A Quote from William Jenkyn's (1612–1685) Dying Thoughts

Great is the heinousness of sin, since it can provoke a God of much Mercy to express much severity. That drop of Gall must needs be bitter that can imbitter a whole Sea of honey, how offensive must sin then be that can provoke a God, to whose Ocean of pity the Sea is but a drop! God doth not Afflict us willingly: He gives Honey naturally, but stings only when he is provoked by us. So that every Sufferer Coines his own Calamities, & there is no Arrow of Judgment falls down upon us, but what was first (in sinning) shot upwards by us; no shower of miseries sent down upon us, but what was First caused by the ascent of the vapours of our sin; Nor any Print of Calamity made on us, but sin is the Print that makes it. What a folly is it then for us in our suffering to be impatient against God, and yet patient with our sin, or to be angry with the Medicine, and yet in love with the disease. Let us justify God therefore in all our sufferings, and condemn ourselves.

Mr. Jenkins's Dying Thoughts: Who Departed this Life on Monday the 19th of this Instant January, in the Prison of Newgate (London: Printed for Edward Goldwin, 1685).

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Jenkyn is one of my favorite Puritans. It seems that every sentence in his writings is loaded with wisdom and excellent illustrations.

Andrew Gray (1634–1656) on Christ Begging

3. Thirdly, Let this consideration provoke you not to slight this great salvation, that Christ is exceedingly serious, and earnest that ye should embrace it: And I think that Isa. 28. 23. speaketh out his exceedingly seriousness, where four times he beggeth of his hearers, that they would give ear and hear his voice, saying, Give ear and hear my voice, hearken and hear my speech. What needeth all these exhortations? But that Christ is most serious that they would embrace the great salvation. And O, that there were a person here today, as serious to the bargain as Christ is! But be who ye will that slight this great salvation, [believe me] the day is coming wherein ye shall cry out, Alas for my slighting of it!

Andrew Gray, The Great Salvation Offered and Tendered (London: Printed for H. Barnard in the Poultrey, 1694), 19–20.

Bio:
Wiki

Jeremiah Burroughs (c.1600–1646) on 1 Peter 3:18-20

That is vainly made use of by some, to prove that Christ's soul did descend into Hell, to go and preach to the damned in Hell, but certainly that is a vain conceit, if you observe the text, you shall find that this is the meaning of it, observe the 20th verse, It was to those spirits which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God, waited in the days of Noah. Those spirits that did live in the days of Noah, and Noah's preaching unto them; Now (the text says) they are in prison, Jesus Christ went and preached to the spirits that were disobedient in the times of Noah, that now are in prison. How did he go but by his Spirit? By his servant Noah, [by Noah]. The preaching of Noah was the preaching of Christ.

Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Reconciliation, Or, Christ's Trumpet of Peace to the World (London: Printed by Peter Cole, 1657), 285–286. I have updated some of the English.

Burroughs, Flavel and Howe are all in agreement on this text.

J. L. Dagg (1794–1884) on Various Senses of “Decree”

Writers on theology have employed the term Decrees, to denote the purpose of God. It is an objection to this term, that there is no inspired authority for its use in this sense. When the Scriptures use the term decree, they signify by it a command promulged, to be observed by those under authority. It is the will of precept, rather than the will of purpose. And further, its use in the plural number does not accord so well with the oneness of the divine plan.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA.: Gano Books, 1990), 103–4.

Bio:  
Wiki

Edward Polhill has made similar observations about the term (click). See Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 131–32. So did Henry Boynton Smith in his System of Christian Theology (1892), 117.

J. L. Dagg (1794–1884) on God’s Will of Precept and Will in General

Besides God’s will of purpose, we have seen that he has a will of precept. According to the latter, he commands all men everywhere to repent; he requires all to believe in Jesus Christ; and it is his will that all men should honor the Son. To all who obey his will in these particulars, he gives the promise of eternal life. The precept and the promise are both included in the revealed will of God. It is the revealed will of God that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and that every creature who hears should believe, and that all who believe shall receive life everlasting.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA.: Gano Books, 1990), 325.

Bio:  
Wiki

More from Dagg on the revealed will of God can be read HERE. It includes the following:

THE term will, which always imports desire, is variously applied, according to the object of that desire.

1. It denotes intention or purpose to act. It is said of Apollos “His will was not at all to come at this time” [1 Cor. 16:12], i.e., he had no formed the intention or purpose to come. In this sense, the will of God is spoken of: “According to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” [Eph. 1:11]. Purpose or intention may exist before the time of action arrives. When it has arrived, the mind puts forth an act termed volition, to produce the desired effect. In human beings, purposes may be fickle, and may undergo change before the time for action comes; but God’s purpose or intention is never changed; and when the time for producing the purposed effect arrives, we are not to conceive that a new volition arises in the mind of God; but the effect follows, according to the will of God, without any new effort on his part.

2. It denotes a desire to act, restrained by stronger opposing desires, or other counteracting influences. Pilate was “willing” to release Jesus [Luke 23:20]; but other considerations, present to his mind, overruled this desire, and determined his action. We are compelled to conceive of the divine mind, from the knowledge which we possess of our own; and the Scriptures adapt their language to our conceptions. In this way, a desire to act is sometimes attributed to God, when opposing considerations prevent his action. “I would scatter them, were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy” [Deut. 32:27]. “How often would I have gathered, &c., and ye would not” [Matt. 23:37].

3. It is used with reference to an external object that is desired, or an action which it is desired that another should perform. “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not” [Heb. 10:5]. “Be it unto thee as thou wilt” [Matt. 15:28]. “Ask what ye will” [John 15:7]. “What will ye, that I should do” [Mark 15:12]. In this sense, as expressing simply what is in itself desirable to God, will is attributed to him. “Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” [2 Peter 3:9]. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, &c” [Ezek. 33:11]. “This is the will of God, even your sanctification” [1 Thess. 4:3].

4. Closely allied to the last signification, and perhaps included in it, is that use of the term will, in which it denotes command, requirement. When the person, whose desire or pleasure it is that an action should be performed by another, has authority over that other, the desire expressed assumes the character of precept. The expressed will of a suppliant, is petition; the expressed will of a ruler, is command. What we know that it is the pleasure of God we should do, it is our duty to do, and his pleasure made known to us becomes a law.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, First Part: A Treatise on Christian Doctrine (Charleston, SC; Richmond, VA; Macon, GA; Selma, AL; New Orleans: Southern Baptist Publication Society; S. S. & Publication Board; B. B. & Colporteur Society; B. B. & Book Depository; B. B. Depository, 1859), 99–100.

Dr. David Allen's Review of Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue

BaptistTheology.org has posted Dr. David Allen's review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue. This book is the collection of papers that were delivered at the Building Bridges Conference. While Dr. Allen does not consider himself a Calvinist, he reviews this book with theological clarity, objectivity and overall competence. I can only hope (perhaps in vain) that the civility with which he addresses the subjects is also found in his Calvinistic critics, particularly by those in the blogosphere.

As some of you may know, Dr. Allen will be one of those lecturing this coming Friday at the John 3:16 Conference. His topic will be Limited Atonement.

J. L. Dagg (1794–1884) on Other Forms of “Particular Redemption”

The adaptedness of Christ’s death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption. . . Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract.

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990), 326.

Bio:  
Wiki

Dagg seems to be saying this in the above quote: He’s aware that there are some Calvinistic men who hold to a form of “particular redemption,” but they “distinguish between redemption and atonement.” By the term “atonement,” they’re referring to the satisfaction of Christ itself, such that they think “the death of Christ” was “an atonement for the sins of all men” (i.e. an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ, contrary to Dagg’s own limited imputation perspective). In their use of the term “redemption,” they’re referring to the effectual application that the elect alone receive at the point of faith by the regenerating power of the Spirit. What is interesting is that this is the very model set forth later on in W. G. T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. Shedd speaks of an “unlimited atonement” with a “particular redemption” in the above sense.

Similarly, A. A. Hodge noted the distinction in some Calvinistic theologians:

In modern times some Calvinistic advocates of an indefinite atonement distinguish between the terms [atonement and redemption] thus. Atonement, or the sacrificial impetration of salvation, they claim to be made indefinitely for all men. Redemption, which they understand to include the intended application as well as the impetration or salvation, they hold to be confined to the elect (Dr. W. B. Weeks, in “Parks’s Atonement,” p. 579).

A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 403.

J. I. Packer (1926–2020) on the Importance of Friendliness in Evangelism

The next time you engage in face-to-face evangelism yourself, or read some (perhaps totally anonymous) blogger who fancies himself as an evangelist and/or an über-apologist on the internet, or if you enter into a "Christian" chat room, observe if the following principles in Packer's book are being violated.

There is a famous old book on personal evangelism by C. G. Trumbull, entitled Taking Men Alive. In the third chapter of that book, the author tells us of the rule that his father, H. C. Trumbull, made for himself in this matter. It was as follows: 'Whenever I am justified in choosing my subject of conversation with another, the theme of themes (Christ) shall have prominence between us, so that I may learn of his need, and, if possible, meet it.' The key words here are: 'whenever I am justified in choosing my subject of conversation with another'. They remind us, first, that personal evangelism, like all our dealings with our fellow-men, should be courteous. And they remind us, second, that personal evangelism needs normally to be founded on friendship. You are not usually justified in choosing the subject of conversation with another till you have already begun to give yourself to him in friendship and established a relationship with him in which he feels that you respect him, and are interested in him, and are treating him as a human being, and not just as some kind of 'case'. With some people, you may establish such a relationship in five minutes, whereas with others it may take months. But the principle remains the same. The right to talk intimately to another person about the Lord Jesus Christ had to be earned, and you earn it by convincing him that you are his friend, and really care about him. And therefore the indiscriminate buttonholing, the intrusive barging in to the privacy of other people's souls, the thick-skinned insistence on expounding the things of God to reluctant strangers who are longing to get away—these modes of behaviour, in which strong and loquacious personalities have sometimes indulged in the name of personal evangelism, should be written off as a travesty of personal evangelism. Impersonal evangelism would be a better name for them! In fact, rudeness of this sort dishonours God; moreover, it creates resentment, and prejudices people against the Christ whose professed followers act so objectionably. The truth is that real personal evangelism is very costly, just because it demands of us a really personal relationship with the other man. We have to give ourselves in honest friendship to people, if ever our relationship with them is to reach the point at which we are justified in choosing to talk to them about Christ, and can speak to them about their own spiritual needs without being either discourteous or offensive. If you wish to do personal evangelism, then—and I hope you do; you ought to—pray for the gift of friendship. A genuine friendliness is in any case a prime mark of the man who is learning to love his neighbor as himself.

J. I. Packer, Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1991), 80–82.

Some of the Christians on the internet who are violating these principles are not only not accountable to other believers, but they are not even accountable to their own Church elders, and yet demand respect for their "evangelistic" or "apologetical" activities. As Packer points out above, we are hardening people against the truth, rather than winning them to the truth, when we behave "so objectionably" toward others.

ESV 1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

Biblical apologetics doesn't merely involve an intellectual ability to give an answer to those who contradict God's words. It also involves a level of maturity in conversation such that our neighbor can tell that we have an interest in their ultimate well-being, that we truly respect them as made in God's image, and genuinely desire that they come to the knowledge of the truth.