The Greatest of the Reformed Supralapsarians

[Robert R. Higby]

Johannes Maccovius was never officially condemned in his views by Dort, yet he is constantly condemned as a 'hyper-Calvinist' and heretic by other 'Reformed' theologians. We need to study this man's life and contributions a lot more; I have not yet found any of his writings in English.

http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/macco.htm

[~JM~]

Thank you for the link.

[Merry and Joyful]

Johannes Maccovius was never officially condemned in his views by Dort, yet he is constantly condemned as a 'hyper-Calvinist' and heretic by other 'Reformed' theologians. We need to study this man's life and contributions a lot more; I have not yet found an of his writings in English.

http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/macco.htm

After a little searching myself, I found that there is a whole book about him on Amazon by Abraham Kuyper Jr.: Amazon.com: Johannes Maccovius (1899): Abraham Kuyper Jr.: Books

As for something Maccovius wrote in his own words, it appears an overseas website (a university?) is selling an English edition of Scholastic Discourse by Johannes Maccovius himself. Part of the blurb about it:

Considered one of the sharpest theological minds of his time, Maccovius played an important role in ongoing debates on seventeenth-century theology, particularly in terms of his contribution to logic and metaphysics.

During the first half of the seventeenth century, his book on distinctions was a very popular class textbook used at Reformed universities and academies from England to Transylvania. It explained the main topics of early seventeenth-century Reformed theology and its basic conceptual framework and tools.

Found here: http://www.tua.nl/index.php?item=art...0&artikelID=19

[wildboar]

There's a wikipedia article on him that seems to be basically just taken from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. It ends by saying:

Johannes Maccovius, also known as Jan Makowsky, was a Polish Reformed theologian. He was born at Lobzenica, Poland in 1588 and died at Franeker, the Netherlands on June 24, 1644. He was married three times, his first wife was Antje van Uylenburgh, a sister of Saskia van Uylenburg. In 1634, at the time Rembrandt married Saskia, she helped out her brother-in-law, after his wife died.
After visiting various universities (in 1607 in Danzig) and as the tutor of young Polish nobles, holding disputations with Jesuits and Socinians, Maccovius entered into the University of Franeker in 1613. There he became privat-docent in 1614 and professor of theology in 1615. In later years, the fame of Maccovius attracted many students to Franeker.
Theologically, Maccovius was a Calvinist, of the supralapsarian school, and possessed theses of a corresponding nature, defended in 1616 by one of his pupils, involved him in a controversy with his colleague Sibrandus Lubbertus which was settled only by the Synod of Dort in 1619. The synod, while neither approving or condemning his supralapsarianism, acquitted Maccovius of the charges of heresy brought against him, but advised him to be more cautious and peaceable.
Nevertheless, he became involved in another controversy at Dort with his subsequent colleague William Ames by asserting that all things that must be believed are not necessarily true, that no impulse toward regeneration and effecting it exists in the unregenerate, and that Christ is the object of faith because of whom, but not in whom, man must believe.
Maccovius' theory of Scripture was very free, and he distinguished sharply between scholarship and beliefs essential to salvation.

I'm unclear as to what is meant by the following:

1. All things that must be believed are not necessarily true.

2. Christ is the object of faith because of whom, but not in whom, man must believe. (This is puzzling because Scripture speaks of us believing into Christ).

3. Maccovius' theory of Scripture was free.

[Brandan Kraft]

A further explanation would be helpful WB - agreed.

[wildboar]

This book has some interesting stuff on Macovius and his opposition to the separation of church and state. <iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=GyA...9&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

He seems to have believed that the civil ruler ultimately had the right to make the final decision in ecclesiastical matters but I'm having trouble finding more info about the other issues.

This book talks about how Macovius was know for his immoral behavior. He would go out and get drunk and end up in a whorehouse:

<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="border:0px" src="http://books.google.com/books?id=VvG...7&output=embed" width=500 height=500></iframe>

[Robert R. Higby]

He was wrong about the issue of civil rulers and was stupid, in my view, to even try to resolve the accusations against him in a forum that was controlled by them.

With all respect, the stuff you are bringing up is not what I'm interested in WB. I know about what Schaff-Herzog says and about all the accusations against the character of Maccovius. By these things men easily attempt to render the ISSUES associated with the man irrelevant. But I do not believe they are irrelevant.

[wildboar]

With all respect, the stuff you are bringing up is not what I'm interested in WB. I know about what Schaff-Herzog says and about all the accusations against the character of Maccovius. By these things men easily attempt to render the ISSUES associated with the man irrelevant. But I do not believe they are irrelevant.

I definitely don't think he is irrelevant. He is known as the father of Reformed scholasticism. I certainly don't think he started it. But one of the disputes centered around Maccovius' belief that logical deductions based on Scripture are just as binding as the statements of Scripture themselves. I don't think he was alone in this belief but perhaps was one of the most vocal and I believe that this belief has led the Reformed churches to their current schismatic state so that every side whether conservative or liberal manipulates the Scriptures to create a god in their own image based upon logical deductions from real or perceived premises in various passages while completely ignoring other passages. This can be clearly seen in the common grace debate in 1924. If Scripture were the only thing that anyone appealed to it would have to be affirmed that God does bestow His grace upon the wicked but that the wicked only start acting more wickedly. Instead one side had to argue that God does not display His grace at all and the other side argued that God's grace makes the wicked man better.

[Robert R. Higby]

WB, I am interested in Maccovius because his doctrine was similar to mine. Obviously, the fact that he taught that faith must have a logical and objective basis is a positive for me, not a negative!

[lionovjudah]

WB, I am interested in Maccovius because his doctrine was similar to mine. Obviously, the fact that he taught that faith must have a logical and objective basis is a positive for me, not a negative!

I know the R Scott Clark has a lot of information for this time period. Ill email him and see what he may have. Coeccious is another one who I have interest for.

[wildboar]

WB, I am interested in Maccovius because his doctrine was similar to mine. Obviously, the fact that he taught that faith must have a logical and objective basis is a positive for me, not a negative!

I agree that faith must have an objective basis--the objective basis is found in the crucified Christ. However, there is nothing logical about God dying for me. If someone wants a faith with a logical basis they have to go somewhere other than Christianity.

But that's not even the issue. The issue is that Maccovius gave the same authority to his logical deductions as to Scripture itself. It is my contention that when this is done with anything--whether it be logical deduction or tradition or whatever--ultimately Scripture gets tossed aside. In many ways it's more dangerous than tradition because the inclinations of the individual are always going to affect the logical deductions that he or she reaches. Harold Camping and the OTC folks are just a couple of examples.

[Highlyfavored]

I agree that faith must have an objective basis--the objective basis is found in the crucified Christ. However, there is nothing logical about God dying for me.

I'll bet it is to God, if you are one of his.

If someone wants a faith with a logical basis they have to go somewhere other than Christianity.

Oh, you mean becoming a lutheran.

But that's not even the issue. The issue is that Maccovius gave the same authority to his logical deductions as to Scripture itself. It is my contention that when this is done with anything--whether it be logical deduction or tradition or whatever--ultimately Scripture gets tossed aside. In many ways it's more dangerous than tradition because the inclinations of the individual are always going to affect the logical deductions that he or she reaches. Harold Camping and the OTC folks are just a couple of examples.

And how did you come to this conclusion if logic can't be trusted?

[Robert R. Higby]

The issue is that Maccovius gave the same authority to his logical deductions as to Scripture itself.

Is this something he admitted to or something that you impute to him based on the fact that he stated the importance of consistency with the axioms of scripture?

If this talk goes on I'm going to start posting something every day from Luther where he used logical deduction!

[wildboar]

I'll bet it is to God, if you are one of his.

That's the thing I'm not willing to wager on anything as it pertains to God, but I will trust what He reveals in His Word.

Oh, you mean becoming a lutheran.

You missed your true callling as a stand up comedian.

And how did you come to this conclusion if logic can't be trusted?

Logic is useful but is also easily abused. It would be helpful if you and others would actually address the position I am taking rather than continuing attack somebody who is not here.

If this talk goes on I'm going to start posting something every day from Luther where he used logical deduction!

And what will that prove? I agree that logical deduction should be used. Is there somebody else here who is pretending to me and saying that logic cannot be used at all? What logic cannot do is arrive at doctrines that the Scriptures have not revealed. Logic is limited in its application. I can't use logic to figure out God's brain because it is outside of the realm of the premises I am given in Scripture. The scholastics used logical deduction to arrive at a variety of doctrines including transubstantiation.

[rlhuckle]

....... However, there is nothing logical about God dying for me......

I believe I do agree........

[Craig kennedy]

I believe I do agree........

Yes, I DO too! There is NOTHING LOGICAL in Christ dying for me!

I am grateful to Wildboar for this tremendous insight, one that I believe is true to the scriptural testimony.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

[Craig kennedy]

That's the thing I'm not willing to wager on anything as it pertains to God, but I will trust what He reveals in His Word.



You missed your true callling as a stand up comedian.



Logic is useful but is also easily abused. It would be helpful if you and others would actually address the position I am taking rather than continuing attack somebody who is not here.



And what will that prove? I agree that logical deduction should be used. Is there somebody else here who is pretending to me and saying that logic cannot be used at all? What logic cannot do is arrive at doctrines that the Scriptures have not revealed. Logic is limited in its application. I can't use logic to figure out God's brain because it is outside of the realm of the premises I am given in Scripture. The scholastics used logical deduction to arrive at a variety of doctrines including transubstantiation.

Wildboar is making some insightful comments here that I personally entirely agree with!

He is not discounting the proper and sensible use of logic. He memorably writes, in this connection:

"Logic is useful but is also easily abused...I agree that logical deduction should be used. Is there somebody else here who is pretending to me and saying that logic cannot be used at all? ..."

I AGREE Wildboar! Well said!

He then, superbly, goes on to describe the inherent limitations of LOGIC; with excellent analytical ability he asserts:

"What logic cannot do is arrive at doctrines that the Scriptures have not revealed. Logic is limited in its application. I can't use logic to figure out God's brain because it is outside of the realm of the premises I am given in Scripture. The scholastics used logical deduction to arrive at a variety of doctrines including transubstantiation..."

I couldn't agree more! This is actually the SOURCE of my differences with some of the doctrines officially adopted by Pnet!

Great post, Wildboar - we are in TOTAL AGREEMENT on this! Thank you!

In Christ, Craig

[GraceAmbassador]

That's the thing I'm not willing to wager on anything as it pertains to God, but I will trust what He reveals in His Word.



You missed your true callling as a stand up comedian.



Logic is useful but is also easily abused. It would be helpful if you and others would actually address the position I am taking rather than continuing attack somebody who is not here.



And what will that prove? I agree that logical deduction should be used. Is there somebody else here who is pretending to me and saying that logic cannot be used at all? What logic cannot do is arrive at doctrines that the Scriptures have not revealed. Logic is limited in its application. I can't use logic to figure out God's brain because it is outside of the realm of the premises I am given in Scripture. The scholastics used logical deduction to arrive at a variety of doctrines including transubstantiation.

W.B.:

With the certainty that I am publishing the "mother of all" straw man, I went to a church not long ago that had a sign at a counter with some numbers: CHECK YOUR BRAINS AT THE DOOR!

No, No! You don't need to tell me that this is not what you are defending!

Milt

[wildboar]

If I made the sign, it would say, "Check your rationalism at the door!"

[GraceAmbassador]

If I made the sign, it would say, "Check your rationalism at the door!"

Great sign that would be! I would remind people of it at the offering time!

However, why would God make us rational and reasoning human beings, and ACTUALLY INVITE US to "reason together with Him" if we were not to be reasonable in all aspects?

I ask the same thing to people when they say that we should choke our emotions in worship. I say "why then God gave me emotions?" (don't come with a straw man asking: "why did God give you sexuality?")

I repeat what I said in the other thread: I see no one deifying reason; I see no one saying "reason is god" or "reason is a god".

Milt