Who's who.

Herman Witsius has written:

“And God is to be considered, 1st. As truly all-sufficient, for all manner of happiness, not only to himself, nay, or only to the innocent creature, but also to guilty and sinful man. He himself impressed this upon Abraham at the renewal of the covenant, when God emphatically called himself the Almighty God, or God all-sufficient, Gen xvii. 1. denotes powerful, and sometimes too in the abstract, power, as Prov. iii. 27. ויךי לא, power of thine hand, it therefore denotes him who is endowed with such power, as “that he is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask, or think,” Eph. iii. 20. Without whom we can do nothing, and in whom we can do all things: יךש signifies sufficient; whether we suppose it compounded of the relative: ש, and יך, so as to denote one who is sufficient; or whether derived from ךש, signifying both a pap or breast, and desolation or ravage. If we join each of the these together and say, that God is so powerful and so sufficient, as that himself is in want of nothing, and from his plentiful breast all things derive their being, their life, and their motion: which breast being once withdrawn, all things relapse into desolation. This is what he declares himself to be, to his chosen people, in the covenant of grace, for whose benefit he is possessed of this most powerful all-sufficiency. That name therefore is often repeated to the patriarchs, as the fountain of every blessing, Gen. xxviii. 3. xxxv. 11. and xliii. 14. 2dly. As most merciful and gracious, rejoicing to communicate himself to the sinful creature, Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. 3dly. And at the same time as most just not entering into a state of friendship with the sinner, but in a way consistent with his holiness, and after having obtained full satisfaction to his justice: for he will by no means clear the guilty. 4thly. and lastly, As most wise, having found out an admirable mixture of his mercy and justice, without infringing the rights of either. For by this means, “unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, is made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,” Eph. iii. 10.”

“But here men are considered, 1st. As sinners, miserable and lost in themselves, who could not be restored by their own, or by any other created power; in a word, possessed of nothing, on account of which they can please God, Ezek. xvi 1-6. Tit. iii. 3, 4. 2dly. As chosen by God to grace and glory, according to his most absolute good pleasure, and so appointed heirs of eternal life, and are that “little flock, to whom it is the Father’s good pleasure to give the kingdom,” Luke xii. 32. 3dly. As those from who Christ engaged or made satisfaction: for this ought to be considered as necessary, before ever it could be worthy of God to make mention of his grace to sinful man.”

(Witsius, Herman, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume 1, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 281-282.)

Elect.

Herman Witsius has written:

“That the obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth, that all, without exception, who come to him, may find perfect salvation in him: and it was the will of God., that this truth should, without distinction, be proposed both to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to perish; with a charge not to neglect so great salvation, but to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul; and with a most sincere declaration, that all who come to him shall find salvation in him, John vi. 40.”

“That, however, Christ, according to the will of God the Father, and his own purpose, did neither engage nor satisfy, and consequently in no manner die, but only for all those whom the Father gave him, and who are actually saved. This is that truth which is controverted, and which we are now to confirm, in a concise but solid manner, from the sacred writings.”

“The scripture declares, that Christ satisfied for the whole body of the elect, when it declares, that he died for all, and by him reconciled all things, as 2 Cor. v. 15. Heb. ii. 9. Col i. 20. And as this is not to be understood of all and every man in particular, it must be meant of all and every one of the elect. That it cannot be understood of all and every individual, I prove from the passages quoted in the following manner. Those all for whom Christ is said to have died, 2 Cor. v. 15. are those who are also dead, namely, as to the old man, whom in virtue of the crucifixion of Christ, they have crucified, Rom. vi. 6. and who “live not to themselves, but to Christ,” and to Christ indeed, who rose again for them. But these things can be applicable only to the elect. None but they are dead to themselves, the world, and to sin: none else live to Christ. In a word, according to the very hypothesis of the Remonstrants, the efficacy of Christ’s resurrection is restrained to believers alone. In like manner, those all, for whom Christ is said by grace of God to have tasted death, Heb. ii. 9. are sons brought, or to be brought, unto glory, who have Christ for the captain of their salvation; who are sanctified, whom he calls his brethren, which God gave him, ver. 10, 11, 13. These things can be applied not to the reprobate, but only to the elect. In like manner, those all things which are said to be “reconciled to God by the peace made through the blood of Christ,” Col. i. 20. can only extend to the elect. The thing is self evident. For the reconciliation and peace-making with God are peculiar to elect believers, Rom. v. 1. On the contrary, the reprobate are perpetual enemies of God, “the wrath of God abideth on them,” John iii. 36. By those things which are on earth, are understood believers, who are still in the world; as by those things which are in heaven, are meant, not angles, but men in the state of bliss, who enjoy, in the fullest manner, the fruits of Christ’s atonement and reconciliation.”

(Witsius, Herman, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume 1, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 257-258.)

The Controlling Principle.

Geerhardus Vos has written:

“Again, in the new life which follows repentance the absolute supremacy of God is the controlling principle. He who repents turns away from the service of mammon and self to the service of God. Our Lord is emphatic in insisting upon this absolute, undivided surrender of the soul to God as the goal of all true repentance. Because this and nothing less is the goal, he urges the necessity of a constant repetition of the process. Even to his followers he said at a comparatively late stage of his ministry, “Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xviii. 3. From this necessity we must also explain the uncompromising manner in which Jesus requires of his disciples the renunciation of all earthly bonds and possessions which would dispute God his supreme sway over their life, Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; Lk. xiv. 25-35. The statements to this effect are not meant in the sense that external abandonment of these things is sufficient or even required. The idea is that the inward attachment of the soul to them as the highest good must be in principle destroyed, that God may take the place hitherto claimed by them. Within the kingdom they are entitled to affections on the disciple’s part in so far only as they can be made subordinate and subservient to the love of God. The demand for sacrifice always presupposes that what is to be renounced forms an obstacle to that absolute devotion which the kingdom of God requires, Mk. ix. 43. That not the external possession but the internal entanglement of the heart with temporal goods is condemned, Jesus strikingly indicates by the demand “to hate” one’s father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sister, yea and one’s own life also. The energetic determination of the will to forego even the pleasure of natural affection, where they come in conflict with the supreme duty of the kingdom, is thus described and the word “hating” chosen on purpose to express that in such cases an internal change of mind alone, not a mere external act, can make man fit for the kingdom of God. Matt. x. 37 gives us Jesus’ own interpretation of such seemingly harsh sayings.”

(Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Or., 1998, pp. 174-177.)

Mercies.

Thomas Brooks has written:

"The man that possesseth himself possesseth all; he that possesseth not himself possesses nothing at all. He possesses not the use, the sweet, the comfort, the good, the blessing of anything he enjoys, who enjoys not himself. That man that is not master of himself, he is a master of nothing. Holy silence gives a man the greatest mastery over his own spirit; and mastery over a man's own spirit is the greatest mastery in the world, Prov. xvi. 32."

(Brooks, Thomas, A Mute Christian Under the Rod, Old Paths Gospel Press, Choteau, MT, p. 52.)

"There is no way to secure your mercies but by improving of them; there is nothing that provokes God to strip you of your mercies like the non-improvement of them: Mat. xxv. 28-31, 'Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.' by some stroke or other God will take away the mercy that is not improved. If thy slothfulness hath put God upon passing a sentence of death upon the dearest mercy, thank thyself, and hold thy peace.

(Brooks, Thomas, A Mute Christian Under the Rod, Old Paths Gospel Press, Choteau, MT, p. 68.)

Unprofitable Servants.

Geerhardus Vos has written:

“…we must observe that there is a fundamental difference between the manner in which Judaism conceived of the principle of reward and Jesus’ conception of the same as regards the necessity with which this principle was believed to operate. Accordingly to the Jews this was a legal necessity; the fulfillment of the law being inherently worthy of and entitled to the reward following it. Hence also there existed between the two a ratio of strict equivalence, so much being given for so much. Jesus plainly taught that between God and man no such commercial relation can exist, not merely because this is impossible on account of man’s sin, but for the deeper reason, that God’s absolute sovereignty precludes it even under the conditions of human rectitude, because God as God is entitled, apart from every contract or stipulation of reward, to all the service or obedience man can render. The disciples are “unprofitable servants,” even after they have done everything required of them, Lk. xvii. 10. They are “unprofitable” not in the sense that their labors are useless, but in the sense that they can do no more for God their owner, than he can naturally expect of them.”

(Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Or., 1998, pp. 121-122.)

The Fruit of Christ's Death.

Herman Witsius has written:

“For, 1st. The scripture no where declares, that the fruit of Christ’s death is a possibility of the remission of sins: nor does Arminius produce any passage of scripture to that purpose. But to speak of the fruit of Christ’s death without scripture is untheological. 2ndly. Nay, the scripture asserts the contrary, as we have at large shewn § III, IV, V. 3rdly. It is also contrary to all reason to say, that the proper effect of Christ’s most perfect satisfaction was, that God might let the captive go free, yet so that the captive might always remain in prison and be liable to pay the debt. How absurd! that God would receive full satisfaction by the death of his Son, for the sins of any particular person, and yet, notwithstanding this plenary satisfaction of Christ, that man is to be sent to eternal fire, there to satisfy, in his own person , for those very sins which Christ had fully satisfied already? 4thly. Such a bare possibility of remission, which, from the nature of the thing, may never become actual, overturns the unchangeable covenant between the Father and the Son; the sum of which Arminius himself has well expressed in his oration de Sacerdotio Christi, p. 14. “God required of Christ, the he should make his soul an offering for sin, give his flesh for the life of the world, pay the price of redemption for the sins and captivity of mankind: and promised, if he did so, that he should see his seed, and become an eternal priest. The priest accepted this condition,” &c. Christ, relying on this infallible promise, did willingly give himself up to death. But from this assertion of Arminius and the Remonstrants, it was possible, that Christ, after having paid the ransom, should see no seed, be a king without any kingdom of grace, an everlasting Father without any children, a bridegroom without a bride, a head without a body. All which are most abominable.”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume I, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 241-242.)

The Satisfaction of Christ.

Herman Witsius has written:

“III. The Lord Jesus obtained for the elect, by his satisfaction, an immunity from all misery, and a right to eternal life, to be applied unto them in effectual calling, regeneration, sanctification, conservation, and glorification, as the scripture declares. Thus Matt. xxvi. 28. “this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Gal. i. 4. “he gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” Tit. ii. 14. “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Eph. v. 25, 26, 27. “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, that he might present it to himself a glorious,” &c. In a word, “this is that faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” 1 Tim. i. 15. By these and many other passages to the same purpose, which it would be needless to mention here, it evidently appears, that the effect of Christ’s satisfaction was not a bare possibility of the remission of our sins, and of our reconciliation with God, but an actual remission and reconciliation, and abolition of the dominion of sin, and at length salvation itself: and it is not possible the elect should have no share in this, unless Christ should be deemed to have satisfied for them to no purpose. It is certainly incumbent on us, never to weaken the force of the words of the Holy Ghost, especially in those places and expression of scripture, where the subject of our salvation is treated of; not to detract in any thing, for the value of the satisfaction of our Lord.”

“IV. This truth also appears from those places of scripture, in which the satisfaction of Christ is called [greek] a redemption, made by the payment of [greek] a ransom, or [greek] a price of redemption. For, the proximate effect of redemption, and of the payment of a ransom, is the setting the captive at liberty, and not a bare possibility of liberty. It is neither customary, nor equitable, that after paying the price, it should still remain uncertain, whether the captive is to be set free or not. A true redeemer procures the restitution of liberty to the miserable captive, wherever good faith and an agreement are of force. One may possibly be upon terms about the price, though uncertain of the event, but is neither prudent nor just, to make any payment, before what is stipulated be made sure and firm. The scripture itself declares, that the proximate effect of redemption is the actual remission of sins, and restoration to liberty, Rom. iii. 24. “justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Eph. i. 7. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” and Col. i. 14. to the same purpose: in like manner, Heb. ix. 12. “by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for us;” the fruit or effect, which is eternal liberty and salvation.”

“V. Of the like nature are those phrases, by which the elect are said to be “bought with a price, purchased with blood, redeemed by Christ’s subjection to the law:” as 1 Cor. vi. 20. “ye are bought with a price.” Acts xx. 28. “to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Gal. iv. 4, 5. “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” But whoever makes a purchase of any thing has an unquestionable right to it, and it not only may, but actually does become his property, in virtue of his purchase, upon paying down the price. And herein consists our liberty and salvation, that we are no longer our own, nor the property of sin, nor of Satan, but the property of Christ. Whence it appears, that the effect of Christ’s satisfaction is not a bare possibility of our salvation, but salvation itself.”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume I, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 235-236.)

More Human Effort.

John Owen has written:

“Next, there are those who find it hard to believe that the knowledge which they desire to be filled with, and which they dig so hard for in the writing of the scholars, might be had at first hand from the Scriptures. It seems too easy for them. Do they really think that human books can teach them profound thoughts, subtle arguments, fine distinction, intellectual stimulation, and the increase of learning they want, while the Scriptures are somehow mean, sordid, and boring? This really is the stupidity of the most inexperienced tyros. Haven’t they learned that the Scriptures are the one and only rule for measuring all truth, that nothing at all may be labeled “true” or admitted to the status of truths unless contained in the Scriptures, the fount and source of all truth? What thoughts or concepts concerning religion may ever have any weight or sublimity unless they are extracted from the holy writings?”

(Owen, John. Biblical Theology, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications 2002, pp. 697-698.)

Human Effort.

John Owen has written:

“Humanity will always make great efforts to extricate by its own powers whenever it is brought to see the fallen nature of its intellect and the darkness of mind which dwells within. What we can see is that even total mastery of all of the arts and sciences would never suffice for such an end! Those who abide in ignorance of the saving light of the gospel can never raise themselves up by the power of their minds, however high the mark they aim at might be! They may yearn to rise up above the darkness of their natures by diligent study of the arts and sciences, but they are subject to inborn depravity, and so have no absolute certainty by which to recognize truth. The latter is a goal which we as Christians acknowledge will never be attained outside of the saving grace of God in Christ. Until even the pursuit of the arts and sciences progresses by that standard, all must prove in the end nothing but delusion and vanity and failure for the student.”

(Owen, John. Biblical Theology, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002, pp. 692-693.)

Faith.

Geerhardus Vos has written:

“Hence also faith is not a quantitative matter, as it would have to be, were it a principle of human endeavor; faith like a grain of mustard seed will accomplish the greatest conceivable results, because, small though it be, it nevertheless, provided it be genuine faith, connects man with the exhaustless reservoir of divine omnipotence, Lk. xvii. 6.”

(Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Or., 1998, p. 181.)

“In its ultimate analysis faith is, according to Jesus, a divine gift. Faith must be the work of God in man, because only so can it be in harmony with itself as the recognition that we owe everything to God’s working for us and in us.”

(Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Or., 1998, pp. 187-188.)

Covenant of Grace.

Herman Witsius has written:

"The covenant of grace is a compact or agreement between God and the elect sinner; God on his part declaring his free good-will concerning eternal salvation, and every thing relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant, by, and for the mediator Christ; and man on his part consenting to that good-will by a sincere faith."

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume I, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 165.)

Blessed.

C.H. Spurgeon has written on Psalm 1:1, 2:

“BLESSED”—see how this Book of Psalms opens with a benediction, even as did the famous Sermon of our Lord upon the Mount! The word translated “blessed” is a very expressive one. The original word is plural, and it is a controverted matter whether it is an adjective or a substantive. Hence we may learn the multiplicity of the blessings which shall rest upon the man whom God hath justified, and the perfection and greatness of the blessedness he shall enjoy. We might read it, “Oh, the blessednesses!” and we may well regard it (as Ainsworth does) as a joyful acclamation of the gracious man’s felicity. May the like benediction rest upon us!

Here the gracious man is described both negatively (verse 1) and positively (verse 2). He is a man who does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. He takes wiser counsel, and walks in the commandments of the Lord his God. To him the ways of piety are paths of peace and pleasantness. His footsteps are ordered by the Word of God, and not by the cunning and wicked devices or carnal men. It is a rich sign of inward grace when the outward walk is changed, and when ungodliness is put far from our actions. Note next, he standeth not in the way of sinners. His company is of a choicer sort than it was. Although a sinner himself, his now a blood-washed sinner, quickened by the Holy Spirit, and renewed in heart. Standing by the rich grace of God in the congregation of the righteous, he dares not herd with the multitude that do evil. Again it is said, “nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” He finds no rest in the atheist’s scoffings. Let others make a mock of sin, of eternity, of hell and heaven, and of the eternal God; this man has leaned better philosophy than that of the infidel, and has too much sense of God’s presence to endure to hear his name blasphemed. The seat of the scorner may be very lofty, but it is very near to the gate of hell; let us flee from it, for it shall soon be empty, and destruction shall swallow up the man who sits therein. Mark the gradation in the first verse:

He walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.
Nor standeth in the way of sinners.
Nor SITTETH in the SEAT of SCORNFUL.

When men are living in sin they go from bad to worse. At first they merely walk in the counsel of the careless and ungodly, who forget God—the evil is rather practical than habitual—but after that, they become habituated to evil, and they stand in the way of open sinners who willfully violate God’s commandment; and if let alone, they go one step further, and become themselves pestilent teachers and tempters of others and thus they sit in the seat of the scornful. They have taken their degree in vice, and as true Doctors of Damnation they are installed, are looked up to by other as Masters in Belial. But the blessed man, the man to whom all the blessings of God belong, can hold no communion with such characters as these. He keeps himself pure from these lepers; he puts away evil things from him as garments spotted by the flesh; he comes out from among the wicked, and goes without the camp, bearing the reproach of Christ. O for grace to be thus separate from sinners.

“And now mark his positive character. “His delight is in the law of the Lord.” He is not under the law as a curse and condemnation, but he is in it, and he delights to be in it as his rule of life; he delights, moreover, to meditate in it, to read it by day, and to think upon it by night. He takes a text and carries it with him all day long; and in the night-watches, when sleep forsakes his eyelids, he museth upon the Word of God. In the day of his prosperity he sings psalms out of the Word of God, and in the night of his affliction he comforts himself with promises out of the same book. “The law of the Lord” is the daily bread of the true believer. And yet, in David’s day, how small was the volume of inspiration, for they had scarcely anything save the first five books of Moses! How much more, then, should we prize the whole written Word which it is our privilege to have in all our houses! But, alas, what ill-treatment is given to this angel from heaven! We are not all Berean searchers of the Scripture. How few among us can lay claim to the benediction of the text! Perhaps some of you can claim a sort of negative purity, because you do not walk in the way of the ungodly; but let me ask you—Is your delight in the law of God? Do you study God’s Word? Do you make it the man of your right hand—your best companion and hourly guide? If not, this blessing belongeth not to you.”

(Spurgeon, C.H. The Treasury of David, Volume I, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988, pp. 1-2.)

Man; the cause.

Herman Witsius has written:

“1st. Man himself is not only the meritorious, but also the physical cause of his own impotence, which he brought upon himself by his misconduct; as if an insolent and naughty servant should put out the candle by which he ought to carry on his master’s business, or by drinking to excess, willingly render himself unfit for the service of his master. In this case, the master does by no means forfeit his right of requiring every piece of service properly due to him, and of punishing that naughty servant for non-performance. 2ndly. Though God as a just judge had deprived man of ability to fulfil the law, yet, on that account, he both will in point of right, and can require the performance it by man. He can very justly, because no wickedness of man, justly punished by God, can diminish God’s authority over him, otherwise it would be in man’s power, at his won pleasure, either to extend or limit the authority of God, which is contrary to the immutable perfection and blessedness of God. He also does require this for wise reasons, of which this is one, that sinful man may by that means be convinced of his irreparable misery, upon finding such things justly required of him, which he has rendered himself incapable to perform. And since he is as unwilling as unable to obey God, he is the more inexcusable, the more clearly the duty of the law is inculcated upon him. 3dly. It is absurd to say, that it is the greatest punishment that God inflicts on man, not to require obedience from the rebellious creature. It is indeed true, that the creature ought to reckon it a part of its happiness to have the glory of obeying. And it is the punishment of the creature, if, by the just judgment of God, it is condemned never to perform what is incumbent, and may be acceptable to God. But it is another thing to say, that God will not require obedience from it. If God requires not obedience, the creature owes none; if it owes none, it does not act amiss, by disobeying, and if it does not amiss by disobeying, that cannot be the highest punishment for it. And thus Arminius destroys his own argument; who would have spoke rightly, had he said, that it is, instead of the highest punishment to the creature, to be condemned by the just judgment of God not to perform that obedience, which God consistently with his justice and holiness requires of it. 4thly. Should we deal more closely with a bold disputant, we might say, that there is a contradiction in the adjunct, when he supposes God addressing himself thus: I will not have thee to perform any obedience to me: for if any calls for obedience, he presupposes not only some authority by which he can require it, but also a command, which requires obedience, and which must be obeyed. Whoever by his authority gives such a command, requires that obedience be yielded to it. If he should give another command to this purpose, I will not have you to obey me, he would then contradict himself; nay, contradict the nature of the command, which consists in an obligation to obedience. 5thly. It is the highest absurdity imaginable, that a creature shall, by its sin, obtain exemption from the authority of the Creator, and be no longer bound to obey him. If this is true, then the first of all deceivers spoke truth, that man, by eating of the forbidden fruit, would become as God. Whoever is exempted from the authority of the Creator, is under the authority of none, is at this own disposal; in fine, is God. For to be at one’s own disposal, is to be God. Ah! how ridiculous is this!”

(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Volume I, Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990, pp. 154-155.)