Cocceius + Voetius = Witsius ? Similarities/Differences

Status
Not open for further replies.

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Need some help here understanding the history of CT and especially the three men listed above. I was looking at Willem J. Van Asselt's The Federal Theology of Johnnes Cocceius and in the back he had a chart that showed a family tree of sorts of CT. It showed Witsius as descending from both Cocceius and Voetius. After some skimming and index hopping I found out that Cocceius's CT ended up denying the abiding validity of the Sabbath. Voetius took him to task for that. That's about all I know. What aspects did Witsius pick up from each? What are the main differences? If there is an article or thread that elucidates this, I'm more than happy to read it. Thanks!
 
I would also recommend reading J.I. Packer's Introduction to The Economy of the Covenants by Witsius. He discusses this lineage for a bit there.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I would also recommend reading J.I. Packer's Introduction to The Economy of the Covenants by Witsius. He discusses this lineage for a bit there.
Thanks! That's probably next in line on my hit list of books to buy and read.
 
Abraham Van De Velde, The Wonders of the Most High (A 125 Year History of the United Netherlands 1550-1675):

Coccesians and Cartesians work together, and Descart is glorified as a "great light". It was he who paved the way to exegete Scripture. Yes, they boast so much of these people that some say that since the apostles we did not see in the Church such learned people as Coccesius (Coccesius, 1603-1669, a Dutch theologian). Also that the least disciple of Coccesius knows more of Scriptures than all the Reformers. But these teachers of new doctrines appear to take a multitude of people away from our Churches. For experience teaches that many embrace anything that is taught by these people. According to Franciscus Ridderius, one of the followers of Coccesius wrote, "that Coccesians and Cartesians agree because their respective truths embrace and agree together."

This new theology is especially in conflict with the dignity of the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. As is apparent from the following theses:

1. That Christ, in the Old Testament had companions and helpers to rule the Church, but now in the New Testament era He alone is Head of the Church.
2. That the law of the ten commandments, and consequently the Covenant of Grace (for according to Coccesius the law of the ten commandments is nothing but the covenant of grace), proceeded from the Council of angels, of which Council Christ as Head Angel was the President.
3. That the Lord Christ was not the Mediator of the Old Testament.
4. That God did not covenant with the Lord Jesus, that He should be the direct surety of God's people.
5. That the security of the work of Christ was at that time of no great consequence, the sins of the Fathers of the Old Testament were not fully forgiven, like the sins of the New Testament saints by the blood of Christ.
6. The Lord Christ had to be careful not to be unjust, acknowledge folly, pray for grace and healing for His soul like any sinner. Certain words from Psalms 18, 64 and 41, they applied to Christ.
7. That Christ paid for our sins in His own Person, is no fruit and effect of His suffering.
8. That in the incarnation, the Divine nature united with human nature, like the nature of angels was united with the bodies in which they dwelt at times.
9. That according to Col. 2: 15, Christ having spoiled principalities and powers, He triumphed over them (the angels). They take this from Coll. 2: 15.
10. That the Lord Christ at one time was subject to the rule of angels.
11 That the promised Saviour of Is. 19: 20 was not the Lord Christ, but Gustav Adolph, King of Sweden.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top