Michael Lynch on “The Five Points of Calvinism: Myth and Reality”

HT: The Davenant Trust

John Calvin (1509–1564) and Others on the Proper Office of the Gospel and Other Quotes Related to Accidental Causation in Sinful Creatures

Outline:
I. Some Definitions
II. John Calvin’s Comments About Accidental Causation
III. Miscellaneous Quotes by Other Reformed Theologians

IV. Francis Turretin on Accidental Causation

I. Some Definitions:

accidens: accident; viz., an incidental property of a thing, specifically, a secondary form, not essential to a thing, added to it and capable of being removed from it. Thus an accident is a property conjoined to a thing that can be withdrawn from the thing without substantial alteration; or in other words, an accident is a property contingently predicated of a thing. Given, moreover, that accidents are properties that inhere in substances by addition, they do not have an independent existence.

Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 4.

per se / per accidens: by or through itself / by or through something added or incidental. Something understood per se is identified as what it is according to its essence or inward essential principle; something understood per accidens is identified according to an incidental property. Thus a horse per se is an animal; per accidens it is brown or spotted. Per se is equivalent to propter se et directe, according to itself and directly understood; per accidens equals propter aliud et indirecte, according to another and indirectly understood. In this sense, theologia per se is concerned with God; per accidens, with God’s works.

Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 258.

II. John Calvin’s Comments About Accidental Causation:

The relevant sections can be found in his comments on Mark 4:12; Luke 2:33–39; John 3:17; 12:47; 20:23; 2 Cor 2:15; 3:7; Rom 1:16; 1 Pet 2:8; and 2 Pet 2:4–8.

Mark 4.12. That seeing they may not see. Here it is enough to note briefly what I have explained more fully elsewhere. The Gospel (doctrina) is not the cause of blindness properly speaking or in itself or in its nature, but only in the event (per accidens). It is like the dim sighted going out in the sunshine. It only makes their eyes weaker still. Yet the fault lies, not in the sun, but in their eyes. When the Word of God blinds and hardens the reprobate, it is through their own native depravity; so far as the Word is concerned, it is accidental.

Lest haply they should turn again. This clause shows the value of seeing and hearing. Men who are converted to God return to His favour and in His grace live well and happily. And the real reason why God wishes His Word to be proclaimed is to renew men’s minds and hearts and to reconcile them to Himself. But on the other hand Isaiah says that the reprobate remain in their hardness lest they should obtain mercy, and the Word is deprived of any effect on them lest it should soften their hearts to penitence.

John Calvin “A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Volume 2,” trans. T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2:67–68; Mark 4:12.

So Simeon’s prophetic words were well justified, that Christ was set for the fall of many, yes, among the people of Israel. This is the meaning: He was divinely ordained to bring down and tumble many. But we must note that the ruin comes from their turning on Him in unbelief as is said a little later, where Simeon calls Him ‘a Sign which is spoken against’. Thus as unbelievers rebel against Christ, they crash against Him, and their ruin comes from this. ….

By the word falling the Spirit denotes the penalty that comes on the unbelievers, to teach us to keep as far from them as possible, lest any association should involve us in a like disaster. Christ is no less dear, for all that many tumble at His rise, for the savour of the Gospel does not cease to be pleasant and sweet to God, however deadly it may be to the world. If any ask how Christ should be an occasion of falling to unbelievers who have perished out of His time, the answer is simple, that those who rob themselves of the salvation offered divinely to them perish a second time. Thus falling indicates a twofold penalty, which awaits all unbelievers, once they have knowingly and willingly set themselves against the Son of God.

John Calvin, “A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke—Volume 1,” trans. A. W. Morrison, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 1:95–96; Luke 2:34.

When elsewhere Christ says that He is come for judgment, when He is called a stone of stumbling, when He is said to be set for the falling of many, it may be regarded as accidental, or so to say, foreign. For those who reject the grace offered in Him deserve to find Him the judge and avenger of such unworthy and shocking contempt. A striking example of this is to be seen in the Gospel, which, although it is strictly the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, is turned into death by the ingratitude of many. Paul expresses both aspects when he rejoices that he has vengeance at hand by which he will punish all the opponents of his preaching after the obedience of the godly has been fulfilled (II Cor. 10.6). It is as if he had said that the Gospel is especially and in the first place intended for believers, that it may be salvation for them; but that afterwards unbelievers will not escape unpunished when they despise the grace of Christ and would rather have Him as the author of death than of life.

John Calvin, “The Gospel according to St John 1–10,” trans., T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 4:75–76; John 3:17.

The word judge, as is clear from its antithesis save, is here put for ‘condemn’. Now this should be referred to the proper and genuine office of Christ. For that unbelievers are the more severely condemned on account of the Gospel is accidental (accidentale) and does not spring from its nature, as we have said elsewhere.

John Calvin, “The Gospel according to St John 11–12 and The First Epistle of John,” trans., T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 5:53; John 12:47.

Whosesoever sins ye retain. Christ adds this second clause to terrify despisers of His Gospel, that they may know that they will not escape punishment for this pride. Therefore, as the embassy of salvation and eternal life was committed to the apostles, so, on the other hand, they were armed with vengeance against all the ungodly who reject the salvation offered them, as Paul teaches in II Cor, 10.6. But this is put last because the true and genuine aim in preaching the Gospel had to be shown first. That we are reconciled to God is proper to the Gospel: that unbelievers are adjudged to eternal death is accidental (accidentale). This is why Paul, in the verse I have just quoted, where he threatens vengeance against unbelievers, adds, ‘after that your obedience shall have been fulfilled.’ He means that it is proper to the Gospel to invite all to salvation, but that it is accidental (adventicium) that it brings destruction on any.

We must observe, however, that whoever hears the voice of the Gospel is liable to judgment and eternal damnation unless he embraces the forgiveness of sins there promised to him. For, as it is a quickening savour to the children of God, so it is the savour of death unto death to those who are perishing. Not that the preaching of the Gospel is needed to condemn the reprobate, for by nature we are all lost, and in addition to the hereditary curse, everyone brings on himself new causes of death; but because the obstinacy of those who knowingly and willingly despise the Son of God deserve far severer punishment.

Ibid., 5:208; John 20:23.

We must note this way of speaking of the Gospel as the word of salvation. Therefore those who are not attracted by its delights must be harder than iron. Finally, although its nature is like that, it becomes, accidentally, the ‘savour of death to death’ for the reprobate (II Cor. 2.16).

John Calvin, “The Acts of the Apostles 1–13,” trans. John W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 6:370; Acts 13:26.

On Romans 1:16, Calvin said:

The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savour of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness.

The Torrance edition says:

The Gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but its power is not universally manifest. The fact that the Gospel is the taste of death to the ungodly arises not so much from the nature of the Gospel itself, as from their own wickedness.

John Calvin, “The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians,” trans. R. MacKenzie, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994–96), 8:27; Rom 1:16.

He lays great emphasis on the word savour. It is as if he had said, ‘The power of the Gospel is so great that it either quickens or kills no only by its taste but by its very smell. Whether the outcome be life or death, it is never preached in vain.’ But the question arises how this can be consistent with the nature of the Gospel which he defines a little later as ‘the ministry of life’. The answer is easy: the Gospel is preached unto salvation, for that is its real purpose, but only believers share in this salvation; for unbelievers it is an occasion of condemnation, but it is they who make it so. Thus Christ came not into the world to condemn the world—there was no need for that since we were all condemned already without Him. Yet He sends the apostles not just to loose but also to bind, not just to remit sins but also to retain them. He is the light of the world and yet he blinds unbelievers; He is the foundation stone, yet to many He is the stone of stumbling. But the proper function (proprium officium) of the Gospel is always to be distinguished from what we may call its accidental function (ab accidentali), which must be imputed to the depravity of men by which life is turned into death.

John Calvin, “2 Corinthians and Timothy, Titus and Philemon,” trans. T. A. Smail, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 10:35; 2 Cor 2:15.

Here, however, a question arises: As the gospel is the odour of death unto death to some, (2 Cor. 2:16,) and as Christ is a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many,¹ (Luke 2:34; 1 Peter 2:8,) why does he represent, as belonging exclusively to the law, what is common to both? Should you reply, that it happens accidentally that the gospel is the source of death, and, accordingly, is the occasion of it rather than the cause, inasmuch as it is in its own nature salutary to all, the difficulty will still remain unsolved; for the same answer might be returned with truth in reference to the law. For we hear what Moses called the people to bear witness to—that he had set before them life and death. (Deut. 30:15.) We hear what Paul himself says in Rom. 7:10—that the law has turned out to our ruin, not through any fault attaching to it, but in consequence of our wickedness. Hence, as the entailing of condemnation upon men is a thing that happens alike to the law and the gospel, the difficulty still remains.

My answer is this—that there is, notwithstanding of this, a great difference between them; for although the gospel is an occasion of condemnation to many, it is nevertheless, on good grounds, reckoned the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration, and offers to us a free reconciliation with God. The law, on the other hand, as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness, and denounces everlasting death upon transgressors, can do nothing but condemn.¹ Or if you prefer it in another way, the office of the law is to show us the disease, in such a way as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure: the office of the gospel is, to bring a remedy to those that were past hope. For as the law leaves man to himself, it condemns him, of necessity, to death; while the gospel, bringing him to Christ, opens the gate of life. Thus, in one word, we find that it is an accidental property of the law, that is perpetual and inseparable, that it killeth; for as the Apostle says elsewhere, (Gal. 3:10,) All that remain under the law are subject to the curse. It does, not, on the other hand, invariably happen to the gospel, that it kills, for in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, and therefore it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. (Rom 1:17, 18.)²
_______________
1 The occasion of the ruin of unbelievers is explained by Calvin at considerable length in the Harmony, vol. i. pp. 148, 149.—Ed.
1 “Elle ne nous peut apporter autre chose que condemnation;”—“It can bring us nothing but condemnation.”
2 Turretine, in his Institutes of Controversial Theology, (vol. ii. p. 159,) gives a much similar view of the matter, of which Calvin here treats. “Quando lex vocatur litera occidens, et ministerium mortis et condemnationis, (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 8, 9,) intelligenda est non per se et naturâ suâ, sed per accidens, ob corruptionem hominis, non absolute et simpliciter, sed secundum, quid quando spectatur ut fœdus operum, opposite ad fœdus gratiæ;”—“When the law is called a killing letter, and the ministry of death and condemnation, (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 8, 9,) it, must be understood to be so, not in itself and in its own nature, but accidentally, in consequence of man’s corruption—not absolutely and expressly, but relatively, when viewed as a covenant of works, as contrasted with the covenant of grace.”—Ed.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John Pringle, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981–84), 20:177–178; 2 Cor 3:7.

The Torrance edition says:

But this raises a question. If the Gospel is ‘a savour of death unto death’ (2.16) to some and Christ is ‘a rock of offence’ and a ‘stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many’ (Luke 2.34, I Peter 2.8) why does he say that only the Law brings death when the Gospel does so as well? If we reply that to be the source of death is only accidental (per accidens) to the Gospel so that it is the occasion (materia) of death rather than the cause, for in its own nature it brings salvation to all, the difficulty is not yet solved since the same can still be said of the Law. For we hear that Moses bore witness to the people that he had set before them life and death (Deut. 30.15) and Paul himself says in Romans 7.10 that the Law has turned out to our ruin not because there was anything wrong with it but because of our sin. Thus since it is accidental (accidentale) to both Law and Gospel to bring men condemnation the difficulty still remains.

My answer is, that in spite of this, there still remains a great difference between them. For although the Gospel is an occasion of death to many, it is still rightly called the doctrine of life because it is the means of regeneration and freely offers reconciliation with God. But because the Law only prescribes a rule for good living without reforming men’s hearts into the obedience of righteousness and threatens transgressors with everlasting death, it can do nothing but condemn. Or, to put it another way, it is the function of the Law to show us the disease without offering any hope of a cure, and it is the function of the Gospel to provide a remedy for those in despair. Since the Law abandons a man to himself it consigns him to inevitable death, while the Gospel leads him to Christ and thus opens the gates of life. To kill is thus a perpetual and inevitable accident (accidens) of the Law for, as the apostle says elsewhere, ‘All that remain under the Law are subject to its curse’ (Gal. 3.10), but the Gospel does not always kill for in it ‘is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith’ and therefore it is ‘the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth’ (Rom. 1.16–17).

John Calvin, “The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon,” trans. T. A. Smail, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 10:44–45; 2 Cor 3:7.

This especially deserves to be noticed in case the blame for our fault should be imputed to Christ, for, as He has been given to us as a foundation, it is incidental that He becomes a rock of offence. In short, His proper office is to fit us to be a spiritual temple to God, but it is the fault of men that they stumble at Him, because unbelief leads men to contend with God. Therefore in order to set forth the character of the conflict, Peter has said that they are the unbelieving.

John Calvin, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter,” trans. William B. Johnston, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 12:264; 1 Pet 2:8.

As far as angels are concerned, the argument is from the greater to the less. Although they were far more exalted, yet their dignity did not save them from the hand of God. Much less, therefore, will mortal men who have followed their impiety escape. Since Peter has touched briefly here on the fall of the angels, but does not specify the time or manner of other circumstances, we must speculate carefully on this matter. There are many curious men who never stop probing into these things, but since God has only rarely touched on them in Scripture, and then only in passing, this fact warns us to be content with a modicum of knowledge. Those who inquire further in their overanxiety have no regard to edification but want to feed their minds on empty speculations. God has made known what is useful for us to know, that the devils were originally created to obey God, that they fell from grace through their own fault because they did not submit to God’s rule; and therefore that the wickedness which cleaves to them was accidental and not organic to their nature, so that it cannot be attributed to God.

Ibid., 12:348; 2 Pet 2:4.  

III. Miscellaneous Quotes by Other Reformed Theologians:

James Nalton (c.1600–1662):

...the Gracious pardon of God that is tendered in the Gospel, does not kill, or condemn any in it self, or in its own Nature, but through the contempt of those that do disregard it, in this regard, not simply, but accidentally, through the Corruptions of men’s hearts, and Natures, in this regard, the Gospel may be said to increase a man's curse and condemnation...

Matthias Martinius (1572–1630):

...and the gospel, which in itself is a savor of life unto life, becomes to the unbelieving a savor of death unto death, by accident, through their own fault,...

William Fenner (1600–1640):

It was Christ’s primary purpose, and the first end of his coming, to save the world: it is an accidental end, or rather an event of his coming, that the world is condemned.

And William Strong (d.1654) said:

Every man that is under the curse, is under the Covenant that inflicts the curse: but all Mankind by nature are under the curse; therefore the curse is the curse of the first Covenant; and the Gospel does not make men miserable but leaves them so. He that believes not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him; that is, only by accident, as the mercy of it is condemned; so indeed it heightens the sin, and aggravates the condemnation: but the curse is properly the curse of the first Covenant, the Gospel in itself speaks nothing but blessing. As a Physician that is sent to cure a man, if through the malignity of the Disease, and the frowardness of the Patient he cast away the Potion, the Balm that would cure him, he dies of the Disease, not of the Physick.

William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants [...] (London : J. M. for Francis Tyton, 1678), 2. See also pp. 42 and 43 below.

(2) There is causa per accidens, an accidental cause; when the effect flows not from the nature of the cause, but from something else that does by accident cleave to it; so the Apostle says, knowledg[e] puffs up: all true knowledg[e] is humbling, and there is nothing that a man can know either of God or himself, but it does afford him great ground of abasement and self-denial; but yet through the lusts of men sin takes occasion by the knowledge that should humble him to lift him up: so fountains are hottest in the Winter, and the fire by reason of the circumstant air; not that the Winter does add heat to either by its own nature, but by accident and occasionally it encloses the one and draws forth the other: so the Gospel meeting with the lusts of men, who either reject the Gospel, or else do turn the grace of God into wantonness, thence it becomes the savour of death unto death; not of itself, nor in its own nature, for it forbids it, and curseth it; but yet sin takes occasion by the Law, and through many things that do adhere and cleave to the man by the Law, it does become the more exceeding sinful.

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 42.

2. There is yet a further ground of this irritating power of the Law, and that is from the curse of God that is come upon all men under the fall, which came not only upon man but upon all things else for man’s use; and so though it be the curse of the Law, yet it comes even upon the Law itself, (so far as it concerns man) as well as upon all the Creatures; yea the Lord Christ himself is so far a curse unto men in their sins, that as he is a sanctuary to his people, so a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, a gin and a snare unto others, for the fall and the rising again of many in Israel, Luke 2:34. For judgment, says he, I am come into this world; and yet he says in John 12:47. I come not to judge and condemn the world but to save the world. This indeed was his intent primarily and per se, but the other falls out through the sinfulness of men, occasionally and by accident; and that which is good in itself does become evil unto the man, and that which is a blessing in itself doth to him become a curse: so it is with the Gospel, and with all the ordinances thereof, ’tis the savour of life to some, but of death unto others; the same meat is wholesome nourishment unto some, to others it seeds the disease in an unsound body; and the same light which is pleasant unto a good and a sound eye, is a pain and a trouble to a weak eye which is sore or bloodshot, &c. And therefore it puts no malignant nor sinful quality into the Law or Gospel, or the Ordinances, but only these meeting with a man of an unsound spirit do occasionally stir up these corruptions and sinful dispositions, which were in the men before, and thereby do increase them; and by this means it becomes a curse to the man, though it be a blessing to the people of God.

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 43.

(2) There is an accidental end, that which follows not from the nature of the thing but from the evil disposition of the subject, and so unto all unregenerate men the Law doth discover their sins, and make them out of measure sinful; doth irritate and stir up their corruptions, and so doth heighten and increase them, and their condemnation for them, as the gospel doth: but yet we may say of the Law as Christ does of himself, That he came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world by him might be saved: yet by accident he did condemn the world, being despised, and set for the falling as well as the rising of many in Israel; but the proper and principal intent of his coming, was salvation and not damnation…

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 109.

Annesley wrote:

The destruction of unbelievers is not the end of the gospel; but that is through their own fault, eventus adventitius ([Amandus] Polani, Syntagma), “an accidental event.” God abundantly declares in the gospel, that he delights not in the death of sinners; but in the saving translation of them, by faith and repentance…

Samuel Annesley, “Sermon XII: The Covenant of Grace (Heb 8:6),” in Puritan Sermons, 6 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 5:194.

The following is likely Annesley’s actual source:  

25. The destruction of unbelievers, however, is not a goal of the Gospel; that is an unconnected outcome from elsewhere, from their sins. For in his Gospel God declares that he takes no delight in the destruction of any sinner, but he delights in transferring everyone to salvation through repentance and faith from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ [XXV. Perditio vero infidelium non est Evangelii finis, sed ex illorum vitio eventus adventitius. Deus enim Evangelio suo declarat, quod nullius peccatoris exitio delectetur, sed salutari cujuslibet per resipiscentiam ac fidem translatione e potestate tenebrarum in regnum Filii sui dilecti Jesu Christi].

Johannes Polyander, “Disputation 22: On the Gospel,” in Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. William den Boer and Riemer A. Faber, 2 vols. (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2023), 1:241; Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, 2 vols. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 1:564, 565.

the Gospel saves per se, condemns per accidens.

See Peter Martyr Vermigli, Early Writings: Creed Scripture Church, ed. John Patrick Donnelly and Joseph C. McLelland, trans. Mariano Di Gangi and Joseph C. McLelland, vol. 1 of The Peter Martyr Library (Kirksville, MO: The Thomas Jefferson University Press; Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1994), 144n160; cf. Martyr on Rom. 1:16.

13.—In the same way too it cannot be concluded that because the outward calling of the rejected is ineffectual it is therefore not seriously meant by God. Outward calling is always per se a real calling to salvation, since everyone who follows it up thereby gains righteousness in Christ and eternal life: only, in the case of the godless, it is ineffectual because of their hardness of heart. Similarly, the calling from God’s side is always seriously intended, since God promises grace even to the rejected upon condition of faith, and makes faith for them a duty. But of course God omits to give faith to the rejected, because He is not bound to do so in the case of any man.—Polan (VI, 32): “Ineffectual calling is of the reprobate.—It is called ineffectual not per se but per accidens, not in respect of God who calls, but in respect of men who have deaf ears of the heart. In itself calling is always effectual, although it is not so in those who are perishing, as the sun is effective by his light in itself, although it by no means illumines the blind.”—From this it follows that even the calling of the godless is on God’s side “sincere and serious” (Heidegger XXI, 11): “Whether the serious is opposed to a joke, God in no way plays in the business of calling; or to pretence, He likewise does not simulate, because He does not profess one thing outwardly in words, concealing something else inwardly in His mind, but declares to men by calling His plain, open and steadfast will. And since the parts of calling are commands and promises, as often as He calls He commands and orders them seriously to repent and believe. For He wills that they repent and believe by His preceptive and approving will, although He does not will by His decerning will, effectual to the giving of faith and repentance. He has the right to demand both.—Moreover calling promises salvation, but not to anyone promiscuously or without condition, only to the believing and repentant person”.—Similarly Wolleb 91.

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 517.

We must distinguish betwixt the proper end of a thing, and a consequence following thereupon. Thus these words, ‘I came not to send peace, but a sword,’ Mat. 10:34, intend a consequence which followed upon Christ’s coming into the world. For the gospel of Christ being a light, and professors thereof holding out this light, thereby is discovered the darkness and lewdness of the men of this world, which they can no way endure; but thereupon draw the sword, and raise all manner of persecution against those that hold out this light. By reason of this consequence, Christ is said not to come to send peace, but the sword.

William Gouge, A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 2 of Nichol’s Series of Commentaries (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; J. Nisbet & Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 97.

3. These commands and exhortations are of use to clear the justice of God upon obstinate sinners. God is a judge, and judges by law; commands therefore are necessary, because a rational creature is only governable by law. If God were not a lawgiver, he could not be a judge; his judicial proceedings depend upon his legislative power. Men being to be judged by their works, must have some law as the rule of those works; and his law is no more than the first law in innocency, that is, to return to obedience and righteousness. These commands and exhortations are the whips and scourges of perverse consciences, whereby they are galled while they obey not the motions of them, and render them inexcusable and unworthy of mercy in despising the conditions God requires of them, and make the case of Sodom ‘more tolerable in the day of judgment’ than the condition of such men, Mat. 11:24. We are apt to bring an unreasonable charge against God of cruelty and injustice, as though his punishments did not consist with righteousness. God therefore shews us our duty, and demands it of us, and it is confessed by us to be our duty; man is therefore deservedly punished, because he doth wilfully cherish the old nature in him, the fountain of all sin; he hath the truth, and he holds it in possession, but in unrighteousness, therefore the wrath of God is justly revealed from heaven against that unrighteousness of his, Rom. 1:18. God calls sinners, though he knows they will not renew themselves, as men send servants to demand the possession of a piece of ground, though they know it will not be delivered to them [Cartwright, Harmo. in John 6:43]; but they do it that they may more conveniently bring their action against such a person that will not surrender. So upon God’s command to men to be renewed, his justice is more apparent upon their refusal; as he sent Moses to Pharaoh, though he knew before that Pharaoh would not hearken to him. This punishment is only accidental to the gospel, it becomes the savour of death per accidens, because of the unbelief of those that reject it [Amiraut. Ser. sur Phillip. 2 p. 90, &c.]; the gospel is designed for the salvation of men, not for their condemnation. If the corruption of man produceth condemnation to himself, must God abstain from doing good to the world? There is not a man but abuseth the light of the sun which shines upon him, and the mercies God gives him, and thereby brings wrath upon himself, and God knows they will do so; would we have God, therefore, to put out the light of the sun, and divest the earth of its fruitfulness? Shall God lay aside his right of commanding, and take away the preaching of the gospel, and so excellent a thing as the happy revelation of his gracious promises and exhortations, because many men by their wilfulness bring the just wrath of God upon them for their refusal? Will any man accuse our blessed Lord and Saviour, when he comes to judgment, that he did them wrong to come and die for mankind, and cause the news and ends of his death to be published, and exhort sinners thereupon to believe in him? Surely men’s consciences shall be full of convictions of their own wilfulness, and the equity of God’s justice thereupon.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of the Efficient of Regeneration (John 1:13),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock,  5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 3:230–231.

[5.] It excites all kind of sin in the heart. As the gospel received by faith opposeth all sin, ‘teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,’ Titus 2:12, so this principle, opposite to the gospel, teacheth us to cherish all sin. As the more faith is exercised, the more other graces traverse the stage (for as they depend upon faith in regard of their being, so they do also in regard of their exercise), so the more unbelief is exercised, the more all kind of sin is stirred up and quickened in the heart. As the gospel is enriched with all motives and directions to what is righteous before God, and comely before man, wherein whatsoever hath moral beauty, or is of honourable esteem among men, that desire to walk according to right reason, is commended and pressed with the highest injunctions, which, if observed by men under the gospel, would make the earth a paradise, restore the honour of God, and the beauty of the creation. So unbelief disgraceth these principles, degrades them from that esteem they deserve in the hearts of men, discountenanceth that which is spiritually noble and worthy, alarms the corrupt nature, brings the force of it into the field against the principles of the gospel. Therefore, where the gospel doth not refine and reform men by the operation of faith, men are rendered worse, more awkward towards God, and spiritually wicked by the operation of unbelief, which is, per accidens, the effect of the gospel; as physic that doth not work and expel the humours, gives them advantage to rage more in the body. As the gospel profits when mixed with faith, so it is wholly unprofitable when mixed with unbelief. Sin thereby draws rather an encouragement from it, and takes occasion from thence to become more furious. Hence is that rage commonly against the gospel, when it comes into any place where before it was not. The devil works by the unbelief of man to excite all the strength of corrupt nature against it, to stop the course of it; and what hath been done in the world in the times of the apostles, and will be done to the end of the world, is a picture of what men do secretly in their own hearts against the principles of it, by the strength of their infidelity, which stirs up all the serpentine principles in the heart against it.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of Unbelief, Proving it is the Greatest Sin (John 16:9),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 4:280–281.

Nay, the very preaching of the Gospel in the World, tho’ it be the Gospel of Peace, and the Gospel of Salvation too, has been, and is, accidentally, thro’ the Corruption of Mens hearts, and under the Influence of the envious Enemy of Mankind, the Occasion of all this [i.e., feuds, divisions, contentions, sin, and mischief]; according as our Saviour has foretold that it would be, saying as Mat. 10. 34, 35. Think not that I am come to send Peace on Earth: I came not to send Peace but a Sword. For I am come to set a Man at variance against his Father, and the Daughter against her Mother, and the Daughter-in-law against her Mother-in-law. And a Mans foes shall be they of his own house.

Cotton Mather, A Letter to a Friend in the Country, Attempting a Solution of the Scruples and Objections of Conscientious or Religious Nature, Commonly Made against the New Way of Receiving the Small-Pox., Early American Imprints, 1639–1800; No. 2247 (Boston: S. Kneeland, for S. Gerrish, at his shop in Corn-hill, 1721), 9.

IV. Francis Turretin on Accidental Causation:

The relevant sections in Turretin on accidental causation, which are also worth reading, can be found in his Institutes in §2.18.5; 3.23.27; 4.6.8; 4.14.6–7; 6.17.18; 9.9.35; 11.23.12; 12.6.30; 13.2.28; 14.14.28; 15.2.26; 15.4.48; 17.5.33; 18.15.14; 19.1.15.

V. That which of itself and properly brings more injury and loss than advantage should not be permitted. But this does not hold good of that which is such only accidentally (i.e., from the fault of men). If men abuse the Scriptures, this does not happen per se, but accidentally from the perversity of those who wrongfully wrest them to their own destruction. Otherwise (if on account of the abuse the use should be prohibited), the Scriptures ought to be taken away not only from the laity, but also from the teachers who abuse them far more. For heresies usually arise not from the common people and the unlearned, but from ecclesiastics.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 1:148–149; 2.18.5.

XXVII. Those words ought to be avoided which afford matter for strife per se in the church, but not those which only accidentally do so on account of the pertinacity of heretics (who attack the words in order to get rid of the things signified by them).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:260; 3.23.27.

VIII. If some abuse this doctrine [of predestination] either to licentiousness or to desperation, this happens not per se from the doctrine itself, but accidentally, from the vice of men who most wickedly wrest it to their own destruction. Indeed, there is no doctrine from which more powerful incitements to piety can be drawn and richer streams of confidence and consolation flow (as will be seen in the proper place).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:330; 4.6.8.

The negative act includes preterition and desertion.
VI. The negative act includes two: both preterition, by which in the election of some to glory as well as to grace, he neglected and slighted others (which is evident from the event of election); and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery. However this is so to be understood: (1) that they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them; nor are they immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying (which is the fruit of election); (2) that actual sins of all kinds follow that preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will and the force of corruption in it (as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation; necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing or producing the wickedness; not by removing what is present, but by not supplying what would sustain). If the sun does not illuminate the earth, it is not the accidental cause of darkness. Can God abandoning man and not removing his corruption, be straightway called the accidental cause of his sin? For darkness follows by necessity of nature the non-illumination of the sun, but sins voluntarily follow the denial of grace.
VII. Although God by that desertion denies to man that without which sin cannot be avoided, the causality of sin cannot on that account be attributed to him. (1) God denies it justly and is not bound to give that grace to anyone. (2) From that negation does not follow the capability of sinning (which man has from himself), but only the non-curing of that incapability. (3) God denies the grace which they are unwilling to accept (or to retain) and which they of their own accord despise, since they desire nothing less than being governed by the Holy Spirit. (4) He does not deny that grace that they may sin, but that they may be punished on account of sin.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:381; 4.14.6–7.

(3) In the internal operation of God.
XVIII. Third, besides the delivering over to Satan, there is also sometimes a certain internal operation of God in man by which he turns the heart of man to the execution of his counsel. Solomon refers to this when he says, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1). Augustine says, “God operates in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever he will, whether to good according to his mercy, or to evil according to their desert, as by his own judgment, now open, then secret, yet always just” (On Grace and Free Will 43 [NPNF1, 5:463]; PL [Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae … series Latina. Paris: Garnieri Fratres, 1878] 44.909). However this can be done either by an internal proposition of objects (which can move the mind and will) or by the impression of thoughts (which although good in themselves, are yet accidentally converted into evil by the vice of corrupt man). Thus the brothers of Joseph think that he is loved by his parents and is honored with dreams by God; these are good thoughts which they impiously abused. Wresting them to envy, they take counsel concerning the removal of him. Pharaoh after the death of Joseph thinks he should see to it that the empire suffers no harm; a good thought undoubtedly sent from God, but falling into an evil mind was perverted to the destruction of the people. So what came into the mind of Caiphas, “It is expedient that one man should die for the people” (Jn. 11:50), was good, but was most wickedly abused to the nefarious slaughter of Christ. Again, God internally works in man when he causes objects to move him in a particular direction. For since man is prone to every evil (as containing in himself the seeds of all vices), yet that he inclines to this rather than that arises from no other source than the secret providence of God, inclining him rather in this than in that direction, not otherwise than a stream flowing downwards is turned by the industry of the conduit master in this rather than that direction. Since to men there lie open many ways of injuring, God (shutting others up) leaves one open that they may be moved in that way. Thus the wicked serve to execute his judgments, when he wishes to use them either to punish the wickedness of anyone or to test the faith of the pious or to arouse them from slothfulness. A remarkable instance of this occurs in Nebuchadnezzar drawing out an army against Judea rather than against Egypt (Ezk. 21:21–24). Therefore, since in these and other wonderful and ineffable ways, God can operate in men to execute his own judgments, it is not without reason that their actions are ascribed to the efficacious power of God.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:521; 6.7.18.

XXXV. God is the author of the covenant made with Adam, in accordance with which the sharing and imputation of Adam’s sin follows. On that account, he can or ought not to be regarded as the author of sin. Sin did not arise of itself from that covenant, but only accidentally on account of man’s transgression (anomian). Nor can he be considered the author of that sin more than its cause, on this account—that sin took place or is propagated to us because he willed to permit it and that it should be propagated to us.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:626; 9.9.35.

XII. When the law is called the “letter that killeth, and the ministration of death and condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:6–9), it is to be understood not of itself and in its own nature, but accidentally on account of man’s corruption; not absolutely and simply, but relatively when viewed as a covenant of works, in opposition to the covenant of grace; or in respect to the legal economy and teaching considered precisely in itself, apart from the promises of grace and in contradistinction to the gospel ministration (compared with it there by the apostle). In this sense, it may well be called “the letter” because it indeed shows duty, but does not fulfill it; orders, but does not help; commands, but does not operate and is said to be “made void” (katargeisthai) in respect to that economy, because that old covenant ought to be abrogated. Yet it cannot be called so absolutely (under the relation of a rule and a standard).

Turretin, Institutes, 2:144; 11.23.12.

XXX. Nor can it be said that the promises are universal of themselves and from the intention of God, inasmuch as God seriously wishes all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but that all do not obtain it, is accidental on account of the wickedness and unbelief of men, who obstinately resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his operation. For it is falsely supposed that God seriously intends the salvation of all; this cannot be said of those whom he reprobated from eternity and to whom he wishes to give neither the gospel nor faith, without which the promise can neither be known nor received. (2) Although it is true that men resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his work, it is no less true that God does not furnish to all that grace by which the resistance of the heart may be taken away; that this is the special gift of God (Mt. 13:11; Rom. 11:7), which destroys the universality of the promise.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:215; 12.6.30.

XXVIII. When Christ says that he came not to send peace to the earth, but a sword (Mt. 10:34), the meaning is not that Christ would be the efficient cause of war per se, but the accidental cause (on account of the wickedness of the world, which, not enduring the gospel, would resist him, and excite wars against his professors). This is not opposed to the peace which the Messiah was to bring into the world according to the prophetic oracles (Is. 2:4; 11:6, 7; Mic. 4:3): (1) because it is not an earthly, but a mystical and heavenly peace; (2) not with the world of the wicked and the seed of the serpent (with whom an irreconcilable [aspondon] war should be, Gen. 3:15), but with believers among themselves, who laying aside hatred and enmity ought in Christ to be reconciled and to become one. (3) If wars are seen among Christians, this does not arise from the doctrine of Christ, but from the depravity of men.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:298; 13.2.28.

Nor if the defect of its application does not happen by the fault of Christ, but accidentally (viz., by the wickedness and unbelief of men), does it cease to be less injurious to the honor of Christ; as if he either could not foreknow or could not remove those impediments which obstruct the application of the salvation he obtained and thus make it fruitless

Turretin, Institutes, 2:467; 14.14.28.

XXVI. Although God offers the word to the reprobate for this end—that by their obstinacy they may be rendered inexcusable—he does not therefore offer it that they may reject it, for this is a sin which God neither intends nor does. Rather he offers it that the latent perversity of their hearts may be manifest (Lk. 2:35) and that by this rejection of the word (arising from man himself), he may have the occasion of displaying his justice in the infliction of punishment. Now although man could not receive the word without grace (which God does not will to bestow upon him), he must not therefore be considered as calling in order that he may reject him. Rejection does not follow of itself from the nature of calling, but accidentally from the depravity of the man himself. For although he could not receive the word without grace, still the rejection springs from no other source than his stubborn wickedness.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:510; 15.2.26.

XLVIII. Although the word is not sufficient for conversion without immediate grace, God cannot be therefore charged with employing insufficient means for producing the effect he intends, nor can sinners offer any pretext of an excuse. The word does not cease to be sufficient in its own order (to wit, on the part of the object). And if it remains inefficacious in the reprobate, that does not happen by itself from a defect in the word, but accidentally from the fault of man (which so far from excusing him, only aggravates his guilt the more).

Turretin, Institutes, 2:540; 15.4.48.

XXXIII. The word katergazesthai (used by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:17, speaking of the relation of afflictions to glory) does not properly denote efficiency and merit, but the way and the means, inasmuch as glory follows and obtains momentary affliction; as with the Greeks it is often the same as kratēsai (“to possess and to obtain”). The law is said “to work wrath” (katergazesthai, Rom. 4:15), not because it deserves or properly effects it, but because it follows the law accidentally on account of man’s transgression of it (Phil. 2:12). The same word denotes the desire to promote sanctification and by it to receive and obtain, but not to deserve salvation.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:720; 17.5.33.

7. Confusion.
XIV. (7) It is a calumny concerning the confusion and manifold disorders (ataxia) which are said to have sprung up in the world out of the Reformation. But neither ought this most false accusation to move us. Thus Elijah of old was accused of being a disturber of Israel (1 K. 18:17). And to the first Christians were imputed all the evils and calamities which happened to the Roman Empire. But as Elijah did not disturb Israel, nor was Christianity the cause of the miseries of the Empire, so neither can our religion (which agrees with that purer Christianity) be called the cause of the confusion which reigns in the world. It breathes nothing but peace and concord; believes that nothing is more dangerous and more to be avoided than confusion and anarchy; commends nothing more efficaciously than good order (eutaxian) and good laws. And if any confusion has arisen by its cause, it does not follow per se from its doctrine, but accidentally only on account of the contumacy and rebellion of men who, not able to bear that light, have endeavored to extinguish it in every way. Just as Christ professes, “I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword and fire” (Mt. 10:34).

Turretin, Institutes, 3:145; 18.15.14.

XV. The end of the sacraments is either proper or accidental. The proper is either principal or primary, or secondary and less principal. The principal is the confirmation of the covenant of grace and the sealing on the part of God of our union with Christ (promised in the covenant) and of all his benefits; and on our part the testification of our deep gratitude to God and of love towards our neighbor. The less principal is that they may be badges of a public profession and of divine worship by which they who belong to the visible church are distinguished from other assemblies. Hence it is evident how great is the philanthropy (philanthrōpia) of God, who, letting himself down as it were to us creeping upon the ground, wishes to seize not only our minds but also our external senses with the haste and admiration of his grace, inasmuch as he subjects it to the bodily senses, to the hearing in the spoken word, to the touch and sight in the sacraments. However, signs are wont to be employed in weightier things. For trivialities are not confirmed by signs, but when they are of great importance; as when princes are inaugurated, when marriages are entered into, when donations are made or other agreements, signs are wont to be employed to confirm these things which we wish to be best attested, that they may be known not only by reason, but also by sense. The accidental end is the just condemnation of the wicked and hypocrites abusing the sacraments, which end (accidental through the fault of men) does not overthrow the proper end. For Christ does not cease to be by himself the author of life and the bestower of it with respect to believers, although (by accident on account of the unbelief of men) he is the savor of death unto death and a stone of stumbling and of destruction with respect to hypocrites and unbelievers.

Turretin, Institutes, 3:341–342; 19.1.15.

Bio:  
Wiki

___________________________________

Notes:

1. Some have quoted the following part of Calvin’s Institutes to maintain that he denied the well-meant offer, or to argue that God, in sending the gospel to the non-elect or reprobates, only does so to harden them, or to increase their condemnation.

8. General and special calling [Matt. 22:2 ff.]
The statement of Christ “Many are called but few are chosen” [Matt. 22:14] is, in this manner, very badly understood. Nothing will be ambiguous if we hold fast to what ought to be clear from the foregoing: that there are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word—even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 974 (3.24.8).

Here is the fuller context:

8. General and special calling [Matt. 22:2 ff.] The statement of Christ “Many are called but few are chosen” [Matt. 22:14] is, in this manner, very badly understood. Nothing will be ambiguous if we hold fast to what ought to be clear from the foregoing: that there are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word—even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 974 (3.24.8).

Here is the Latin and French:

8. Illa Christi sententia (Matth. 22:14.) de multis vocatis, paucis autem electis, pessime in eum modum accipitur [vid. lib. 3. c. 2. s. 11. et 12.]. Nihil erit ambiguum si tenemus, quod debet ex superioribus liquere, duplicem esse vocationis speciem. Est enim universalis vocatio, qua per externam verbi praedicationem omnes pariter ad se invitat Deus: etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem, et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit. Est altera specialis, qua utplurimum solos fideles dignatur: dum interiori sui Spiritus illuminatione efficit, ut verbum praedicatum eorum cordibus insideat. Interdum tamen eos quoque facit participes, quos ad tempus duntaxat illuminat: deinde suae ingratitudinis merito deserit, et maiori percutit coecitate.

John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Berolini: Gustavum Eichler, 1834), 163.

8. Touchant de la sentence de Christ, que plusieurs sont appellez, et peu d’esleus (Matth. 22:14): il n’y aura nulle ambiguité, s’il nous souvient de ce qui nous doit estre assez liquide, assavoir qu’il y a double espece de vocation. Car il y a la vocation universelle, qui gist en la predication exterieure de l’Evangile, par laquelle le Seigneur invite à soy tous hommes indifferemment: voire mesme ceux ausquels il la propose en odeur de mort, et pour matiere de plus grieve condamnation. Il y en a une autre speciale, de laquelle il ne fait quasi que les fideles participans, quand par la lumiere interieure de son Esprit il fait que la doctrine soit enracinée en leurs cœurs; combien qu’aucunesfois il use aussi d’une telle vocation envers ceux qu’il illumine pour un temps: et puis apres, à cause de leur ingratitude, il les delaisse et jette en plus grand aveuglement.

Jean Calvin, Institution de La Religion Chrétienne (Genève: E. Beroud & C., 1888), 451.

Here is a textual parallel:

Here are my comments with respect to this particular passage and its coherence with the rest of what Calvin said in the main part of this post:

Explanation:

The crucial thing to observe in this portion from Calvin’s Institutes here (3.24.8) is the line “even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation” (Latin: etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem, et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit; French: mesme ceux ausquels il la propose en odeur de mort, et pour matiere de plus grieve condamnation). The word “occasion” (L. materiam; F. matiere) in both the Allen and Battles versions,  and also translated as “matter of more grievous condemnation” (Norton; McKee). “ground of a severer condemnation” (Beveridge), and “justification for heavier condemnation” (White), should clue the reader to investigate Calvin’s usage of that word, as well as the usage of that word and idea among Calvin’s contemporaries and successors in Reformed thought (see the quotes above). When one does that, they will see that it refers to the per accidens idea. One example is when Calvin wrote: “The Gospel is preached for salvation: this is what properly belongs to it; but believers alone are partakers of that salvation. In the mean time, its being an occasion of condemnation to unbelievers—that arises from their own fault” (John Calvin, “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. J. Pringle, 22 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 20:161; 2 Cor. 2:15; emphasis mine). Trail’s translation in the Torrance edition (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 10:35), like Pringle, also has “occasion.” A few lines later Calvin tells us to keep his distinction in mind: “We must always, therefore, distinguish between the proper office [proprium officium] of the Gospel, and the accidental one (so to speak) which must be imputed to the depravity of mankind, to which it is owing, that life to them is turned into death” (ibid.; emphasis mine). Calvin explicitly linked “occasion” with “accidental” causes (ab accidenti). Many other examples of this connection could be given of his usage of the terms this way (which, again, see the quotations above). But, returning to the immediate context of Institutes 3.24.8, Calvin went on to say, “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” This was part is usually omitted, as in the original quote given, yet it is important. God is holding “it out as a savor of death” to this group this way “on account of their ungratefulness,” but that is not the gospel’s “proper office,” as Calvin described it elsewhere. That the gospel is consequently used by God as an “occasion” for the greater condemnation of the “ungrateful” does not undermine the “proper office of the gospel,” or that it is “preached for salvation” and for the good of all those that hear it. There is no contradiction, according to Calvin’s view, so long as one engages in the per accidens “distinction” Calvin advised people to make.

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on Reprobation and the Loving Heart of God

Consider, 1. That the simple act of reprobation, it is a leaving or passing by, not a cursing of the creature.

Consider, 2. Neither doth this act alienate the heart of God from the reprobate, nor tie him up from loving, favouring, or blessing of him; no, not from blessing of him with the gift of Christ, of faith, of hope, and many other benefits. It only denieth them that benefit, that will infallibly bring them to eternal life, and that in despite of all opposition; it only denieth so to bless them as the elect themselves are blessed. Abraham loved all the children he had by all his wives, and gave them portions also; but his choice blessing, as the fruit of his chiefest love, he reserved for chosen Isaac. Gen. xxv. 5, 6.

John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Whole Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (1875; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:338.

Bio:  

Wiki

Note: The Reformed scholastics generally distinguish between preterition and pre-damnation in God’s eternal decree touching the non-elect. By the term “reprobation” above, Bunyan clearly has in mind the notion of simple preterition (negative reprobation), or the divine decree not to grant certain blessings, such as faith, to the non-elect. He’s not dealing with God’s purpose to give the non-elect over to damnation on account of sin (i.e. pre-damnation). Pre-damnation is always on account of sin (even in William Twisse’s supralapsarian construct), and so is conditional, but preterition is unconditional, and is therefore a simple passing-by.

Update (re: predamnation and Twisse):

Notice what Nicholas Byfield (1579–1622) said about preterition and predamnation:

Fifthly, that whereas Divines make two parts of the decree of reprobation, Preterition and Predamnation; all Divines [even the supralapsarians] are agreed for the latter [predamnation], that God did never determine to damne any man for his owne pleasure, but the cause of his perdition was his owne sinne. And here is reason for it: for God may, to shew his soveraignty, annihilate his creature; but to appoint a reasonable creature to an estate of endlesse paine, without respect of his desert, cannot agree to the unspotted justice of God. And for the other part of passing over, and forsaking a great part of men for the glory of his justice, the exactest Divines doe not attribute that to the mere will of God, but hold that God did first looke upon those men as sinners, at least in the generall corruption brought in by the fall. For all men have sinned in Adam, and are guilty of high treason against God.

Nicholas Byfield, A Commentary Upon the First Three Chapters of the First Epistle General of St. Peter (London: Printed by Miles Flesher and Robert Young, 1637), 312.

Notice that Byfield says all divines are agree on the cause of predamnation being sin. They know that to say otherwise entails blasphemy, since it would be against God’s just nature. It is also worth noting that the terminology of “predamnation” (prædamnatio) is frequently used among the Reformed orthodox. It’s in Lucas Trelcatius, Franciscus Junius, Francis Turretin (Institutes, 1:381, 382, 389), Richard Stock, Edward Leigh, Nathanael Homes, Adam Martindale, Johannes Wollebius, Thomas Manton, James Ussher, George Newton, John Trapp, and Edward Polhill, just to name a few. William Cunningham noted that there are “two distinct acts, which Calvinistic theologians usually regard as included in what is commonly called the decree of reprobation, namely, first, praeteritio, or passing by, which is an act of sovereignty; and secondly, praedamnatio, which is a judicial act, described in the [Westminster] Confession as ‘ordaining them to dishonour and wrath for their sin’” (Historical Theology, 2:422–23). For more on this, it is worth consulting Donald W. Sinnema, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine (PhD diss. University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, 1985).

On a discussion board, someone has posted this quote from William Twisse, as if it is contrary to what I said:

In like sort, if I am demanded whether God did decree, of the mere pleasure of his will, to refuse to give grace and glory unto some, and to inflict upon them damnation. To this I cannot answer at once, there being a fallacy in the demand. But distinguish them: I answer and say, that, as touching the point of denying grace, God doth that of his mere pleasure; but as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure, but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency, and all the bitter fruits that shall proceed from them. So that reprobation, according to our tenet rightly stated, is the decree of God partly to deny unto some, and that of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, for the curing of that infidelity and hardness of heart, which is natural unto all, and partly to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin, to wit, in infidelity and impenitency, and all the fruits that proceed therehence.

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:5–6.

This quote actually substantiates my point about Twisse. Notice that, with respect to “denying grace,” i.e. negative reprobation, Twisse says this is of God’s mere pleasure. There is no cause in the creature that moves God either to elect some unto faith or to refuse others the grace of faith. However, “as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure [i.e. without a cause], but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency,” and all sin that proceeds from this. Twisse then distinguishes between senses of “reprobation” in the decree of God: 1) to deny unto some, of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, and 2) “to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin,” etc. 

The first sense is of God’s “mere pleasure,” or without a cause in the creature, but the second sense is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on account of sin in the creature. So, it is fair to say that, according to Twisse, the first sense, or negative reprobation, is unconditional (i.e. without a cause in the creature) and the second sense, or positive reprobation, is conditional (i.e. with a cause in the creature). As Twisse elsewhere said, “...God in this decree of condemnation hath alwayes the consideration of that sinne for which hee purposeth to damne them; for, undoubtedly, hee decrees to condemne no man but for sinne. It is impossible it should be otherwise; condemnation, in the notion thereof, formally including sinne” (A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof [London: Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646], 111; emphasis mine).

As Richard Muller has rightly noted, Twisse also distinguished between an unconditional election or predestination to faith and a conditional election or predestination to salvation. Zanchi and Bucer also made this distinction. Election to faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but election to salvation is through the instrumentality of faith and repentance, and so “conditional” in that instrumental sense, even though God grants the meeting of the condition in the elect. Corresponding to this in the case of the non-elect or reprobate, the denial of the grace of faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but the decree to damn is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on condition of final impenitence, infidelity, and all the sinful fruits that stem from unbelief.

Note what Twisse said:

In this respect of another will of God, I willingly confess, one may be accounted predestinate absolutely, and another reprobated absolutely, to wit, in respect of the will of giving the grace of faith and repentance unto one, and denying it to another [i.e. preterition, or negative reprobation]: And that because faith and repentance are not given and denied upon any condition, but absolutely, according to the mere pleasure of God; as we are ready to maintain. But herehence no species of contradiction arises, for like as it is not contradiction to say that God wills absolutely unto Paul the grace of faith and repentance, and conditionally wills unto him and everyone salvation, to wit, upon the condition of faith and repentance: In like sort, there is no contradiction to say that the same man predestinated absolutely unto faith, and conditionally unto salvation: In like sort it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith, and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation. And lastly, in like manner, there is no contradiction to say, that the same man is predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation; and yet absolutely reprobated from faith: especially seeing it is all one, to be predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation, and conditionally to obtain damnation: for he that is ordained to be saved in case he do believe, is therewithal ordained to be damned in case he believe not: The ground whereof is, that of our Savior “whosoever believes shall be saved, whosoever believes not shall be damned.” Now if God may both will unto a man salvation conditionally, to wit, upon the condition he believes, and yet withal will the denial of faith absolutely unto him, without all contradiction, (as I have already proven) it follows, that without contradiction, a man may be said both to be predestinated to obtain salvation conditionally, viz. In case he do believe, and so to be predestinated absolutely, to be hardened, or to have the grace of faith denied to him. So that this Author’s conclusion depends merely upon confusion of different denominations of a man said to be absolutely, or conditionally predestinated: which may be in respect of different things whereto he is predestinated, to the one absolutely, to the other conditionally, and consequently without all contradiction. For he that is absolutely reprobated from the grace of faith, may yet be conditionally predestinated unto salvation. For to be conditionally predestinated unto salvation, is to be conditionally predestinated unto damnation, and what sober man will say man will say, that there is any contradiction in this, to say that the same man is both conditionally reprobated unto damnation, and absolutely reprobated from faith. Faith being such a gift of God, that like as God absolutely bestows it on some, so as absolutely he denies it to others. But as for condemnation, that is inflicted on none but for sin, like as salvation is bestowed on none of ripe years, but as reward of obedience. In like manner, God decreed not either to bestow the one, or inflict the other but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other. Now if such confusion be committed in these denominations of the predestinate and reprobate, absolutely and conditionally, one the part of things willed by God, as namely in respect of grace and glory on the one side, and in respect of the denial of grace and glory, together with inflicting damnation on the other; How much more must this confusion be augmented, if not only different things willed by God (as before mentioned) are confounded, but over and above the act of God’s will is confounded with things willed by him. For as the act of God’s will, that it admits no condition, I have formerly demonstrated by diverse arguments…

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:176.

This represents what Twisse is saying above:

ELECT	NON-ELECT
Unconditionally predestined to faith.	Unconditionally denied the grace of faith.
Conditionally predestined to salvation.	Conditionally predestined to condemnation.

One can summarize Twisse’s view by saying, as Edwin H. Palmer said in his Twelve Theses on Reprobation, “Reprobation as preterition is unconditional, and as condemnation it is conditional” (The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972], 129).

Robert Reymond, a supralapsarian, said something similar:

And, while it is true that God’s determination to pass by the rest of mankind (this “passing by” is designated “preterition” from the Latin praeteritio) was grounded solely in the unsearchable counsel of his own will, his determination to ordain those whom he had determined to pass by to dishonor and wrath (condemnation) took into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.

Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 345.

Twisse said:

For as for God’s purpose to damne, we willingly professe, that as God damnes no man but for sin, so he purposeth to damne no man but for sinne. But as for his purpose to give or deny the grace of regeneration, the grace of faith and repentance, we as readily profess, that not the purpose only, but the very giving of faith and repentance, for the curing of infidelity and hardnesse of heart in some, and the denying of it unto others, so to leave their naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart uncured, proceeds merely according to the good pleasure of his will, according to that of the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth; And by a cloud of testimonies out of Austin we can prove, that in this very sense he understood the Apostle in that place.

William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:109.

Commenting on supralapsarianism and Twisse’s view, John Gill said:

I answer, the Supralapsarians distinguish reprobation into negative and positive; negative reprobation is non-election, or preterition, a passing by of some, when others were chosen; the objects of this decree, are men considered as not yet created, and so neither wicked nor righteous. Positive reprobation is the decree of damnation, or that which appoints men to everlasting ruin, to which it appoints no man but for sin. It is therefore a most injurious representation of the Supralapsarians, that they assert that God has reprobated, that is, appointed innocent persons to eternal destruction; when they, over and over, say, as may easily be observed in the writings of that famous Supralapsarian, Dr. Twiss, that God has not decreed to damn any man, but for sin: and that the decree of reprobation is of no moment, or reason of nature, before, and without the consideration of sin. Now, if it is not incompatible with the justice of God, to damn men for sin, it can be no ways incompatible with his justice, to decree to damn men for sin.

John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 157.

We see in Twisse and others that God’s determination to damn is on account of their sin, or, as Reymond put it, positive reprobation takes “into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.” To say Twisse’s view is an “unconditional determination to damn men on account of sin” is incoherent, and not representative of Twisse’s thought. If God is taking into account men’s sin when he purposes to damn them, then that is clearly a condition in them, and so it is a conditional determination to damn men on account of sin. As Twisse said above, “God decreed not either to bestow the one [salvation], or inflict the other [damnation] but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other.” According to Twisse, “it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith [i.e. preterition], and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation.”

Paul N. Archbald’s Summary of Theodore Beza (1519–1605) on the Grace and Love of God

Beza also occasionally speaks in terms of what could be called common grace. He suggests that, in a sense, Christ died for the wicked, because all things were created by the Father in the Son (1 Corinthians 15:22). The wicked therefore receive life and blessing, but all this turns to a curse for them. Only those grafted into Christ are made partakers of His resurrection-life.⁶⁶ Beza rejects the idea that the incarnation made all without exception members of Christ. Union with Christ applies to the church alone. It is by covenant, not by nature.⁶⁷

It is still possible, however, to speak of a universal love of God. At Montbéliard, Andreae asked if God has ever loved those who are now damned, or will be. Beza replied with Augustine’s distinction that God both hates and loves at the same time. He loves what He has created, and He loves His ordaining of human beings as vessels for some use or other. He hates the sinful works of men, the ungodliness which He Himself did not make. God, “in that He makes vessels of perdition of the mass of the lost, does not hate what He does.”⁶⁸
_______________
66. Questions, 21a–22.
67. Ibid., 36–36a.
68. Coll. Mont., 212–213. [“...Deum odisse simul & amare homines: amare videlicet homines quatenus sunt opus suum, odisse vero in hominibus opera hominis, id est peccata...]

Paul N. Archbald, A Comparative Study of John Calvin and Theodore Beza on the Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 294–295. See also pp. 222–223. William Strong (d.1654), the Westminster divine, also said Beza taught God’s “common love” for all creatures as such, along with Calvin.

Beza wrote:

But lest thou exclaim that I do wrangle, I confess that the Lord doth do[?] an incredible favor and leniency, even towards the vessels of wrath, ordained to destruction. When is it that he should not destroy Cain by and by? Whence is it that he should protract the flood so many years? Whence is it that he should bless Esau with the plentifulness of the earth? That Ishmael should grow to a great kindred? That he should suffer the Caananites and the Amalachites so long? That he should not take away Saul by and by, but suffer him so long to enjoy the benefit of this life, and also the renown and benefits of the Kingdom of Israel? Finally, that we prosecute antiquities, whence is it that he so nourisheth, and so favorably suffereth so many wicked Turkes, such tyranny of Antichrist, and finally thyself with so many false Prophets, who cease not to seduce whomsoever they may from God's truth. Great, yea great and incomprehensible is this goodness of God towards his enemies, which would God they could once acknowledge, whosoever are elect among them, and be not known, that they might at the last return to him, who truly showeth himself favorable, and slow to wrath even to his adversaries.

Theodore Beza, An Evident Display of Popish Practices, or Patched Pelagianism, trans. William Hopkinson (London: Imprinted by Ralph Newberie, and Henry Bynnyman, 1578), 62–63. In the “benefits” that God gives the vessels of wrath who are “ordained to destruction,” He is being “good” to them, “blessing” them, and showing Himself “favorable” to them. This backs up Archbald’s claim above that “Beza also occasionally speaks in terms of what could be called common grace.”

Jeremiah Burroughs (c.1600–1646) on Hosea 11:4 and the Difference in the Love of God

Again, He loves thee with the very same Love wherewith he loves Jesus Christ himself; In John 17, about the latter end, That thou mayest love them with the same Love wherewith thou hast loved me, saith Christ to the Father. Oh! to have the same Love that the Father loves Christ withal, Is not this a strong Bond to bind thy heart to God? If God had loved thee only so, as to give thee an estate and honors here in this world, this is no other love but that the Reprobate may have, and will this Love satisfy thee? Oh! the difference between the Love of God to his Saints, and the Love of God to other men! he loves the great ones of the world that are wicked with no other love, but with the love that he loves a Reprobate; but he loves the Saints with the same Love wherewith he loves his Son, and this Love will bring thee one day, to be one with the Father and the Son, and is not here a strong Bond of Love to gain thy heart to Himself?

Jeremiah Burroughs, An Exposition with Practical Observations Continued Upon the Eleventh, Twelfth & Thirteenth Chapters of the Prophesy of Hosea (London: Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange, 1651), 82–83. Some spelling updated.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Malcolm Watts on “The Necessity and Justification for the Free Offer of the Gospel”

From The Sword & Trowel 2009, issue 1 by Malcolm Watts (pdf)

Rowland Hill once visited Bristol to preach the Gospel, commencing his series of sermons on the eve of Bristol Fair. His text was Isaiah 55.1 – ‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’ His opening words were: ‘My dear hearers, I guess many of you have come to attend Bristol Fair. So have I. You do not mean to show your goods until tomorrow; but I shall exhibit mine tonight. You are afraid purchasers will not come up to your prices; but I am afraid my buyers will not come down to mine; for mine [striking his hand on the Bible] are “without money and without price”.’

The subject of this article is the theological basis of the Gospel offer. The word ‘offer’ is derived from the Latin offerre which literally means ‘to bring to’, for acceptance or rejection. In Freund’s Latin Dictionary, the meaning of offerre is said to be ‘to bring before’, ‘to present’, ‘to offer’. The following example is given of its usage in Latin: ‘a good opportunity presented itself to me.’ Clearly, the thought is not that an opportunity was merely exhibited, but that it was there for the taking.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘offer’ as ‘a holding forth or presenting for acceptance; an expression of intention or willingness to give or do something conditionally on the assent of the person addressed; a proposal.’ An example is given illustrating the use of the word in the 17th century: ‘If any of his subjects hath any precious stone of value, and make not him the offer of it, it is death to him.’

Tender of a Benefit

Both the original Latin word and the derived English word mean the same thing: a proposal, or tender of a benefit. John Calvin repeatedly uses the word in this sense. In his comment on Luke 2.10 he writes: ‘At the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.’

On Romans 1.16 Calvin says: ‘Since, then, the Gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that which is lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall find him a Judge.’ His use of the term undoubtedly includes the thought of something being presented to the sinner for acceptance or rejection.

The term also appears in the famous Canons of Dort in 1618. The third and fourth heads of doctrine, articles 8 and 9, state: ‘That many who are called by the ministry of the Gospel do not come and are not converted is not the fault of the Gospel, nor of the Christ offered by the Gospel . . . ’

Here, once again, offer means more than presentation or exhibition. It means a proposal – a proposal which some evidently refuse. In complete accord with Calvin and the Canons of Dort, the Westminster doctrinal standards of 1646 make free use of the word ‘offer’, notably in chapter 7 section 3 of the Confession, where we read: ‘He [God] freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.’ Such an offer is addressed to sinners universally and indiscriminately, as truly to those who reject it as to those who receive it.

The Westminster Larger Catechism uses the term twice. In Question and Answer 32, we read: ‘He [God] freely provideth, and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith.’ Again, in Question and Answer 67, the elect are said to be ‘made willing and able, freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.’ The Shorter Catechism, in Question and Answer 31, speaks of ‘Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel,’ and in Question and Answer 86, faith is defined as ‘a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the Gospel.’

Turning to God’s Word, we should take account of those scriptures which unmistakably teach a general offer:

Psalm 34.8: ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.’

Proverbs 1.24: ‘I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded.’

Isaiah 55.1: ‘Come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’

Isaiah 65.1-2: ‘I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people.’

Matthew 22.2-3: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.’

Matthew 23.37: ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’

Luke 14.16-18: ‘A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse.’

John 3.16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’

John 6.32: [Addressed indiscriminately to those who were gathered around him] ‘My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.’

Romans 10.13: ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Revelation 22.17: ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’

It is important for us to establish that we are not basing our doctrine upon a few isolated texts. Be assured that these verses are but a sample of the scriptures which could be quoted in support of a free, open, and general offer of the Gospel.

‘Good News’ to All

Let us now examine the doctrine of the offer. Our word Gospel is compounded of two Anglo-Saxon words: god which means good, and spell which means message – good message. It corresponds to the Greek word, which it translates – euangelion – meaning good news. The Gospel is good news from Heaven of a Saviour in Jesus Christ.

The ‘protevangel’, or ‘first gospel’, preached to Adam, was the announcement of a Redeemer (Genesis 3.15). As preached to Abraham, it was simply the expansion of the original promise, and concerned the ‘seed’ in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed. In the New Testament it is more fully revealed but essentially the same. The Gospel is not the whole revelation of the Word of God, but is that part of the Word which concentrates upon the good news of Jesus Christ, the Saviour (Acts 13.38 – ‘through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins’).

It is all perfectly summed up for us in Luke 2.10 – ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.’ Now, I ask, how can the Gospel be good news to all people if it merely declares the facts that God loves his elect, that Christ has secured them by purchase, and that the Holy Spirit will irresistibly call them to faith and salvation? That is how some define the Gospel. But thus understood, can it ever be good news to all people? Surely there is another and more consistent interpretation. I believe there is.

First of all, the Gospel is good news to all because it declares that Christ has been constituted the official ‘Saviour of the world’. ‘We have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world’ (John 4.42). This is repeated in similar words in 1 John 4.14.

Thomas Boston comments most helpfully on this: ‘Like as a prince, out of regard to his subjects’ welfare, gives a commission to a qualified person to be physician to such a society, a regiment, or the like, and the prince’s commission constitutes him physician of that society, so that though many of them should never employ him, but call other physicians, yet still there is a relation between him and them; he is their physician by office; any of them may come to him and be healed.’

This is the sense in which Christ may be said to be everybody’s Saviour and this is why it is lawful for all to apply to him for salvation. He has been given to people without restriction and without reservation. ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.’ The gift is general; as in John 6.31-33: ‘My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.’ Christ was speaking there to a mixed congregation, many of whom remained in unbelief. Yet he declares that in a way he was given to them all. How? As the manna was once given, by way of a common and indefinite grant. This being so, all may take and apply Christ for the salvation of their own souls. Expressed in another way, Christ is commissioned to save sinners, and this general truth encourages a person to appropriate and apply Christ, even though he reckons himself, along with Paul, the chief of sinners.

Secondly, the Gospel is good news to all people because it brings the Saviour and salvation within everyone’s reach. Titus 2.11 reads: ‘The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,’ or, as the margin has it, ‘the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared.’ Dr Fairbairn comments: ‘In a word, the salvation-bringing grace of God is without respect of persons; it is unfolded indiscriminately, or to sinners of every name, simply as such.’ When this salvation is brought to all who hear, for acceptance, it is what Scripture calls ‘the common salvation’ (Jude 3).

Thirdly, the Gospel is good news to all people because it gives a ground for claiming possession of Christ and all his benefits. No less is promised to all who will believe; and the promise is the sinner’s legal warrant for receiving and resting upon the Lord Jesus for a full salvation. ‘Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God!’ (Isaiah 40.9.) ‘Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come’ (Isaiah 45.24). We conclude therefore that faith receives Christ as he is offered to us in the Gospel. ‘So we preach, and so ye believed’ (1 Corinthians 15.11).

‘To Every Creature’

This is the Gospel which must be proclaimed throughout the whole world. Christ says in Mark 16.15- ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ In our evangelism and Gospel services, it is the good news which must be preached, not Hodge’s, Dabney’s or Berkhof’s systematic theology! And it must be sincerely, warmly and freely preached to every soul.

Isaac Watts wrote, ‘None of the sons or daughters of Adam the sinner are excluded from this salvation when the Gospel is preached, but those who exclude themselves by stubbornness and unbelief.’ In view of that, let the good news be proclaimed world-wide, and let Christ be tendered to all. God does not name certain sinners as if some only are warranted to believe. He gives to every hearer an all-sufficient ground for believing.

Does this surprise you? My friends, the law does not name people. It speaks in general terms, commanding obedience and condemning disobedience. And the Gospel speaks likewise, not naming some as if they only may believe. In fact, the Gospel goes out to all, addressing ‘whosoever will’.

Preaching once upon the words, ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Romans 10.13), John Berridge told his congregation: ‘I would much rather it be written, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” – than, “If John Berridge shall call on the name of the Lord he shall be saved;” because how do I know that there might not be another John Berridge in the world to whom those words are addressed? But when I read “whosoever shall call . . .  ”, I know I must be included.’

All to be Called

Ministers are told to invite as many as they find (Matthew 22.9), even the most unlikely, described in Luke 14 as the maimed and the halt and the blind. According to Isaiah 55.6-7, the wicked must be called and offered God’s abundant pardon. In declaring such offers, we do well to remember the promise which Christ has given: ‘Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out’ (John 6.37). In view of that, we may rest assured that no sinner will ever perish at his door.

Yet, some insist that there are qualifications restricting the offer of the Gospel. We must reply carefully, making some important distinctions. It is perfectly true that the Holy Spirit, through what theologians call ‘a law work’, convinces men and women of their sins (John 16.8), and it is also true that until thus convinced no one will turn to Christ and believe in him. However, that deep, heartfelt sense of sin does not give the sinner any warrant to believe, or right to the Saviour: it simply moves him to take up the warrant and right which he – and every sinner – has in the Gospel’s gracious and free invitation. In the Parable of the Supper, for example, those first invited (and they were invited) made excuse and refused to come, whereas it turned out that the poor and the needy responded at once (Luke 14.16-24). Similarly, when Peter preached the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost, it was by way of a general invitation and offer (‘whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved’, Acts 2.21), but the fact is – and it is plainly stated – that those ‘pricked in their heart’ were brought to respond believingly 2.37-41).

Make no mistake about it: the Gospel is God’s sincere and earnest offer of Jesus Christ, in his person, offices, and benefits. We do well to observe that there are many Gospel invitations which do not even mention the sinner’s state, let alone any qualifications. This is true of John 6.37. Nothing is said here about a required condition or preparation. Romans 10.13 is equally unconditional. There is no justification for restricting and narrowing the whosoever when the Gospel is preached. Paul did not do that, and, as we have seen, neither did Peter, when he declared – ‘Whosoever shall call . . . shall be saved.’ And it is surely of the utmost significance that there is no qualification in the Bible’s final overture to unbelieving men and women – ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22.17). True, only convinced sinners will come to Christ, but Thomas Bell is absolutely right when he says: ‘The offer is clogged with no exceptions, no conditions.’

We freely concede that there are passages in which the Lord appears to invite sinners of a particular kind. A well-known example is Matthew 11.28 – ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ But why do some assume that spiritual qualifications are in view there? The terms could simply be descriptive of a carnal state. Thomas Boston makes the point that all people labour in a sense, as we read in Ecclesiastes 1.8 – ‘All things are full of labour’ – and he also draws attention to Isaiah 1.4, where we read of men and women ‘laden with iniquity’. Understood in the light of such scriptures, Matthew 11.28 is the calling of sinners as sinners – without further restriction – to mercy, pardon and peace.

This also seems to be the case in Isaiah 55. Some make a great deal of the fact that it is ‘every one that thirsteth’ who is called to come. Here, they say, is a required and an essential qualification or preparation. But, again, we must ask, what is this thirst? It can hardly be the ‘spiritual thirst’ of so-called ‘sensible sinners’. The very next verse complains that they are not thirsting after Christ, but spending their money for that which is not bread, and labouring for that which does not satisfy. In other words, their desires are wholly carnal, but notwithstanding they are invited to come.

Even if it could be shown that, in such places, spiritual characteristics are intended, it would only mean that certain kinds of sinners (those particularly specified) are included in the Gospel invitation. It might even further suggest that particular kindness will be shown to those who have experienced the humbling work of the law, who are broken, and who are in real spiritual need. Let them come, however despairing and however hopeless they may feel. Indeed, we may be assured by such texts that they are especially welcome.

The overriding point, however, is that many scriptural offers have no limitation at all. The state of men and women upon the reception of the Gospel is sinful. Christ said he had come, not to call the righteous, but to call sinners (Matthew 9.13). This means that he did not come to call the half-sanctified, who fully appreciate the gravity of their sinful condition and who realize the all-surpassing worth of Christ. He came to call sinners: sinners in all their sin, sinners destitute of grace, and sinners who have nothing whatsoever to commend them to God.

It would be fatal to err at this point. The Gospel is for the ungodly (Romans 4.5), not for the half-godly. Sinners must not be misled into thinking that they need qualifying traits. If they are, they will end up bitterly disappointed, for the rich he sends empty away (Luke 1.53). It is far, far better to say with Luther:

‘Most gracious Jesus and sweet Christ, I am a miserable poor sinner and therefore do judge myself unworthy of grace; but yet I, having learned from thy Word that thy salvation belongs to such an one, therefore do I come unto thee to claim that right which, through thy gracious promise, belongs to me.’

The Warrant for Faith

At this point we must underline and amplify the fact that the Gospel alone provides the warrant and authorization for faith. Mark 16.15-16 reads – ‘Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth . . . shall be saved.’ It is on the basis of the Gospel that people believe, not on the ground of inward evidence or inwrought persuasion. 1 Timothy 1.15 calls the Gospel – ‘a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation’, meaning that such is the Gospel revelation that all people may and ought to believe. Ephesians 1.13 says – ‘In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth.’ Again, it is the word of truth which gives us the ground for our trusting in Christ. In plain terms then, the Gospel offer is the warrant for faith.

In 1 John 5.11 we read – ‘This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.’ The sum of God’s testimony is that he has made available to sinners a full and free gift of life in Christ. This gift is not a gift in possession, but a gift in offer, for as the previous verse speaks of the possibility of rejecting the testimony, the verse following speaks of the possibility of rejecting the proffered gift.

God has laid in the record of the Gospel a firm foundation for the faith of sinners. They have his own warrant and therefore a perfect right to receive the Lord Jesus, in all his grace and fullness, for their salvation. Fisher’s Catechism asks: ‘What is the ministerial offer?’ It answers: ‘It is the publishing or proclaiming of Heaven’s gift, or grant, to sinners of mankind, without exception, as the foundation of their faith, or warrant to believe (1 John 5.11).’

This fact may be demonstrated, firstly, by the need of such a warrant. If there was no Gospel offer, what would faith be? At best, it would be presumption; at worst, plain robbery. Faith is receiving Christ, but no person can receive anything unless it is first offered to him as a gift (John 3.27; 4.10). Christ is given in the Gospel, and faith receives and rests on him alone. So the very way faith is described – as ‘reception’ – indicates that a gift has been tendered.

That the Gospel offer is the ground for believing may also be demonstrated from the fact that, in Scripture, the rejection of Christ is regarded as a dreadful sin. In John 3.18-19, for example, the unbeliever is condemned as a sinner. But rejection of Christ can only be a sin if it is contrary to God’s revealed design. It can never be a sin to refuse something which is not genuinely and authoritatively offered. But unbelief is a sin, and a sin of the first order, because it rejects the proposal of God almighty.

One further argument for demonstrating that the offer of the Gospel is the warrant of faith is the fact that God is so angry with those who refuse to hear and respond. This is brought out very clearly in Luke 14 – the parable of the man who provided a supper and invited many people to it. When they refused, we read that he became angry. Why was that? It was because in the generosity of his heart he had freely offered his provisions and the response had been indifference and ingratitude. Similarly, God is angry when, after giving sinners express warrant and every encouragement, they still refuse to come and avail themselves of his blessings. His offers are sincere and people are meant to accept them. He is provoked when they do not.

Other Warrants?

I am aware that there are those who make something else the warrant of faith. Some evangelical Calvinists believe the warrant of faith lies in ‘the name of God’. What they mean by that is the revelation of God’s nature, as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. Since God has manifested himself in Christ as a God of love, there is every reason to believe – or so it is argued – that Christ is ready to save and give eternal life to sinners. Appeal is made to such scriptures as Psalm 9.10 and 36.7. There is certainly encouragement to the sinner in God’s self-disclosure but, in and of itself, it is not the warrant.

Others see ‘common grace’ as the warrant. Observing that there is a divine benevolence towards Adam’s entire race, and that the Lord seems to take pleasure in the well-being of all (Psalm 145.9), they find ground to believe that God desires men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4). In the faith of that, sinners are urged to turn to God for pardon. Ezekiel 18.32 is often quoted as a supporting text – ‘I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.’ We are far from denying common grace, and, again, it comforts sinners and gives them hope, but, on its own, it does not provide the clear warrant they need.

Still others find the warrant of faith in ‘the sufficiency of the atonement’. They rightly stress the glorious, infinite, all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, declaring it to be of such intrinsic worth that it is more than adequate ground for the salvation of all who rely upon it (which is not to deny, of course, that it had a very definite, limited design: the saving of God’s elect). Verses like Psalm 130.7 refer to ‘plenteous redemption’ and John 6.35 clearly teaches that a crucified Christ could give life to the whole world of mankind. Therefore, as one theologian [John Lafayette Girardeau] states it, ‘Men are invited to stand on a platform which is broad enough to hold them all, to rest upon a foundation which is strong enough to support them all, to partake of provisions which are abundant enough to supply them all . . . Were they all to accept the invitation, they would all be saved. So much for the intrinsic sufficiency of the remedy for human sin.’ The appropriate means of salvation having been provided, the sinner is invited on that basis – ‘All things are ready: come . . . ’ (Matthew 22.4). We agree wholeheartedly with Dr Robert S. Candlish that ‘to every one who hears the Gospel, assurance is given of the full and infinite sufficiency of Christ’s work for any, and for all, who will come to him. The dignity of his person, the merit of his obedience, and the value of his death, as a propitiation, secure this’, but the sinner needs more, even the warrant actually to come and avail himself of Christ’s full salvation.

I am impressed with these grounds, but I do not believe that any of them provides the sinner with exactly what he needs. Let me explain what I mean in the following illustration.

A friend says to me, ‘The Queen is an extremely kind woman.’ I say, ‘I believe you.’ My friend then says, ‘She is also known to be generous to many.’ I reply, ‘I am fully aware of that.’ ‘But there is something else,’ adds my friend, ‘the wealth of her palace would be sufficient to supply all your needs for the rest of your life!’ To this I respond by saying, ‘I have not the least doubt about that.’ Now, although I believe all this, do these things entitle me to walk through the gates of Buckingham Palace and take anything and everything that I want? No, they certainly do not! If I would have the liberty to do that, I must have nothing more or less than the invitation of Her Majesty, the Queen. And, my friends, God’s invitation – or offer – in the Gospel is what I must have if I would come and take Christ and all his saving benefits.

The warrant for faith, then, is the Gospel offer. We do not need to go beyond it, nor do we need to resort to sophisticated arguments which sometimes compromise the doctrines of grace. We have an infallible Word which wonderfully exhibits and tenders Christ to each and every one of us. It is enough, friends. It is enough – and more than enough. A sinner may confidently draw near to the Saviour, saying:

Jesus, I do trust thee,
Trust without a doubt;
Whosoever cometh,
Thou wilt not cast out:
Faithful is thy promise,
Precious is thy blood:
These my soul’s salvation,
Thou my Saviour God!

In one of his sermons, Ralph Erskine asks the question, ‘How shall I know . . . whether I have a warrant to take and accept?’ He answers as follows: ‘You may be sure of this, if these two things concur, namely, if he be offering, and you be needing these things; if you want, and he have and be saying by this Gospel, Come and share.’

A Free Offer

What a Gospel it is! Christ, his love, his pardon, his righteousness, his Spirit, his holiness, his strength and his fullness, are all offered to poor, miserable sinners. How is he offered? He is offered freely! ‘Let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22.17). Nothing must interfere with this freeness.

Beware of giving the impression that people can buy anything in the Gospel market. God’s gifts are bestowed ‘without money and without price’. It is foolish and utterly pointless to try to bargain on the basis of your good works, your spiritual exercises, or your heart preparations. Freely you must receive.

He is offered wholly! He is made over to us in all his names, titles, offices, relations and benefits. ‘Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Corinthians 1.30). There is absolutely nothing in Jesus which a believer will ever lack. ‘Ye are complete in him’ (Colossians 2.10).

He is offered particularly! A general offer would not help us. We need to be persuaded that Christ is able and willing to save us. ‘To you is the word of this salvation sent’ (Acts 13.26). As Ebenezer Erskine observes, ‘Faith, which is the echo of the Gospel offer and call, must needs receive an offered Christ and salvation, with particular application to the soul itself. For a person to rest in a general persuasion that Christ is offered to the Church, or offered to the elect, or a persuasion of God’s ability and readiness to save all that come to Christ, is still but a general faith, and what devils, reprobates and hypocrites may have.’

He is offered sincerely! In the Gospel God says what he means and he means what he says. His heart is in his offer. ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not’ (Matthew 23.37).

He is offered repeatedly! As a friend who longs for reconciliation and love, God says: ‘All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people’ (Romans 10.21).

He is offered pressingly! It is ‘as though God did beseech you by us’ (2 Corinthians 5.20). God beseeches, or entreats, and his ministers pray or plead with sinners to accept the reconciliation God has provided. In fact, ministers are told to compel people: that is, to press and constrain them (Luke 14.23). Such words suggest a most urgent appeal.

He is offered lovingly! God’s strong affections make great stirrings in his heart, and all his desires go out to sinners when he calls them through the Gospel. ‘Mine heart is turned within me’, he says. He yearns for them, and his Gospel becomes ‘the word of his grace’ (Acts 20.32).

Now, it is essential for such an offer to be made if sinners are to turn to Christ, because if the offer is not preached, sinners are denied the warrant which they need. They must be told that they have God’s permission and his invitation. If we fail to preach the offer, the danger is that we shall make the warrant some inward qualification or impression. This may be a conviction of the Truth, a sense of wretchedness, a desire for Christ, a feeling that we are elect and redeemed, a hope of mercy, a disposition to hear more, or a quickening and stirring in our hearts.

But, neither separately nor together do these things constitute an adequate warrant for faith. Why is this?

First of all, it is because the entire ground is subjective. All is made to depend upon feeling, which could be here today (giving assurance) and gone tomorrow (throwing the individual into despair). The heart is deceitful.

Secondly, it is because there can be no evidence of faith where there is no presence of faith. According to Scripture, sanctification does not precede believing. It is faith which purifies the heart (Acts 15.9).

Thirdly, it is because grounding the warrant of faith on inward impressions overthrows the order of grace. Although divine election is before faith, only after faith do people know their election. It is genuine, saving faith which marks people out as the objects of God’s loving choice. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ (Acts 13.48).

The tragedy is that reliance on inward impressions, so productive of doubt and fear, actually hinders people from coming to Christ. It is a real stumbling-block. God forbid that any of us should be responsible for throwing such obstacles before sinners. Our mandate is clear: ‘Prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones’ (Isaiah 62.10).

The Lord is far kinder than we think. He genuinely grieves when people will not come to him. ‘Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life’ (John 5.40). The last thing he wants is to keep himself apart from the sinner. But the doctrine of qualifications and impressions tends only to do that. It makes people believe that the Gospel is only for ‘sensible sinners’ and, as a result, many spend their lives wondering whether their senses have been sufficiently exercised and whether they have known the correct impressions.

A brief comment must be made on how the doctrine of particular redemption relates to the free offer of the Gospel. The Gospel offer is the setting forth of Christ as the only Saviour given to sinners, with the invitation that if people take him as their refuge, they shall be saved. Now, in this offer, Christ is revealed as having died for all who place their trust in him, and it is asserted that all who do this shall be saved.

Professor W. G. T. Shedd remarks as follows: ‘The offer of the atonement is universal because, when God calls upon men universally to believe, he does not call upon them to believe that they are elected, or that Christ died for them in particular. He calls upon them to believe that Christ died for sin, for sinners, for the world; that there is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved; that the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin; and that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’

When the offer is accepted and we are conscious of having taken the Saviour as our hope and the only means of our salvation, we may then believe that, since Christ died for all who receive him, he died with the intention of saving us. Reformed theologians have carefully differentiated between these two acts of faith, calling the first direct and the second reflex or  . ‘The former is the act of faith, by which we fly to Christ as the only Saviour, cleave to him, and appropriate him to ourselves for salvation. The latter is the act by which, flying to Christ and resting on him, we trust that we have, and to eternity will have, communion with him in his death and benefits; and joyfully repose in the firm persuasion that he died for us, and by his death reconciled us to God’ (Professor Francis Turretin).

I would not be fettered when preaching the Gospel. I know from the clear testimony of the Scriptures that God has a people sovereignly elected by grace, who have been particularly redeemed by the Son, and who will be efficaciously called by the Spirit, but he commissions me, as a minister, to preach Christ and the overtures of grace to every soul of man, gladly proclaiming that all who turn to Jesus Christ and embrace his merit for salvation shall be granted the blessing of eternal life.

Come!

Vavasor Powell, the great 17th-century Baptist, wrote these words: ‘Prisoners, adjudged to die, and having pardons tendered to them, do not question whether those pardons were intended and granted for all in their condition; but they upon the first sight and hearing thereof, strive to grapple hard and to catch hold upon such a pardon: even so sinners, when pardon of sins and salvation in Christ are tendered and preached to them, they should, like Jacob, strive to have the blessing; or like the woman that strove for the child, they should cry, “It is my pardon, my pardon,” and not, “Is it for me? Is it for me?”

Christian friends, this is the preacher’s task. He enters the prison-house of humanity with a great handful of royal pardons and he is instructed of the King to give them to all who believe and apply for mercy. Let the preacher be uninhibited and unrestricted when making his proclamation. And let every willing sinner come to Christ with the assurance that no one who comes shall ever be refused. Let them come! Let them come!

Malcolm Watts, "The Necessity and Justification for the Free Offer of the Gospel," Sword & Trowel, No. 1 (June 2009).