Schaff - History of the Christian Church Vol. 8 - Media Sabda Org

810
“Ed ènne dolce cosìfatto scemo,
Perchèit ben nostro in questo ben s’affina,
Che quel che vuole Dio, e noi volemo.”
ft849 Com. on Rom. 9:14: “Est praedestinatio Dei vere labyrinthus, unde
hominis ingenium nullo modo se explicare queat.”
ft850 The last passage is often quoted for a decree of reprobation; but the
verb progegramme>noi is wrongly translated “ordained” in the E. V.
Progra>fw means to write before, and refers to previous writings,
namely, the Scriptures of the O. T. Calvin correctly translates
“praescripti in hoc judicium,” but refers it, metaphorically, to the book
of the divine counsel: “aeternum Dei consilium liber vocatur.”
ft851 This is implied in the passage, Heb. 12:17, whether we refer meta>noia
to Esau’s late repentance (Calvin, Bleek), or to a change of mind in
Isaac (Beza, Weiss).
ft852 Inst. III. ch. XXII. 1. In his Com. on Rom. 9:22, 23, he ignores this
distinction and explains kathrtisme>na, “given up and appointed to
destruction, made and formed for this end” (devota et destinata exitio:
sunt enim vasa irae, id est in hoc facta et formata, ut documenta sint
vindictae et furoris Dei). This is the extreme supralapsarian exposition.
But other Reformed exegetes fully acknowledge the difference of
phraseology. It was pressed by those members of the Westminster
Assembly who sympathized with the hypothetical universalism of the
Saumur school of Cameron and Amyrauld. “The non-elect,” said Dr.
Arrowsmith, “are said to be fitted to that destruction which their sins
bring upon them, but not by God.” See Mitchell, Minutes of the
Westminster Assembly, pp. 152 sqq.; Schaff, Creeds, I. 770 sq.
ft853 “Das ganze Summarium und der herrliche Schlussstein des ganzen
bisherigen Brieftheils.” Weiss in the 6th ed. of Meyer on Romans (p.
555). Godet: C’est ici comme le point final apposéàtout ce qui
précede; ce dernier mot rend compte de tout le plan de Dieu, dont les
phases principales viennent d’être esquissées.” The i{na tou>v pa>ntav
(Jews and Gentiles) teaches not, indeed, the forced acceptance of
mercy by all, but, at all events, the universality of the divine purpose
and intention. Meyer sees in this passage a conclusive exegetical
argument against a decretum reprobationis.
ft854 Unfortunately the A. V. obliterates the force of the parallel in the fifth
chapter of Romans by neglecting the definite article before polloiv.