Conversion

[py3ak]

Cocceius has this beautiful remark (from Heppe’s Reformed Dogmatics: emphasis mine)

"There are two parts of conversion answering to the two ends. The man who is converted is converted from bad to good, from darkness to light, from the slavery of Satan to God, I K. 8:35, Is. 59:20, Jer. 15:19, Ac. 26:18. These parts are called in scripture nekrosis, the mortification, or ekdosis, the putting off of the old man; and zoopoiesis, quickening and endusis, putting on of the new man, Col. 3:9-10.—(XIV, 8) These parts go together. But, as regards the order of nature, although newness is subsequent to oldness,—yet the newness of the love of God is the cause of abolishing the oldness of the enmity of God. Darkness is not removed save by light; not death save by life; nor poverty save by riches; nor nakedness save by being clothed; nor ugliness save by beauty; nor vice save by virtue; and so neither hate save by love."

Which leads me to wonder why Cocceius seems to have sometimes been undervalued in later Reformed literature.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Reuben -- I gather that the thrust of your post is about Cocceius and his place in Reformed church history, rather than his quote on conversion, is that correct?

 

[py3ak]

Andrew, the enjoyment I derived from his quote on conversion makes me wonder about his place in church history. Until I started into Heppe I had heard primarily negative things about Cocceius, and evidently Willem van Asselt also feels that he has been somewhat under- or mis-represented.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am sympathetic with the Voetian school, so while bearing some appreciation for Cocceius's contributions to covenant theology, I would share their concerns about Cocceius on a variety of theological issues, including his (Cocceius') rejection of the abiding validity of the fourth commandment, his "highly speculative exegesis of the Old Testament" with its heavy allegorical/typological emphasis, the strong affinity of his school for Cartesian philosophy, and his erroneous and misguided attacks on Voetius and his school for "scholasticism." I'm far from being an expert on this. I've read Muller, PRRD; Beeke's bio on Voetius; Gerstner's The Thousand Generation Covenant; and some Van Asselt; among other studies of both Cocceius and Voetius (as much as possible I try to read original sources but in this case there are language barriers to some extent). And I think that enough red flags have been raised about Cocceius to warrant the skepticism, if not antagonism, directed towards Cocceius and Cocceians by Voetius and the Voetians, and others in the years since the original controversy.

C.A. Schouls, The Covenant Of Grace Its Scriptural Origins and Development in Continental Reformed Theology:

Although Cocceius is sometimes credited with being the "Father" of covenant theology, this is not correct, as Gerstner points out. It is true that he, perhaps more than any other, gave form and content to the triple covenant concept of Covenant of Works, Redemption and Grace (42); however, Cocceius made a sharp distinction between the Old and New Testaments, claiming that OT believers did not receive complete forgiveness of sin or righteousness. In fact, he so sharply divided the two dispensations that he rejected the Sabbath "...as a ceremonial yoke no longer binding on the Christian". (43) Such an approach to the distinctions between the Old and New Testaments can hardly be expected to bring about a healthy covenant view.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/cocceius-voetius-witsius-similarities-differences-11914/

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Andrew. I had heard about the Cartesianism and Voetius' concerns before now. Sadly the language barrier exists to some extent with Dr. van Asselt as well as Cocceius himself.