1.
No temporal thing can be the cause of that which is eternal. But the sins of
men are temporal, whereas Reprobation is eternal. Therefore the sins of man
cannot be the cause of Reprobation.
2.
My 2nd reason is, if permission of sin be first in intention and
then damnation, it follows that permission of sin should be last in execution.
But this is most absurd, namely, that a man should be first damned, and then
suffered to sin.
3.
Reprobation, as it signifies God’s decree, is the act of God’s will. Now, the
act of God’s will is the very will of God, and the will of God is God’s
essence. And, like as there can be no cause of God’s essence, so there can be
no cause of God’s will, or the act thereof.
4.
In saying sin foreseen is the cause of God’s decree of damnation they
presuppose a prescience of sin as of the thing future, without all ground. For,
nothing can be foreseen as future unless it be future. Now these dispute or’s
presuppose a futurition of sin, and that from eternity, without all ground. For
consider, no sin is future in its own nature, for in its own nature it is
merely possible and in different, as well not to be future as to become future.
Therefore it cannot pass out of the condition of a thing merely possible into
the condition of a thing future without a cause. Now what cause do these men
devise of this futurition of sin? Extra
Deum, nothing can be the cause thereof. For this passage of things out of
the condition of things possible into the condition of things future, was from
everlasting, for from everlasting they were future. Otherwise, God could not
have known them from everlasting. Consequently, the cause of this passage must
be acknowledged to have been from everlasting, and consequently nothing without
God could be the cause of it, seeing nothing without God was from everlasting.
Therefore the cause hereof must be found intra
Deum, within God; then either the will of God, which these men do utterly
disclaim, or the knowledge of God; but that is confessed to presuppose things
future rather than to make them so; or the essence of God; now that may be
considered either as working necessarily, (and if in that manner it were the
cause of things future, and all such things to become future by necessity of
nature, which to say is atheistical) or as working freely. And this is to grant
that the will of God is the cause why everything merely possible in its own
nature passes from everlasting into the condition of a thing future, if so be
it were future at all. And indeed seeing no other cause can be pitched upon,
this free will of God must be acknowledged to be the cause of it. And
consequently the reason why everything becomes future is because God has
determined it shall come to pass, but with this difference: all good things God
hath determined shall come to pass by his election, all evil things God has
determined shall come to pass by his permission. And the Scripture naturally
affords plentiful testimony to confirm this, without forcing it to
interpretations congruous hereunto, upon presumptuous grounds that these
arguments proceed from understandings ‘purged from prejudice and false
principles.’
5.
My 5th argument is this. If sin because of Reprobation, that is, of
the decree of damnation, then either by necessity of nature, or by the
constitution of God; not by necessity of nature as all that hitherto I have
known confess. But I say neither can it be by the free constitution of God; for
Mark what a notorious absurdity follows hence, and that unavoidably, namely,
that God did ordain, that upon foresight of sin he would ordain them to
damnation. Mark it well, “God did ordain that he would ordain, or God did
decree that he would decree.” In which words God’s eternal decrees made the
object of God’s decree. Whereas it is well known that the objects of God’s
decrees are merely things temporal and cannot be things eternal. We truly say
God did decree to create the world, to preserve the world, to redeem us, call
us, justify us, sanctify and save us. But it cannot be truly said that God did
decree to decree, or ordain to ordain. For to decree is the act of God’s will,
and therefore it cannot be the object of the act of God’s will. Yet these
arguments I am not so enamored with, as to force the interpretations of
Scripture to such a sense as is suitable hereunto, presuming the purity of my
understanding as ‘purged from prejudice and false principles.’ I would
willingly content myself with observation of the apostle’s discourse in arguing
to this effect, “Before the children were born or had done good or evil, it was
said, ‘the elder shall serve the younger.’” Therefore the purpose of God
concerning Reprobation stands not of works. And like as hence it is inferred
that therefore election stands not of good works; so therehence may I infer,
that therefore Reprobation stands not of evil works.
6.
If sin foreseen be the cause meritorious of Reprobation, then faith and
repentance and good works are the disposing causes unto election. For therefore
evil works foreseen are made the meritorious cause of reprobation because evil
works existence or the meritorious cause of damnation. If this be true, then
also because faith and repentance and good works are the disposing causes unto
salvation, than by the same force of reason faith repentance and good works
foreseen must be the disposing cause unto election. But faith, repentance, and
good works foreseen are not the disposing causes unto election as I prove thus:
1.
If they were then the purpose of God according to election should be of faith,
repentance and good works, which is expressly denied by the apostle is touching
the last part; and may as evidently be proved to be denied by him in effect of
the other parts also, by the same force of argumentation which he uses: as for
example, from this antecedent of the apostle’s, “Before the children were born
or had done good or evil,” it no more evidently follows that therefore the
purpose of God according to election is not of works, then it follows that the
same purpose of God according to election is not of faith, nor of repentance.
For before they were born they were no more capable of faith, or of repentance
than of any other good works. And undoubtedly faith and repentance are as good
works as any other.
2.
If God doth absolutely work faith in some and not in others according to the
mere pleasure of his will, then it cannot be said that faith foreseen is the
cause of any man’s election. For in this case faith is rather the means of
salvation, than salvation a means of faith. Consequently, the intention of
salvation rather precedes the intention of faith than the intention of faith
can be said to precede the intention of salvation. And to this the Scripture
accords, Acts 13:48, “As many believed as were ordained to everlasting life,”
making ordination to everlasting life the cause why men believed. Answerable
hereunto is Acts 2:47, “God added daily to the church such as should be saved;”
and that of Paul to Titus, “according to the faith of God’s elect.” So that
according to Paul’s phrase fides est
electorum, but according to the Arminian’s doctrine the inverse hereof is a
more proper and natural predication, as to say electio est fidelium.
Definitely Supralapsarian! I Maybe we can get Dr. Beeke to publish his works.
ReplyDeleteHe definitely was a Supralapsarian. But the Infralapsarians of the Dordt and Westminster Era held that both Election and Reprobation were unconditional. That no longer seems to be the case today. I'm not sure when it changed.
DeleteHe seems to be arguing for equal ultimacy in the decree of Predestination.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a touchy issue. I know what your views on the subject are. I find nothing in Twisse's argument to quibble with. Interestingly enough, this book (Riches of God's Love...) delineates Twisse's Supralapsarian position within about the first 50 pages. The he goes on for over 400 more pages defending the Infralapsarian position from Armnian cavils.
Delete