Necessary Connections, Muller, and Ames

[py3ak]

Richard Muller comments (PRRD, III. p.463, emphasis added):

In other words, the Reformed orthodox deny that the hidden will or eternal decree of God runs counter to the truth of God's revelation: they do not follow out the late medieval nominalistic line of argument severing the potentia ordinata from the divine potentia absoluta, that the divinely given order of things stands in no necessary relation to the ultimate being of God, but they nonetheless assume that the revealed will is largely preceptive and promissory, not utterly reflecting the divine good pleasure: in his revealed will, God genuinely calls all who hear the gospel and promises to accept all who answer his invitation -- in his hidden will, he determines those to whom the grace will be given that enables response to his calling.

William Ames says (The Substance of Christian Religion, p.76):

...there is nothing in the world that hath a necessary connexion with the divine essence; and so nothing external comes from God by any necessity of his nature, but from his wisdom and free-will.

It appears that Ames might not have agreed with Richard Muller's summary. Am I comparing two quotes that address distinct points? If not, was Ames idiosyncratic in this regard among the Reformed orthodox?

 

[MW]

Am I comparing two quotes that address distinct points?

It probably swings on the word "necessary." Necessary for what? God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of His will. Free, yet necessarily wise and holy. It is impossible to think that they might be foolish and sinful. So there are necessary preconditions to God's decree. It is the decree of "God," so it must be a decree that is agreeable to what we know of God. The problem comes when vain man starts to think he has a right to decide in particular what is wise and holy. The Arminian says that God must savingly love all men, that certain acts must constitute an injustice, etc. That is where there is no necessary connection. In the context of Ames' discussion on creation, the idea of emanation is answered by an appeal to non-necessity. On the other hand, he argues from the "wisdom" necessarily used in creating the world that "tokens" lead from the creation to the Creator. So there is necessity and non-necessity. It is a necessarily wise creation, but it is not necessary to be this or that in order to be wise.

 

[py3ak]

Thank you, Mr. Winzer, that's very illuminating.

 

[KingofBashan]

Am I comparing two quotes that address distinct points?

The problem comes when vain man starts to think he has a right to decide in particular what is wise and holy. The Arminian says that God must savingly love all men, that certain acts must constitute an injustice, etc.

Well said! In my experience with my own sin nature, and working with some atheists, this is a roaring beast which cannot be tamed. The natural man craves to be out from under God's authority - to be his own final judge. So much of "the deep things of God" come down to learning to bow before his authority with a low and grateful heart, completely trusting his goodness and truth. Very encouraging reminder, brother.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Am I comparing two quotes that address distinct points?

It probably swings on the word "necessary." Necessary for what? God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of His will. Free, yet necessarily wise and holy. It is impossible to think that they might be foolish and sinful. So there are necessary preconditions to God's decree. It is the decree of "God," so it must be a decree that is agreeable to what we know of God. The problem comes when vain man starts to think he has a right to decide in particular what is wise and holy. The Arminian says that God must savingly love all men, that certain acts must constitute an injustice, etc. That is where there is no necessary connection. In the context of Ames' discussion on creation, the idea of emanation is answered by an appeal to non-necessity. On the other hand, he argues from the "wisdom" necessarily used in creating the world that "tokens" lead from the creation to the Creator. So there is necessity and non-necessity. It is a necessarily wise creation, but it is not necessary to be this or that in order to be wise.

I think you are a bit harder than need be on the Arminians here, Rev. Winzer. I do not see their judging as being vain, it is simply in error as to its conclusions. As you wrote a bit earlier, "so it must be a decree that is agreeable to what we know of God." That is what the fight is, not the vanity of judging. If we hammer out a proper view of justice etc. then the debate will dissipate.

CT