William Cooper (fl.1653) on the Love of God

The Love of God is either natural or voluntary; thus divines distinguish, and that well.

1. The natural love of God is that wherewith God loves himself; that is, the reciprocal love whereby the three Persons love each other. (Matt. 3:17; John 3:35; John 5:20; John 17:24). This essential natural love of God is therefore necessary; God cannot but love himself.

2. The Love of God is voluntary: thus he loves his Creatures with a general love.

(1.) Because he made them, and made them good, (Gen. 1:31,) therefore he preserves them: for though sin be really evil, and none of God’s making, but contrary to God, and hated of God; yet God loves the creatures as his creatures, although sinful, with a general love. (Matt. 5:44, 45.)

(2.) He loves some creatures with a special love; and by this he loves Jesus Christ as Mediator.

(i.) This love of God to Christ as Mediator is the foundation of God’s love to his elect. (John 3:35; Eph. 1:6; 1 John 4:9; Rom. 8:39.)

(ii.) By a special love God loves his elect: (John 13:1:) of this love it is said that it is inseparable. Now this is the peculiar love which God bears to some above others; not because they were more lovely than others, nor because God foresaw they would believe and love him; but because God loved them first antecedently to all those things; (Eph. 1:3–5;) and because he loved them, therefore Christ shall come and die, and therefore they shall believe in him and love him. (Deut. 7:6–8.) The sum is this: our love to God is the effect, and not the cause, of God’s love to us; yea, Christ himself as Mediator is the effect of God’s eternal love. (Eph. 2:3–10.) This is primitive doctrine: “All that the Father hath given me shall come unto me. V. 44. No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” (John 6:37, 44.) “He hath loved us first. (1 John 4:19.) “I am found of them that sought me not.” (Rom. 10:20.) “God commended his love toward us, that while we were yet Sinners and Enemies, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, 10.) Upon which I would have old and new Donatists, which make God to love all alike, in order to their salvation; and that there is no special grace,—let them read St. Augustine, Tom. 9. Tract. 102. on John. Tom. 7. Lib. contra Donatistas post Collat. Carthag. p. 403. also p. 402. likewise in Breviculus Collat. cum Donatistis, p. 387. Collat. tertii diei; item, tom. 9. Tract. 87. on John; item, Tom. 2. Epist. 48. p. 118. and many more places. I have therefore named all these, because there is a sort of men risen up among us, corrupters and perverters of the word and ways of God, (Gal. 1:6, 7,) who raise up Donatism and Pelagianism from the death.

William Cooper, “Sermon VI: How a Child of God is to Keep Himself in the Love of God,” in Puritan Sermons 1659–1689: Being the Morning Exercises at Cripplegate, St. Giles in the Fields, and in Southwark by Seventy-Five Ministers of the Gospel In or Near London with Notes and Translations by James Nichols, 6 vols., ed. Samuel Annesley (London: James Nichols for Thomas Tegg, 1844; Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts Publishers, 1981), 3:131.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

John H. Gerstner on Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) and God’s General Love

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:[1]40.

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

Humphrey Chambers (c.1599–1662) on the General and Special Love of God

Most certain it is from the word of the Gospel (which is the truest and clearest light that ever shone in the Church of the faithful) that Christ doth not love all Mankind alike, but he loves some and not others.

There is indeed a general and common love of Christ, wherein he comprehends all Mankind alike, which he manifests to them in making (as he himself saith, Matt. 5:24) his sun to rise on the evil, and on the good; and sending his rain on the just, and on the unjust; and as Paul saith, Acts 14:17. He doth good to all Nations, though they walk in their own ways; giving them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their bodies with food, and their hearts with gladness; and supplying them with the common things of this life, suitable to their Humanity.

But he hath a special love to his Elect, to the Church which is his Body; these he loves as his own flesh; yea, as partakers of the same Divine Nature with himself; and according to this love he communicateth to these, of all that very fullness of God which he hath received from his Father.

Now with this special love, he loves not all Mankind alike, but only some, passing by the rest.

Humfry Chambers, Animadversions on Mr. William Dells Book Intituled The Crucified and Quickned Christian (London: Printed by R. N. for Sa. Gellibrand, at the Ball in Pauls Church-yard, 1653), 76–77.

This work has an imprimatur by John Owen.

Humfry Chambers was pastor of Claverton Parish, Somerset, and a member of the Assembly of Divines.

Bio:
Smith

John Calvin (1509–1564) on God’s Love and Goodness

True it is that God giveth oftentimes some sign of his love too all men in general: but yet is all Adam’s offspring cut off from him, till we be grafted in again by Jesus Christ. Therefore there is one kind of love which God beareth towards all men, for that he hath created them after his own image, in which respect he maketh the Sun to shine upon all men, nourishing them and having a care of their life. But all this is nothing, in respect of the special goodness which he keepeth in store for his chosen, and for those that are of his flock: howbeit not for any worthiness which he findeth in them, but for because it pleaseth him too accept them for his own.

John Calvin, Sermons of M. John Calvin upon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians (Imprinted at London: By [Henrie Bynneman, for] Lucas Harison and George Bishop, 1574), 9–10.

Bio:  

Wiki

John Frost (c.1626–1656) on God’s Universal and Peculiar Love

God makes demonstration of universal love to all his creatures, Mat. 5:44–45. in the exercise of his general providences, upholding and ordering all things as his creatures; so his tender mercies are over all his works, Psal. 145:9. But the love which he bears to his peculiar is a peculiar love; that the love of a Creator, this of a Father; that founded in his nature, the other in Christ.

John Frost, Select Sermons Preached Upon Sundry Occasions (Cambridge: Printed by John Field, Printer to the University, 1657), 209.

Bio:

DNB

Brook

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) on Rom. 2:4 and the Will of God; With Reference to Ezek. 33:11, Matt. 5:45, 23:37, Acts 14:17, 1 Tim. 2:4–6, and 2 Pet. 3:9

There, then, is our second term, leadeth, and here we arrive at what has often proved to be a very difficult statement, which has often led to a good deal of discussion and debate and confusion. The Apostle’s statement is that God’s goodness leads them to repentance, and we need to know what he means by this. Why does he use this particular term? In Romans 8:14, he says, ‘For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’, and that is exactly the same word as we have here, where we are told that the goodness of God ‘leadeth thee unto repentance’. Now this term does not, of course, mean forcing; it does not mean driving or bludgeoning. What is obviously means is a constraining influence. That is what you do when you lead a horse, or a dog, or any other animal. You are bringing to bear a constraining influence if you are holding the reins or the halter, or whatever it may be. There is no force of necessity, but there is a sense of constraint, there is an influence, a constraining influence, and what the Apostle says is that God’s goodness exercises this kind of constraining influence on men to bring them to repentance.

In view of that, then, we again have to ask what exactly he is teaching here. It is important that we should be clear about our terms, and the first thing we notice is that he is talking about unbelievers. These are the people who are not brought to repentance, therefore they are the unbelievers. And what the Apostle says is that they are without excuse because they are despising the goodness of God which was meant to bring them to repentance.

Now you see where the difficulty arises in the realm of theology. Here are unbelievers who die unrepentant, and yet the Apostle says that the goodness of God leads them, exercises this constraining influence upon them, to bring them to repentance. And it is not surprising that this has often been a bone of contention, and has engaged the attention of those who desire to have a truer understanding of God’s way of salvation and of how any single one of us ever does come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

So what do we make of this? We must go back again to 2 Peter 3, this time to verse 9. Is it not interesting to notice the parallel between these Apostles? Always where you come across a difficult place in Scripture the thing to do is to compare Scripture with Scripture, to find another one, a parallel statement, something that is similar, and here it is: ‘The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance’. You notice it is saying almost precisely the same thing. And do you know that there are other statements in the Scriptures which speak to the same effect. You will find in Ezekiel 33:11, for instance, that God says, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked’. And you will find other statements in the Scriptures in which God, as it were, appeals to them, to the nation of Israel, and beyond the nation of Israel to all people, with the word ‘Oh!’ And you remember how our Lord Himself wept over Jerusalem and said, ‘Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I . . . and ye would not!’ [Matthew 23:27].

Now all these statements are parallels with the statement in this passage and therefore I must ask this question: What, then, is God’s goodness meant to do with regard to the unbeliever? For it is the unbeliever with whom we are dealing. There are people who have tried to evade this difficulty by saying that this statement means that God has shown His goodness to the unbeliever to render him without a single excuse; that He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends His rain on the just and the unjust, so that at the day of judgment they will have nothing to say. God’s goodness will be the answer to their every excuse. And yet, you see, we cannot accept that as an explanation, because if the Apostle had meant to say that, he would have put it in that way, and he would never have used the word ‘leadeth’. This word is too active and positive a word for that. If that had been merely God’s object, it would have had no effect upon them, it would not have been designed to have an effect upon man. But you cannot use the word ‘lead’ without getting the idea of a constraining influence. When you talk about somebody leading somebody else or of being led by a truth, it is very positive. That other idea just leaves it there on the wall, as it were, passive and negative, there merely to rob me negatively of any chance of excusing myself. But this is an active word.

What then, does it mean? It seems to me that there is only one conclusion we can come to, and that is that God’s goodness is meant and designed to bring men to repentance and salvation; and when I say ‘men’ I mean all men, unbelievers as well as believers. We are dealing with unbelievers here. The Apostle is arguing with men who will not repent and he says, even to them, that God’s goodness leads you, was meant and designed to lead you, to repentance. So the Apostle here is teaching that God manifests a positive favour even to the unbeliever – and that is where the importance of being clear about these matters comes in.

It is, as I have shown, a parallel with what our Lord teaches in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘. . . for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust’ [Matthew 5:45]. At this point, you remember, the Lord is talking to the disciples, and He tells them that they are to be perfect even as their Father which is in heaven is perfect; He tells them to love their enemies, and to do good to them that hate them. He says, you should do it because God does it. So we are to love our enemies as God loves His enemies. He loves the unbeliever and He shows that love in this goodness through the sun and the rain. There is the parallel.

We find the same again in Paul’s sermon at Lystra in Acts 14. But indeed it seems to me to be parallel also with what the Apostle has already been saying in chapter 1:20, where he says, ‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’. So the teaching must be that this goodness of God is a manifestation of God’s grace to all men, sinners and unbelievers included. By these things He would lead all men to repentance and therefore to salvation. For as I have already quoted from 2 Peter 3:9, He does not wish that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Now then, where have we landed? ‘Does that mean’, says someone, ‘that  you are completely denying the doctrine of predestination and election?’ It sounds like it, does it not? But I am not. How, then, you may ask, do you reconcile these things? In this way: this is the manifestation of a grace of God, but it is obviously not efficacious grace; it is not effectual grace; it is not a constraining grace; it is not the irresistible grace. Because, although God manifests this grace to these people, it does not lead them to repentance. It is mean to, and it is designed to, but it does not do so. Why not?

Well, the answer is – and here we come up against a great mystery which we shall never solve in this world – there is clearly a difference between what God desires and what God wills and brings to pass. What God wills He performs and brings into being. But – and this is the astounding things that we are told – God does not wish that any should perish. He wishes that all should come to repentance. There are some who are brought to repentance, there are some who are not. It is God who brings to repentance, for no man left to himself would repent – this text proves that once and for ever with an unusual clarity. Though God manifests His goodness and His forbearance and His longsuffering, men despise it, they use it to serve themselves, their own ends, and their sins. They pass it by, they do not trouble to look at it. Though God has manifested His grace, and though He meant it to bring them to repentance, it does not do so. No one would repent if God did not bring us to repentance by an act of His will and by His constraining and effectual grace.

Now let me try to elaborate that a little, because it is important if we want to be clear about the Scriptures we are studying. We shall find the same thing again as we go on in this Epistle – it is at the very heart of chapter nine. It is there, as we have seen, in 2 Peter 3:9, it is in 1 Timothy 2:6, and so on. It is in many places in the Bible, and it is our business as Bible students and those who are anxious to glorify God, to come to an understanding of these things.

So consider yet another example of this in Acts chapter seventeen. The Apostle Paul, preaching at Athens, said, ‘The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent’. That is an absolutely universal statement; you cannot imagine anything more all-inclusive than that. In other words, the gospel is to be preached to all creatures. The offer of salvation is to be made to everybody. Not to some, but to all.

Now if you want to know what hyper-Calvinism means, it is the teaching which says that the gospel is only to be offered to some. And I have had the distinction of being called a dangerous Arminian by people who hold that belief, because I say that the gospel should be offered to all. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, which means that if you repent, then you come to salvation, it is the first step in it. Yes, and therefore the offer of salvation, the offer of Christ and His perfect work, should be preached to all men without distinction. And that message is to be preached in order that men may come to know God’s goodness and in order that they may yield to it. I say, therefore, that God wishes that all men should come to repentance and to salvation, but it is equally clear that He does not will it. Then that leads me to say that this extraordinary statement here in the second half of Romans 2:4 gives the lie directly to all who try to argue that what the gospel does it persuade us to repent. It is an absolute proof that we cannot be persuaded. God has manifested His goodness, His forbearance, His longsuffering. He has commanded that all men everywhere should repent. There is all the moral suasion that you can ever get.

But what is leads to in the case of the unbelievers is that they despise it. That is what the natural man does with it. Moral suasion will never save anybody. No man is saved simply by the influence or the general effect of the appeal of the gospel upon him. No man can repent or believe until he has a new nature. He must be born again, because ‘the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned [1 Corinthians 2:14]. The natural is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So when God commands such a man to repent, he defies God and says he does not want to repent. When God showers His goodness upon him to lead him to repentance, he despises it. It is God alone who saves, by the mighty operation of His Holy Spirit in the depth of the soul and of the personality.

If ever a text, which on the surface seemed to be saying the opposite, proved that, it is this text – the goodness of God is designed to lead men to repentance. It does not do so. It never has done so. Man will always use God’s goodness to serve himself. He will trade on it. He will make merchandise of it. The last thing he does is so to see it that he repents. That is not what makes a man repent. It is the operation of the Holy Spirit in giving a man a new mind, a new outlook and a new understanding. The first proof that a man has been born again is that he repents and believes the gospel. That is the order of salvation. I commend to you the wisdom of working out this text again. Study it, take it with its parallels, and I think you will see that it will bring you to that inevitable conclusion.

D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 2:1–3:20, The Righteous Judgment of God (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 51–56.

In studying this verse, we have not only been handling a rather difficult subject, but have been looking into something marvelous and wonderful, something inscrutable, something, I take it, that we will never fully understand throughout eternity, and it is this: how God, being who and what He is, could ever show any grace or love or kindness to those who have not only sinned and rebelled against Him, but whom He knows will remain finally impenitent. But He does so, and He addresses them like this, ‘Oh that ye had known!’ I do not pretend to be able to put these things into such intellectual order that no difficulties are left. There are difficulties. But, my dear friends, we are talking about God and we are but human beings! We are looking into the eternal, the character of God, and our business is to accept our Scriptures, not to try to evade a problem like this by saying, ‘Ah, it is just there in order to render them without excuse’. No. The word ‘leadeth’ is active and positive, we have had to face it. And there, it seems to me, is the only answer – He wishes the salvation of all, but He does not will it, for what God wills He brings to pass. But here, to me, is the mystery – that He wishes this, that He wishes their salvation and proves it by His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering. He wishes that even those who are impenitent should finally have repented and come to salvation. ‘Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!’

Let us therefore, my dear friends, tread carefully. Let us approach these high and great and abstruse matters with reverence and with godly fear. Above all, let us be careful of passing judgment upon God and what He does. That is what these people do who are without excuse, these despisers of His goodness. Let us, then, in a spirit of adoration and worship look at the words that the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostle, let us give them their full content, and let us always beware of pressing any statement by our own logic beyond its own meaning and its own context. But above all, let us always be careful to compare Scripture with Scripture, lest in our ignorance and haste we be guilty of so describing God as to make Him contradict Himself, and, indeed, of having a contradiction at the very center and heart of His own life and eternal being. What a privilege to be allowed to look into these things! Let us thank God.

Ibid., 57–58.

The original audio of this sermon may be heard here (click).

Bio:  

Wiki

Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987) on Common Grace from His Introduction to Systematic Theology

Common Grace

It is only if we think concretely of God that we can also think concretely of the things of the created world. And therefore we can think scripturally about the much-disputed doctrine of “common grace.” If we think concretely of the question, we see at once that the term “common” is really applicable only in a very loose sense to the idea of grace. God’s attitude toward the saved and the unsaved can at no point be strictly common. It is well that we begin at this point. God always regards the reprobate as reprobate. When, therefore, he gives to the reprobate certain gifts in this life, of which they are undeserving, and these same gifts (as, for instance, rain and sunshine) also come to the saved, we cannot conclude that, with respect to rain and sunshine, God has the same attitude toward the believer and the unbeliever. When we speak of the attitude of God toward unbelievers we must take into consideration the total picture of the unbeliever’s relationship to God. Thus the gifts of rain and sunshine to the believer are the gifts of a covenant God who has forgiven the sins of his people, and who knows that his people need these gifts. In a similar way, the gifts of rain and sunshine to unbelievers are gifts to those whom God hates, and are given because they too have need of those things to fulfill the purpose that God has with them. God gave Pharaoh life and ability to rule, that he might be able to do that for which God raised him up.

Both the wheat and the tares receive rain and sunshine so that both may reach the day of judgment for the revelation of the glory of God. In all this, God gave a witness to his presence (Acts 14:16). Men are through this witness without excuse. Thus God gave men and nations everywhere what they needed for a natural life and civilization, that they might accomplish the purposes of God. He restrained them in their natural tendency to do only evil continually, so that they, in spite of their own inherent evil nature, do that which externally resembles the requirements of the law of God (Rom. 2:14, 15). It was thus by the gifts of God to sinners that the full demoniacal character of sin appeared and shall appear. When the world by its wisdom shows itself to be ignorant of God, God by his grace saves sinners unto himself. When the righteousness of men is shown to be but as filthy rags, God reveals his righteousness from heaven among men.

We conclude then, that “common grace” is not strictly common. The “common” grace that comes to believers comes in conjunction with their forgiven status before God; the “common” grace that comes to unbelievers comes in conjunction with their unforgiven status. Externally considered, the facts may be the same, but the framework in the two cases is radically different.

When, therefore, we are exhorted to follow God’s example in doing good to our enemies, that is, in giving gifts to them and helping them (Luke 6:35), we are asked to have the same attitude toward them that God has toward them. We are not to forget that they are haters of God. We are to do good to them in spite of this fact. We are to do good to them, in part at least, for the purpose of enabling them to accomplish the purpose that God has with them. To be sure, we are not to judge absolutely. Absolute judgment God reserves for himself. Yet, by the appearance of the wicked deeds of men, we cannot but think of them as enemies of God.

We say that this is one factor of the whole situation. We do not say that it is the only factor. God loves the works of his hands, and the progress that they make to their final fulfillment. So we may and should rejoice with God in the unfolding of the history of the race, even in the unfolding of the wickedness of man in order that the righteousness of God may be most fully displayed. But if God tells us that, in spite of the wickedness of men, and in spite of the fact that they misuse his gifts for their own greater condemnation, he is longsuffering with them, we need not conclude that there is no sense in which God has a favor to the unbeliever. There is a sense in which God has a disfavor to the believer because, in spite of the new life in him, he sins in the sight of God. So God may have favor to the unbeliever because of the “relative good” that God himself gives him in spite of the principle of sin within him. If we were to think of God and of his relation to the world in a univocal or abstract fashion, we might agree with those who maintain that there is no qualitative difference between the favor of God toward the saved and toward the unsaved. Arminians and Barthians virtually do this. Or, we might agree with those who maintain that there is no sense in which God can show a favor to the reprobate. On the other hand, if we reason concretely about God and his relation to the world, we simply listen to what God has told us in his Word on the matter. It may even then be exceedingly difficult to construct a theory of “common grace” which will do justice to what Scripture says. We make Scripture the standard of our thinking, and not our thinking the standard of Scripture. All of man’s activity, whether intellectual or moral, is analogical; and for this reason it is quite possible for the unsaved sinner to do that which is “good” in a sense and for the believer to do what is “evil” in a sense.

With respect to the question, then as to whether Scripture actually teaches an attitude of favor, up to a point, on the part of God toward the non-believer, we can only intimate that we believe it does. Even when we take full cognizance of the fact that the unbeliever abuses every gift of God and uses it for the greater manifestation of his wickedness, there seems to be evidence in Scripture that God, for this life, has a certain attitude of favor to unbelievers. We may point to such passages as the following: In Psalm 145:9, we are told: “The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works.” In seeking the meaning of such a passage, we must be careful. In the first place, it is to be remembered that God is constantly setting his own people in the center of the outflow of his goodness to the children of men. So, in Exodus 34:6, 7 we read: “And the Lord God passed before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation.” In this passage we are, as it were, warned to think concretely on the question before us. God’s mercy and grace is primarily extended to those whose sins are forgiven. If in any sense it is given to those whose sins are not forgiven, it must always be remembered that God does not overlook iniquity. We may therefore expect that in Psalm 145 the psalmist teaches nothing that is out of accord with what has been taught in Exodus 34. Thus, the primary meaning of Psalm 145 is again that God’s great favor is toward his people. Even when God gives great gifts to non-believers, they are, in a more basic sense, gifts to believers. Gifts of God to unbelievers help to make the life of believers possible, and in measure, pleasant. But this does not detract from the fact that the unbeliever himself is, in a measure, the recipient of God’s favor. There is a certain joy in the gift of life and its natural blessings for the unbeliever. And we may well think that Psalm 145 has this in mind. Such joy as there is in the life of the unbeliever cannot be found in him after this life is over. Even in the hereafter, the lost will belong to the works of God’s hands. And God no doubt has joy that through the works of evil men and angels, he is establishing his glory. Yet that is not what the psalmist seems to mean. There seems to be certain satisfaction on the part of God even in the temporary joy of the unbeliever as a creature of himself, a joy which will in the end turn to bitterness, but which none the less, is joy while it lasts.

Another passage to which we briefly refer is Matthew 5:44, 45. “But I say unto you, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.” In this passage, the disciples of Jesus are told to deny themselves the selfish joy of expressing enmity against those that hate them. They are not to express their attitude of hostility. But this is not all they are to do. They are to replace the attitude of hatred with an attitude of love. He does not know but that this one who now hates him may one day become a believer. This is one factor in the total situation. Yet this is not to be made the only factor. It is not even the expressed reason for his loving his enemy. The one guide for the believer’s action with respect to the enemy is God’s attitude toward that enemy. And the believer is told definitely to love his enemy in imitation of God’s attitude toward that enemy. God’s attitude toward that enemy must therefore in some sense be one of love. It is no doubt the love of an enemy, and, therefore, in God’s case, never the same sort of love as the love toward his children. And to the extent that we know men to be enemies of the Lord, we too cannot love them in the same sense in which we are told to love fellow-believers. God no doubt lets the wheat and the tares grow together till the day of judgment, but even so, though God’s ultimate purpose with unbelievers is their destruction and the promotion of his glory through their destruction, he loves them, in a sense, while they are still kept by himself, through his own free gifts, from fully expressing the wicked principle that is in them.

So also ought we to think of what is often called the universal well-meant offer of salvation. We know that there are those whom God, in his secret counsel does not intend to save. Of those round about us, we do not always know who are saved and who are not. In a sense, therefore, our ignorance accounts for the necessity of using a general formula in preaching the gospel. Yet this is not the only reason why Christ wept over Jerusalem, over Jerusalem which he knew would, for the most part, reject him. So God calls those whom he knows will harden their hearts. He labored with Pharaoh to let his people go before the final time of destruction should come. Yet he had raised up Pharaoh for that final destruction. It is the duty of men to repent, as it was originally their duty not to sin. It is always the duty of man to obey the voice of God. The call to repentance that unbelievers receive will add to their judgment because they do not heed it. But to be able to add to their judgment, it must have had a real meaning in their case. To say this is not to fall into individualistic Arminianism. Those who have not heard the call of redemption ill be judged because they are sinners in Adam and with Adam. Yet those who have heard the call and have not accepted it will receive the greater damnation. Thus, there must be a genuine meaning in the call that comes to them. It is only if we really think analogically or concretely of the attributes of God that we can thus do justice to all the aspects of Scripture truth.

It is only if we keep all this in mind that we can understand something of what is meant when Paul says in Romans 2:14, 15 that the natural man does by nature the work of the law. This cannot mean that man’s sinful nature is no longer sinful. If that were the case, it would mean that he had already received the gospel. It can only mean, therefore, that, in spite of his sinful heart, he habitually does things that, externally considered, fulfill the requirements of the law. His good deeds are adventitious as far as his sinful heart is concerned, but there is in him such a thing as an old nature, which, in spite of himself, leads him to do that which is good after a fashion. It is not merely not as bad as it might be, but it is, in a sense, good. It is a gift of God to the unbeliever when in this life he leads an externally good life, even if it be not from his heart. The deeds of the unbelievers are, to be sure, splendid vices; they are that, but they are also at the same time something else. They are, in a sense, a gift of God’s favor; and they, in turn, are the object of a certain favor of God.

All in all the idea of commonness, whether applied to grace or to the gospel call should be closely connected with the idea of earlier and later. Commonness is always commonness up to a point and with a difference. But commonness is more common earlier than later. Men in general, believers and unbelievers, are regarded and treated similarly according as the process of differentiation between them has not come to development. There is a common wrath upon elect and non-elect to the extent that the difference between the elect and the non-elect has not yet come to expression. So also with common grace and the common gospel call. It is to men regarded in their more or less undifferentiated state that the term commonness is applicable. History has genuine meaning; the doctrine of election may not be interpreted so as to destroy its meaning, but rather so as to be the foundation of it.

Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), 240–244. [underlining in the original]

Bio:

Wiki

Robert Bolton (1572–1631) on the Causes for God's General Grace and Temporary Love

"There may another objection be made, and a doubt arise out of the point formerly delivered; for it may seem very strange, that God will bestow such excellent graces upon reprobates, who have no true interest in the everlasting covenant of mercy and peace, no part in the Lamb, no title or right to the glory of heaven. It will be thought, that they are jewels for the ears, and bracelets for the arms of God's children alone, and not to be thrown amongst the swine.

I answer; It is done especially for these causes:

First, that the glory of God's goodness might shine the fairer, and more brightly in the world, and among the sons of men. The whole world is thick embroidered, and every where beset with a wonderful variety of prints and passages of his goodness and bounty. Every creature in some measure or other doth taste of his liberality. In this great volume of nature round about us, we may run and read the deep impressions and large characters of kindness and love, which his merciful and munificent hand hath made in all places, in every leaf, page and line of it. Now as out of the bottomless Sea, and unexhausted fountain of his own goodness, he causes his Sun to shine as well upon the unjust as the righteous; his rain to fall as well upon weeds, thistles and thorns, as upon herbs, flowers and fruit trees. So many times he deals large doles of temporal happiness, and general graces, as well unto the reprobate as the true Christian. His dear, everlasting and special love belongs only unto his elect: But in general graces and temporary love, that I may so call it, he is bountiful many times, even to the reprobates; As they are content to serve him in many things, so he is willing to confer some blessings upon them. But as they will not part with their sweet sin, and their whole heart for his service, which he doth specially require; so he will not part with salvation and eternal life unto them, which above all things they ought most to desire.

Secondly, these gifts and graces are bestowed on the reprobates, especially for the good comfort and benefit of the elect: For all things in the world besides the elect, are for the elect's sake, as the elect in a more excellent and eminent manner for God's glory; and all things work together for their good. The very temptations of Satan, the use or loss of the creatures, the rage of the scorner, the cruelty of the persecutor, the moderation of the civil honest man, the illumination of the formal professor, afflictions and crosses, nay their own sins and infirmities; all these, and every thing else in the world makes one way or other for the good of God's children; nay, the world itself stands only unto the number of the Elect be accomplished: For when the last of God's chosen be once called and fitted with grace for heaven, it will presently flame with fire, the trumpet will sound, and we shall all come to the judgement of that great day. God therefore many times enlightens the reprobates with many gifts of the spirit, and common graces, that those whom he hath designed to salvation, may be the better by them. To this purpose in the Apostles time in the Primitive Church, there were many common gifts; as the gift of knowledge, the working of miracles, the word of wisdom, the power of healing, the discerning of spirits, the diversity of tongues, the interpretation of tongues, to all which if there were not added a justifying fruitful faith, a true love to God, his Word and service, and to true Christians, the gifts of regeneration, a dying to sin, a rising up to newness of life, the grace of hearty prayer, comfort in distress, and such like, which be infallible notes and marks of election; I say without these the former common graces did not save the owners, but only serve to edify others, and to enlighten the elect in the way to heaven. I do not doubt but ever since in the Church, and at this day, as God by his Almighty hand doth bridle and curb the fierce and bloody rage of persecutors, and cruel prophaneness, that his children may live peaceably by them; and as by his restraining spirit he breeds a moderation, ingeniousness, civil honesty, and just dealing in others; that they may enjoy their own, and live comfortably in respect of worldly matter. So I doubt not but he doth furnish some with many worthy and excellent gifts of his enlightening spirit, though they want sanctifying grace; that thereby the Elect may be furthered in spiritual matters, and guided in the ways of salvation.

Thirdly, their endowment with these graces make them more inexcusable. For whereas the Lord vouchsafeth them knowledge, some faith and joy in this Word, many notable gifts, a glimpse of the glory of heaven, and a taste of the powers of the world to come, and yet for all this they will not be drawn on to be thorough resolute, and true hearted for God's service, and servants; but ever when their chief carnal contentments are called into question, they start aside like a broken bow; I say they do herein clearly judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, Acts 13.46. and make the sentence of eternal condemnation more than most must against them. How will they be confounded and ashamed at the great and fearful day, when it shall appear before men and Angels, that the Lord in this life gave knowledge and profession of his truth unto them; let them have some tastes of the glorious comforts of his children, and the unfading treasures of eternal life; and told them by the Ministers of his Word, if they would utterly and resolutely wean and withdraw their affections from the world and earthly pleasures, and set their hearts upon things above, and become not almost, but altogether Christians; they should most certainly hereafter drink deep and large of the Well of life, and River of endless pleasure: Yet for all this, wretched and willful men, they would not part with the pleasures of one bosom sin or other, which they had presently in possession, for heaven hereafter, though they had the Word and promise of Almighty God for the performance of it in due time."

Robert Bolton, The Saints Self-Enriching Examination (London: Printed by Anne Griffin, for Rapha Harford, in Quees-head-alley in Pater Noster Row, at the signe of the Gilt Bible, 1634), 91–95.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Brook

Note: Observe how Bolton uses "general" or "common grace" interchangeably with "temporary love," kindness, mercy and goodness. They're all interconnected in his conception of common grace. Also, in his third point, observe how he's alluding to the point of Romans 2:4. Through "these graces," the reprobates are the more inexcusable, since they were not moved to repentance. In order to move them to repentance and eternal life was one of the reasons God showed them his grace, patience, mercy, goodness and kindness. The Puritan conception of common grace involves all of these ideas, not just part of these things.

Thomas Cole (c.1627–1697) on Presuming on the General Love of God

"4. Since neither of the three ways above-mentioned do take, some, wearied with these Disputes, (and I must tell you, rational Disputes about things superrational, will sooner perplex the minds of men, than satisfy them); I say, some, finding no security in the forementioned ways of Justification, that the Reason of Man suggests to him, they cast them all off; and knowing no better, they fly to the general Love and Goodness of God towards his Creature Man, think to come in for a share of that to relieve them in their extremity; and now they think they have hit it, are in a right way of Salvation, having cast themselves upon the general Goodness and Mercy of God.—I grant God is kind unto the unthankful, and to the evil, Luke 6. 35. his Benignity, or the riches of his Goodness, should much affect us, Rom. 2. 4. There is such a thing as χρησότυς?, and φιλανθρωπία in God, i.e. Kindness, Love or Pity towards man. Tit. 3. 4.  φιλανθρωπία, signifies a proper peculiar love in God to Mankind, more than all the Works of his Hands; yet this Love to man is but a general Love, and must not be mistaken for special Grace; 'tis the Sun that rises on the evil, and on the good; the Rain that falls on the just, and on the unjust, Mat. 5. 45. It doth not argue any special interest thou hast in God more than others; you cannot from thence infer, that you shall be saved, unless all men be saved; for that Love you lay claim to, belongs to all men as well as you. Yet Sinners, to keep off all Terrors of Conscience as well as they can, will sooth themselves up with hopes from God's general Kindness and Love to Man; God is merciful and gracious, and they doubt not but all will go well with them at last, though no satisfaction be made for their Sins; they don't think of that, but look upon God as if he were all Mercy, they quite forget his Justice; when that comes into remembrance, then presently they sink again, they see their Plea will not hold; and die at last, either under a judicial hardness, or in horrible tormenting Despair. These are the false ways of Salvation, which for a time Sinners may fancy to themselves; but there being nothing of true saving Faith in all this, they are at last miserably disappointed, and die in their Sins, which will be sure to sink them into Hell."

Thomas Cole, The Incomprehensibleness of Imputed Righteousness, for Justification, by Human Reason, Til Enlightened by the Spirit of God (London: Printed for Tho. Cockerill, at the Three Legs in the Poultrey, over-against the Stocks-Market, 1692), 14–17.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB
Bremer

Edward Leigh (1602–1671) on God's Common and Special Grace

So much in general of God's virtues. Secondly, in special, the virtues which imply not imperfection in the reasonable creature, are attributed to God. The principle of which are:

1. Bounty or Graciousness, by which God shows favor to the creatures freely, and that either commonly or specially; 1. Commonly, when he exercises beneficence and liberality toward all creatures, powering upon them plentifully all goods of nature, body, mind and fortune, so that there is nothing which tastes not of the inexhausted fountain of his blessings and goodness. Matt. 5:44, 45. Psal. 36:5, 6. God's bounty is a will in him to bestow [a] store of comfortable and beneficial things on the creature in his kind. This bounty he showed to all things in the creation, even to all Spirits, all men and all creatures, and does in great part show still, for he opens his hand and fills every living thing with his bounty, he gives all things richly to enjoy.

2. Specially toward the Church, by which he bestows eternal life on certain men fallen by sin, and redeemed in Christ, Titus 2:11 & 3:4. As this is exercised toward the whole Church, so in a special manner toward some members of it, as toward Enoch, Moses, Jacob, David, Paul, and especially Abraham, who is therefore often called the Friend of God; he made with him and his seed a perpetual league of friendship, and he constantly kept his Laws and Statutes, John 15:14, 15.

God's Graciousness is an essential property, whereby he is in and of himself most gracious and amiable, Psa. 145:8. God is only gracious in and of himself, and whatsoever is amiable and gracious, is so from him.

God's Graciousness is that whereby he is truly amiable in himself, and freely bountiful unto his creatures, cherishing them tenderly without any desert of theirs, Psa. 86:15, 111:5. Gen. 43:29.

God is gracious to all, Psa. 145:8, 9, 10. but especially to such whom he does respect in his well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Exod. 33:19. Isa. 30:19. Luke 1:30. Gen. 6:8. 1 Cor. 15:10. God's free favor is the cause of our salvation, and of all the means tending thereunto, Rom. 3:24 & 5:15, 16. Eph. 1:5, 6 & 2:4. Rom. 9:16. Titus 3:5. Heb. 4:16. Rom. 6:23. 1 Cor. 12:4, 9. The gospel sets forth the freeness, fulness, and the powerfulness of God's grace to his Church, therefore it is called the Gospel of the grace of God, Acts 20:24.

God's Graciousness is firm and unchangeable, so that those which are once beloved can never be rejected, or utterly cast off, Psa. 77:10.

God bestows, 1. Good things. 2. Freely. 3. Plentifully. Psa. 111:4. 4. In a special manner He is gracious towards the godly.

Love is 1. grounded often on something which may deserve it; the grace of God is that love of his which is altogether free. 2. Grace is such a kind of love as flows from a superior to an inferior; love may be in inferiors toward their superiors.

Edward Leigh, A Treatise of Divinity Consisting of Three Books (London: Printed by E. Griffen for William Lee, and are to be sold at his shop at the Turkes-head in Fleetstreet, neer Ram-alley, 1646), 2:83–84.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

James Henley Thornwell (1812–1862) on the God’s General Goodness and Love

It is vain to allege that such general goodness is never referred to God’s love. The Saviour settles the point in Matthew v. 44, 45. There He commands His disciples to love their enemies, to bless them that curse them, to do good to them that hate them, etc. Why? “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Here the disciples are commanded to love their enemies, that they might be like God. But how does it appear that God loves His enemies? “He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust;” in other words, from the common bounties of Providence. With such a plain illustration of the fact that God can be said to love without intending to save, it is amazing that such passages as the following should ever have been adduced to prove a purpose of universal salvation: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” I would as soon think of appealing to Romans ix. 22, because God is there said to have endured the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction with much long-suffering.

James Henley Thornwell, “Election and Reprobation,” in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, ed. John B. Adger, 4 vols. (New York: Robert Carter & Bros. Philadelphia: Alfred Martien. Louisville: Davidson Bros. & Co., 1871–73), 2:166.

Similarly, Thomas Manton said, "This [common] love floweth in the channel of common providence."

Bio:

Wiki

William Gearing (c.1625–c.1690) on God's General Love

Gearing states five proofs and reasons why we are to love all in the beginning of chapter 10 of the following work. His first proof is this:

1. Because wherever we see any part of God's goodness, we are to love it. It is said that our Saviour beholding the rich young man that came unto him, loved him, Mar. 10.21. There is some Print of God's goodness in many that are not Godly, which ought to draw our affection to it; Goodness being the Object of Love. This is the reason why God himself loves all his Creatures, because there is a participation of his Goodness in them. There are some Reliques of God's Image in prophane men, that God bears a general Love unto, that we also may do the like.

William Gearing, Philadelphia, Or, A Treatise of Brotherly-Love (London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Gilded Bible on London Bridg, next the Gate, 1670), 39–40. [Some spelling updated]

The Reason why Christians must show special Love one to another, are these.

1. Because God himself bestoweth his most special Love, the riches of his Love, upon the Godly; his everlasting Love is towards Jacob. As a man loveth his whole Family, but his special Love is to his Wife and Children. So God, although he loveth all the world, all his Creatures, yet his special Love is to his Saints. God's common and ordinary Love to all mankind, to the wicked, is but like the crumbs that fall from the rich man's Table; but his special Love and Favour are the Dainties upon that Table, which none but his Church doth feed upon. God causeth the Sun in the Firmament to shine upon the just and the unjust. The light of the Sun is a great, yet common mercy; but God hath promised, that he will be a Sun and Shield to his Saints, and give both Grace and Glory. God will give the Light of the Sun to the wicked, but the Godly only shall enjoy the Light of his Countenance. He will give to the wicked Rain, the Dew of the Clouds; but the Godly only shall have the Dew of Heaven poured on them. If the Lord doth bestow the chief of his Love upon his people, then must we Love them as God doth, and bestow the chief of our Love upon them.

Ibid., 65–66.

Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson give this brief biography of Gearing:

Little is known about William Gearing. He seems to have served as a minister in Lymington in the 1650s and later at Christ Church in Surrey. He preached a sermon at St. Mary Le Bow on September 3, 1688, in commemoration of the Great Fire in London.

Gearing published several works that reveal intimate awareness of the church fathers, experiential Calvinism, and the spiritual need of believers. His meditative treatise on prayer, A Key to Heaven (1683), is among the finest examples of seventeenth-century piety. He was also active in publishing some of the writings of John Maynard, a member of the Westminster Assembly.

See Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 259.

R. B. Kuiper (1886–1966) on Common Grace

The term common grace is used in different senses in different theologians. Wesleyan Arminianism teaches that, although man is by nature totally depraved, God bestows on every individual at birth sufficient grace to receive Christ in faith of his free volition. Because such grace is said to be bestowed on all, it is denominated “common.” It is further contended that he who exercises that grace by believing in Christ is in consequence born again. The Reformed position, on the other hand, insists that only he who by the grace of the Holy Spirit has been born again is capable of saving faith. Therefore it rejects the Wesleyan Arminian concept of common grace and employs that term in a radically different sense. It distinguishes sharply between common grace and special or particular grace and ascribes renewing quality only to the latter.

God’s Favor to All

Scripture teaches unmistakably that God bestows His saving grace upon the elect, but it teaches just as clearly that He manifests an attitude of favor to all men. The Psalmist sang: “The Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all” (Ps. 145:8, 9). In Jesus’ command to His disciples, “Love your enemies … that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 5:44, 45), the love of God for His enemies is undeniably implicit. God’s universal love is basic to the doctrine of common grace.

Scripture ascribes to the goodness of God the blessings of nature granted to all. Immediately after the Deluge God promised that the earth would not again be destroyed by a flood but that, so long as the earth remained, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night would not cease (Gen. 8:21, 22). Paul told the people of pagan Lystra and Derbe that God never left Himself without witness but did good, giving rain and fruitful seasons, and thus filling men’s hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14:17). And in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stated that God in love causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good, and rain to descend on the just and the unjust (Mt. 5:45).

Vestiges of God’s Image

When man fell into sin, God permitted him to retain certain vestiges of the Divine image in which he had been created. Prominent among those vestiges is a "sensus Deitatis." According to Romans 1:19-21, the heathen have some knowledge of God. In his Institutes of Christian Religion Calvin insisted that "a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart," even on the hearts of those who "seem to differ least from the lower animals" (I, iii, 1). Nor did God deprive man at his Fall of the precious gift of reason. It continued to be exercised by the offspring of ungodly Cain as well as by the descendants of godly Seth. In fact, in the early history of mankind the former excelled in the arts and sciences (Gen. 4:20–22). Calvin said: "In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we should avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or contemn truth wherever it appears." Referring to pagan lawgivers, philosophers, rhetoricians, physicians, and mathematicians, he declared: "We cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration" (Inst., II, ii, 15). Fallen man also continues to to be a moral being; that is to say, he has a sense of right and wrong, a conscience which tells him it is right to do the right, wrong to do the wrong. The Gentiles "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing on another" (Rom. 2:15).

By no means does the fact of man's retention of vestiges of the Divine image detract from his total depravity. His Fall resulted in the complete loss of true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). The Apostle Paul charged the heathen with suppressing the truth by their wickedness (Rom. 1:18, RSV) and changing the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25); and of both Jew and gentile he said: "There is none righteous, no, not one. . . . There is none that seeketh after God. . . . There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:10, 11, 18). Hence Calvin, having lauded the wisdom imparted by the Holy Spirit to the pagans of antiquity, went on to say: "Still, though seeing, they saw not. Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller who sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their writings as if by chance. . . . To the great truths, what God is in himself, and what he is in relation to us, human reason makes not the least approach" (Inst., II, ii, 18). The Canons of Dort having granted that there remain in fallen man "the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior," go on to assert: "But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God" (III–IV, 4).

Restraint of Sin

God graciously restrains sin both in the individual and in the race. That truth is plainly implicit in the divine assertion, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" (Gen. 6:3). With reference to Sarah, Abraham's wife, God said to Abimelech, king of Gerar: "I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her" (Gen. 20:6). And Scripture teaches that human government was ordained by God for the punishment of evil as well as the encouragement of that which is good (Rom. 13:1–4). Were it not for the Divine restraint of evil, human intercourse on this sin-ridden earth would be utterly chaotic. Since there is Divine restraint, a more or less orderly society occurs.

Encouragement to Good

Scripture teaches not only that God holds sin in check in the lives of the unregenerate; it ascribes to them the exercise of love and the doing of good. Said Jesus to His disciples: "If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what than have ye? for sinners even do the same" (Luke 6:32, 33). Here it becomes necessary to distinguish between "love" and "love," "good" and "good." Elsewhere, Scripture says of the unregenerate: "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12); and they are described as "haters of God" and "hating one another" (Rom. 1:30; Tit. 3:3). Only those who are born again are capable of "spiritual" good; that is to say, good motivated by love for God or that love for men which springs from love for God. The Heidelberg Catechism defines good works as "those which are done from true faith, according to the law of God, and to his glory" (Answer 91). Such works only the regenerate can perform. Yet, by virtue of the common grace of God others can and do perform good that may be denominated "civic" or "natural." But, though there is an outward conformance to precepts of God, there is something essentially lacking in them. Of such good the Westminster Confession of Faith says: "Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing to God" (XVI, 7).

Sincere Offer of the Gospel

A most significant aspect of the doctrine of common grace is what Reformed theology designates "the universal and sincere offer of the Gospel." On the basis of Scripture, Reformed theology holds that from eternity God elected certain persons to eternal life and decreed that the others would because of their sins perish everlastingly. The latter phase of divine predestination is variously described as "preterition," "rejection," or "reprobation." Also on the basis of Scripture Reformed theology holds that "as many as are called by the Gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in his Word what is acceptable to him; namely, that all who are called should come unto him" (Canons of Dort, III-IV, 8). Yet such passages as Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Mt. 11:28; 23:37; and II Pet. 3:9 teach unmistakably that God not only promises eternal life to sinners in the case that they repent and believe, but most cordially invites all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe in order that they may be saved. The last-named passage says in so many words that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Thus Divine reprobation and the Divine offer of the Gospel admittedly constitute a paradox. Human reason has proved unable to harmonize them fully with each other. Here, as indeed everywhere, Reformed theology subjects human logic to the Divine logos. Commenting on Ezek. 18:23, Calvin said: "God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who are perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. . . . If any one should object, 'then there is no election of God, by which he has predestined a fixed number to salvation,' the answer is at hand: the prophet does not here speak of God's secret counsel, but only recalls miserable men from despair, that they may apprehend the hope of pardon, and repent, and embrace the offered salvation. If any one again objects, 'this is making God act with duplicity,' the answer is ready: that God always wishes the same thing though by different ways and in a manner inscrutable to us. Although, therefore, God's will is simple, yet great variety is involved in it, as far as our senses are concerned. Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction and wishes them to perish" (Calvin's Commentaries in loco).

Contrast With Saving Grace

Common grace as described in the foregoing paragraphs differs essentially from particular or saving grace. No amount of common grace will save a sinner from sin and death. Yet common and saving grace are closely related. They may be said to be independent. Saving grace presupposes common grace. For example, a covenant of nature, which God established with Noah and his descendants, guaranteed the continuity of the human race (Gen. 8:21–9:17). With that covenant as a background, God subsequently established a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed, and in so doing guaranteed the continuity of the church (Gen. 12:1-3; 17:1–7). Had there been no human race, there could have been no church. in another example it may also be asserted without hesitation that because of His elect God frequently bestows blessings on men in general. For the sake of ten righteous persons God would have spared wicked Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:32). Jesus' saying, "Ye are the salt of the earth" (Mt. 5:13) indicates that God for the present bears with this sinful world because of the presence in it of His children as a preservative. The tribulation that will come to pass toward the end of time will be shortened for the elect's sake (Mt. 24:22). Whether it is solely for the sake of His chosen people that God dispenses the blessings of common grace to mankind is definitely another matter. So sweeping an assertion would be unwarranted.

Historical Survey

Although the doctrine of common grace is found by suggestion in some of Augustine's writings, it never came to be elaborated by the Church of Rome. Rome's disparagement of the natural, in contradistinction to the spiritual, accounts for that neglect. The anabaptists, instead of correcting that error, compounded it by positing an antithesis of the spiritual and the natural. To the present day a powerful strain of this persists in much of Protestantism. Hence, many Protestants—perhaps most of them—show little interest in the doctrine of common grace. The 16th-century Reformers, notably Calvin among them, may be said to have discovered that doctrine. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th it was elaborated and strongly stressed by such Dutch Calvinists as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. The former wrote three large volumes on this subject.

More recently, the present century witnessed considerable controversy on common grace among American Calvinists, particularly in the Christian Reformed Church. In 1920 Ralph Janssen, Professor of OT at Calvin Seminary, was charged with leanings toward higher criticism. Although he was exonerated by the Synod of that year, charges against him persisted. He retorted that his critics were neglecting the doctrine of common grace, and he quoted Kuyper and Bavinck to that effect, under both of whom he had studied at the Free University of Amsterdam. When he refused to defend himself at the Synod of 1922 because, as he contended, certain members of that Synod had by their denial of common grace disqualified themselves for proper evaluation of his teaching, that body found him guilty as charged. However, the very next Synod, that of 1924, found two of his most vehement critics, Henry Danof and Herman Hoeksema, guilty of denying the historic Reformed doctrine of common grace. These men insisted that an attitude of favor on the part of God to the non-elect is out of the question and that they are incapable of doing good whatsoever. Under three heads, Synod emphatically reaffirmed the doctrine of common grace. It also recommended further study of the subject. Attempts in that direction were subsequently made by Herman Kuiper, Cornelius Van Til, James Daane, William Masselink, and Alexander De Jong, among others. Discussion has brought to the fore the importance of the time factor. It is obvious that, although God from eternity decreed unalterably the damnation of certain men, so long as the non-elect have not in actual historical fact finally rejected Christ by unbelief, God does not exclusively regard them nor deal with them qua reprobate, but in many ways manifests His goodness to them. Yet that leaves the paradox of Divine reprobation and common grace unsolved. It has become increasingly clear that this paradox must be permitted to stand without modification. It behooves Christians to beware of detracting from either of its elements.

A significant question demanding further consideration than so far received is whether Christ merited the blessings of common grace for the non-elect by the Atonement. That God ever beholds His elect in Christ is perfectly clear. For Christ's sake He blesses them with natural blessings as well as spiritual. Does God also for the sake of Christ bestow some good things on the non-elect? Calvin has not answered that question explicitly. William Cunningham has said: "Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other" (Historical Theology, II, 333). Robert S. Candlish observed that the entire history of the human race from the Apostasy to the Final Judgment is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. He has asserted: "These come to them through the mediation of Christ" (The Atonement, 358 f.). Also, L. Berkhof, while admitting that Reformed theologians generally have been hesitant to say that Christ's atoning blood merited the blessings of common grace for the reprobate, has concluded that undoubtedly significant benefits accrue from Christ's death to the entire race of men (Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1938, 438).

R. B. Kuiper, “Common Grace,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4 vols., ed. Philip E. Hughes (Marshallton, Delaware: The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1972), 3:48–53.

Common Grace

The Reformed doctrine of common grace is not as yet a finished product. Rather, it is in process of development, witness Cornelius Van Til’s contribution in a number of articles on that theme, which were first published in The Westminster Theological Journal and subsequently appeared as a book,⁸ and James Daane’s evaluation of Van Til’s doctrine of common grace in A Theology of Grace.⁹ It may, however, be asserted without hesitation that God in His longsuffering does not yet see fit to pour out upon the reprobate the full content of the vials of His righteous judgment, but is “the Saviour,” that is, the Preserver, “of all men” (I Tim. 4:10); that for the present He takes an attitude of benevolence, which Scripture does not hesitate to denominate “love,” toward all men, including His enemies, in virtue of which He dispenses certain blessings to them as, for instance, rain and sunshine (Matt. 5:43–48); that He restrains sin in the reprobate, as a result of which more or less orderly human society remains possible (Gen. 6:3; 20:6); and that He endows the unregenerate not only with natural talents in such fields as science and art (Gen. 4:20–22), but also with certain virtues which enable them to do so-called civic good (Luke 6:33), although not such good as is prompted by faith in God and love for Him and is known as spiritual good. The question whether this goodness of God to men in general is properly called “grace” or should be denominated otherwise is relatively unimportant if only it be maintained, as Reformed theologians have consistently done, that the difference between saving grace and common grace is not quantitative but qualitative. No amount of common grace equals so much as a grain of saving grace.

What has been said is admittedly an incomplete statement of the doctrine of common grace, and the theme under discussion does not require a fuller statement. What the theme does demand is a consideration of the question whether or not the blessings of the common grace of God are a product of the atonement.

One can hardly escape the impression that a number of Reformed theologians have fought shy of that question. It has difficult aspects. However, Scripture teaches repeatedly that God shows mercy to the wicked because of the righteous. In answer to Abraham’s intercessory prayer God assured him that He would spare Sodom for the sake of but ten righteous men that might conceivably be found within it (Gen. 18:32); and a plain implication of Jesus’ words addressed to His disciples, “Ye are the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), is that because of the presence of His people, acting as a preservative, God has not yet spewed this insipid and putrid world out of His mouth. This teaching of Scripture points plainly to some connection between the atonement and the common grace of God. In Calvin on Common Grace Herman Kuiper says guardedly that Calvin “does create the impression that he believed that the non-elect enjoy within the limits of this present life certain fruits of the mediatorial labors of Christ by which He acquired heaven and earth as the inheritance of God’s children.” He proceeds: “Calvin does not say this in just so many words but he does suggest the thought that Christ, into whose hands the Father has delivered all things, so dispenses temporal gifts that the ungodly receive the crumbs which fall from the table which he has prepared for those whose sins He bore on the cross.”¹⁰ Berkhof tells us: “Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, and impenitent, and the reprobate also share.”¹¹ In support of this observation he quotes William Cunningham to the effect that “many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other.”¹² He further cites Robert S. Candlish to the effect that “the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning.”¹³

The final sentence of the quotation from Candlish is particularly significant for the present discussion. The blessings of common grace, although resulting only indirectly from the atonement, were most surely designed by God to result from the atonement. The design of God in the atoning work of Christ pertained primarily and directly to the redemption of the elect, but indirectly and secondarily it also included the blessings of common grace. Berkhof’s statement that “all that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ”¹⁴ is not too sweeping. God planned it thus.
_______________
8. Common Grace, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1947.
9. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1954.
10. Calvin on Common Grace, Oosterbaan and Le Cointre, Goes, 1928, p. 214.
11. Systematic Theology, p. 438.
12. Historical Theology, Edinburgh, 1871, II. 333.
13. The Atonement, Edinburgh, 1861, pp. 358f.
14. Systematic Theology, p. 439.

R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?: A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 81–84.

Bio:
Wiki

Benjamin Grosvenor (1675–1758) on the Good-Will of God

I. What this Good Will of God is [in Deut. 33:16]?
And it signifies not only that Benevolence of God, whereby he wills Good to all his Creatures, not willing that any should perish, but should come to the Knowledge of the Truth, and be saved: Not only his common Beneficence, whereby he does good to all, and his tender Mercies are over all his Works; causing his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall upon the Just and the Unjust: And with a liberal Hand scatters promiscuous Bounties over the World, which are pick'd up by wicked Men as Dogs do Crumbs under their Masters Table: But the good Will of God here [in Deut. 33:16] must be understood to signify something more Excellent…

Benjamin Grosvenor, God’s Good Will to Great-Britain (London: Printed for Eman. Matthews, at the Bible in Pater-Noster-Row; and R. Ford, at the Angel in the Poultrey, 1720), 9–10. Also in Sermons by Benjamin Grosvenor (Isle of Wight: Printed for the Author, by R. Tillin, Newport; and Sold by Williams and Smith, Stationer's-Court, and Ogle, Holborn, London, 1808), 183.

Bio: 
Neal
DNB

J. A. Alexander (1809–1860) on Matthew 5:45

The true law of benevolence having been laid down in all its length and breadth and in contrast with the narrow Pharisaic rule and practice, is now shown to be reasonable from analogy. The appeal is a twofold example, that of God and man. The demonstrative power of the first rests not merely on the general principle of God's perfection and authority as the standard and exemplar of all excellence, but also on the filial relation borne to him by all believers, and here obviously assumed by Christ as necessarily belonging to his true disciples. As if he had said, 'In coming to me, you come to the Father, not mine merely but your own; for if you believe in me, you are his children, and the child must imitate the father in all imitable qualities and acts. But he does not confine his rain and sunshine to the good or righteous, i.e. those who are conformed to his will, but gives them also to the wicked and unrighteous.' The implied conclusion is that we are not to regulate our love by the merit of the object but extend it to all. From this it follows that the love here meant is not the love of complacency, involving moral approbation, but the love of benevolence, involving only a desire of the object's welfare. Maketh to rise, an unavoidable periphrasis of one Greek verb (ανατέλλει), which is used both in a transitive and intransitive sense (see above, on 4, 16, and below, on 13, 6), the former of which is applied in the classics to the growth of plants, the rise of water, and the shedding forth of light. Sendeth rain (Tyndale, his rain), on the other hand, might be more simply and exactly rendered rains (or raineth). Evil and good, just and unjust, are not [to] be carefully distinguished, but regarded as synonymous descriptions of one great universal contrast which exists in human character.

Joseph Addison Alexander, The Gospel According to Matthew (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), 159.

Bio:
Wiki

Thomas Tuke (1580/81–1657) on the Love of God

There is no man living, which, as a creature, is not loved of God the great Creator; which appeareth in that He is said to be the Saviour of All, and to cause the Sun to shine, and the rain to fall, even on the wicked. He loveth Humanity, but hateth impiety; the Man-head is beloved, but malice in it is detested: He likes well of the Nature, but dislikes the sin: That, which is His, He loves, but that which mars His, He hates: His own Image He loves, but the deformities thereof, made by man, are altogether displeasing in his sight. Now when all men had transgressed, and by transgression had made themselves the children of death, it pleased Him to pass by some, being tied to none, and some others to choose in love unto Eternal Life. But what loved He now? The men, and not their manners; their nature, now under great corruption, but not corruption itself: Their persons, not their prevarications. And why loved He them? What moved Him to make that difference? Surely nothing but His own good Will: Mere mercy in Him, no merit at all in them; His free Dignation, and no dignity or deserts of theirs: His free favour to them, and no foreseen faith in them. But God, that had nothing to love in a sinner but his Humanity, in a true Saint hath also Christianity: then Nature, but now Nature and Grace too: In Generation the Human Nature, in Regeneration a certain Divine Nature. If the devil hate all men, but especially all Saints; then we may be sure that God loves all men, but especially all holy men: And if the devil hate and pine at the graces of God in men; then questionless God loves all His graces, in whomsoever He finds them.

Thomas Tuke, New Essays (London: Printed by N.O. and are to be sold by William Bladon, at his Shop in S Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Bible, 1614), 113–115.

The Love of Christ unto the creature, is general or special. His general love, is either that whereby he loveth all his creatures, as they are his creatures, and declareth it by continuing their kinds, by preserving their natures, and by saving them from many dangers; and according to this kind of love, God is said to be good to all, to be merciful to the unjust as to the just, and to be the Saviour of all men: or else that whereby he loved Mankind in generally, by taking upon him the nature and name of man, and not the nature of Angels, nor of any other creature whatsoever. His special love (understood in this place) is that whereby he loveth the elect & faithful people of God, and is so well affected towards them, as that he is wanting in nothing to them, which is convenient for them. And in this respect he is called the Saviour of his (mystical) body, and is said to love the Church.

Thomas Tuke, The Treasure of True Love (London: Printed by Thomas Creede, and are to be sold by Thomas Archer, 1608), 4–5.

Bio:

DNB

Augustine (354–430) on Matthew 5:44–45

The Lord in the Gospel saith, "If ye love them that love you, what reward shall ye have? do not the publicans this?" Then what would He have us do? "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you." If then He bids us love our enemies, whence brings He an example to set before us? From God Himself: for He saith, "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." How doth God this? He loveth His enemies, "Who maketh His sun to rise upon the good and the bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust." If this then be the perfection unto which God inviteth us, that we love our enemies as He loves His; this is our boldness in the day of judgment, that "as He is, so are we also in this world:" because, as He loveth His enemies in making His sun to rise upon good and bad, and in sending rain upon the just and unjust, so we, since we cannot bestow upon them sun and rain, bestow upon them our tears when we pray for them.

Augustine, “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” in NPNF, 1st series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 7:515.

Bio:  
Wiki

Walter Chantry on Matthew 5:43–48

Text: Matthew 5:43-48 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 "And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Download or Play Chantry's Sermon in MP3 Here

Curt Daniel on the Common Grace Controversy

11. The Debate over Common Grace.

A. Most Hyper-Calvinists admit that there is a small remnant of mercy for the non-elect, called Common Grace. This pertains to them as creatures, not as elect or non-elect. Some say it postpones their judgment. Most say it has to do with the bounties of Providence. This is in agreement with the best of truly Reformed theology.

B. However, they greatly de-emphasize it. It sounds too Arminian. Herman Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Church completely reject all notions of Common Grace. Hoeksema’s logic is an extreme based on a distorted kind of Supralapsarianism. He argues that because of the double-decree of election and reprobation before the decree of the Fall, God has only love for the elect and only hatred for the reprobate.

C. This necessitates two corollaries, argues Hoeksema. First, the elect have never been under the wrath of God, for that means hatred. Second, the non-elect have never been under the love of God. Never the twain meet.

D. Mainstream Calvinists have great difficulty with this. First, Eph. 2:3 explicitly says that believers were once under the wrath of God “even as the rest.” Second, Scripture often speaks of God’s general love to all men as creatures (Psa. 145:9, Matt. 5:43-48, etc.). God commands us to love all men; does He command us to do what He Himself does not do? Mind you, this does not mean that Common Grace is saving – saving grace is special and particular.

E. Hoeksema had great difficulty with Calvin’s formula. Calvin said that it is not true that God had only love for some and only hatred for others. Rather, God had love and hatred for all men, but in differing ways. God hated all men because of sin, but had Common Grace on all because they were His creatures. Yet God had a special love for His elect, leaving the reprobate in the hatred their sins deserved. The real mystery, said Calvin, is that God could both love and hate the elect. But He did.

Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Sprinfield, Ill: Good Books, 2003), 91.