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.”

John Bunyan's (1628–1688) Evangelistic Appeal in His Preface to The Jerusalem Sinner Saved

"One reason which moved me to write and print this little book was, because, though there are many excellent heart-affecting discourses in the world that tend to convert the sinner, yet I had a desire to try this simple method of mine; wherefore I make bold thus to invite and encourage the worst to come to Christ for life.

I have been vile myself, but have obtained mercy; and I would have my companions in sin partake of mercy too: and, therefore, I have writ this little book.

The nation doth swarm with vile ones now, as ever it did since it was a nation. My little book, in some places, can scarce go from house to house, but it will find a suitable subject to spend itself upon. Now, since Christ Jesus is willing to save the vilest, why should they not, by name, be somewhat acquainted with it, and bid come to him under that name?

A great sinner, when converted, seems a booty to Jesus Christ; he gets by saving such an one; why then should both Jesus lose his glory and the sinner lose his soul at once, and that for want of an invitation?

I have found, through God's grace, good success in preaching upon this subject, and, perhaps, so I may by my writing upon it too. I have, as you see, let down this net for a draught. The Lord catch some great fishes by it, for the magnifying of his truth. There are some most vile in all men's eyes, and some are so in their own eyes too; but some have their paintings, to shroud their vileness under; yet they are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do; and for all these, God hath sent a Saviour, Jesus; and to all these the door is open.

Wherefore, prithee, profane man, give this little book the reading. Come; pardon, and a part in heaven and glory, cannot be hurtful to thee. Let not thy lusts and folly drive thee beyond  the door of mercy, since it is not locked nor bolted up against thee. Manasseh was a bad man, and Magdalene a bad woman, to say nothing of the thief upon the cross, or of the murderers of Christ; yet they obtained mercy; Christ willingly received them.

And dost thou think that those, once so bad, now they are in heaven, repent them there because they left their sins for Christ when they were in the world? I cannot believe, but that thou thinkest they have verily got the best on't. Why, sinner, do thou likewise. Christ, at heaven gates, says to thee, Come hither; and the devil, at the gates of hell, does call thee to come to him. Sinner, what sayest thou? Whither wilt thou go? Don't go into the fire; there thou wilt be burned! Don't let Jesus lose his longing, since it is for thy salvation, but come to him and live.

One word more, and so I have done. Sinner, here thou dost hear of love; prithee, do not provoke it, by turning it into wantonness. He that dies for slighting love, sinks deepest into hell, and will there be tormented by the rembrance of that evil, more than by the deepest cogitation of all his other sins. Take heed, therefore; do not make love thy tormentor, sinner. Farewell."

From John Bunyan's preface to "The Jerusalem Sinner Saved; Or, Good News for the Vilest of Men," in The Whole Works of John Bunyan, ed. by George Offor (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 1:68–69.

Bio:  

Wiki

The last paragraph seems to be echoed in Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), when he said (about the misery of the damned):

And all this will be aggravated by the remembrance, that God once loved us so as to give his Son to bring us to the happiness of his love, and tried all manner of means to persuade us to accept of his favor, which was obstinately refused.

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

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

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

Bio:  
Wiki

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

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

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

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

Bio:  
Wiki

Dr. Curt Daniel on Bunyan, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger and Two Reformed Confessions

John Bunyan (1628–1688) tended towards a more universal atonement. In his Reprobation Asserted, he argued that the atonement underlies the Gospel offer. Therefore, we preach to all because Christ died for all. If the atonement was limited to the elect alone, then the reprobate who hear and reject the Gospel deserve no extra punishment. Furthermore, if the atonement were limited, then no man could know that Christ had died for him and, consequently, saving faith could not contain the essential assurance that 'Christ died for me.'

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Springfield, Ill: Good Books, 2003), 76.

Luther and all Lutherans believed in universal atonement. There is no real disagreement on this. Also, all of the first-generation Reformed theologians taught universal atonement. This includes Zwingli, Bullinger, and the others. Universal atonement is explicitly taught in many of the earliest Calvinist confessions, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles.

Ibid., 77.

[John] Gill is strangely silent on the most prominent and respected Baptist of the Puritan era: John Bunyan. To our knowledge Gill does not make a single, even indirect, reference to Bunyan. There can only be one reason for this silence. In his later years Bunyan held to universal atonement. Whether he held it in earlier days is not known, but he clearly espoused this position in Reprobation Asserted. This would clearly signal a serious compromise in Gill’s eyes.

Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 47.

We have recently seen that James Swan thinks the same way about Luther, and that Dr. Richard Muller agrees with Daniel's historical assessment on Bullinger, Ursinus (an author of the Heidelberg Catechism), and John Bunyan.

Iain H. Murray on God’s Universal Love and Willingness to Save all Men

…there is a general proclamation of the love of God which comes to men in the preaching of the cross.

Iain H. Murray, “The Cross: The Pulpit of God's Love,” Banner of Truth 494 (November 2004): 8.

What but that same love can explain such words as, 'You will not come unto me that you might have life' (John 5:40)? Or the tears that accompanied, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!' (Luke 13:34; Matt. 23:37)? "Love towards all mankind in general', John Owen wrote, 'is enforced upon us by the example of Christ's own love and goodness, which are extended unto all.'¹⁹ And Owen encouraged his hearers to dwell on 'the love of Christ in his invitations of sinners to come unto him that they may be saved'.²⁰

Some have sought to escape from the force of Christ's example by referring it to his human nature and not to his divine! But, as R. L. Dabney²¹ comments: 'It would impress the common Christian mind with a most painful feeling to be thus seemingly taught that holy humanity is more generous and tender than God.'

Christ's example, that reveals the very character of God, remains the permanent standard for the church. The same love of which he spoke to Nicodemus, and which he showed to the multitude, lies in his command that 'repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke 24:47). And the apostles understood it when they preached indiscriminately to the Jerusalem sinners, who had rejected the Son of God, the astonishing news that God has sent Jesus 'to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts 3:26).²²

Universal gospel preaching is proof of the reality of universal divine love. It is the same love of which we read in Ezekiel 33:11: "'As I live,' saith the LORD God, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?'" When the Pharisees complained of Christ, 'This man receives sinners, and eats with them', Jesus responded by speaking of the character of God: he is like the father of the prodigal son who 'saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him' (Luke 15:20). Christ's unwillingness that men should be lost is the same as the Father's. He desires that all men everywhere should turn and live. As John Murray has written:

There is a love of God which goes forth to lost men and is manifested in the manifold blessings which all men without distinction enjoy, a love in which non-elect persons are embraced, and a love which comes to its highest expression in the entreaties, overtures and demands of gospel proclamation.²³

_______________
19. Works, vol. 15 (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), p. 70. The italics are in Owen.
20. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 422.
21. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (reprinted, London: Banner of Truth, 1967), p. 308.
22. For the way in which the gospel message is individualized in apostolic testimony see also Acts 2:38; 3:19; Colossians 1:28; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9.
23. Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 68.

Ibid., 8–9.

If there is no love except special love for the elect, then no one has any right to apprehend any love in God for him before he has evidence of his election, which is to say, before he is converted. And that would mean that preachers must not speak of the love of Christ indefinitely to all their unconverted hearers. But that would be to subvert gospel preaching. It would no longer be 'good news' for all; and no longer an appeal 'not to refuse the offered love of God'.

The nature of conversion is an issue involved here. Are men brought into the kingdom of God by an action of God that by-passes the human mind and will, or are those faculties involved in the change from death to life? Does Christ draw men to himself irrespective of their thoughts and their consent? The scriptural answer has to be that conversion includes hearing and understanding; the Holy Spirit uses truth to convince of sin; that is the first work. But conviction of sin only speaks of God's holiness; it tells the sinner nothing of God's willingness to pardon; it does nothing to remove the suspicion—common to fallen man—that God is against him and unconcerned for his happiness. For that another message is needed. It is only the disclosure of love which can persuade the sinner of God's readiness and willingness to pardon, and thus the necessity that love be made known to all indefinitely in the free offer of the gospel. Love is the great attraction. Love stands foremost in the gospel appeal. 'It is not the over-heavy load of sin', says John Bunyan, 'but the discovery of mercy . . . that makes a man come to Jesus Christ . . . Behold how the promises, invitations, calls, and encouragements, like lilies, lie round about thee! Take heed that thou dost not tread them underfoot, sinner. With promises, did I say? Yea, he hath mixed all those with his own name, his Son's name; also, with the names of mercy, goodness, compassion, love, pity, grace, forgiveness, pardon, and what not, that he might encourage the coming sinner'.¹¹

On the same point, John Owen wrote, 'Christ draws none to himself whether they will or no; but he casts on their minds, hearts, and wills the cords of his grace and love, working in them powerfully, working on them kindly, to cause them to choose him . . . Drawing grace is manifested in, and drawing love proceeds from, the suffering of Christ on the cross.'¹²

This love is to be proclaimed in the gospel not to men as elect but to men as sinners.¹³ That is why any message that would not include love to individuals until there is evidence of election turns the gospel upside down. It withholds the very truth most conducive to brings souls to rest in Christ. Without question, history teaches us that the evangelists most used of God have all been men for whom love has been the main theme.¹⁴ Our sin must be discovered, says Richard Sibbes, 'to drive us out of ourselves', but then 'there must be a great deal of persuasion to still the accusing conscience of a sinner, to set it down, make it quiet, and persuade it of God's love'.¹⁵

Persuading men of God's love is the great calling of the Christian ministry. It is part of preaching 'to root out all the secret reserves of unbelief concerning God's unwillingness to give mercy, grace and pardon to sinners'.¹⁶ It cannot be done without conviction in the preacher that this love is a wonderful reality, and that it is to be pressed on all his hearers.

Yet, it may be asked, if this love is not necessarily saving, should the distinction between 'general' and 'special' not be made clear to people when the gospel is being presented? The answer has to be no, for Scripture itself makes no such distinction in the presentation of the gospel to the lost. And the reason why it does not do so is plain: it is not a doctrine either of special love or of general love that is to be offered to sinners; it is rather Christ himself. More than that, it is not ultimately preachers who offer Christ to others; but Christ—divine love incarnate—speaks in the gospel and offers himself fully and freely to the most undeserving, if they will but receive him. 'Christ offers himself in mercy to the worst soul'¹⁷, even, as Whitefield used to say, to 'the devil's castaways'.
_______________
11. Bunyan, Works, vol. 1, p. 286, 298. 'Men must see something in Jesus Christ, else they will not come to him' (p. 295). A fine example of preaching that pleads with men can be seen in the closing pages of Bunyan's Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, from which these quotes are taken.
12. Works, vol. 9, p. 592.
13. See ibid, vol. 6, p. 523. Owen is including both the universal and the particular when he says that the freeness of God's mercy does not interfere with the efficacy. 'Though he [God] proclaim pardon in the blood of Christ indefinitely, according to the fullness and excellency of it, yet he giveth out his quickening grace to enable men to receive it; for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. but this lies in the thing itself; the way is opened and prepared, and it is not because men cannot enter, but because they will not, that they do not enter.' p. 529.
14. Evidence for this statement is vast. I give some of it in my book, Pentecost Today? (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), pp. 90–9.
15. Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 2 (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth 2000), pp. 186, 84.
16. Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 504.
17. Sibbes, vol. 2, p. 187. 'It is our office, thus to lay open and offer the riches of Christ.'

Iain H. Murray, “The Cross: The Pulpit of God's Love—Part 2,” Banner of Truth 495 (December 2004): 16–17.

This material is also included in Iain Murray’s book The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2005), 101–133.

Richard Muller's Mid-America Lectures

Dr. Richard Muller, the P.J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan delivered this year's annual Fall Lecture Series [at Mid-America Reformed Seminary] on November 5-6. Dr. Muller's lectures are entitled Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism. Dr. Muller delivered three lectures on this subject. The first lecture, entitled The Problem Stated, was given Wednesday, November 5 at 1:00 pm. Thursday morning (November 6) at 8:30 am Dr. Muller delivered his second lecture entitled The Lapsarian Question. His final lecture, entitled Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism, followed at 10:30 am.

The CD of these lectures cost me $15 (this included shipping). Click HERE for contact information. I have already listened to his lecture on Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism, and it's quite good, as we should expect. The audio quality sounds like someone close in the audience recorded it using an mp3 recorder, so it is of medium quality, unfortunately.

He, in these lectures, considers the following to be "hypothetical universalists" of the non-Amyraldian variety:

W. Musculus, J. Zanchi, Z. Ursinus, J. Kimedoncius, H. Bullinger, W. Twisse, J. Ussher, J. Davenant (and others in the British delegation to Dort), E. Calamy, L. Seaman, R. Vines, R. Harris, S. Marshall, J. Arrowsmith, J. Bunyan, and others.

John Bunyan (1628-1688) on the Heart of the Saviour

"Thy stubbornness affects, afflicts the heart of thy Saviour. Carest thou not for this? Of old, ‘he beheld the city, and wept over it.’ Canst thou hear this, and not be concerned? (Luk. 19:41, 42). Shall Christ weep to see thy soul going on to destruction, and will though sport thyself in that way? Yea, shall Christ, that can be eternally happy without thee, be more afflicted at the thoughts of the loss of thy soul, than thyself, who art certainly eternally miserable if thou neglectest to come to him. Those things that keep thee and thy Saviour, on thy part, asunder, are but bubbles; the least prick of an affliction will let out, as to thee, what now thou thinkest is worth the venture of heaven to enjoy.

Hast thou not reason? Canst thou not so much as once soberly think of thy dying hour, or of whither thy sinful life will drive thee then? Hast thou no conscience? or having one, is it rocked so fast asleep by sin, or made so weary with an unsuccessful calling upon thee, that it is laid down, and cares for thee no more? Poor man! thy state is to be lamented. Hast no judgment? Art not able to conclude, that to be saved is better than to burn in hell? and that eternal life with God’s favour, is better than a temporal life in God’s displeasure? Hast no affection but what is brutish? what, none at all? No affection for the God that made thee? What! none for his loving Son that has showed his love, and died for thee? Is not heaven worth thy affection? O poor man! which is strongest, thinkest thou, God or thee? If thou art not able to overcome him, thou art a fool for standing out against him (Mat. 5:25, 26). ‘It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God’ (Heb. 10:29-31). He will gripe hard; his fist is stronger than a lion’s paw; take heed of him, he will be angry if you despise his Son; and will you stand guilty in your trespasses, when he offereth you his grace and favour? (Exo. 34: 6, 7)."

John Bunyan, "The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, or, Good News for the Vilest of Men" in The Whole Works of John Bunyan (London: Blackie and Son, 1862), 1:90.

Bio:  

Wiki

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on God's Grace, Goodness, Offers and Saving Will

God also sheweth by this, that the reprobate do not perish for want of the offers of salvation, though he hath offended God, and that upon most righteous terms; according to what is written,

‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live’ (Eze. 33:11, 18:31, 32).

‘Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts’ (Zec. 1:3). So then, here lieth the point between God and the reprobate, I mean the reprobate since he hath sinned, God is willing to save him upon reasonable terms, but not upon terms above reason; but not reasonable terms will [go] down with the reprobate, therefore he must perish for his unreasonableness.

That God is willing to save even those that perish for ever, is apparent, both from the consideration of the goodness of his nature (Psa. 145:9), of man’s being his creature, and indeed in a miserable state (Job. 14:15, 3:16). But I say, as I have also said already, there is a great difference between his being willing to save them, through their complying with these his reasonable terms, and his being resolved to save them, whether they, as men, will close therewith, or no; so only he saveth the elect themselves, even ‘according to the riches of his grace’ (Eph. 1: 7). Even ‘according to his riches in glory, by Christ Jesus’ (Php. 4:19). Working effectually in them, what the gospel, as a condition, calleth for from them. And hence it is that he is said to give faith (Php. 1:29), yea the most holy faith, for that is the faith of God’s elect, to give repentance (Act. 5:31), to give a new heart, to give his fear, even that fear that may keep them for ever from everlasting ruin (Eph. 1: 4); still engaging his mercy and goodness to follow them all the days of their lives (Jer. 32:40; Eze. 36:26, 27), that they may dwell in the house of the Lord for ever (Psa. 23: 6), and as another scripture saith, ‘Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing, is God’ (2Co. 5: 5; Rom. 8:26, &c.).

But I say, his denying to do thus for every man in the world, cannot properly be said to be because he is not heartily willing they should close with the tenders of the grace held forth in the gospel, and live. Wherefore you must consider that there is a distinction to be put between God’s denying grace on reasonable terms, and denying it absolutely; and also that there is a difference between his withholding further grace, and of hindering men from closing with the grace at present offered; also that God may withhold much, when he taketh away nothing; yea, take away much, when once abused, and yet be just and righteous still. Further, God may deny to do this or that absolutely, when yet he hath promised to do, not only that, but more, conditionally. Which things considered, you may with ease conclude, that he may be willing to save those not elect, upon reasonable terms, though not without them.

It is no unrighteousness in God to offer grace unto the world, though but on these terms only, that they are also foreseen by him infallibly to reject; both because to reject it is unreasonable, especially the terms being so reasonable, as to believe the truth and live; and also because it is grace and mercy in God, so much as once to offer means of reconciliation to a sinner, he being the offender; but the Lord, the God offended; they being but dust and ashes, he the heavenly Majesty. If God, when man had broke the law, had yet with all severity kept the world to the utmost condition of it, had he then been unjust? Had he injured man at all? Was not every tittle of the law reasonable, both in the first and second table? How much more then is he merciful and gracious, even in but mentioning terms of reconciliation? especially seeing he is also willing so to condescend, if they will believe his word, and receive the love of the truth. Though the reprobate then doth voluntarily, and against all strength of reason, run himself upon the rocks of eternal misery, and split himself thereon, he perisheth in his own corruption, by rejecting terms of life (2Th. 2:10; 2Pe. 2:12, 13).

John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Works of John Bunyan (London: Blackie & Sons, 1862), 2:353. Also in John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 2:353. Archive.org has volume 2 of his Works HERE as well.

Speaking to unbelievers indiscriminately, Bunyan said that Jesus Christ is heartily willing to save them all, and that He is standing with open arms (perhaps alluding to Rom. 10:21) to receive them.

Thirdly, Then, in the next place, fly in all haste to Jesus Christ, thou being sensible of thy lost condition without him, secretly persuaded of thy soul that Jesus Christ standeth open-armed to receive thee, to wash away thy sins, to clothe thee with his righteousness, and is willing, yea, heartily willing, to present thee before the presence of the glory of God and among the innumerable company of angels with exceeding joy.

John Bunyan, “The Doctrine of the Law and Grace Unfolded,” in The Whole Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (1875; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 1:495.

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on General Love and Grace

God hath universal love, and particular love; general love, and distinguishing love; and so accordingly doth decree, purpose, and determine: from general love, the extension of general grace and mercy: but from that love that is distinguishing, peculiar grace and mercy: ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ saith the Lord, ‘yet I loved Jacob’ (Mal. 1: 2). Yet I loved Jacob, that is, with a better love, or a love that is more distinguishing. As he further makes appear in his answer to our father Abraham, when he prayed to God for Ishmael: ‘As for Ishmael, [saith he] I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee’ (Gen. 17:20, 21). Touching which words, there are these things observable.

1. That God had better love for Isaac, than he had for his brother Ishmael. Yet,

2. Not because Isaac had done more worthy and goodly deeds, for Isaac was yet unborn.

3. This choice blessing could not be denied to Ishmael, because he had disinherited himself by sin; for this blessing was entailed to Isaac, before Ishmael had a being also (Rom. 4:16-19; Gen. 15: 4, 5, chapter 16).

4. These things therefore must needs fall out through the working of distinguishing love and mercy, which had so cast the business, ‘that the purpose of God according to election might stand.’

Further, Should not God decree to shew distinguishing love and mercy, as well as that which is general and common, he must not discover his best love at all to the sons of men. Again, if he should reveal and extend his best love to all the world in general, then there would not be such a thing as love that doth distinguish; for distinguishing love appeareth in separating between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, the many called, and the few chosen. Thus by virtue of distinguishing love, some must be reprobate: for distinguishing love must leave some, both of the angels in heaven, and the inhabitants of the earth; wherefore the decree also that doth establish it, must needs leave some.

John Bunyan, "Reprobation Asserted," in The Works of John Bunyan (London: Blackie & Sons, 1862), 2:340. Also in "Reprobation Asserted," The Whole Works of John Bunyan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:340. Archive.org has volume 2 of his Works HERE as well.

Bio:  
Wiki

Note the association in Bunyan between "general love," "general grace and mercy," and "blessings." He does not think there is a general mercy but no general grace. Further, he does not believe there is a general grace but no general love. In his view, general love is manifested in general grace and mercy, and the example of the "blessings" that Ishmael received in Genesis 17 are given as an example of all of these things.

He even uses the expression "common grace" in the following quote:

Now the book of life in this place must not be so strictly taken as if it included those only that were elect of God to eternal life, but must be understood of that book wherein are recorded the rules and bounds of visible church-communion; and so all those that, through the gifts and operations of special or common grace, do fall within the compass of those rules and bounds. Thus it was in the type at the return out of captivity, none were to be admitted entrance into the church but those that could show their privileges by genealogy and the records of the church; and to others it was said that they had neither portion, nor lot, nor memorial, in Jerusalem (Ezr. 2:62, 63; Neh. 7:64, 65; 2:20).

 Ibid., 3:449.

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) on the Misery of the Damned Remembering God’s Love

After describing the anger of God working in the misery of the damned in Miscellany #232, Jonathan Edwards said:

And all this will be aggravated by the remembrance, that God once loved us so as to give his Son to bring us to the happiness of his love, and tried all manner of means to persuade us to accept of his favor, which was obstinately refused.

Jonathan Edwards, “The ‘Miscellanies’: (Entry Nos. A–z, Aa–zz, 1–500),” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Thomas A. Schafer and Harry S. Stout, Corrected Edition, (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2002), 13:350; Misc. 232.

Bio:  
Wiki

John Gerstner noted this about Edwards on God's love:

If God’s love is known by what it hates, it is also known by what it loves or inclines toward. First, in a sense, it extends to all creatures. All creatures have some good from God.¹³⁶ Even the wicked share in this benevolence. “God is kind to the unthankful and evil.”¹³⁷ Man is now naturally contrary to God and positively evil, but the Luke 6:35 sermon shows that God still loves him in some ways. Indeed, Edwards goes on to say in another sermon: “even in damnation.”¹³⁸ Yet, fundamentally, “holy persons love holy things for their holiness.”¹³⁹
_______________
136. Unpublished MS sermon on Ps. 145:15–21, “All creatures in heaven and earth have their good things from God,” p. 1, St. Ind., Nov. 1, 1753.
137. Unpublished MS sermon on Lk. 6:35.
138. Unpublished MS sermon on Eph. 4:15–16, “In a company of Christians among whom Christianity has its genuine effect, love is the beginning and love is the middle and love is the end of all their affairs,” p. 2, May 1743.
139. Unpublished MS sermons on Ps. 119:40.

John H. Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Powhatan, VA: Berea Publications; Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 1993), 2:38.

Note: John Bunyan sounds similar to what Edwards says above when he wrote:

I gave my Son to do you good,
I gave you space and time
With him to close, which you withstood,
And did with hell combine.

—from "One Thing Needful," in Works, 3:734.

In this part of Bunyan's poem, God is speaking to the damned, i.e. to the non-elect.

Compare also Thomas Manton here (click) and George Swinnock here (click).

Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen (1691–1747), in his sermon on Matt. 23:37, said:

How does this heighten your criminality; how will it aggravate your condemnation, that the Lord would gather you, that he long bore with you, so often would have taken you under his wings, but “ye would not!”—that he invited and you refused, stretched out his hands, but you opposed; rejecting his counsel, not willing that he should be King over you. (Prov. 1.) Oh! if there is aught that will render the worm of conscience exquisitely tormenting and intolerable, it is above all, that the dear Saviour would have gathered you, “and ye would not!”

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on Christ’s Sufficiency

Yea, where is that, or he, that shall call into question the superabounding sufficiency that is in the merit of Christ, when God continueth to discharge, day by day, yea, hourly, and every moment, sinners from their sin, and death, and hell, for the sake of the redemption that is obtained for us by Christ?

God be thanked here is plenty; but no want of anything! Enough and to spare! It will be with the merit of Christ, even at the end of the world, as it was with the five loaves and two fishes, after the five thousand men, besides women and children, had sufficiently eaten thereof. There was, to the view of all at last, more than showed itself at first. At first there was but five loaves and two fishes, which a lad carried. At last there were twelve baskets full, the weight of which, I suppose, not the strongest man could bear away. Nay, I am persuaded, that at the end of the world, when the damned shall see what a sufficiency there is left of merit in Christ, besides what was bestowed upon them that were saved by him, they will run mad for anguish of heart to think what fools they were not to come to him, and trust in him that they might be saved, as their fellow-sinners did. But this is revealed that Israel, that the godly may hope and expect. Let Israel therefore hope in the Lord, for with him is plenteous redemption.

John Bunyan, “Israel’s Hope Encouraged,” in The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 1:607–608.

Bio:  

Wiki

John Bunyan’s (1628–1688) Reprobation Asserted and the Death of Christ

Here is an interesting quote from John Bunyan's work Reprobation Asserted.

CHAPTER 9.

Whether God would indeed and in truth, that the gospel, with the grace thereof, should be tendered to those that yet he hath bound up under Eternal Reprobation?

To this question I shall answer,

First, In the language of our Lord, 'Go preach the gospel unto every creature' (Mark 16:15); and again, 'Look unto me, and be ye saved; all ye ends of the earth' (Isa 45:22). 'And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely' (Rev 22:17). And the reason is, because Christ died for all, 'tasted death for every man' (2 Cor 5:15; Heb 2:9); is 'the Saviour of the world' (1 John 4:14), and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Second, I gather it from those several censures that even every one goeth under, that doth not receive Christ, when offered in the general tenders of the gospel; 'He that believeth not, - shall be damned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his son' (1 John 5:10); and, Woe unto thee Capernaum, 'Woe unto thee Chorazin! woe unto thee Bethsaida!' (Matt 11:21) with many other sayings, all which words, with many other of the same nature, carry in them a very great argument to this very purpose; for if those that perish in the days of the gospel, shall have, at least, their damnation heightened, because they have neglected and refused to receive the gospel, it must needs be that the gospel was with all faithfulness to be tendered unto them; the which it could not be, unless the death of Christ did extend itself unto them (John 3:16; Heb 2:3); for the offer of the gospel cannot, with God's allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel, nor grace to be extended. Besides, if by every creature, and the like, should be meant only the elect, then are all the persuasions of the gospel to no effect at all; for still the unconverted, who are here condemned for refusing of it, they return it as fast again: I do not know I am elect, and therefore dare not come to Jesus Christ; for if the death of Jesus Christ, and so the general tender of the gospel, concern the elect alone; I, not knowing myself to be one of that number, am at a mighty plunge; nor know I whether is the greater sin, to believe, or to despair: for I say again, if Christ died only for the elect, &c. then, I not knowing myself to be one of that number, dare not believe the gospel, that holds forth his blood to save me; nay, I think with safety may not, until I first do know I am elect of God, and appointed thereunto.

John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:348.

Bio:
Wiki

Several things are to be observed in this quote from Bunyan:

1) Christ is to be indiscriminately offered or “tendered” to “every creature” because he died for all. When Bunyan says Christ died for “all,” tasted death for “every man,” and is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” he clearly does NOT mean merely the elect by these terms (see his comment about "every creature" toward the end). The free offer is grounded on Christ’s unlimited expiation of sin. This is his first point.

2) The “heightened” damnation of some of the finally impenitent who heard the call as recorded in scripture underlines the fact that they were sincerely offered Christ. The completely sufficient remedy of Christ’s death was “extended” to them through the gospel call, but they refused it. If there is no real sufficient remedy for them in Christ’s death, then the aggravation against their sin would not be increased.

3) The free offer of the gospel is related to the extent of Christ’s satisfaction. Since his satisfaction is unlimited, we may freely offer him. If his satisfaction itself were limited, then we could not freely offer him, nor would grace really be extended to reprobates for the taking. In effect, they (the non-elect) wouldn’t be hearing “good news” (the gospel). Hyper-Calvinists reason from a limited expiation in Christ’s satisfaction to either 1) limited offers or 2) no offers of grace. Bunyan seeks to refute their first faulty premise by arguing that Christ died for every creature. He grants that it would follow that if the expiatory death be limited to the elect alone, then we couldn’t sincerely offer Him to all. It’s just the case that the bible teaches that Christ died for all, and sincerely offered to all on that basis. There are some “Calvinists” today who maintain both a limited expiation and unlimited offers. Bunyan would think they’re inconsistent, and he’s right. By limiting the expiation in their theology, they're opening the door to a "limited offer" or "no offers of grace" (Joseph Hussey) type of theology, even though they vehemently deny it.

4) The warrant for sinners to believe in Christ is not merely in God’s command that they do so, but also in the fact that God, through the gospel call, “holds forth his [Christ's] blood to save me.” Anyone, whether elect or not, can be assured through the revealed will of God in the gospel that He has an interest in saving “me” in particular (whoever you are), because God has given Christ to die for all, not merely the elect. If it were the case that Christ died only for the elect, Bunyan thinks that one would be left in despair, wondering whether or not they are one of the elect to whom God is offering Christ. One would be left without warrant to believe, and trapped in an endless labyrinth of introspection/subjectivism.