William Ames (1576–1633) on Christ’s Love for the Human Race

For in this respect, Christ was a scandal to the Jews and folly to the Greeks [1 Cor. 1:23], but if we carefully and rightly weigh within ourselves that Christ suffered everything He suffered, not out of constraint or any other necessity or external force, but out of the obedience of love towards the human race so that He might exhibit to us the most perfect model of obedience in His own person, then whatever scandal or folly may be found in those sufferings is so far removed that nothing can be devised that may be more worthy of the Savior of the world.

William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, ed. R. Scott Clark, trans. Todd M. Rester, vol. 1 of Classic Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 82; Lord’s Day 15, Lesson 3.

Note: See also Lord’s Day 10, Lesson 1, Reason 2, as well as Lesson 3, Reasons 1, 2, and 5, where Ames said God has a “care for” all things he has made, and, insofar as his providence extends to all things, “God is in some sense also called the Father of all He has made.” Ames, A Sketch, 56, 58. For Ames’s affirmation of God’s beneficence [or merciful clemency, sparing patience, long-suffering, and kindness] toward all mankind, even on sinners, see William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (United Church Press, 1968; repr., Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1983), 118; Medulla theologica, 1.12.21–27: “27. Beneficence lies in his being so rich in goodness that he pours forth many good things even on sinners, Matt. 5:45.” Observe his proof-text, which is a text describing God’s love. Beneficence is good-giving love.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) on Common Grace

12. What is the relationship between the operations of common grace and the special grace of the Holy Spirit?

To understand correctly the difference between these two in connection with the preceding distinction, we must move out of the sphere of nature into the sphere of revelation. This revelation is itself the product of a wholly supernatural act of grace. The announcement of the truth of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit lie both beyond and above nature. At the same time, however, that truth is given in natural forms. It is expressed in words written with letters, words that can be heard by the natural ear and read by the natural eye. As we hope to see, it is not the most proper and highest end of the truth to accomplish its work outwardly in this way; rather, it reaches its proper goal only when an entirely supernatural work of the Holy Spirit accompanies it. That it works in this way as well, however, no one can doubt. The only question, though, is how? If it were simply directed to man and nothing more, this encounter would only result in opposition and reaction from a soul that is sinful and hostile to God. That this nevertheless does not occur, but that even in those who are not regenerate the moral power of the truth is manifested, shows that there is an accompanying working of God’s Spirit. That working of the Spirit is given to all in greater or lesser degree. It comes down, then, to separating it sharply from special grace, in which only the elect share. So that the distinction would already appear in the term, it has been called common grace, and what contrasts with it, special or particular grace. One further needs to give attention to making distinctions on the following points:

a) Common grace brings about no change in the nature of man as special grace does. Whatever may also be its external manifestations, it does not regenerate man.
b) A second distinction is connected with this. Common grace is also limited to making man receptive to the influence of the truth that works on him from his consciousness. It works persuasively, by offering motives to the will and by making use of inclinations that are already present, not by creating new habits in man. It can certainly bring the external good still present in man to development, but it cannot produce what is spiritually good from that. It can cause a seed of external righteousness to germinate, but it is not capable of implanting the seed of regeneration.
c) All that works in this manner can also be resisted. Since it is directed toward individual motives from outside, the possibility always exists that the unrenewed nature will overrule all these motives and render common grace powerless. It is otherwise with efficacious grace. It does not offer motives for doing good to a will that in its nature is evil, but transforms the will itself from the innermost recesses of its nature, not by countering it but by re-creating it. Hence, common grace is termed resistible; efficacious grace, with a somewhat oblique label, irresistible.

13. Does one sometimes also speak of “common grace” in a still broader sense?

Yes, one sometimes also applies the word to the restraining action of the Holy Spirit that, where revelation is not known, is joined with the natural knowledge of God and hinders the breaking out of sin in its most dreadful extremes.

14. From what may we discern in some measure what should be ascribed to the operation of this common grace?

We have seen in the doctrine of election that God’s Word rightly ascribes the hardening of sinners to the withdrawal of common grace. It calls this being given over to a perverse mind and shows from experience what dreadful dimensions sin assumes where this hardening sets in. On the other hand, it also describes for us the fate of the lost who are devoid of common grace. Consequently, everything that hinders the process of death that sin brings in producing the complete dissolution of moral and social life for the individual and for society is to be ascribed to gratia communis in the broadest sense of the word.

15. Can you show that Scripture teaches such an operation of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, it is said of the generation that lived before the flood that God’s Spirit contended with them and contended in vain, that the patience of God at the time of this contending held back His punishment, but that finally this operation of grace ceased since it was resisted and scorned (Gen 6:3; cf. 1 Pet 3:19–20; 4:6). Stephen cried out to the Jews, “You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). Also, Isaiah 63:10 mentions a grieving of the Holy Spirit.

16. How far can this common operation of the Holy Spirit go?

We must assume that it always remains distinguished specifically from regenerating grace. So, concerning the operation itself, one really cannot speak of it approaching the grace of regeneration. What lies between these two is not a gradual but a principial difference. Whatever else one may do to a dead person, one cannot say that actions are performed on him that bring him close to life. Since, however, the infusion of life eludes our sight and we can judge it only by its outward manifestation, so the possibility always continues to exist that common grace reveals itself in forms that are hardly to be distinguished from the actions of the regenerate. Temporary faith, of which Scripture speaks in very strong terms, must be counted among these cases. And often the sole criterion for recognition lies in the passing of time itself.

17. Are the effects of common grace divorced from any connection with regenerating grace, which works only in the elect?

No; if by common grace someone has received a certain measure of insight into the truth prior to his regeneration, be it then also in a nonsaving way, its fruits are not lost. When saving grace comes upon us, it imparts new worth to all the old that was already present with us earlier. It only must be maintained that it never is the old as such that continues to work after regeneration, but the old is placed in a new light and with completely new qualities. The knowledge of saving faith is very much connected with historical knowledge that someone gained prior to his regeneration, but it would still certainly be wrong to maintain that a regenerate person does not know, in his faith, in an essentially different way than the unregenerate person.

18. Has the doctrine of common grace also been misused?

Yes, some have wished to find in it a solution to the question why saving grace befalls only some and not all—in other words, an explanation of God’s sovereign election. Shedd says the following: “The nonelect receives common grace, and common grace would incline human will if it were not defeated by the human will. If the sinner should make no hostile opposition, common grace would be equivalent to saving grace. To say that common grace if not resisted by the sinner would be equivalent to regenerating grace is not the same as to say that common grace if assisted by the sinner would be equivalent to regenerating grace. In the first instance, God would be the sole author of regeneration; in the second He would not be.” Yet in another place he maintains, “Regeneration rests upon God’s election … upon special grace and not upon common grace.” Thus it is not very clear what he intends. If, of themselves, all sinners already resist common grace, then it makes no sense to say that it would regenerate them if they did not resist it, for nonresisting means the same as being no longer sinful. If, on the other hand, a sinner is able to resist and not resist common grace, and some are really in the latter category, then for them, according to this conception, regenerating grace becomes completely superfluous. Common grace should work on them and regenerate them. This idea is completely false. God’s election lies above every consideration of the use of common grace. One can only go this far: Those who resist common grace such that God withdraws it do not belong to the elect. They are then abandoned to the hardening from which salvation is no longer possible. On the other hand, it cannot be maintained that a good use of common grace always leads to receiving saving grace or is even a characteristic of election. Certainly in a negative sense, if someone resists common grace, then this is a bad sign. But we may not go further.

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 5 vols., ed. and trans. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 4:12–15.

Bio:

Wiki

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711) on the Love of God

The Love of God

Love is an essential attribute of God by which the Lord delights Himself in that which is good, it being well-pleasing to Him, and uniting Himself to it consistent with the nature of the object of His love. The love of God by definition is the loving God Himself, for which reason John states that “God is love” (1 John 4:8). When we view the love of God relative to its objects, however, several distinctions need to be made. We call this love natural when it refers to the manner in which God delights in Himself as the supreme manifestation of goodness. “For the Father loveth the Son” (John 5:20). We call this love volitional when it refers to the manner in which God delights in His creatures. And thus this love is either the love of benevolence or the love of His delight.

The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Psa. 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God’s eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence. This finds expression in the following texts, “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 3:16); “As Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).

The love of God’s delight has the elect as its object as they are viewed in Christ, being clothed with His satisfaction and holiness perfect and complete in Him (Col. 2:10); “According as he hath chosen us in Him … according to the good pleasure of His will … wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:4–6). This also applies to the believer in his present state, having the principle of holiness within him. “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me, and have believed that I came out from God” (John 16:27).

This love of benevolence precedes all good works of man, whereas the love of God’s delight concerns itself with men who presently either are partakers of or perform that which is good.

Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3 vols., ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 1:123–24.

Bio:
Wiki

David Clarkson (1622–1686) on God’s Common and Special Love

4. The love of Christ appears by what he has given us; his love-tokens. Whatever we have, for being or well-being, spring from his love. It is love that opens those infinite treasures of goodness, which had else been eternally locked up from the creatures. And though, in these showers of mercy, some drops fall upon the wicked, and so seem common, yet the fountain of love, from whence they issue, is not common. There is a vast difference betwixt the provision which a man makes for his wife, and for his servants. Every mercy we enjoy is a drop from the ocean of his special love. Let us ascend, by some degrees, to the height of this bounteous love.

David Clarkson, “The Love of Christ (Eph. 5:2),” in The Works of David Clarkson, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864), 3:8.

Quest. 1. Whether Christ’s love be universal, extended to all men; or particular, restrained to some?
Ans. No. The Scripture holds forth a restrained, a distinguishing love. The contrary opinion is against the stream of Scripture, and makes Christ’s love less endearing, less free, less engaging. The text evinces this; he loves only those who are washed in his blood; all are not washed; those who are made kings and priests, all are not such.
Besides, Christ only loves his own, John 13:1, those that are given him by his Father. All are not his; he knows his, and is known of them, John 10:14, 27; but some he professes he knows not, Luke 13:27. It is the church that he loves, Eph. 5:25; but all belong not to the church, the most are not in the church, the greatest part in it are not of it. He gives his life for those he loves, Eph. 5:2; but he lays not down his life for all. This act of love is restrained to those whom he calls his sheep, John 10:11. All are not sheep, for who are those that will be found at Christ’s left hand? Christ’s flock is a little flock; he intercedes for all whom he loves, John 16:26, 27, and 17:20. He prays not for all; there is a world that he prays not for, John 17:9; he expresses it when he loves, gives love-tokens; manifests himself, John 14:21–23, not to all, ver. 22, draws near them, abides with them, gives consolation, good hope, peace, 2 Thes. 2:16, victory, Rom. 8:37. The Lord hates some, Ps. 5:5, Hos. 9:15, Mal. 1:3. There is a common love, which bestows common favours, outward and spiritual; and a special love.

David Clarkson, “The Love of Christ (Eph. 5:2),” in The Works of David Clarkson, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864), 3:37.

See also David Clarkson on God’s Goodness and Love.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB