Theophilus Gale (1628–1678) on God Begging

1. Doth Christ assume sinners into such a blessed state of Friendship with himself? Hence then we may infer, what the infinie condescension, and Soverain Dominion of Free Grace, towards lapsed undone man is. What? Is it possible, that the great Jehovah should stoop so low, as to engage in such intimate friendship with his poor creature? Yea, that the most glorious, pure, and spotless Being, shoudl be content to mingle with impure, dirtie, sinful flesh and bloud? Yea, farther, that the ever-blessed God should court, and beseech his deformed creature, to enter into a strict bond of friendship with himself? what transcendent condescendence is this? Was it ever known, that Beautie courted Deformitie; that Riches begged friendship of Povertie; that Honor bended the knee to Reproche, and Disgrace; that the King beseeched the Malefactor to be reconciled to him; that Happiness wooed Miserie to be its Spouse? Yet, Lo! thus it is in this business of Friendship with Christ: the first, and supreme Beautie courts the most deformed sinner; the infinitely rich, and self-sufficient Being; the most Honorable Lord of Glorie wooeth his wretched, reproached, and captive rebel to be, not only reconciled to him, but his Spouse begs his poor nothing-creature to be friends with him. O the unparalleled, and admirable Soveraintie of this Divine, condescendent Grace! Who would ever have thought, or imagined, that such Al-Sufficient, and omnipotent Grace, should have stooped so low, to proud self-conceited, and rebellious sinners? What a wonder of wonders is this, that free-grace should pursue sinners with continued offers, yea, importunate desires of Friendship, when they pursue it with repeted Effronts, and Acts of Rebellion? O! How should the friends of Christ admire, and adore the Lengths, Breadths, Depths, and Heights of this Transcendent condescension of God?

Theophilus Gale, Theophilie: Or a Discourse of the Saints Amitie with God in Christ (London: Printed by R. W. for Giles Widdows at the Green Dragon in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1671), 236–237.

Bio:  
DNB
Wiki

H. Henry Meeter (1886–1963) on Common Grace

Meeter defines common grace as follows:

This influence of God whereby he through various means restrains vile passions and brings to pass many deeds of outward good by unregenerate men, contrary to the evil principle of sin in their hearts, making them do what their sinful hearts would otherwise not do, is what the Calvinist terms common grace. It is "common" because it is not confined to any unique group as is special grace, but is a grace which is given to all men, through not to all in equal measure. As one believer may have more of special grace than another, so one unbeliever may have more of common grace than another. Thus Calvin compares Camillus, a Roman in whom much common grace was found, with Catiline, in whom there was little of it [Institutes, 2.3.4].

H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, rev. Paul A. Marshall, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 53.

He then asks:

Can These Acts Be the Result of Grace in God?

But can this influence of God, whereby he restrains evil passions and prompts to outward good, truly be called grace? What is grace? The Old Testament word chen and the New Testament word charis, which are translated by "grace" in our English Bible, have a wide variety of meanings, some of which are irrelevant to our purpose. It is of importance here to note that the word in the Bible may mean (1) an attitude of favor in God to any one; (2) undeserved favor; (3) favor which God works in the hearts of his people whereby he produces faith and conversion; (4) good things which we owe to the favor or grace of God.

The important question for us is this: Does God show any grace, any attitude of favor, and goodwill, any love, to unregenerate, specifically to such that are nonelect or reprobate sinners? We can begin by saying that as reprobate, as sinners, they are never the objects of God's favor, but always of his wrath. God is glorified in the administration of his justice as revealed in the eternal punishment of the wicked. There are many texts in the Bible which express the attitude of hatred of God to the wicked. Nevertheless, that same Bible does express an attitude of favor, even of love of God to nonelect sinners. In Romans 2:4 Paul speaks of the goodness of God to those who will be lost. "Goodness" here means not mere acts of goodness, but an attitude of goodness in God toward those addressed in that verse. This is clear, not only from the meaning of the word, which is "kindness," but also from the synonyms used there–"forbearance" and "long-suffering"–which also express attitudes in God. In Psalm 145:9 we read: "The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies [an attitude in God] are over all his works." Luke 6:35 instructs us: "Love ye your enemies . . . and ye shall be children of the Highest, for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

But how can God love and hate the same persons at the same time? If he hates the wicked, the reprobate, and will punish them for their sins, how can he be said in any sense to love them? According to strict supralapsarian logic, I suppose this is a real problem. For according to this view God, back in eternity, at the outset, decided as his very first decree to glorify himself in two of his attributes, his love and grace toward vessels of honor, the elect, and his punishing justice toward vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, the reprobate. Thereupon, as his second decree, God decided to create these vessels of honor and these vessels of wrath. Note that on this supralapsarian basis the reprobate are already conceived of in the decree of their creation as vessels of wrath. They never were considered objects of love in any sense. The infralapsarian view holds that God first decided to create human beings. As such they were all conceived as objects of his love. Then God decided to permit the fall and in his electing love to save some and to pass by others, the nonelect, and punish them in his wrath for their sins. On this basis it is possible for God to love the nonelect as creatures. A parallel instance would be the case of the righteous father whose heart bleeds for his lost son whose misdeeds demand his expulsion.

Calvin takes this position when he raises the very question here discussed: "Wherefore in a wonderful and divine manner He both hated and loved us at the same time. He hated us, as being different from what He made us; but as our iniquity had not entirely destroyed His work in us, He could at the same time in every one of us hate what he had done, and love what proceeded from himself." [Institutes, 2.16.4, quoting Augustine] Likewise in his replies to the calumnies made against his view of the secret providence of God, Calvin states in reply to Calumny I:

Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist innumerable, all which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come "to perdition." This fact, however, forms no reason whatever why God should not confine His especial or peculiar love to a few, whom He has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to choose out of the rest. When God was pleased to adopt unto Himself the family of Abraham, He thereby most plainly testified that He did not embrace the whole of mankind with an equal love. . . . And in the next place, if God does love His own, it does not the less follow that He has a right to reject as a just Judge those to whom He has in vain shown His love and indulgence throughout their whole lives as the kindest Father [John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God (London: Sovereign Grace Union, n.d.), pp. 26, 269–270.]

Thus from the writings of Scripture and from the teachings of Calvin, we learn that God does have an attitude of favor, or grace, to the nonelect, and that this common grace will one day add to their punishment, because it did not lead them to repentance and life for God.

Ibid., 54–56.

See also H. Henry Meeter, Calvinism: An Interpretation of Its Basic Ideas. Volume 1: The Theological and the Political Ideas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1939), 73–76.

About this book, Louis Berkhof said, "No other work in the English language offers us such a concise, and yet complete and thoroughly reliable resume of the teachings of Calvinism." Cited in John J. Timmerman's Promises to keep: a centennial history of Calvin College (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 59. This quote also appears on the back cover.

Bio:

H. Henry Meeter (1886–1963) taught for thirty years in the Bible department of Calvin College. He had graduated from the same college and from Calvin Theological Seminary before obtaining a B.D. degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He subsequently earned his Th.D. degree from the Free University of Amsterdam.

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on the Mercy and Love of God

Mercy and love are seen, in that God gives us rain and fruitful seasons, and in that he filleth our hearts with food and gladness; from that bounty which he bestoweth upon us as men, as his creatures.

John Bunyan, "Light for Them That Sit in Darkness," in The Works of John Bunyan (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 1:432.

Bio:  
Wiki

Notice how Bunyan associates the mercy and love of God shown in the general bounties He grants to men as his creatures. For Bunyan, the mercy of God shown to all men is a kind of love. This shows a contrast between Bunyan and some modern bible readers who think God is merciful to all, but does not love all. Such a dichotomy is not only foreign to scripture, but it is foreign to the Puritans, whom they claim as heroes.

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on the Power of Christ

Jesus Christ also made manifest his eternal power and Godhead, more by bearing and overcoming our sins, than in making or upholding the whole world; hence Christ crucified is called ‘the power of God.’ 1 Cor. 1:23, 24.

John Bunyan, “Light for Them That Sit in Darkness,” in The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 1:432.

Bio:  
Wiki

Carl F. H. Henry on God's Sincere and Strong Wish for Human Salvation

Verses that imply God's sincere and strong wish for human salvation are not necessarily inconsistent with the divine election of only some to eternal life.

Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 6:106.

After citing Matt. 18:14; John 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:4, 6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14, Henry says, "To explain the terms 'world' and 'all' in these verses as meaning 'all the elect' seems contrived," even though Henry argues that 2 Peter 3:9 has the elect in view. Ibid.

God's Love, Goodness, Kindness and Mercy Interrelated in Luke 6:35–36

Luke 6:35–36: 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 "Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

I just realized the connection of ideas in this brief passage. Notice how "love," "goodness," "kindness" and "mercy" are all interrelated here. We are told to love (i.e., to be good, kind and merciful) to our enemies, and thus to image/imitate the Father as "sons" this way. Some want to argue that God is good, kind and/or merciful to all, but does not love all. This passage alone refutes those strange divisions.

Thomas Scott (1747–1821) on the Death of Christ for All and Presumption

There is a sense in which Christ may properly be said to have died for all; and the infinite sufficiency of his merits and atonement, with the general proposals made in the Scripture, authorise and require the ministers of Christ, to call on all that hear them without exception, to repent and believe the gospel. But sober Christians, even if they hesitate as to some deep points of doctrine, will scarcely contend, that Christ died with an express intention of saving all men; yet this express intention alone could warrant a sinner, while an entire stranger to "the things which accompany salvation," confidently to believe, that Christ died for him, and will assuredly save him. Such a confidence, therefore, is entirely destitute of any scriptural foundation, and is a most unwarrantable presumption.

Thomas Scott, "The Warrant and Nature of Faith in Christ," in The Theological Works of the Rev. Thomas Scott (Edinburgh: Peter Brown and Thomas Nelson, 1830), 580.

Bio:
Wiki
BOT

Isaac Watts (1674-1748) on Jesus' Love for the Rich Young Ruler

"3rdly, Some natural good wishes for his welfare are implied in this love. There is in every wise and good man, a hearty desire of the happiness of his fellow-creatures, he loves them all in this sense, even the foolish and the wicked. Human nature that has any goodness in it, is ready to wish well to any person, though he be an utter stranger, and unknown, especially if he has some agreeable qualities. There may be an innocent inclination to see all men happy, though we know this shall not be brought to pass; for the word of God declares that the most part of men walk in the broad way, and shall go down to hell. You know how passionately St. Paul longed for the salvation of all his countrymen the Jews. This is called a love of benevolence; and it is evident, by the following particulars, that the Lord expressed this good-will toward the young man in my text."

Isaac Watts, "Sermon VII: A hopeful Youth falling short of Heaven," in Sermons on Various Subjects (London: Printed by A. Macpherson, 1811), 1:160.

On page 158, Watts argues against the notion that Jesus only loved him in His [Jesus'] human nature.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Thomas Scott (1747–1821) on Natural and Moral Ability

But sinners cannot obey the call. This is a truth if truly understood. They are under a moral, not a natural inability. Is this distinction useless and unintelligible? Is there no difference betwixt a covetous wretch, who with a full purse hath no heart; and a compassionate man who hath no money, to relieve a fellow-creature in distress? Both are effectually prevented, but the one from himself, the other by an external hinderance. Every generous man at once indignantly condemns the one, and wholly justifies the other. When the case is put, divested of all false colouring, the one could if he would, and the other would if he could. It is said of God that he "cannot lie." But whence arises this impossibility? Surely not from external restraint, but from the perfection of his essential holiness. Satan cannot but hate his Maker. Not because of outward force put upon him, but through the horrid malignity of his disposition.*

*If there be no real difference betwixt the want of natural faculties, and the want of moral dispositions, there can be nothing culpable even in Satan's opposing God, and endeavouring the destruction of men; for it is as impossible at least that he should do otherwise, as that sinners should perfectly obey the law, or of themselves repent and believe the gospel; and if they are excusable, Satan is consequently so too. Indeed, on this supposition, all characters are reduced to a level; for in proportion to the degree of evil disposition, or moral inability to good, evil actions become excusable: and by parity of reasoning, in proportion to the degree of moral excellency of disposition, or of moral inability to evil, good actions being unavoidable, become less praise-worthy. Thus, the more inwardly holy any man is, the less esteem is his piety, justice, and charity entitled to; for he can scarcely do otherwise. An angel, as confirmed in holiness, is still less entitled to commendation; for in some sense it is impossible he should do otherwise than be holy. He cannot sin. And through necessary excellency of nature it is strictly impossible that God should do any thing inconsistent with the most consummate wisdom, justice, truth, and goodness. He cannot: and, shall we say, this inability (which is the incommunicable glory of his nature) renders him less entitled to our admiring, adoring, grateful love, than otherwise he would be?

Every one must see what confusion would be introduced into civil and domestic concerns, if no regard were paid to this distinction, and an inveterate propensity were allowed as an excuse for crimes: and it introduces equal perplexity into all our discourses on divine things; because it runs directly counter to all our rules of judging characters and actions. A good outward action without the least corresponding disposition, is in reality mere hypocrisy: as the disposition to good and aversion to evil increase, good actions have more genuine sincerity, and the character more amiableness. When we can say with the apostles, "We cannot but do" so and so—we are entitled to as much esteem and approbation as mere men can be. This moral inability to evil is much stronger in angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect; and therefore we are taught to look forward to such a holy state and temper as the summit of our wishes and desires: and God himself, who, being under no restraint, but doing his whole pleasure, cannot but be perfectly and unchangeably holy, is proposed as the object of supreme love, admiring gratitude, and adoring praise.

On the other hand a bad action, if done without intention, or the least disposition to such moral evil, is deemed purely accidental, and not culpable. When it is contrary to a man's general disposition and character, and the effect of sudden temptation, it is considered as more venial than when the effect of a rooted disposition; and for a criminal to plead, "I am so propense to theft and cruelty, that I could not help it," would be to condemn himself as the vilest miscreant, not fit to live, in the opinions of judge, jury, and spectators.

There can be no difficulty in proving, that this distinction is implied throughout the Bible, and has its foundation in the nature of things; and so far from being novel, it is impossible that a rational creature can be unacquainted with it. No man ever yet missed the distinction between the sick servant who could not work, and the lazy servant who had no heart to his work; that is, betwixt natural and moral inability; and no man could govern even his domestics in a proper manner, without continually adverting to it.

"But," say some, "human nature now must be laid low, and grace exalted." Now we ask, Which lays human nature lowest? To rank man among the brutes, who have no power, or among fallen spirits who have no disposition, to love and serve God? Or which most exalts grace? To save a wretch who could not help those crimes for which he is condemned to hell: or to save a rebel, who was willingly an enemy to his Maker, and persisted in that enmity, till almighty power, by a new creation, overcame his obstinacy, and made him willing to be reconciled?

Thomas Scott, “Sermon on Election,” in The Theological Works of the Rev. Thomas Scott (Edinburgh: Peter Brown and Thomas Nelson, 1830), 150.

Bio:
Wiki
BOT

R. C. Sproul (1939–2017) on God's Love and Common Grace

To love your neighbor and your enemy is to be a son of the heavenly Father, because this is precisely what God Himself does. His benefits accrue not only to believers but to unbelievers as well. When people remain at enmity with God, they do so while they are receiving benefits from His hand.

When Jesus commands us to love our enemies, He defines that love not so much in terms of feelings of affection but in terms of actions. To love our enemies requires that we bless them when they curse us and do good to them when they hate us. This is what it means to mirror and reflect the love of God, because God does good to those who hate Him and blesses people while they are cursing Him.

Jesus illustrates the beneficent love of God by pointing to the sun and the rain. God makes His sun rise on the wicked as well as the good and sends rain on both the just and the unjust. When we observe a rain shower, we do not see the raindrops falling with personal discrimination. We don't see bad people getting wet and good people walking through the shower untouched. The righteous and the wicked both need an umbrella. At the same time, the refreshment needed for the fields is received in the same rainfall by the wicked farmer and the righteous farmer. Sun and storm alike affect both.

The description of the benefits of God enjoyed jointly by the wicked and the righteous is called in theology "common grace." Common grace is called "grace" because all of the benefits we receive from a Holy God are undeserved. All the good things we receive from the hand of God are gifts. They are not rewards earned by our merit. Grace, by definition, means the undeserved or unmerited favor of God. These favors are poured out from His bounty on believer and unbeliever alike. The air that we breathe, the food that we eat, and the water that we drink are all benefits that come from Him. Perhaps it is in recognition that He owes us none of these things that we call the prayer of thanksgiving that accompanies a meal saying "grace." Of course the common grace of God includes far more than the daily necessities of life. At times the gifts of His common grace are poured out in abundance and may include great prosperity for its recipients. All that we have are gifts from his treasure house of common grace.

Common grace is called "common" because it is distinguished from the special grace that is the grace of salvation. Special grace is what God extends to His elect, by which they are brought into His family through adoption. On the other hand, all people, commonly, receive the benefits of common grace.

There is irony here, however. The gifts of God's common grace, which flow out of His benevolence and beneficence, which are blessings for the moment, actually become occasions for judgment for the wicked. Every blessing an impenitent person receives from God that is greeted with ingratitude adds to the heaping up of wrath against the day of judgment. God does not give these gifts to torment the sinner. They are truly beneficial. They become nonbeneficial in the long run only because of the obstinate sinfulness of the wicked. The wicked's misuse and abuse of the good gifts of God do not render these good gifts to be bad gifts.

 R. C. Sproul, Loved by God (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001), 139–141.

R. C. Sproul (1939–2017) on Love and Hate in God

Later, when we examine the distinctive types of the love of God, we will try to show that certain types of God's love can coexist with a type or kind of divine hatred. In the meantime, however, we can say that God may love a person in one sense or in one way, while at the same time hating him in another sense or another way. In essence, not all kinds of divine love are absolutely antithetical to all kinds of divine hatred.

R. C. Sproul, Loved by God (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 2001), 106.

Richard Gilpin (1625–1700) on Common Grace

But then the sinning wilfully or falling away there mentioned, is only that of total apostasy; when men that have embraced the gospel, and by it have met with such impressions of power and delight upon their hearts, which we usually call common grace, do notwithstanding reject that gospel as false and fabulous, and so rise up against it with scorn and utmost contempt, as Julian the apostate did.

Richard Gilpin, Dæmonologia Sacra; Or, A Treatise of Satan's Temptations, ed. Alexander Ballock Grosart (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1867), 301.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Stephen Denison (d.1649) on the Son's Sufficient Redemption

Secondly, destruction must needs be of a mans self, and not of God, because God hath sent a sufficient redemption by the means of his own Son; and hath commanded it to be preached to every creature: yea he hath commanded us to believe in Christ, whom he hath sent, 1 John. 3:23. And therefore if when a pardon is offered, we willfully refuse it, then our destruction is of ourselves.

Stephen Denison, The New Creature (London: Printed by Richard Field, dwelling in the great Woodstreete, 1619), 78.

[Note: I am not posting this as conclusive proof that Denison believed that Christ redeemed all men, but only to show that he grounds the gospel command and offer upon Christ's "sufficient redemption." Notice also that he says the gospel is a command *and* an offer, and that we are to preach "it" to every creature; that is, a sufficient redemption. According to Denison, men do not perish for want of a sufficient redemption, but for refusing it.]

Maurice Roberts on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

The Free Offer may be defined like this:

It is the invitation given by God to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do so believe they will at once receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Maurice Roberts, "The Free Offer of the Gospel," Banner of Truth 503–504 (August–September 2005): 39.

Implied in the concept of this Free Offer are the following ideas. The Offer made is for all who hear it, whether they be elect or not. The Offer is not to be restricted or modified by the preacher in his presentation. The Offer is an expression of love and grace on God's part towards sinful, unbelieving men. The Offer is sincere on God's part, and it is genuinely and well meant. The Offer is addressed to sinners as they are and requires of them repentance and faith.

Ibid., 39.

Roberts deals with two objections to the Free Offer. The first he calls 'English Hyper-Calvinism,' which involves the denial of 'duty-faith.' Here is the second:

(2) God gives no 'well-meant' offer to any but to the elect. This view might be termed 'Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism', as it is associated with the Dutch American theologian of the twentieth century, Herman Hoeksema, the founder of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America. The argument is this: God has elected some sinners to eternal life and reprobated others; God makes no promise or offer in the gospel to any except the elect.

Implied in this view are the following points: God in no sense loves the non-elect. There is no grace of any kind, either Saving Grace or Common Grace, given or offered to any except elect persons. It would be insincere of God to offer Saving Grace to those whom he has eternally reprobated – and this is a thing impossible. God cannot be said to desire or to wish anything which he has not decreed to happen, since this would be tantamount to frustrating God's will. It is not proper for a preacher to 'offer' Christ promiscuously to a mixed audience of Christians and non-Christians. We may not teach that it is possible for God to will according to his precept what he does not will in his eternal decree.

Ibid., 40.

2. Dutch-American Hyper-Calvinism

The starting-point of this view is that God's will is one, not manifold. If he has eternally elected only some to eternal life it is wrong to suppose that he gives a well-meant offer of salvation to any but the elect only.

We would respond to this view as follows. The fact is that the Bible does speak of God as wanting and wishing all sinners to be saved. See the texts: Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 18:23, 30–32; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9. This is as certainly a matter of divine revelation as is his eternal election. Both are stated as revealed facts in scripture.

The way to interpret scripture is not to stress one truth to the detriment of another but to hold both truths at the same time. So we affirm both God's eternal election and his well-meant offer to all sinners who hear the gospel. We are obliged to do this because this is how God himself reveals his will to us. Put simply, it is this: God has fixed the number of the elect from eternity past; yet God desires every sinner who hears his gospel to receive it and to be eternally blessed in Christ.

Ibid., 42.

At the end of this article, Roberts supplies the readers with several quotes from orthodox writers affirming God's desire to save all men, such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, William Greenhill, David Dickson, Thomas Halyburton and Patrick Fairbairn.

Iain Murray’s Review of David Silversides’s Book on the Free Offer

The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed

David Silversides; Foreward: J. J. Murray Marpet Press, 16 Edward Street, Kilsyth, Scotland G65 9DL, 128 pp., £7.95.

This is a valuable addition to literature demonstrating that the gospel is good news for every hearer. It is more particularly oriented to answering the teaching of the Protestant Reformed Church of America (PRC) – encouraged in Britain through the British Reformed Fellowship – that the 'free offer' only means that the gospel is to be preached to all; it is no expression of love in God for all. So the preacher must not individualize the message to convey to his hearers the belief that the gospel is sent for their salvation; he must rather confine himself to generalities (not knowing who the elect are). The reasoning behind this belief is that God only has love for the elect and so the love revealed in the gospel can only have reference to them. Contrary to this position, Mr Silversides argues that 'The overtures of the gospel are an expression of God's love', and he sets out to prove that, in addition to saving love, there is a love in God for all men. We believe he succeeds and he does so without any of the rancour that has sometimes disfigured disagreement among Christians.

The orientation of the argument as a response to PRC writers makes this work of value chiefly to those who have been influenced by the supposition that the PRC teaching represents the purest Calvinism. It is to counter that idea that the author makes effective use of many Reformed authors from the Reformation and Puritan periods, showing that divine love is not to be confined to the elect alone. The scriptural case is foremost but, for those unconcerned with the historical, the book is somewhat specialist. It is not impossible that the other side may also produce 17th-century quotations which appear to contradict those here given. The fact is that it was not until the eighteenth century that hyper-Calvinism really became prominent, and earlier Reformed writers were more concerned with answering Arminianism.

In order to keep what he considers the main point clear, Mr Silversides does not argue that the free offer proves that God desires the salvation of all to whom the message comes. But can the divine love, that the author wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved? To side-line the question of desire will not, we think, blunt the hyper-Calvinist's claim that a free-offer, expressive of love to all, attributes two wills to God – fulfilled in the case of the elect and unfulfilled in the case of all others. But that charge needs to be met (as the author to some extent does) on other grounds. We do not think that Scripture allows us to make the question of God's desire secondary. In the words of Professor John Murray, 'It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free-offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men' (Collected Writings, vol. 4, p. 113). Further on this point, see the chapter by John Piper on 'Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved' in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, T. Schreiner and Bruce Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). We hope and believe that David Silversides' thorough work will be of help to many on this important issue.

Iain H. Murray

From the "Book Reviews," in Banner of Truth 507 (December 2005): 22.

Note: Observe carefully that Iain Murray, like Phil Johnson, appeals to Piper's article, but Murray explicitly does so to answer the issue of hyper-Calvinism on the primary subject of God's desire for the salvation of all men. Phil Johnson links to the same article in his Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, but wants to make the issue of God's universal saving desire secondary (in order to protect his friend James White from the charge), explicitly contrary to Murray. There is some difference between Murray and Johnson on this particular subject. Johnson is more with Silversides in making the matter secondary, unfortunately.

Moreover, Murray thinks God's universal love necessarily entails that God desires the highest good (i.e. the eternal salvation) of all men in the revealed will, therefore he says: "But can the divine love, that the author [Silversides] wants to uphold, be without desire for the highest good of those loved?" In addition to refuting Silversides (as Murray does), this also answers the Gillite position that God loves all merely in a temporal sense, but doesn't desire their highest good, or in the sense of their eternal salvation. As mainstream Calvinism teaches, God's benevolent love for all is necessarily associated with His desire to eternally save all in His revealed will.

More Wonderful Paradoxes in Augustine

But our very Life descended hither, and bore our death, and slew it, out of the abundance of His own life; and thundering He called loudly to us to return hence to Him into that secret place whence He came forth to us–first into the Virgin's womb, where the human creature was married to Him,–our mortal flesh, that it might not be for ever mortal,–and thence "as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a strong man to run a race." For He tarried not, but ran crying out by words, deeds, death, life, descent, ascension, crying aloud to us to return to Him. And He departed from our sight, that we might return to our heart, and there find Him. For He departed, and behold, He is here. He would not be long with us, yet left us not; for He departed thither, whence He never departed, because "the world was made by Him.

Augustine, “The Confessions of St. Augustine,” in NPNF, 1st series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1:74.

Narrowly "Reformed"

Some Reformed Baptists have been complaining about Dr. Scott Clark's narrow use of the term "Reformed," such that 1689 LBCF advocates do not qualify as truly "Reformed." Some of the discussion initially began on Micah Burke's blog here, and James White commented here and then here. I tried to post my following comments on Burke's blog, but got this reply:

Lockheed said...
Sorry Ynottony, I don't welcome your comments here

Here is my attempted post that was not allowed:

Dr. Clark's narrow interpretation of the "Reformed" label is further revealed by the fact that he doesn't think that so called "hypothetical universalists" should be considered "Reformed" or "Calvinists." He can't think, for example, that John Davenant, Matthias Martinius, Carleton, Ward, Goad, Hall, Crocius and Alsted signed the Synod of Dort in good conscience, or that they were truly "Reformed," contrary to what Dr. Richard Muller has said. The same is true of some Westminster divines, such as Calamy, Seaman, Vines, Harris, Marshall, and Arrowsmith. Dr. Richard Muller acknowledges that these men taught forms of "hypothetical universalism." Muller also says that Musculus, Zanchi, Ursinus, Bullinger, Twisse, John Preston and James Ussher also taught a non-Amyraldian "hypothetical universalism," but Dr. Clark cannot agree and think these men truly "Reformed."

Note carefully that Muller says that Ursinus, of Heidelberg, taught a "hypothetical universalism," and Clark [the "Heidelblog" blogger] cannot agree with that, or think Ursinus himself was "Reformed" if Muller is right. Even Robert Godfrey, in his doctoral dissertation, says that Martinius' moderate statement at the Synod of Dort on the extent of Christ's death for all "was almost a direct quotation from Ursinus." Godfrey says, "Some of the strict Calvinists might well have taken considerable exception to this. But Martinius had a surprise waiting for them if they did, for though he did not cite the source of his thesis, Martinius' statement was almost a direct quotation from Ursinus." On page 200 of his thesis, Godfrey says that Martinius' Theses in fact showed that he "really was within the camp of orthodox Calvinism and that he definitely accepted the received distinction and at least in large part the received restriction on efficacy." Muller even grants that John Bunyan and Jacob Kimedoncius taught a "hypothetical universalism," so Dr. Clark has to view them out of bounds as well, as not true "Calvinists" or truly "Reformed."

My point here is not to argue what atonement view is correct, but just to demonstrate how radically different Dr. Clark's Reformed boundaries are on this issue as compared to Dr. Muller, and Dr. Godfrey. So, Clark's narrow interpretation of the label "Reformed" surfaces in other areas as well, not just on the subject of baptism.

That's all that I was attempting to post on Burke's blog. I might add, now, that James White is just as sectarian as Scott Clark is on the atonement, but not in the area of baptism when it comes to the "Reformed" label. White regularly hosts and approves Turretinfan as a blogger on historic Calvinism, and everything said about Clark above (on the atonement) applies to the anonymous and unaccountable Turretinfan as well. They cannot allow that any of these non-Amyraldian "hypothetical universalists" are truly "Reformed," and they must therefore disagree with the historiography of Dr. Muller and Dr. Godfrey. The concerns of the moderates at Dort about Reformed catholicity were quite valid. We're seeing the fruits of the predicted sectarianism today, especially manifested on the topic of the extent of the atonement.

[Update: A lot more discussion can be found here and here. Dr. Gonzales has an interesting reply here, and he rightly calls Clark's views "sectarian". Dr. Haykin has a response here. White's final thoughts are here.]

Timothy Manlove (1633–1699) on Offers of Gospel-Grace

An unregenerate State is a miserable State. How should it be otherwise? Can a Man harden himself against God and prosper? No, no: Such Persons are under the Wrath and Indignation of the Almighty, an Abomination to him; he is of purer Eyes than to behold them. His holy Law is armed with the most dreadful Curses, and the Threatnings against them. God shall would the Head of his Enemies; and the hairy Scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his Trespasses, Psal. 68.21. They are Slaves of Satan, led Captive by him at his Will, who employs them in treasuring up unto themselves Wrath against the Day of Wrath: Even the Offers of Gospel-Grace which are daily made to them, as they aggravate their Sin, will also make their Condemnation heavier. Thus that which was designed for their Good, becomes the savour of Death unto Death unto them. What shall I say? They are Heirs of Hell, condemned already in Point of Law; tho Judgment has not yet passed the final Sentence: They are not sure of being spared an hour longer. One would think this should make them ill at ease, till the Affairs of their Souls be in a better posture.

Timothy Manlove, Præparatio Evangelica: Or, A Plain and Practical Discourse Concerning the Soul's Preparation for a Blessed Eternity (London: Printed for Nevill Simmons, Bookseller in Sheffield, Yorkshire: And sold by George Coniers, at the Rink in Little Britain, 1698), 121.

According to Manlove, a Presbyterian, these unregenerate "Heirs of Hell" are daily receiving offers of Gospel-Grace which were designed for their good, and this is why it aggravates their sin and makes their condemnation heavier.

Bio:
DNB

John Brentnall on John Calvin and the Free Offer

The issue of God's sincerity in freely offering salvation to the reprobate and to sinners wholly unable of themselves to respond, Calvin handles with due reverence. Who are we mortals to question the sincerity of the thrice-holy God? While we should humbly submit our minds to the truth that 'God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who are perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety', we should restrain ourselves from all prying into the 'indissoluble bond' between God's secret and revealed will. It should satisfy us that God's secret election is revealed by the outward call of the gospel, he warns. He adds indignantly that 'it would be a shocking sacrilege to carry the enquiry further; for that man offers an aggravated insult to the Holy Spirit who refuses to assent to his simple testimony'.

The furthest Calvin is prepared to go is to conclude that by the gospel call, God intends 'to draw to himself the elect', and at the same time 'to take away all excuse from the reprobate'. Here, we believe, is the heart of the problem. Certain Calvinists, who want all the questions answered to the satisfaction of their logic-tidy minds, are simply not prepared to stop reasoning where God is silent, and submit their restless intellects to the revealed will of God.

John Brentnall, "Calvin and the Free Offer," The Banner of Truth 383–384 (August–September 1995): 30–31.

Thomas Lamb’s (died c. 1672 or 1686) Crucial Agreement with John Goodwin

…yet I deny not, but grant with him [John Goodwin], that the denial of Christ's Death for the sins of all, doth detract from God's Philanthropy, and deny him to be a lover of men, and doth in very deed destroy the very foundation and ground-work of Christian faith.

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), 248.

Keep in mind that Benjamin Brook, in his Lives of the Puritans (vol. 3, p. 466) recently published in 1996 by Soli Deo Gloria, said that “it is extremely obvious, that, upon the disputed points, he [Lamb] was a strict Calvinist,” and Brook references this same treatise to sustain that point.

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Thomas Lamb (died c. 1672 or 1686) on Salvation Available in Christ for All

...God commandeth no man to believe in Christ for salvation for whom there is no salvation in him; or that God on the contrary upon all occassions counseleth and chargeth men to take heed of uncertain, empty and vain dependencies, and from seeking help, peace and safety where they are not to be found.

Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), 268.

It doesn't get plainer than this: If Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect, then God is commanding the rest to believe in Christ for salvation for whom there is no salvation in him. They are being counseled and charged by God [and us] to depend on something uncertain, empty and vain. They are being told to seek help, peace and safety where they are not to be found.

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Bob Sheehan on God’s Love to the Non-Elect in Reformation Today

1)

Increasingly, there is a tendency among a vocal minority within the Reformed tradition, not only to emphasise the distinguishing and electing love of God, but also to speak of the non-elect in such a disparaging way that the impression that they give is that God loves his elect and despises the rest!

Bob Sheehan, “God’s Love to the Non-Elect,” Reformation Today 145 (May/June 1995): 13. This was originally a paper given at the Carey Ministers' Conference in 1995. See also his earlier article on “Is there a Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today 138 (March–April 1994): 14–16.

[Note: Given what Sheehan says below, he clearly means to refute the idea that God merely despises the rest, and has no love, kindness or benevolence for them, etc.]

2)

It is sometimes gratuitously assumed by those who loudly declare God's hatred of the non-elect that priority and judicial hatred exclude all possibility of the non-elect knowing anything of the love of God in any way. This is a serious mistake.

Ibid., 14.

3)

When God hates the non-elect with the hatred of priority, before he brings them to their full experience of judicial hatred in eternity, we must not assume that such hatred means that he ceases to care for them, show them benevolence, kindness, affection and love. There is a hatred that is not malevolent and devoid of kindness. Even when the judge has sentenced the prisoner to death, and that sentence is inevitable, he does not have to order the prisoner to be maltreated while he awaits execution in order to show how opposed he is to his crimes! Some brethren seem to think he does! Holy hatred will result in hell, but hell is not on earth.

Ibid., 15.

4)

In Reformed circles there are an increasing number of 'Jonahs'. They are quite happy as long as they are saved and provided for by God and sit contented waiting for wrath on the people whom God has not chosen to be his own. To such, God shows himself to be of a quite different character. God had concern for the 120,000 small children of Nineveh and the cattle as well (Jonah 4:11). God is concerned for the welfare of cattle and children among those who are not his chosen race.

Ibid., 15.

5)

Our Lord exhorted his disciples to love their enemies and do them good, not only because their reward would be great but also because by so doing they would be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the unthankful and evil (Luke 6:35). We are to love our enemies because God loves his. His mercy is the pattern for ours.

We may not pretend that the unthankful and evil are the elect before conversion. That would be special pleading: eisegesis not exegesis. The parallel passage shows that our Lord is speaking of common blessings such as the sun and the rain which both the good and evil, the elect and non-elect, experience.

Nor may we try to slide away from the verb 'love' and call it benevolence or general mercy, general kindness or common grace. We are called to love (agapate) and in so doing be sons of the Most High. There is no ambiguity here, except for those who want to create it.

We can say even to the enemies of God while they remain in the world, 'You are God's offspring, his creation, and he is kind to you. He does you good. He shows you kindness. He loves you. His creatorial care and providential provision proclaim this.' God does not despise the non-elect! He shows them love and kindness.

Ibid., 16.  

[Note: Again, Sheehan probably means to say that God does not merely despise the non-elect. He does hate them in one sense, but he also loves them in another sense, as Sheehan observes from scripture.]

6)

As Jesus preached and healed all sorts of people, some who would believe and some who would not, the elect and the non-elect, he had compassion towards them because they were like sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36). He did not look at the crowd with a distinguishing squint, with compassion on the elect but not on the non-elect! He had compassion on the crowd universally and promiscuously. This compassion to all, which so marked his words, was regular feature of his ministry (cf Matthew 14:14).

We may not pretend that the word compassion means something other than a manifestation of love. Loveless compassion is a repulsive concept, a contradiction in terms, nothing other than cold comfort. There is nothing so repugnant as charity shown without feeling for those who are helped. It is the worst sort of Dickensian hypocrisy and totally inapplicable to the compassion of the incarnate God. Christ had compassion on sinners, and so should we!

Ibid., 17.

7)

When our Lord met the rich, young ruler, a self-righteous prig if there ever was one, it is said that our Lord loved him (egapesen: Mark 10:21). Of course, he did not love him for his sin but he loved him when he was yet under its power.

Some, alarmed that God's Son should be said to love such a man, allow their theory to colour the story. They assure us that as Christ loved him he must have eventually been saved, that he must have been one of the elect. Although he went away sad, he must, after he had turned the corner have had second thoughts and returned to be saved! How strange that the Holy Spirit caused all three Gospel writers to omit this from the account! There is more than a suspicion of special pleading here. The fact is that Christ loved him, sinner though he was, because Christ is the friend of sinners.

Ibid., 17.  

[Note: Sheehan is refuting Arthur Pink's interpretation of the passage here.]

8)

Some brethren would like to blot Matthew 23:37 out of their Bibles. It is an embarrassment to their neat, systematic approach to God's work in salvation. We may not, however, blot out what is recorded by inspiration of God and what displays so much of the compassionate heart of the incarnate God. Nor may we explain it away so as to evacuate it of any real significance.

The Son of God, towards the end of his ministry, reflected with deep sadness over his unfulfilled longing. He had often longed to gather the Jews under his saving protection, but they would have none of it. Their determination to die grieved him deeply. He took no pleasure in the death of these sinners. He yearned that their attitude might have been different.

Analogies at this point are extremely difficult. All the works of God are unique because he is unique. There is always mystery when we relate to decretive will of God (What he has planned) to the preceptive will (what he has revealed as pleasing to him for us to do). This far we may go. His rejection by the Jews was neither a matter of indifference nor of pleasure to him. Their stubborn sinfulness caused him great grief. God never enjoys human unbelief. For wise reasons in himself he may choose not to over-ride it and compel them to come in, but that unbelief is not only an affront to his holiness but a grief to his heart.

Ibid., 19.

9)

Is not the term 'hard Calvinist' so often an accurate description? It is utterly inappropriate for us to despise those who are under the priority and judicial hatred of God.

Ibid., 20.

10)

Our understanding of God's attitude to the non-elect as they live upon this earth is not a merely academic matter. It will radically affect our preaching of the gospel and our approach to unregenerate people. We need to be sons of the Most High and followers of the Master in this matter. Are we?

 Ibid., 20.

The Fifth Pair of Magic Glasses

Is your theological system feeling constrained by context? Do you feel like you're about to see the blue screen of death whenever you look at universal passages in scripture? Well now there is help! If you have a singular, decretal or cycloptic view of Christ's death and therefore feel the desperate need to compare 1 John 2:2 with John 11:52, maybe these will help:

My price is only $6.66. Don't wait. Get your pair today! Your fellow "exegetes" need your assistance, SIR, so get busy "exegeetin" with the fifth pair of magic glasses. Oh, and remember to say "exegesis" excessively while you are using them, so that you sound smart (or textually-driven rather than system-driven) to others.

Previous versions can be viewed here, here and here. I am tempted to start a "Magic Glasses" blog category! hahaha

Analyzing John Piper's Comparison of John 11:52 and 1 John 2:2

At 12:01pm on Nov. 18th, Piper tweeted the following remark:

On definite atonement: Compare 1 John 2:2 ("for the whole world") with John 11:52 ("to gather into one the children of God")

What does this mean? It's only a Tweet, but let's analyze it anyway.

First of all, "definite atonement," in Piper's view, means more than Jesus died for all the elect as such, or all the believing elect." It means that Jesus died ONLY for the sins of the elect, which obviously includes the believing elect. So what does his comparison prove?

Well, the preceding verse says this:

ESV John 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,

What is meant by "the nation"? I take it to mean all the Jews in Israel, at least living at that time, whether elect or not. That seems like the most natural reading of the text. Piper cannot take it that way if "died for" means "died for the sins of" since he holds to a limited imputation of sin to Christ. And, since he is comparing this verse to 1 John 2:2, "died for" must mean "as a propitiation for," on his comparison. Either he has to think "die for" does not mean "died for the sins of," or he has to oddly (see John 11:50; 18:35) take "the nation" as code language for only the elect within the nation of Israel. He might try to take "the nation" to mean an abstract class meaning "Jews" in general, but that still boils down to the particular elect individuals among the Jews, for him. Piper can't take the verse to mean Jesus died for the sins of all in the nation of Israel at that time, so he must go some other way, otherwise his view of "definite atonement" is undermined by the previous verses (John 11:50, 51) in his comparison.

The next verse says:

ESV John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Notice that the second part of the verse ("the children") has a particular people in view, so it would be very awkward for "the nation" to mean something abstract, like a class of thing called "Jew," without specifying particular or individual Jews. So, for him, either "the nation" means 1) all of the elect as such in the nation, whether believing or not-yet-believing or it means 2) all the believing elect in the nation of Israel, on Piper's theology. Who then are the "children of God who are scattered abroad"? Are they other Israelites scattered abroad, i.e. the diaspora? Are they other believers who are gentiles? The visible church? Given Piper's baptistic ecclesiology, he's probably not following Augustine's theology, so he probably thinks "the children of God" are either all of the elect gentiles scattered abroad, or all of the presently believing elect gentiles [not the visible church]. It would also be awkward for the Apostle John to call unbelievers "the children of God," as they are still hostile and not sharing in adoption, so Piper may be more inclined to take "the children" as the believing gentiles.

Keep in mind that he is comparing this to 1 John 2:2:

ESV 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Piper is probably reading the passage this way:

Option 1: He is the propitiation for our [all believing Jews, i.e. "the nation"] sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world [all the believing gentiles, i.e. "the children scattered abroad"].

Or possibly, but less likely, this way:

Option 2: He is the propitiation for our [all the elect Jews, whether believing or not, i.e. "the nation"] sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world [all the elect among the gentiles, whether believing or not, i.e. "the children scattered abroad"].

Since Piper may be more inclined to take "the children" as the believing gentiles in John 11:52, he probably likes Option #1 above. But if Option #1 is the case, 1 John 2:2 says nothing more than Christ is the propitiation for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile. That's not in dispute. Even an Arminian can agree with that. It doesn't get him "definite atonement," or that Jesus ONLY died for believing Jews and Gentiles. In fact, he himself would have to admit that Jesus died for more than believing Jews and Gentiles, since all in the elect class are not yet believing. Again, Option #1 does not get him "definite atonement," even on his own theological assumptions.

How about Option #2? The verse would be saying nothing more than Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all elect people as such, whether Jew or Gentile. That also is not in dispute, as it does not say that Jesus ONLY died for the sins of elect people. That in no way establishes his case for "definite atonement."

The most he can possibly do by his comparison is try to negate the argument of others that 1 John 2:2 means that Jesus died for more than the elect (thus neutralizing the text), not establish "definite atonement." If he tries to do the latter, then he is doomed to failure, as that text would only be saying, on his theology, that Jesus died for all of the elect, or at least all the believing elect. It would be like arguing that Jesus only died for the sheep because he died for the sheep, or only died for his friends because he died for his friends, or only died for the church because he died for the church, or only died for Paul because he died for Paul [Gal. 2:20]. As is so commonly the case among advocates of "definite atonement," it would be an attempt to infer a negative (Christ died only for these) from a bare positive assertion (Christ died for these).

Jean Daillé (1594–1670) on the Greatness of Man’s Corruption in Rejecting God

I acknowledge that this is properly the crime, first, of those who reject the gospel of the Son of God, the true word brought in by the Holy Spirit; and, secondly, of them that, living under the Mosaic covenant, rebelled against the word of God preached to them by Moses and the prophets. But I affirm, that even they are not exempt from it, who have sinned, or do sin, in the darkness of paganism. For though these people do not reject the word either of the gospel or the law, neither of which is addressed to them; yet they cannot be excused of contemning that other voice of God, which makes itself heard from heaven throughout all the earth, and sounds secretly in every man's heart, and privily calls them to repentance for their sins, to piety, honesty, justice, and rectitude. They profanely reject this sacred declaration of the Deity, without which God never left a man among the nations, no, not the most forlorn, or most desperately plunged in idolatry and viciousness, as the apostle teaches us in the Acts. They despise those admirable directions he gives them in the governing of the world, to seek him, feel him, and find him, Acts xiv. 17; xvii. 26, 27. They make light of the evidences he offers them in his administration of the universe of his eternal power and Godhead; and finally, abuse the riches of his mercy, of his patience, and of his long-suffering, by which his goodness invites and solicits all men to repentance, Rom. i. 20; ii. 4. Hence how astonishing, not only the justice, but even the gentleness and benignity, of God, who having right to punish men upon the first sin of which they are found guilty, yet does it not; but calls and invites them to repentance, and waits for them, and causes not his wrath to fall upon them, till, to the crime of their sin, they have added that of rebellion against the second way of salvation, which in his loving-kindness offers them; namely, the way of repentance. For that which the apostle says here of fornicators, and the avaricious in particular, is true of all vices in general; the wrath of Heaven cometh not upon them who are guilty, but when by their unbelief and obduracy they have made themselves children of rebellion; and there is not a sinner in the world, how great and enormous soever his crimes may be, but this good and all-merciful Majesty receives most readily to mercy, provided only he repent; according to the prophet's saying, that God willeth not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live, Ezek. xxxiii. 11; so that henceforth it is not simply sin that condemns men, but impenitence and unbelief. And the goodness of God so much the more gloriously appears in this his procedure towards them, for, that he might have the liberty of treating thus with them, he bought it (if I may so speak) at the price of the blood of his only Son, whom he (such is the goodness to us) delivered up to the death of the cross, to preserve the interests of his justice, which opposed this way of mercy which he determined to open unto men after their falling into sin. But this very thing shows us, on the other hand, how great the corruption of men is, and how untractable the furiousness of the passion they have for vice, in that, not content to be debauched from the service of their Sovereign, (which is of itself a horrible crime, and worthy of a thousand penalties,) they are so desperately in love with sin, that, to continue in it, they despise, and even reject, with an enraged insolence, all this holy and sacred mystery of the kindness of God, and are so enchanted and bestialized by the poisons of sin, that they prefer its short, vain, and wretched pleasures before Divine grace and salvation, and less dread the wrath of their Sovereign, the society of devils, and the torments of hell, than the loss of that unworthy and shameful delight which the practice of sin, and the fulfilling of its lusts, gives them for a few days.

Jean Daillé, An Exposition of The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians, trans. James Sherman (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1843), 182. The Google books link includes his exposition of Philippians (in the first part) as well as the exposition on Colossians (in the second part).

For more by Daillé on the death of Christ, click here.

Bio:  
Wiki

Jean Daille (1594–1670) on "World" as Cited by Thomas Pierce

Thomas Pierce was apparently an Arminian, but he cites Jean Daille on the topic of the biblical use of "world." The latin quotes are in the margin with the source, which was probably this work (click), on pages 16 and 17.

Pierce wrote:

Nay, as the Learned Daille doth acknowledge, (who is farre from being an Arminian) whensoever the World in Holy Writ doth not signifie Mankind, it clearly signifies the greater and worser part.

Thomas Pierce, 'ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΑ'ΚΡΙΣΙΣ, or, Self-Condemnation, Exemplified in Mr. Whitefield, Mr. Barlee, and Mr. Hickman. With Occassional Reflexions on Mr Calvin, Mr Beza, Mr Zwinglius, Mr Piscator, Mr Rivet, and Mr Rollock: But More Especially on Doctor Twisse, and Master Hobbs (London, Printed by J. G. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1658), 202–203.

…he gives notice to Spanhemius, that if we suffer our own selves to understand the world of the Elect onely, (a trick never heard of, saith Daille, from any writer in the World, whether Jew or Gentile) we shall encourage the bold and licentius people to make God's word a Nose of Wax, and forge up on it what sense they please.

Ibid., 203.

Magic Glasses for 1 Tim. 2:4

Yes, you too can now behold wonders in 1 Timothy 2:4 and call it "exegesis"!

For previous versions, see here and here.

Erroll Hulse on the Redeemer's Tears

These are a few quotes from Hulse's article in Reformation Today in 1995. As Hulse says on page 25, he borrowed the title of this article from one of John Howe's (1630–1705) expositions of this passage. Where are other Reformed Baptists in our country speaking this way?

Jesus complained that the people of Jerusalem had steadfastly resisted his efforts to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks (Matt 23:37).

Erroll Hulse, "The Redeemer's Tears Wept Over Lost Souls," Reformation Today 146 (July/August 1995): 21–22.

Jesus said of these reprobate Jews, 'How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chickens, but you were not willing.' Every effort had been expended on seeking to win them.

Fundamental to the gospel is the love of God for all mankind. 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' This love is expressed in the riches of God's kindness, tolerance and patience, kindness intended to lead to repentance (Rom. 2:4). God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). 'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance' (2 Peter 3:9).

Ibid., 22.

Common grace is seen in the fact that Jesus contended with the lost of Jerusalem.

Ibid., 23.

We experience grief just as Jesus did. We experience the sorrow of seeing sinners destroy themselves by unbelief and impenitence. We love them just as Jesus loves them. We seek their salvation just as Jesus does. We know that God's justice will be vindicated in the damnation of sinners, but we also know that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. 'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? (Ez 18:23).

Ibid., 23.

He [Jesus] was willing to save all of them.

Ibid., 23.

The kind of anguish experienced by Christ was the frustration and sorrow of pain and humiliation. What he suffered in his soul was as intense as was the pain suffered in his body. He endured the cross (physical torment) and scorned the shame (spiritual torment – Heb 12:2). He felt acutely the shame of rejection at the hands of those he came to save. We suffer similarly in seeing the gospel of salvation slighted and rejected. His discouragement is expressed in the words of Isaiah 49, 'I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain.' But he is comforted with the response of Jahweh, 'I will make you a light for the Gentiles that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.' Romans 11 declares that there will always be a Jewish remnant that believes as well as a fulness gathered in due course.

Ibid., 24.

R. C. Sproul (1939–2017) Evades the Question: "Does God Desire All People to be Saved?"

On November 13th on Twitter, I said:

Though he seems to allow for it [Chosen by God, pp.195-197], I can't recall R. C. Sproul ever teaching on God's willingness to save all men.

Now there is a video (that I originally saw on Justin Taylor's blog) of Mark Driscoll explicitly asking R. C. Sproul the question, "Does God Really Want All People to be Saved?"; and Driscoll even distinguishes so as to reference God's revealed will, not the decretal sense of His will. Instead of answering the specific question put to him, Sproul answers a different question, i.e. "Does God take delight in punishing or meeting out wrath upon people?" I left some comments on Justin's blog regarding the question he was actually asked.

Sproul has popularized Calvinistic and Reformed theology for years, but he has neglected talking about God's revealed will. Consequently, this generation of Calvinists in the U.S. have a massive blind spot on the subject, and this is opening the way for many of them to reject the well-meant offer of the gospel. This is one of the reasons why I frequently post primary Calvinistic sources on my blog. It's crucial for the very life of the church that we understand God's passionate zeal for saving sinners; and although I've benefited from much of his teaching, R. C. Sproul, sadly, has not been helping us in this respect, and neither did John Gerstner in his latter days.

Update: I was able to ask Sproul the same question in different words. His response can be heard and read here (click).

From Thomas Lamb's (died c. 1672 or 1686) Preface to the Reader in the Book Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World

"And from hence it followeth, first, that if those that are saved be but few, and those void of those humane excellencies and worldly helps that others have, this salvation cannot be attributed to any qualification in or proceeding from those persons more than others, but is begun, continued and perfected to and in them by the gift of God alone which excelleth to them above others, and this is the principle matter in the Book.

And secondly, seeing furniture from God by his Spirit is promised and afforded unto these few destitute of humane Arts or Learning, enabling them to defend themselves in the Truth against those that abound therein, this hath imboldened the publishing of this Book, though I had no humane Arts in answering him that had; the Reader therefore may understand that whereas I have been taught of God the precious Truth of Christ crucified for the sins of the world, as the onely Doctrine of the Gospel begetting faith or the belief thereof in the souls of men in whom it is begotten, and charging the belief thereof upon all, and is a firm foundation for such belief from the worse of sinners, condemning all or any for not believing the same, and whosoever do believe it knowingly do believe also themselves sinners, and by this means the remission of all their sins, and are thereby accepted as just in the sight of God.

This knowledg I have for long time since endeavoured to work in the minds of others, as knowing it to be their Life, Prov. 3.18. wherein as some have praised God for my Labours, so have I had no small opposition from others, who first conclude that if Christ died for all mens sins all must needs be saved, they not considering that some bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, 2 Peter 2.1. And that none can be condemned or blamed for the sin of unbelief but he whose sins Christ died for.

But further they urge, this denies election of some above others, and concludes free will and a power in man to believe, and the grace of God to man for salvation no other than what depends upon something performed as a condition of his acceptance with God and that final falling away of Saints is a thing possible, as being left by God to the liberty of their own will.

These as I have upon good reason knowingly denied them to be any natural consequences of the death of Christ for all men, yet nevertheless many who own the Death of Christ for all, do own these as true consequences, and these not onely of more common and ignorant sort of people, but men of parts and good esteem for Learning.

Hence it is that the opposers of Christs Death for all are animated to conclude these consequences undeniably to follow, and therefore reject it wholly as false Doctrine."

Hereupon I have been pressed in my spirit to publish something in print, declaring and plainly proving that the Death of Christ for all hath not any affinity with these things, but is a Truth without them..."

Thomas Lamb's "Preface to the Reader," in Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), x-xi. [No Pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning]

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Thomas Lamb’s (died c. 1672 or 1686) First Words to the Reader in a Treatise of Particular Predestination

For as much as the glory of God ought to bee most deare in our eyes, which wee ought to seeke, and preferre more than our lives; I could not with good conscience and reason, but publish these few lines following, (especially being earnestly desired by some of my deare friends,) and the reasons are, first, because the truth of the Gospel, which holds forth Christs giving himself a ransome for all men, 1 Tim. 2. 6. A propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, 1 John 2. 2. and that he tasted death for every man Heb. 2. 9. (which is such a glorious truth, as without which first the Gospel of Gods free grace cannot be preached to all men, secondly neither can wicked men nor unbelievers be required to believe; and thirdly neither can the not believing in Christ be concluded to be a sinne,) all which being professed by the people of God (who desire in all sincerity to walke in all the wayes of God, and to bee led wholy by the rule of his word, whatever the hazard be thereby) they are thereby scandalized to hold free-will, and to denie particular election of persons, and persons hereby kept from the truth: to the end therefore that these stumbling blockes might be taken out of the way: these following lines doe manifestly declare Christs dying for all, and particular Election to stand together, which therefore can be no let to hinder people from the wayes of God, nor yet from discerning this particular truth of Christs dying for all, the excellency whereof none can prize, but those that know it; the which excellency if others could know, I am confident they would not bee such enemies to their owne soules as to slight it.

From Thomas Lamb’s initial words “To the Impartial Reader,” in A Treatise of Particular Predestination (London, 1642), i–ii. [No Pagination; Pages Numbered Manually from the Beginning]

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Thomas Lamb (died c. 1672 or 1686) on Christ's Death for All as a Ground to Preach to All

"...and seeing Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Joh 14.6. and without him there is no way but wandring, no truth but errour, no life but death; and seeing also that Christ is no otherwise the Way, Truth, and Life, than as He is the Propitiation and atonement for the sins of the whole world, by which He took whatsoever was against us out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, Col. 2.14. It cannot but be truth, that Christ died for the sins of all and every man, as a ground for preaching glad tidings to all and every man, as a ground for faith for every man, as a ground to conclude unbelief a sin in every man; this as Gospel-truth I have preached and disputed for a long time, and been a great sufferer in witness thereof, and do still look upon it as such a glorious Truth as ought to be countenanced and encouraged; yet some there be that both think and say that this cannot stand but by denying Gods election of some above others; and also it maintains free-will, and the liableness of the best of Saints to fall away both totally and finally from God. And I myself have been aspersed to hold these Errours, as I verily believe it not altogether unknown to your Highness."

From Thomas Lamb's dedicatory letter to "His Highness Oliver Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland," in Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christ's Death for the World, as the Object of Faith in Opposition to Conditional, Set Forth by Mr. John Goodwin in his Book (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), iii-iv. [No pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning of the dedication]

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Dictionary of National Biography

Eventually I will search these volumes for terms such as "non-conformist," "puritan," "divine," "dissenting," and "reformer" in order to find more obscure names of Calvinistic theologians. I will also be using this for some biographical entries of men that I have posted. You can read about this reference work here, or find a person in the Oxford Biography Index here. The Online Books Page has a complete index here.

Volume 1: Abbadie—Anne (Archive, Google)
Volume 2: Annesley—Baird (Archive, Google)
Volume 3: Baker—Beadon (Archive, Google)
Volume 4: Beal—Biber (Archive, Google)
Volume 5: Bicheno—Bottisham (Archive, Google)
Volume 6: Bottomley—Browell (Archive, Google)
Volume 7: Brown—Burthogge (Archive, Google)
Volume 8: Burton—Cantwell (Archive, Google)
Volume 9: Canute—Chaloner (Archive, Google)
Volume 10: Chamber—Clarkson (Archive, Google)
Volume 11: Clater—Condell (Archive, Google)
Volume 12: Conder—Craigie (Archive, Google)
Volume 13: Craik—Damer (Archive, Google)
Volume 14: Damon—D'Eyncourt (Archive, Google)
Volume 15: Diamond—Drake (Archive, Google)
Volume 16: Drant—Edridge (Archive, Google)
Volume 17: Edward—Erskine (Archive, Google)
Volume 18: Esdaile—Finan (Archive, Google)
Volume 19: Finch—Forman (Archive, Google)
Volume 20: Forrest—Garner (Archive, Google)
Volume 21: Garnett—Gloucester (Archive, Google)
Volume 22: Glover—Gravet (Archive, Google)
Volume 23: Gray—Haighton (Archive, Google)
Volume 24: Hailes—Harriott (Archive, Google)
Volume 25: Harris—Henry I (Archive, Google)
Volume 26: Henry II—Hindley (Archive, Google)
Volume 27: Hindmarsh—Hovenden (Archive, Google)
Volume 28: Howard—Inglethorp (Archive, Google)
Volume 29: Inglis—John (Archive, Google)
Volume 30: Johnes—Kenneth (Archive, Google)
Volume 31: Kennett—Lambart (Archive, Google)
Volume 32: Lambe—Leigh (Archive, Google)
Volume 33: Leighton—Lluelyn (Archive, Google)
Volume 34: Llwyd—Maccartney (Archive, Google)
Volume 35: MacCarwell—Maltby (Archive, Google)
Volume 36: Malthus—Mason (Archive, Google)
Volume 37: Masquerier—Millyng (Archive, Google)
Volume 38: Milman—More (Archive, Google)
Volume 39: Morehead—Myles (Archive, Google)
Volume 40: Myllar—Nicholls (Archive, Google)
Volume 41: Nichols—O'Dugan (Archive, Google)
Volume 42: O'Duinn—Owen (Archive, Google)
Volume 43: Owens—Passelewe (Archive, Google)
Volume 44: Paston—Percy (Archive, Google)
Volume 45: Pereira—Pockrich (Archive, Google)
Volume 46: Pocock—Puckering (Archive, Google)
Volume 47: Puckle—Reidfurd (Archive, Google)
Volume 48: Reilly—Robins (Archive, Google)
Volume 49: Robinson—Russell (Archive, Google)
Volume 50: Russen—Scobell (Archive, Google)
Volume 51: Scoffin—Sheares (Archive, Google)
Volume 52: Shearman—Smirke (Archive, Google)
Volume 53: Smith—Stanger (Archive, Google)
Volume 54: Stanhope—Stovin (Archive, Google)
Volume 55: Stow—Taylor (Archive, Google)
Volume 56: Teach—Tollet (Archive, Google)
Volume 57: Tom—Tytler (Archive, Google)
Volume 58: Ubaldini—Wakefield (Archive, Google)
Volume 59: Wakeman—Watkins (Archive, Google)
Volume 60: Watson—Whewell (Archive, Google)
Volume 61: Whichcord—Williams (Archive, Google)
Volume 62: Williamson—Wordon (Archive, Google)
Volume 63: Wordsworth—Zuylestein (Archive, Google)

Supplement:
Volume 1: Abbott—Childers (Archive, Google)
Volume 2: Chippendale—Hoste (Archive, Google)
Volume 3: How—Woodward (Archive, Google)

Errata (Archive, Google)

Index and Epitome: (Archive, Google, Google 2nd edition)