Geneva Theses (1649) and The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) Against Some of the Common Beliefs of Reformed Believers
Geneva Theses (1649) and The
Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) disprove some of the common theories that
reformed teachers have been teaching their congregations. These commonly taught
theories are:
- God’s universal desire, wish, will, and intention for the salvation of all the reprobates,
- God’s universal love, kindness, goodness, mercy, and common grace towards all the reprobates,
- Christ’s universal death for all the reprobates in a certain sense (i.e. Christ died sufficiently for all without exception).
The Geneva Theses were written to refute the errors as taught by the Saumur Academy in France at the time, namely that of John Cameron, Moses Amyrald, Josué de la Place, and Louis Cappel, commonly called Hypothetical Universalism, or specifically Amyraldianism[1]. The Formula Consensus Helvetica, though written later, was also written to refute the same errors.
These two confessions prove that the
above theories commonly held by many modern reformed believers are the
fruit of the false theology of Amyraldianism. Those who reject the above
theories are often accused as Hyper-Calvinists. While accusing, they are not
aware that they are Hypo-Calvinists, moderate Calvinists, or closet Amyraldians.
Only few reformed churches would dare to reject the above written theories because
they take logical deduction of Scripture to its necessary consequences.
Geneva Theses (1649)
Taken from: Dennison Jr., James
T.. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation:
(1523-1693) . Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.
II. Concerning Predestination 1. Fallen men are the object of predestination, yet not as unbelieving and rebellious to the call. 2. Sacred Scripture occasionally represents election to salvation and to the means of salvation distinctly and for that reason they may be distinctly considered: Christ was sent and died according to the counsel of God the Father, proceeding from His eternal love toward the elect. 3. Those whom God elected in Christ out of His good pleasure alone, and those only, He decreed to give to the Son, and to give them faith in order that they would be brought all the way to eternal life. 4. The matchless love and mercy of God is the sole cause both of the sending of the Son and of the satisfaction appointed beforehand through Him, even the conferring of faith and application of merit through it: which benefits should not be objects of separation or be torn asunder from themselves.
Rejection of the error of those:
1. Who teach that in God there is granted, under the condition of faith and
repentance, some good will of saving those who perish. 2. Who, using economy (ὂικονομίας) for an excuse, ascribe
to God the inclination or volition or disposition or affection or less ardent
love or power or intention or desire or will or counsel or decree or covenant
or necessary or universal conditional loving kindness, by which He wills each
and every man to be saved if they believe in Christ. 3. Who assign to
God a design previous to election in which He determined to be merciful to the
whole human race without limit. 4. Who attribute to God a twofold
loving-kindness, one clear or first and universal by which He willed each and
every person to be saved: the other more clear, second, and particular towards
the elect.
III. Concerning Redemption 1. Because the end has been destined only to those to whom the means have been destined, the advent of Jesus Christ into the world, His death, satisfaction, and salvation are destined only to those whom God decreed from eternity from His mere good pleasure to give faith and repentance, to whom He confers those very things in time. Scripture and the experience of all the ages is opposed to the universality of saving grace. 2. Christ, out of the mere good pleasure (εὐδοκία) of the Father, has been destined and given as a mediator to a certain number of men who make up His mystical body on account of the election of God. 3. For these, Christ Himself, perfectly conscious of His vocation, willed and resolved to die and to add to the infinite value of His death, the most efficacious and singular purpose of His will. 4. The universal propositions which are observed in Scripture do not declare that Christ died, made satisfaction, etc. for each and every person in consequence of the counsel of the Father and His will, but either they are to be restricted to the universality of the body of Christ or ought to be related to that economy (ὂικονομίαν) of the new covenant in which the outward distinction of all people having been canceled, the Son having adopted all nations to Himself, they are joined to His inheritance, i.e., in respect to any nation and people in general without distinction, He opens and offers the grace of preaching according to His will, gathers His church from them because this is the basis of the universal preaching of the gospel.
Rejection of the error of those: Who teach that Christ died for each and every one sufficiently, not merely by reason of worth, but also by reason of intention; or for all conditionally, if they were to believe; or who assert that Scripture teaches that Christ died for all men universally; and most especially the places of Scripture (Ezek. 18:21 etc. and 31:11; John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) ought to be extended to each and every man and by these the universality of love and grace ought to be proved.
IV. Concerning the Disposition of Man to Grace 1. Since the requisite conditions for salvation are impossible to the reprobate, God does not intend the salvation of them conditionally if they believe and repent unless it is supposed that there is an empty, deceptive, and useless intention and will of God. 2. The good use of the light of nature either subjective or objective is unable to draw men over to salvation, not even to gain from God any other measure of light appointed for salvation.
Rejection of the error of
those: 1. Who teach a universal and common call to all men to salvation
and to the author of salvation; and (who teach) that each and every man, if
he wishes, is able to believe and be saved. 2. Who teach that by His revealed
disposition, God wills the salvation of each and every one.
The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675)
Taken from: Dennison Jr., James
T.. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation:
(1523-1693) . Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.
Canon V: Christ himself is also included in the gracious decree of divine election, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation prior to election itself, but as being himself also elect (1 Pet 2:4, 6). Indeed, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of election, chosen Mediator, and our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to his own justice, salvation upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the divine counsel and will (Eph 1:5, 9; Matt 11:26), but was also made that the appointment and giving of Christ, our Mediator, was to proceed from the zealous love of God the Father toward the world of the elect.
Canon VI: Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: 1) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe; 2) that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that, at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God’s purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded, even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the heavens does whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is infinitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and desires, rashness, repentance, and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.
For Further reading:
The Geneva Theses (1649): A
Recently Uncovered Jewel, by Rev. Angus Stewart https://cprc.co.uk/articles/genevatheses/
Comments
Post a Comment