixedly purposed or determined in His government of the universe to carry into effect. For if they were so, it is certain that they would be unfailingly and universally obeyed by all His creatures; whereas they are frequently violated, without any interference on His part to secure their observance. Doubtless it is an inscrutable mystery that things should thus be done under the government of the Almighty which are in the highest degree displeasing and offensive to Him. It is just the old mystery of the existence of moral evil, which no one has ever been able to explain.

Thomas J. Crawford, The Mysteries of Christianity (Edinburgh: William Blackward & Sons, 1874), 351–352 (emphasis original).

HT: David Ponter

Bio:

Wiki

DNB (2)