De Moor VI:8: The Wisdom of the Divine Decrees

Third, to Liberty we add the Wisdom of the Decrees; which, α. is not able to be denied to the Counsels of Him, who Himself is Most Wise: and which, moreover, β. Paul’s wondering exclamation teaches, Romans 11:33, 34: indeed, which, γ. is manifest in the execution of the Decrees, as much in the works of Nature as of Grace, in all which second Causes, and Means with their End, are conjoined together in a most elegant nexus: whence the Wisdom of God is declared in the works both of Nature, Psalm 147:5, and of Grace, Ephesians 3:10, 11.

[Granting that often it is not observed by men, who do not attend to the Ends and Connections of things, whence the Apparent Confusion:] Thus no one would have commended the Decree concerning the selling of Joseph, unless at the same time he had known the End intended by God, that this was done to preserve a great nation and his family alive in a time of famine.[1] Thus readily does one carp at the fruit destroyed by storm and those all the labor of the farmer rendered uselessn; because he does not know the Ends, which in these and similar situations God proposes to Himself.

[It is not fitting to take away this Wisdom of the Decrees by Velleity, Empty Desires, and Ineffectual Decrees, with those Pelagianizing:] Vorstius, Exegese Apologetica, chapter XX, pages 105-108, Arminius, Corvinus,[2]etc.; let HOLTIUS’[3]tegen Nozeman, pages 35-37, be considered. For Velleities and empty Desires are not applicable to Deity Most Wise: neither with the Wisdom of His Counsels is it able to be reconciled that He should fail of His end, nor that His truly intended Scope/Goal should follow from the intervention of the Creature otherwise and independently determining itself: see TRIGLAND’S Antapologiam, chapter IV, pages 69-72, chaper XIX, pages 293b-298. Hence, from the ascribing of Velleities of this sort to God in His Determinations, Amyraut[4] and Testard[5] were gravely warned by the National Synod of Alençon in the year 1637: see the Author, chapter XV, § 23, page 575; SPANHEIM the Younger’s Defensionem primam pro Parente adversus Dallæi[6] Pseudo-Apologiam, chapter V, pages 59, 60, 63, 67.

[1] See Genesis 50:20. [2] Johannes Arnoldi Corvinus (c. 1582-1650) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian. Having been a student of Arminius, he adopted his views, and in 1610 he signed the Five Articles of Remonstrance. He was deposed in 1619. [3] Nicolaus Holtius (1693-1773) was a student of Marckius and Wesselius, and later served as pastor at Koudekerk. He is remembered for his involvement in the trial of Antonius van der Os, whose doctrine of justification seemed to imply that faith is a meritorious human accomplishment. When Johan van den Honert and Jan Jacob Schultens recommended leniency in the case, Holtius, together with Alexander Comrie, vigorously resisted what they esteemed to be an unwholesome toleration. [4] While studying at Saumur, Moïse Amyraut (1596-1664) was heavily influenced by hypothetical universalism of Scottish theologian John Cameron. He served as professor at Saumur (1633-1664), together with Louis Cappel and Josué de la Place. [5] Paul Testard (1599-1650) was a French Reformed Pastor and Theologian. [6]Jean Daillé (1594-1670) was a Huguenot minister and Biblical scholar; theologically he was inclined to the tenets of Amyraldianism.

31 views1 comment