An Analysis of Gustav Friedrich Wiggers’s (1777–1860) View of Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

In the near future, this post will analyze Wiggers’s view of Augustine on the extent of redemption. He argued that Augustine held to “limited atonement.” For now I need to post this incomplete material in order to just have a working link for a footnote in someone else’s book that will soon be published. I will complete this post later.

Outline:

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch
2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

    2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.1.1 Wiggers’s Claim
           2.1.2. The Primary Sources
           2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15
           2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.2.2. The Primary Source
           2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel
           2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources
           2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1
           2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.4.2. The Primary Sources
           2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.5. De Trin. IV, 13
           2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.5.2. The Primary Sources
           2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.6.2. The Primary Sources
           2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims

3. Conclusion

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch

Gustav Adam Friedrich Wiggers (AD 1777–1860) was a German Protestant theologian and university professor at the University of Rostock. In 1821, his main work, Attempt at a pragmatic representation of Augustinism and Pelagianism according to historical development („Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus nach der geschichtlichen Entwicklung“ In zwei Theilen. Hamburg 1833), was published. It covers the period from the beginning of the Pelagian disputes to the third ecumenical synod and was translated into English in 1840 by Ralph Emerson, professor of church history at the theological seminary in Andover in Massachusetts.

2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

To read the following material in English, see Gustav Friedrich Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, trans. Ralph Emerson (Andover; New York: Gould, Newman, & Saxton, 1840), 254–55. Or see here (click).

Wiggers claimed that Augustine held a strict view of Christ’s redemption. He observed that “Augustine’s doctrine of redemption … stands in close connection with his theory of predestination.” There is truth to that, of course, but the limitation is in the application of redemption (or redemption applied), not in the extent of its accomplishment (or redemption accomplished). Failure to make this distinction leads Wiggers astray. This is why he conflated these two categories and asserted that, according to Augustine, “Christ’s redemption could extend only to those whom God had destined to salvation. For the rest, his death even, as well as his whole incarnation, had no object. Christ therefore died and rose again only for the elect.”

Wiggers did not bother to address how many texts in Augustine go against his theory, or any of those Augustinians who argued otherwise (e.g., John Davenant and Richard Baxter), but only gave six instances where he thinks Augustine’s limited view is “peculiarly clear,” indeed, “clear as the sun.” We shall examine these citations in order.

2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia):

First, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.1.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote,

According to Augustine, therefore, redemption was not universal. God sent his Son into the world, not to redeem the whole sinful race of man, but only the elect. “By this mediator, God showed, that those whom he redeemed by his blood, he makes, from being evil, to be eternally good.” De Cor. et Gr. 11.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.1.2. The Primary Sources:  

One Latin version says this:

Neque enim metuendum erat, ne isto ineffabili modo in unitatem personae a Verbo Deo natura humana suscepta, per liberum voluntatis peccaret arbitrium, cum ipsa susceptio talis esset, ut natura hominis a Deo ita suscepta, nullum in se motum malae voluntatis admitteret. Per hunc Mediatorem Deus ostendit eos, quos ejus sanguine redemit, facere se ex malis deinceps in aeternum bonos, quem sic suscepit, ut nunquam esset malus, nec ex malo factus semper esset bonus.

The Wallis translation has this:

That nativity, absolutely gratuitous, conjoined, in the unity of the person, man to God, flesh to the Word! Good works followed that nativity; good works did not merit it. For it was in no wise to be feared that the human nature taken up by God the Word in that ineffable manner into a unity of person, would sin by free choice of will, since that taking up itself was such that the nature of man so taken up by God would admit into itself no movement of an evil will. Through this Mediator God makes known that He makes those whom He redeemed by His blood from evil, everlastingly good; and Him He in such wise assumed that He never would be evil, and, not being made out of evil, would always be good.⁴
_______________
4 Some editions have, instead of “and not being made,” etc., “lest being made of evil he should not always be good.”

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 484 (c. 30 [XI).

The more recent Teske translation has this:

This birth which was, of course, gratuitous united man to God, the flesh to the Word, in the unity of the person. Good works followed upon this birth; good works did not merit it. For there was no reason to fear that the human nature assumed in this ineffable way into the unity of the person by God the Word would sin by free choice of the will. This assumption, after all, was such that the nature of the man assumed by God in that way would admit in itself no impulse of an evil will. Through this mediator God has shown that he transforms those whom he redeemed by his blood from evil persons into persons who will thereafter be good for eternity, for he assumed this mediator in such a way that he never was evil and that he never became good after being evil.

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 75; De correptione et gratia, 11.30.

2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15:

Second, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Adulterous Marriages.

2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

The following passage is peculiarly clear, and is taken from the first book “on adulterous marriages,” C. 15, a work written about the year 419, and not directed against the Pelagians. “Every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, is a man; though not every one that is a man, has been redeemed by the blood of Christ.”

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.2.2. The Primary Source:

Chapter 15
(16) However, it cannot be said of those actions which are included here, and which are not expedient, although lawful, that this action is good, but that one is better in the same way that it has been written that ‘He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her does better’ [1 Cor. 7:38]. For, in this second instance, both courses are lawful, although, at times, the one may be expedient, at times, the other. Doubtlessly, those who cannot remain chaste should marry. This is expedient because it is lawful. For those, however, who have vowed to remain continent, it is neither lawful nor expedient to marry. As a matter of fact, one may lawfully separate from an unbeliever, but it is not expedient. However, if the spouse consents to cohabitate, it is both lawful and expedient to remain with him, because if it were not lawful, it could not be expedient. Therefore, an action can be lawful and not expedient, but what is unlawful cannot be expedient, because not everything that is lawful is also expedient, but everything that is unlawful is inexpedient. For, it is certain that everyone who has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ belongs to the human race; nevertheless, it is likewise true that not every human person has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. It is just as true that everything that is not lawful is also inexpedient; but, not everything that is inexpedient is likewise unlawful. Certainly, then, there are lawful acts which are inexpedient, just as we have learned from the testimony of the Apostle.

Augustine of Hippo, “Adulterous Marriages,” in Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Charles T. Huegelmeyer, vol. 27 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 81; B. 1, c. 15.

2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel:

Third, Wiggers cited Augustine’s 48th Homilies on the Gospel of John.

2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

Hence the words in John 10:26, ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, according to Hom. 48. on John’s gospel, mean as much as this, Ye believe not, because ye are not bought for eternal life by my blood.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254–55.

Others have also appealed to this passage to maintain that Augustine taught a stricter view of Christ’s redemption, such as Gottschalk, Ratramnus, Remigius, and recently Raymond A. (Randy) Blacketer.

2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources:

Latin Text:

Quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos.

From Augustinus.it and the Catholic Library.

4. This, as a great matter, the Jews enquired of Christ; in order that if He should say, I am Christ, then, upon the conception which alone they entertained of the Seed of David, they might accuse Him of arrogating to Himself kingly power. What He told them in reply is more than that: they wished to make matter of accusation out of the Son of David: He told them that He was the Son of God. And how? Hear (v. 25, 26). Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in My Father’s Name, they bear witness of Me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. Ye have already learned above which are the sheep. Be ye sheep. Sheep are such in believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising the Redeemer, sheep in entering in by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in enjoying eternal life. How then said He to these, Ye are not of My sheep? Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased (comparatos; See Note A, at the end of the volume) by the price of His blood unto eternal life.

S. Augustine, “Homily XLVIII (John 10:22–42), in Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, and His First Epistle: Hom. 1–124, S. John 1–21 and Hom. 1–10, 1 S. John, vol. 1 & 2 of A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West: Translated by Members of the English Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848–1849), 639; Hom. 48.4; italics original.

4. The Jews asked this of Christ for an important reason, so that if he said, “I am the Christ,” they would, according to the little that they knew about the seed of David, accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. His answer to them went further. They wanted to make a false charge about the son of David; he said that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen: Jesus answered them, I tell you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness to me, but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (Jn 10:25–26) You already learned earlier on who the sheep are (See Homily 45, 9–15). Be sheep! The sheep are such by believing, the sheep are such by following the shepherd, the sheep are such by not disdaining the Redeemer, the sheep are such by going in through the gate, the sheep are such by going out and finding pasture, the sheep are such by enjoying eternal life. Why, then, did he say to them, You are not of my sheep (Jn 10:26)? Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction,¹⁷ not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.
_______________
17 At this point in Augustine’s career, “predestination” means God’s foreknowledge (and not God’s predestining anyone to damnation), as it also does in section 6. See Homilies 42, 16; 45, 12–13; 48, 6.

Saint Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 41–124, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald and Boniface Ramsey, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 13 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2020), 99–100.

4. The Jews were seeking this from Christ as an important matter, so that if he were to say, I am the Christ, as far as they understood [him] to be only of the seed of David, they would falsely accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. What he answered them is more; they wanted to accuse him as the son of David. He answered that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen. “Jesus answered them, ‘I speak to you and you do not believe. The works which I do in my Father’s name, these give testimony concerning me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.’ ” You have already earlier learned who the sheep are (Cf. Tractate 45:9–13). Be sheep! By believing they are sheep, by following the Shepherd they are sheep, by not despising the Redeemer they are sheep, by going in through the gate they are sheep, by going out and finding pasture they are sheep, by enjoying eternal life they are sheep. How then did he say to these, “You are not of my sheep”? Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.¹²
_______________
12 That God foreknows that some are condemned poses a theological problem in view of the orthodox teaching that Christ died for all and by his death and resurrection redeemed all. As in all matters touching predestination, Augustine’s view is complex, difficult, and somewhat obscure. It would appear that he holds that God does will the salvation of all men and in a general sense he does so by providing all with the power and the means for salvation. But he also, for his own reasons, gives men the freedom to choose or refuse salvation and then he foreknows that some will choose salvation and some damnation. He could intervene, but wills not to do so; were he to intervene freedom of will would be meaningless. Since he foreknows that some will refuse redemption and does not intervene, then in an absolute sense he wills the damnation of some. Why he chooses this kind of world over the many possible dispositions of creation is a mystery. See Browne, 29.1238–46, and E. Portalie, A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, 215–23. But the situation is probably more complex than this, as all men’s acts are the results of freely given, unmerited graces. Why are some not given graces to enable their perseverance? Augustine, then, would seem to take a rather rigid view of predestination: that God, for his own reasons, in fact wills the damnation of some. This tractate seems to support such a view. See J. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 366–69, for a good, brief account of the latter position.

Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John 28–54, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 88 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 230; In Evangelium Iohannis tractatus, 48.4.

4. The Jews made this inquiry of Christ, chiefly in order that, should He say, I am Christ, they might, in accordance with the only sense they attached to such a name, that He was of the seed of David, calumniate Him with aiming at the kingly power. There is more than this in His answer to them: they wished to calumniate Him with claiming to be the Son of David. He replied that He was the Son of God. And how? Listen: “Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me: but ye believe not; because ye are not of my sheep.” Ye have already learned above (in Lecture XLV.) who the sheep are: be ye sheep. They are sheep through believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising their Redeemer, sheep in entering by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in the enjoyment of eternal life. What did He mean, then, in saying to them, “Ye are not of my sheep”? That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.

Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 266–267; Tractate 48.4.

I asked several Latinists online what they thought was the best out of the four following English translations:

1. “Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased by the price of His blood unto eternal life.”
2. “Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction, not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.”
3. “Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.”
4. “That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.”

Antigone Journal (@AntigoneJournal) said: “Translation 2. The ellipse of esse is by the bye [sic] for Augustine, and this rendering is most faithful to the text.”

Cathedralulus (@Cathedralulus) said: “Translations 1 and 3. 2 if you think the construction as ellipses where esse is missing.”

Michael J. Lynch (@reformedtexan) said: “Translations 1 or 3.”

LatinPerDiem (@LatinPerDiem) did not make a choice,  but asked, “Also, why “bought” for comparari?”

Aquinas is an interesting secondary source:

Augustinus. Hoc autem dixit, quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos: oves enim sunt credendo, pastorem sequendo.

From Aquinas.cc.

AUG He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Augustine. (Tract. xlviii. c. 4.) He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. John, ed. John Henry Newman (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845), 359.

2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1:

Wiggers referenced Epistle 169 by Augustine written to Bishop Evodius (c. AD 415).

2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

“No one perishes of those for whom Christ died.” Ep. 169, c. I.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.4.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin Texts:

4. Nam si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est, qui certa intellegentia possunt ista discernere, pene frustra in Ecclesia laboramus. Si autem, quod veritas habet, infirmi populi credentium ad medicum currunt, sanandi per Christum, et hunc crucifixum, ut ubi abundavit peccatum, superabundet gratia; miris fit modis per altitudinem divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, et per inscrutabilia iudicia eius, ut et nonnulli a corporibus incorporea discernentes, cum sibi ex hoc magni videntur, et irrident stultitiam praedicationis, qua salvi fiunt credentes, ab unica via longe exerrent, quae ad vitam aeternam sola perducit: et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus pusillus mortuus est (Matt 18:14), ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, caritatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

From Augustinus.it.

et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus ex illis pro quibus mortuus est, ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, charitatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

Epistola CLXIX, Cap. 1, §4, PL 33:744 (2).

It is important to note that the above PL edition notes a manuscript discrepancy. It says:

1. Mss. duo v., non perit unus ex pusillis. Prope accedit Sulpitian. Cod., qui habet: Non perit unus pusillus, pro quibus, etc.

One AI translation puts it this way:

1. Two manuscripts, not one of the little ones perishes. Closely follows the Sulpitian. Cod., which has: Not one of the little ones perishes, for whom, etc.

Another AI translation has this:

1. Ms. two versions: None of the little ones perishes. The Sulpitian Codex approaches this, which has: None of the little ones perishes, instead of which, etc.

English Translations:

4. For if Christ died only on account of those who can distinguish these things with certain intelligence, we labor in the Church to almost no purpose. But if, as the truth has it, the weak people among the faithful run to the physician to be healed by Christ, and by him crucified, so that where sin has abounded (See Rom 5:20) grace might abound even more, it comes about in marvelous ways through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and through his inscrutable judgments (Rom 11:33) that some who can distinguish incorporeal things from bodies think that for this reason they are important people and mock the foolishness of preaching by which believers are saved, while they themselves wander far from the one path that alone leads to eternal life. But many who boast in the cross of Christ and do not depart from the same path, even those who do not know those things that are discussed with great subtlety, because not a single infant perishes for whom he has died,⁵ come to the same eternity, truth, and love, that is, to solid, certain, and complete happiness, where everything is clear for those who remain, see, and love.
_______________
5 Though the manuscripts and the contexts favor this reading, the passage seems open to the interpretation given by Jansenius that Christ did not die for all infants.

Saint Augustine, Letters (Epistulae) 156–210, trans. Roland Teske, ed. Boniface Ramsey, vol. II/3 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2004), 108; italics original.

4. For if Christ died for those only who with clear intelligence can discern these things, our labour in the Church is almost spent in vain. But if, as is the fact, crowds of common people, possessing no great strength of intellect, run to the Physician in the exercise of faith, with the result of being healed by Christ and Him crucified, that “where sin has abounded, grace may much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), it comes in wondrous ways to pass, through the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and His unsearchable judgments, that, on the one hand, some who do discern between the material and: the spiritual in their own nature, while pluming themselves on this attainment, and despising that foolishness of preaching by which those who believe are saved, wander far from the only path which leads to eternal life; and, on the other hand, because not one perishes for whom Christ died (John 17:12),3 many glorying in the cross of Christ, and not withdrawing from that same path, attain, notwithstanding their ignorance of those things which some with most profound subtlety investigate, unto that eternity, truth, and love,—that is, unto that enduring, clear, and full felicity,—in which to those who abide, and see, and love, all things are plain.

Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 540.

For, if Christ died for those only who are able to discern these truths with sure understanding, our labor in the Church is almost worthless. But if, as truth holds, the believers among the peoples run to their Physician in their sickness to be healed by Christ, and Him crucified, so that ‘where sin abounded grace might more abound’ (Cf. Rom. 5:20), it happens in marvellous ways, ‘through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God,’ and by ‘his unsearchable judgments’ (Cf. Rom. 11:33) that some, because they can distinguish incorporeal from corporeal things, seem great to themselves, mock at the foolishness of the preaching through which they believed and were saved, and wander far from the one way which alone leads to eternal life. On the other hand, many who glory in the cross of Christ and do not withdraw from that same way, though ignorant of those points which are so subtlely debated, because not one little one perishes for whom He died (Matt. 18:14; John 17:12), attain to that same eternity, truth, charity, that is, to a fixed, sure, and complete happiness where all things are clear to those who remain faithful, who see, and who love.

Augustine of Hippo, Letters (165–203), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 30 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 53–54.

2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

Referencing? NKJ Matthew 18:14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This text is referenced in the footnote of the Augustinus.it version above.

Or this? NKJ John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

2.5. De Trin. IV, 13:

Wiggers next referenced Augustine’s work On the Trinity.

2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Nay, according to his theory, Augustine would have no mediator between God and the whole human race, but only a mediator between God and the elect. “Christ redeemed the sinners who were to be justified (justificandos peccatores).” De Trin. IV. 13.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.5.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin text:

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis 119, ut ab iniquo velut aequo iure adversus nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum iure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret, nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum iusta, suo iusto sanguine iniuste fuso mortis chirographum delens 120 et iustificandos redimens peccatores.

From Augustinus.it.

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur, Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis (Psal. VIII, 6): ut ab iniquo velut aequo jure adversum nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum jure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret (Ephes. IV, 8), nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum justa, suo justo sanguine injuste fuso mortis chirographum delens, et justificandos redimens peccatores.

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

Wherefore also the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, “For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels:” (Ps. 8:5) so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin (Eph. 4:8), and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 78; 4.13.17.

And on this account the devil believed himself to be superior even to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord yielded to him in His sufferings, for what is written in the Psalm is to be also understood of Him: ‘Thou hast made him a little less than the angels’ (Ps. 8:6); thus He Himself, the innocent One, would be put to death by the sinful one, acting against us by a just right, in order that He might overcome him by a more just right, and so might take captive the captivity that was brought about by sin (Eph. 4:8), and liberate us from the captivity that was just on account of sin, by cancelling the handwriting of death and redeeming us who, though sinners, were to be justified through His just blood, that was unjustly poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Stephen McKenna, vol. 45 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 153.

For this reason the devil thought himself superior even to the Lord, seeing that the Lord gave way to him in his sufferings, because it is of him that the psalm text is to be understood, You have made him a little less than the angels (Ps 8:6). Yet in being slain in his innocence by the wicked one, who was acting against us as it were with just rights, he won the case against him with the justest of all rights, and thus led captive the captivity (Eph 4:8; Ps 68:19) that was instituted for sin, and delivered us from the captivity we justly endured for sin, and by his just blood unjustly shed cancelled the I.O.U. (Col 2:14) of death, and justified and redeemed sinners.

Saint Augustine, The Trinity (De Trinitate), ed. John E. Rotelle, Second Edition., vol. I/5 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2017), 203.

2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia):

Lastly, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Against Augustine’s limitation view of redemption, just presented, which is clear as the sun from the passages adduced, some doubtful expressions of his, and therefore proving nothing, may indeed be adduced; and especially one passage, which seems, at first view, to declare a directly contrary doctrine, viz., the universality of the work of redemption. This passage is found in De Cor. et Gr. 15. He there says, “Who has more loved the weak, than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all?” It would now be very remarkable for Augustine to have presented so contradictory a view, in this little book in which, as appears from so many passages already quoted, he so definitely and emphatically maintained the limitation. But the connection fully shows, that Augustine would by no means here maintain the universality of redemption. He is here calling to admonition and reproof, because we cannot know who is predestinated, and adduces as a reason for the call, the example of Christ. He had become man and endured the death of the cross for all, viz., those whom the Father would free from the misery of sin. To understand the passage as referring to the efficacy of the redeeming death as sufficient for all men, if they were to have been redeemed, would not accord with the spirit of Augustine. To him, as well as to his whole age, the speculation respecting the power of Christ’s atoning death, was foreign.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.6.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin texts:

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From Augustinus.it.

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

49. Hence, insofar as it is up to us who are not able to distinguish the predestined from those not predestined and who, for this reason, ought to will that all be saved, we must use a severe rebuke for all as medicine in order that they do not perish or cause others to perish. But it is up to God to make the rebuke beneficial for those whom he has himself foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29). For, if at times we do not give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish because of the rebuke, why do we not also give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish for lack of a rebuke?

We, after all, do not have a heart more filled with love than the blessed apostle who says, Rebuke the restless; comfort the fearful; support the weak; show patience toward all; see that no one returns evil for evil (1 Thes 5:14–15). Here we should understand that one returns evil for evil, especially if one does not rebuke a person who needs to be rebuked, but neglects this under a blameworthy pretext. The apostle also says, Rebuke sinners in front of all in order that the rest may have fear (1 Tm 5:20). This should be understood with regard to those sins which are not hidden so that the apostle is not thought to have spoken contrary to the mind of the Lord. For he said, If your brother sins against you, rebuke him privately (Mt 18:15). He himself, nonetheless, carries the severity of a rebuke to such a point that he says, If he does not listen even to the Church, let him be for you like a Gentile or a publican (Mt 18:17). And who loved the weak more than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all because of this weakness (See 2 Cor 13:4)? Since this is so, grace does not prevent a rebuke, nor does a rebuke exclude grace. And for this reason we ought to command righteousness in such a way that we ask from God in faith-filled prayer for the grace by which what we command may be done. And we ought to do both of these without neglecting to give a just rebuke. But let all these actions be done with love because love does not commit sin and covers a multitude of sins (1 Pt 4:8).

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 90–91; De correptione et gratia, 16.49; italics original.

CHAPTER 49.—CONCLUSION

Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved. Severe rebuke should be medicinally applied to all by us that they perish not themselves, or that they may not be the means of destroying others. It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. For, if at any time we abstain from rebuking, for fear lest by rebuke a man should perish, why do we not also rebuke, for fear lest a man should rather perish by our withholding it? For we have no greater bowels of love than the blessed apostle who says, “Rebuke those that are unruly; comfort the feeble-minded; support the weak; be patient towards all men. See that none render to any man evil for evil” (1 Thess. 5:14). Where it is to be understood that evil is then rather rendered for evil when one who ought to be rebuked is not rebuked, but by a wicked dissimulation is neglected. He says, moreover, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20); which must be received concerning those sins which are not concealed, lest he be thought to have spoken in opposition to the word of the Lord. For He says, “If thy brother shall sin against thee, rebuke him between thee and him” (Matt. 18:15). Notwithstanding, He Himself carries out the severity of rebuke to the extent of saying, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). And who has more loved the weak than He who became weak for us all, and of that very weakness was crucified for us all? And since these things are so, grace neither restrains rebuke, nor does rebuke restrain grace; and on this account righteousness is so to be prescribed that we may ask in faithful prayer, that, by God’s grace, what is prescribed may be done; and both of these things are in such wise to be done that righteous rebuke may not be neglected. But let all these things be done with love, since love both does not sin, and does cover the multitude of sins.

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 491.

2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims:

Response coming soon.

3. Conclusion

Response coming soon.

James Petigru Boyce’s (1827–1888) Sermon on “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners (Luke 15:2);” With Thomas Nettles’s Comments and Endorsement of It

Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners
Text: “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:2).

This man was Jesus. The meaning of His name is Jehovah Savior. The angel Gabriel commanded His mother so to call Him because He should save His people from their sins.

His name was, therefore, an index of His character and work. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. He came to call, not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. In His more especial work He was declared by His forerunner to be the Lamb of God which taketh away (or beareth away) the sin of the world. It was by His sacrifice for sin that He made atonement for our sins and met all the demands of the law for our condemnation. It is in the furtherance of this work that as our High Priest He is ever interceding for us with God, praying for us as sinners that God will pardon our sins and remove afar from us our transgressions. It is into our sinful hearts that He sends His Holy Spirit, to change them, to convict of sin, to lead us as sinners to look unto Him for salvation, to teach us that there is nothing in us, but everything in Christ, to enable us to cast away all confidence in our own works or merit as fitness, to rely alone upon Christ’s work and His promises, and to trust our whole salvation, beginning and middle and end, entirely into His hands.

Christ deals with us as sinners utterly lost and already condemned and becomes to us a complete Savior in every respect. He is the Jehovah Savior of His sinful people.

But there is a wide step between this position, itself so gracious, and merciful, and that in which our text presents him.

We have not here the mere Savior of sinners but their companion. He is not here exhibited only as dying for man but living with him. The picture presented is not that of the Lamb bearing away the sin of the world, but of the Holy One of God holding fellowship with the worst classes of mankind.

Even our text as translated does not present to us the whole truth. The pious [Horatius] Bonar says with reference to its teaching,

The word “receiveth” is in the original singularly expressive. It means waiteth, watcheth, looks out for, lies in wait. It occurs fourteen times in the New Testament, and in all other places it is translated in some such way: as in Mark 15:43—“who waited for the kingdom of God”; Luke 2:25—“waiting for the consolation of Israel”; Luke 2:3—“looked for redemption in Jerusalem”; Luke 12:30—‘men that wait for their Lord”; Acts 23:21—“looking for a promise from thee”; Titus 2:13—“looking for that blessed hope”; Jude 21—“looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Our text, then, if it presents Christ in His true aspect shows Him to us, as waiting for sinners, looking out for them, longing for them, having that expectation of their coming of which hope is a decided element. And then when these hopes have been fulfilled and they have come to Him, or been found of Him, He is said to take them into intimate fellowship and friendship. “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

But is this statement of the text correct? It is not Christ that says it. It is not one of his disciples. It is not even the language of the ordinary multitude which surrounded him.

It is an accusation against Him made by the Pharisees. We know that their statements cannot be relied upon.

They hated Jesus and were always on the look out for something wherewith to accuse him. The gospel records evince that they were constant spies upon Him and sought continually to mislead the people about Him. They saw Him cast out devils and said, “He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.” When a man with a withered hand was present they asked Him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that‘they might accuse him.” Luke 6:7 says they “watched him … that they might find an accusation against him.” When He said to the sick of the palsy, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” they began to reason, saying, “Who is this which speaketh blasphemies?” When He went on the sabbath day to eat bread in the house of one of the chief Pharisees, they watched Him to see if he would heal the man with the dropsy. When He opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth, some of them said, “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.” Thus did they hate and slander Him, and their accusation in the text might have been the result of this hatred.

The whole information we have from the Gospels teaches us to beware how we receive as true the accusations of the Pharisees. And our text is one of these accusations. The Pharisees and scribes murmured and said, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

The charge which they made against Jesus was an extraordinary one. His alleged conduct seems greatly to have astonished them. We live at too great a distance of time and under too different circumstances to judge of it. But it was such action as must greatly have perplexed the pious people among the Jews. Here was a religious teacher, one who was declared to be the Messiah, one whose personal purity and sinlessness were asserted by Himself and by His disciples, and whom does He make His companions? The men of authority and position in the nation? The men who were of special purity of life? The Pharisees who were especially the national purists? The scribes who were so intimately associated with the Scriptures of God? No, none of these—not even the men of ordinary purity and morality. But men who were especially recognized as sinners, who were so known as such as to be marked as a special class. And, then, not only these, but even the publicans, the oppressive tax-gatherers, who had sold themselves to the Roman nation and who were enriching themselves by their extortions upon the Jews. These were they whom Jesus is said to have sought after, waited for, expected and longed for as guests, and chosen to sit with Him at table.

Hence the Pharisees immediately seize upon it as a ground of accusation. They show their malice and mischief-making spirit by immediate murmurs. “See what he is doing, this teacher of morals, this Messiah of the Jews, this pretended pure and Holy One. Men are known by the company they keep. See his companions, his chosen ones, whom he delights to honor, whom he eats and drinks with—see him—Why, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

Is their charge correct?

We look to the record, and we see that the charge is true in all its fullness. At the feast of Matthew, himself a publican, though called as one of the twelve, we are told that “many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.” When Christ entered Jericho, He offered Himself as a guest to Zaccheus, the chief of the publicans. Indeed, the very occasion of the murmuring of the Pharisees in our text was that all the publicans and sinners draw near unto Christ to hear him, and doubtless the very manner of His reception of them justifies the peculiar word of the accusation which charged Christ as expectantly awaiting them.

At the feast of Matthew, Christ Himself acknowledged that the accusation made at that feast was true and assigned the reason for His conduct. But on that occasion He seems simply to have admitted these sinners as companions. His answer was that He had come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance. It was, therefore, natural that He should consort with those He came to save. The more wicked they were, the more they needed His salvation. The more steeped in sin, the more call was there for His influence to draw them from it. The more guilty they were, the more did they need encouragement to come to Him. The announcement of the nature of His work was, therefore, an assignment of sufficient reason for His stooping to the very depths of human sin to lift out of its toils and from their own defilement the men who were most deeply stained and most inextricably entangled.

In the light of Christ’s life and work as we now see it, we can comprehend the fullness of His mercy and the appropriateness of His action.

He who brings bread to the hungry will seek first those who are ready to perish. Though all may need his help, yet must these first be relieved who otherwise may die before their turn may come.

Such, therefore, was Christ’s true and justifying answer to the charge at Matthew’s feast that He was consorting with sinners. But, as we have seen, the accusation in our text is stronger. It is not merely companionship where men had come in as these did and sat down at the feast with Him and His disciples. It is more than this that is here implied. It is that Christ was waiting, watching, looking out for, hoping to receive, and expecting with earnest desire that these sinners should come to Him.

And Christ makes to this charge a most remarkable answer, one which shows that we may give to this word “receiveth” all the fullness of meaning which may at any time be ascribed to it.

His answer is contained in three of the most remarkable parables to be found in all His sayings. In them He shows that this is His true attitude, nay, that the word of the accusation does not go far enough. It does not express the full truth. There is must more than any could have imagined from His conduct.

Thus replying, too, He shows us unmistakably that the disposition toward sinners He then sets forth is not that of a transient occasion but the pervading and ruling spirit of His life. Nay, that thus is set forth the grand truth in His spiritual kingdom of the deep yearning which He feels that every sinner, a single sinner though but one, any sinner the more vile he be the more is it true, should find in Him salvation and restoration to the failed relationship of God.

The first parable by which He teaches this is that of the shepherd of an hundred sheep leaving the ninety and nine safe within the fold while he goes forth into the wilderness to seek the one that is lost. How strongly and yet how sweetly does the familiar illustration come home to the hearts of all. The anxiety of the shepherd, the danger of the sheep, his going forth with longing heart into the pathless wilderness to seek the sheep, straying per-haps in indifference, in ignorance of danger, perhaps in joy of forbidden pastures, and the speed which the shepherd makes lest the darkness should overtake him and his search be vain or the cold of the night benumb the straying lamb until it perish or the wolf come and devour it when there is no protector by, and when he finds, how tenderly does he deal with it, not chiding nor chastising, not roughly driving it before him nor even leading it back again over the rough roads, but laying it upon his shoulders, bearing for it all the pain and toil of the return and gladly bearing it because of the joy which he feels that he has recovered his sheep. As we recall the emotions natural to the shepherd, we can imagine that joy with which he makes his voice to ring, over hill and dale, calling out to his friends and neighbors, “I have found my sheep, I have found my sheep! Rejoice with me! I have found my sheep!”

Is it true that Jesus thus yearns over every lost sinner and thus longs to find him and to bring him back into his fold? He tells us so. It is thus that He answers the accusation of the Pharisees that He was an expectant looker-out for sinners, eagerly desires to receive and entertain them. Yes, and He adds that as He thus brings each one by persistence and faith into His kingdom, He shouts out His triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man.

There are ninety and nine that safely lay
In the shelter of the fold,
But one had wandered far away
In the desert so lone and cold
Away in the mountains wild and bare,
Away from the Shepherd’s tender care.

Shepherd! hast thou not here thy ninety and nine?
Are they not enough for thee?
But the Shepherd replied “This one of mine
has wandered away from me;
The way may be wild and rough and steep;
I go to the desert to find my sheep.

But none of the ransomed ever knew
How deep were the waters crossed;
Nor how dark was the night the Lord passed thro’
Ere he found the sheep that was lost.
Away in the desert he heard its cry
So feeble and helpless and ready to die.

Shepherd; whence are those blood drops all the way
Up the mountains rugged track
They were shed for the one who had gone astray.

Ere the shepherd could bring him back.
Lord, why are thy hands so rent and torn
For him they were pierced with many a thorn.

And afar up the mountain thunder riven
And along the rocky steep
There arose the glad song of joy to heaven
Rejoice, I have found my sheep.
And the angels echoed around the throne
Rejoice, for the Lord brings back His own.

This first parable in which He thus replies mingles the idea of compassion for the sheep with that of the loss of something which is owned. Our Lord, therefore, proceeds one step further in the next by the exclusion of the possible suffering of that which was lost. He thus sets before us the fact that His yearning is not simply compassion, but earnest desire to regain a lost possession. It is the parable of the woman who has lost one out of ten pieces of silver. The lost piece cannot suffer. It cannot be destroyed. It will remain as valuable in itself as ever. If found by another, it will be as useful as ever. But it is a lost piece of property. And the woman begins for it a diligent search. Can we not see her as she looks in one possible place and then another? “Where can I have put it?” she exclaims. “Could I have mislaid it, or have I dropped it?” And as she thinks of this possibility, she lights a candle and sweeps the house and seeks diligently until she finds it.

Is this descriptive of Christ? He says it is. He says it to the Pharisees, who have despised Him for His intercourse with sinners: And, thus, He declares to them these sinners are mine. Each one of them is mine. You say that I am waiting for them. I am doing more than this. Your word waiting does not express the idea. I have lost my property, which I would regain for my happiness and joy, and I am searching for it.

How blessed the language, how deeply should it impress every heart: Christ is searching after sinners. He has lighted His candle. He is sweeping the floor. He is determined to find that poor sinner if possible. Who is it that He thus seeks? It is every sinner. It is any sinner. It is the sinner that is most utterly lost. It is the sinner who cannot even move to come unto Him, but upon whom He will throw the light of His candle, and by the reflection of His light from the lost one will recover His, own, and replace him in His treasury.

Here again, the joy He asserts as His in such finding. Imagine the woman’s exultation after her long and diligent search. She calls to all her friends. “I have found it, I have found it!” And so Christ also has His joy as He sees of the travail of His soul and the angels who strengthened Him in Gethsemane proclaim to the heavenly host the new cause of rejoicing—“Another soul of man is saved. Another penitent is found!”

Ah, but our hearts respond “there is no sin there, no sin in the coin, none even in the sheep even if willfully it had strayed.” Doubtless the Pharisees were ready to say the same thing with a sneer. Why talk of such loss and finding in connection with such sinners?

But Christ stopped the sneer of the Pharisees by His third and last parable, that inimitable one of the Prodigal Son. Here there was sin. It was a willful son, one not content with his father’s house and love, one anxious to shake off dependence upon that father’s authority, one bent upon the free use of all he might call his own, going forth—and that not to a wise but a foolish and sinful use of his opportunities, spending his whole substance in riotous living, brought to a sense of his sinful rebellious and wasted life only by his condition of starvation and servitude, and thus returning. And to such as one how does the father, who here stands for Jesus, appear? As one stern and unbending and unforgiving? turning away in wrath from his spendthrift son and looking with disgust upon his tattered rags? Nay, it is the father who has never forgotten the absent one, who has ever yearned over him, who now sees him while yet afar off, and recognizes him even in his beggary and rags, and who waits not for words of penitence, but filled with compassion runs and falls upon his neck and kisses him, owns him as his son, clothes him with the best robe, putting the ring upon his finger and shoes upon his feet, and kills the fatted calf in honor of his return.

No question here of sinfulness, nor of abundant provocation to anger. But still less question of earnest love and vehement desire to get back the lost one. The parable appeals to every child, and especially to every parent. Can there be such love, such forgiveness, such indestructible compassion. Our hearts say, “yes, yes.” They yearn for our own children. We would do all this for them. No joy could exceed the joy which would fill a father’s heart at this the safe return of one long mourned as lost.

Christ says, as are your hearts so is mine. It is on this account and with these feelings that I seek after sinners. Each of them is as dear to me as such a son to you. As you feel more tenderly even to the undeserving when lost, than to the dutiful who have never strayed, so do I feel towards my poor lost ones. The more they have strayed, the more do I yearn. The greater the sinner, the more anxious my heart. My love has never failed. I have never forgotten one. And I stand as did the father of the prodigal looking out even into the far distance that I may see the penitent return.

Such then is Christ’s answer to the charge of the Pharisees. He uses all three of these parables to explain it. No one of them is sufficient. They must be continued together to teach the whole truth. His enemies said, “He receiveth sinners,” He waits for them, watches for them, is expecting them, takes delight in their coming. This was their reproach.

Christ says to them, You have but a part of the truth. I do not only wait, I go and seek the lost, I am filled with anxiety to find my sheep. I search for my treasure as with lighted candle and sweeping broom. My heart yearns for the wanderer, I look eagerly for him, my spirit within cries out in weariness at his delay. I am ready to welcome him with unequalled honors. It is not pleasure only that I take in the society of these sinners. My soul cries out with joy. I cannot contain my feelings. To all my servants around as each returns I impart my rapture, and the heavens ring with joyful exclamation as a single sinner comes back to God.

Do you believe Jesus, my hearers? Has He spoken here the truth concerning Himself? Is it, can it be, true that Jesus thus yearns over each one here? That He thus earnestly desires the salvation of each soul?

Too long have you lingered in the ways of sin and folly. Too long have you stood and trembled and doubted what might be His feelings toward you.

Hearken today to the message of His yearning love by which he would win you.

It tells you of sinners waited for, longed for with deep desire.

It tells you of the yearnings of your Jehovah Savior who cannot afford to lose you. It tells you of His earnest seeking, by which He would take you wounded and sore and unable to return and bear you back upon His shoulders to the fold.

Can you resist these pleadings? Can you reject such love? Can you disappoint such earnest longings and desires?

Will you not welcome to your heart your blessed Lord, your glorious Savior, who thus seeks you that He may regain His wandering sheep, His lost treasure, His prodigal child, that He may once more number you among His own.

Suffer this day the word of exhortation. Would that I could utter such words as would make you hesitate no longer.

Where shall I find them? Isaiah 55:1, “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”

James P. Boyce, “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners (Luke 15:2),” in James Petigru Boyce: Selected Writings, ed. Timothy George (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1989), 77–84.

Like [Richard] Fuller, Boyce saw these truths of grace as finding their coherence in the person and work of Christ. Boyce’s great sermon on “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners” has a Christ-centered focus that should be the goal of every gospel preacher to emulate. Christ waits on sinners. Christ seeks sinners, and Christ rejoices in the coming of sinners and invites them with all earnestness to come to Him. He “shouts out his triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man” (James P. Boyce, Selected Writings [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1989], 81).

Tom J. Nettles, “A Historical View of the Doctrinal Importance of Calvinism among Baptists,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville, B&H, 2008), 63–64.

Preaching and effectual calling operate in a similar manner. Boyce did not profess to be able to explain these two bits of data with absolute coherence, but he did believe that the principle established earlier, the progressive and self-sustaining character of divine revelation, rendered both biblical realities consistent, similar to prayer and providence. If the Bible calls on us to believe and act in response to both, then we must. God’s sincerity, even in the bare outward call, cannot be questioned precisely because of the biblical portrait of his character. Additionally, however, an absolute determinism to save on the one hand does not contradict the earnestness of the invitation on the other. If those invited are left to do just as they please, none can question the sincerity of the call. An accusation of insincerity would never have crossed one’s mind if efficient grace had not been introduced to guarantee the salvation of some. Had only an external proclamation existed with no special grace, but all alike were left to the consequences of their own corrupted affections and will, the charge of insincerity could not have arisen, for the urgency of the message itself and its call for repentance and trust with the promise of salvation have all the marks of utter truth and, thus, sincerity. Beyond that, God assures sinners of his sincerity by the nature of his pleading with them as in Ezekiel 33:11: “Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” In his preaching, therefore, Boyce urged on his hearers the transparent sincerity of God in seeking sinners, all sinners, through the message of the gospel. In a sermon entitled “Christ Receiving and Eating with Sinners,” based on Luke 15:2, Boyce discussed the accusation brought against Jesus, “This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” Since Jesus came to seek the lost, he quite naturally would seek opportunities to “consort with those He came to save.” But the accusation had greater intensity; they “accused him of waiting, watching, looking out for, hoping to receive.” Boyce replied that the accusation does not go far enough, for Jesus manifested a “deep yearning which He feels that every sinner, a single sinner though but one, any sinner the more vile he be the more it is true, should find in Him salvation and restoration to the failed relationship of God.” He emphasized this in increasing intensity by showing how Jesus presented himself in three parables. In the parable of the lost sheep we find that “Jesus thus yearns over every lost sinner and thus longs to find and to bring him back into his fold.” Jesus was an “expectant looker-out for sinners” and eagerly desired to “receive and entertain them.” And as Jesus brings a sinner home, he shouts out His triumph throughout the realms of heaven, and the angelic hosts rejoice at the salvation of a single man.” In parable two, Jesus showed his “earnest desire to regain a lost possession.” Jesus is the woman with ten pieces of silver and he says, “I have lost my property, which I would regain for my happiness and joy, and I am searching for it.” Boyce affirmed that Jesus seeks those that the Father gave him before the foundation of the world and will not fail to find them. That truth Boyce indicated implicitly in preaching this series of parables, but explicitly he affirmed that “it is every sinner. It is any sinner. It is the sinner that is most utterly lost. It is the sinner who cannot even move to come unto Him but upon whom He will throw the light of His candle, and by the reflection of His light from the lost one will recover His own, and replace him in His treasury.” The third parable involved not a sheep or a coin, but an infinitely ungrateful and rebellious son, a true “example of genuine sinfulness” as well as a “real provocation to anger.” This gave even greater offense to Jesus’ accusers as he pictured the justly offended father yearning for the return of the son, and acting in the most outrageously undignified and incalculably gratuitous manner in receiving him back. “The most they have strayed, the more do I yearn,” Boyce pictured the Father as saying. “The greater the sinner, the more anxious my heart. My love has never failed. I have never forgotten one. And I stand as did the father of the prodigal looking out even into the far distance that I may see the penitent return.” The close Boyce handled masterfully, showing that God is the initiator and consummator of the salvation event, but at the same time pressing the divine earnestness in going after all sinners. Boyce believed that in these parables Christ taught “I do not only wait, I go and seek the lost, I am filled with anxiety to find my sheep. I search for my treasure as with lighted candle and sweeping broom. My heart yearns for the wanderer, I look eagerly for him, my spirit within cries out in weariness at his delay, I am ready to welcome him with unequalled honors.” And at the return of such, Boyce pictured Jesus as affirming, “It is not pleasure only that I take in the society of these sinners. My soul cries out with joy. I cannot contain my feelings. To all my servants around as each returns I impart my rapture, and the heavens ring with joyful exclamation as a single sinner comes back to God.” To make sure that none could miss his universal intent in setting forth Christ as the willing savior of sinners, Boyce continued, “Do you believe Jesus, my hearers? Has he spoken here the truth concerning Himself? Is it, can it be, true that Jesus thus yearns over each one here? That He thus earnestly desires the salvation of each soul?” He sought to inject the call indelibly into the conscience—“Hearken today to the message of His yearning love by which he would win you. It tells of sinners waited for, longed for with deep desire .… Can you resist these pleadings? Can you reject such love? Can you disappoint such earnest longings and desires?”

Thomas J. Nettles, James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009), 427–30. On pages 464–65, Nettles, however, did criticize Boyce’s position on the nature and extent of the atonement as inconsistent. His criticisms were earlier stated in By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 304. See p. 342 in the 2006 in the 20th Anniversary Revised and Expanded edition. Nettles also argued for a limited sufficiency view on pp. 305–16 [2006 edition, pp. 343–53].

The Reformed(ish) Confessions Explicitly Rejecting God as the Author of Sin

Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)

This is not to say that we make God the author of any sin, seeing that He Himself is a God that cannot have pleasure in any iniquity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649.

Rhaetian Confession (1552)

It is thus displeasing that certain men, when speaking about providence, everywhere indiscriminately insult any number of people, [saying that] God is the author of both virtues and vices, and that He no less desires actions done in a wicked manner than those which are done well and virtuously. … Nevertheless, we will say that sins are not from God and that He is not the author of perversity if we want to speak properly and truly and in accordance with the rule and words of Holy Scripture.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:671–72.

Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552)

Although, therefore, I thus affirm that God did ordain the Fall of Adam, I so assert it as by no means to concede that God was therein properly and really the author of that Fall.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:775.

I have, with equal constancy, asserted that the eternal death to which man rendered himself subject so proceeded from his own fault that God cannot, in any way, be considered the author of it.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:776.

But how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression; how this was, I repeat, is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:776.

The French Confession (1559)

Yet we deny that He is the author of sin, or that the blame of things done amiss can be laid upon Him, seeing His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all righteousness and equity: but this we confess that He has those admirable means as whereby He makes the devils and the ungodly, as His instruments to serve Him and to turn the evil which they do and whereof they are guilty into good.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The French Confession (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:143.

Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559)

He is the only true God (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 44:6; 45:5–6; 1 Cor. 8:6), of an eternal, infinite (Dan. 6:26; Rom. 16:25), spiritual (John 4:24), invisible, incomprehensible, and immortal (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) essence, of utmost power (Gen. 17:1; Luke 1:51), wisdom (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17), justice (Deut. 32:4), mercy (Ps. 118:1–4, 29), goodness (Matt. 19:17; V 2, p 165 Ps. 31:5), truth (Rom. 3:4), who is the true and only fountain of every virtue, from whom every good thing flows (James 1:17), in whom there is no evil, who is not the author of any sin (Job 34:10, 12) but rather is displeased and hates and abominates every injustice and iniquity (Deut. 25:16; Pss. 5:4; 92:15), who being perfect in Himself and communicating His good to others (James 1:5; Matt. 7:7; 2 Cor. 9:8–9; 1 Tim. 6:17) does not need anything (Ps. 16:2; Acts 17:25).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:164–65.

The Waldensian Confession (1560)

We believe that the same God governs all His creatures and that He disposes and orders all that takes place in the world according to His will, not being the author of evil or that the blame for it might be imputed to Him, since His will is the supreme and infallible rule of every justice and equity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:220.

Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560)

Nothing is done at adventure or by chance or without the most just ordinance and appointment of God (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29; Prov. 16:4), although God is in no way author nor culpable of any evil which is committed. … But if man had been created wicked or evil, God would not have had just occasion to punish the wickedness of which He Himself was the author and maker.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:242, 244–45.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

We believe that the same good God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Belgic Confession (1561),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:431.

The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562)

Concerning Permission

We say that God acts permissively in foul sins or offenses because He is not the author of sin or evil offenses (Acts 14; Ps. 83). He only permits men to commit them, but does not command or perform them. God does not perform anything close by, effectively or directly, but only indirectly, sustaining the ruined mass, its movement, existence; giving life in accordance with His general providence. But when God punishes sins with later sins, working indirectly in a manner deserving of punishment, He does not sin (2 Sam. 16, 18, 19). The instruments, men and devils, work sinfully close by, committing sin in themselves, with regard to themselves, as Absalom, Ammon, the Chaldeans, Satan (Rom. 7; Eph. 4; 2 Sam. 7, 12, 13; 1 Kings 11, 17, 22; 2 Chron. 25; so teach the Holy Scriptures and the fathers: Augustine, on predestination; Ambrose, on the call of the heathen; 2 Thess. 2; Jerome, Prosper, and others).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:481–82.

The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563)

We confess that nothing takes place except in the sight of God or without His righteous decree: although God is not the author of sin of any kind and has no part therein.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:654.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Moreover we condemn Florinus Blastus (against whom also Irenaeus wrote) and all those that make God the author of sin; seeing it is expressly written, “Thou art not a God that loveth wickedness; thou hatest all them that work iniquity, and wilt destroy all that speak lies” (Ps. 5:4–6).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:821.

Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567)

Here we condemn the belief of the Manicheans too, i.e., those who make God, one way or another, the author of sin. First, because it is written in Psalm 5:4 that God does not desire sin, i.e., He cannot wish for sin, cannot make it. God performs only what He wishes (Pss. 114, 135). But as He does not desire sin, He does not cause it. And since God is the highest righteousness, light, and life, He cannot do that which is contrary to His own nature.
Second, because Scripture says that God hates sin, cannot abide falsehood, and cannot perform deception or sin.
Third, because He forbids and punishes the sinful, He cannot be the author of that which He forbids and punishes.
Fourth, because Scripture teaches that God would not be able to punish men and be the judge of the world if He desired and performed sin (Gen. 18; Rom. 2–3). If my sin is to the glory of God, why then does He punish me as a sinner?
We repudiate the hairsplitting speculations, without foundation in Scripture, of those who say that it was of necessity, by the decree of God, that Adam fell from that blessed integrity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:19.

The Confession of La Rochelle (1571)

Certainly we do not believe that God is the author of evil or that guilt can be imputed to Him, since, on the contrary, His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all true justice and righteousness.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:309.

The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609)

Of the author of sin, we confess that our Lord God, though He is the creator and sustainer of all creatures, yet He is not the author of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:409.

The Bremen Consensus (1595)

It is thus a notable calumny in opposition to the previously recounted, authentic doctrine of the divine decree and His government of all things, when one seeks to sanction and validate the following absurd and false opinions: As, that no one need have scruples about sin and that all evil is done not merely by the will of God, but even occurs with Him as its author. Or that the ungodly sin in accord with the will of God and that their sins are effected in them by God. Or that not only the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, but even a stiff-necked, ungodly and disobedient spirit are produced by God, and that the evil will in perverse men is from God. Or that men must by necessity sin against their own will, and that God has determined from eternity (and that it suits Him) to create men so that they must sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:671.

The Confession of John Sigismund (1614)

It is not that God is a cause of man’s ruin, nor that He desires the death of the sinner, nor that He is an author or instigator of sin, nor that He does not desire all to be saved, for we find the opposite throughout Holy Scripture (Ezek. 18:21–23; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt. 10[?20]).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:85–86.

The Irish Articles (1615)

28. God is not the author of sin: however, He does not only permit, but also by His providence governs and orders the same, guiding it in such sort by His infinite wisdom as it turns to the manifestation of His own glory, and to the good of His elect.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Irish Articles (1615),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:94–95.

The Canons of Dort (1618–1619)

And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:125.

‘That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them;’ and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:151–52.

The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631)

For it is a true and infallible rule that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can any such by just reasoning be attributed to God.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:157.

The Colloquy of Thorn (1645)

1) God is not at all the author of any sin, but rather the source and author of all good things; by contrast, the hater and avenger of all that is evil.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:210.

2) It is therefore outright calumny when that horrible blasphemy impugns our church—that we make God the author of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:211.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

I. GOD from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:238.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22–23; 1 Chron. 10:4, 13–14; 2 Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28); and that not by a bare permission (Acts 14:16), but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding (Ps. 76:10; 2 Kings 19:28), and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends (Gen. 1:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (James 1:13–14, 17; 1 John 2:16; Ps. 50:21).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:240.

The London Confession (1646)

God has decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Pss. 115:3; 135:6), whether necessary, accidental (Ps. 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26), or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory (yet without being the author of sin, or having fellowship with anything therein); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: and God has before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; and leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice (Prov. 21:6; Ex. 21:13; Prov. 16:33; Ps. 144; Isa. 45:7: Jer. 14:22; Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16–17; Num. 23:19–20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4–5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Confession (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:274.

Waldensian Confession (1655)

That He directs and governs all things by His providence, ordaining and appointing all that happens in the world, without being either the author or cause of evil committed by the creatures, or that the culpability in power or obligation may in any way be imputed to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:438.

A brief justification touching the points, or articles of faith which the doctors of Rome impute to us in common with all the Reformed churches. Accusing us of believing:
1. That God is the author of sin.
2. That God is not all powerful.
3. That Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross.
4. That in the works of salvation, when man is moved by the Holy Spirit, he does not cooperate any more than a piece of wood or a rock.
5. That the efficacy of predestination, is of no consequence whether one does good or evil.
6. That good works are not necessary to salvation.
7. That we absolutely reject confession of sin and repentance.
8. That fasting must be rejected, and other mortifications of the flesh, to live in dissolution.
9. That any one can explain the Holy Scripture as it pleases him, and according to the inspirations of his own particular spirit.
10. That the church can fail entirely and be destroyed.
11. That baptism is not a necessity for anyone.
12. That in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not have any real communion with Jesus Christ, but only in a figure.
13. That it is not obligatory to obey magistrates, kings, princes, etc.
14. Because we do not invoke the holy virgin, and men already glorified, they accuse us of scorn, when we declare them blessed, worthy both of praise and imitation, and hold above all the holy virgin “blessed among all women.”

But all these articles which are so maliciously imputed to us, far from believing or teaching them, we hold to be heretical and damnable, and denounce from all our heart anathema against whoever would maintain them.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:443–44.

The Savoy Declaration (1658)

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:462.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, in that His determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (and that not by a bare permission) which also He most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to His own most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:464.

Waldensian Confession (1662)

That God guides and governs them all by His providence, ordering and directing all that happens in the world, but without being the author or the cause of the evil of creatures, or that the guilt of it might or ought to be imputed in any way to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:501.

We are usually accused of believing that:
1. God is the author of sin;
2. God is not omnipotent;
3. Jesus Christ was not without sin;
4. Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross;
5. Man is like a piece of wood or a rock in his actions to salvation, being moved by the Spirit of God;
6. Because of predestination it is indifferent if one lives well or amiss;
7. Good works are not necessary for salvation;
8. Among us repentance and confession of sins are condemned;
9. It is convenient to reject fasting and other mortifications to live in debauchery;
10. It is lawful for everyone to explain freely Scripture according to the motions of a peculiar spirit;
11. The church can be reduced to nothing and be extinguished;
12. Baptism avails for nothing;
13. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no real communion with Christ, but only a picture;
14. It is not necessary to submit to and obey kings, princes, and magistrates;
15. Since we do not pray to the virgin and glorified saints, we despise them; while we consider them blessed, worthy of laud, and imitation, and especially we consider the glorious virgin blessed above all women.

These beliefs are imputed to us, while our churches detest them as heresies and declare anathema with the whole heart any who uphold them.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:515.

The London Baptist Confession (1677)

1. God has decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18); yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any therein (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree (Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:536.

4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1); and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully bounds, and otherwise orders and governs (2 Kings 19:28; Ps. 76:10), in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends (Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (Ps. 50:21; 1 John 2:16).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:539.

Citations in order: James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649; “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions, 1:671–72; “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” 1:775, 776; “The French Confession (1559),” 2:143; “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” 2:164–65; “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” 2:220; “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” 2:242, 244–45; “The Belgic Confession (1561),” 2:431; “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” 2:481–82; “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” 2:654; “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” 2:821; “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 3:19; “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” 3:309; “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” 3:409; “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” 3:671; “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” 4:85–86; “The Irish Articles (1615),” 4:94–95; “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” 4:125, 151–52; “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” 4:157; “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” 4:210, 211; “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” 4:238, 240; “The London Confession (1646),” 4:274; “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., 4:438, 443–44; “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” 4:462, 464; “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, 4:501, 515; “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” 4:536, 539.