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

Andrew Kingsmill (1538–1569) on Christ’s Question to Judas

Even as that lamentable question imports, Judas, you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? [Luke 22:48] Which was to say, “you whom I have chosen of many a thousand, one of my twelve familiars, you upon whom I have bestowed so many good turns, to whom I have given freely so many good lessons, upon whom I have wasted so many words, you that eat bread with me, you that dip in one dish with me, you you lift up your heel against me, and tread me under foot? you that provide for the sustenance of my body, are you become the betrayer of my soul? whose salvation I have sought by so many means, do you thirst for my blood? for whom I am content to lay down my life, are you become my hangman? Come you unto me with the face of a friend, and give me up to my enemies? You call me master, and wish me the curse of the cross? You give me a kiss, and wound my heart?” These sighs no doubt came up with that question.

Andrew Kingsmill, A View of Man’s Estate, Wherein the Great Mercie of God in Man’s Free Justification by Christ, is Very Comfortably Declared (London: H. Bynneman, for Lucas Harison and George Bishop, 1574), E3^v; or p. 62 [no pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning of the treatise; some spelling updated and modernized].

Bio:

DNB

Brook

A Recent Series by Curt Daniel on the Five Points

Christopher Blackwood (1606–1670) on the Outcries of Wicked Men Against Fallen Saints

The great triumphs and outcries wicked men make when any of Gods children fall into scandalous sin (I say, when any of Gods children, for properly a scandal cannot be given but by Gods children, or by them that profess the truth) when such are overtaken, though the wicked themselves be a thousand times worse, they are apt to triumph, Psalm 38.16 When my foot slippeth (though I did not actually fall) they magnifie themselves against me. As things that fall from on high make a great sound, so the falls of persons that are high in profession are heard afar off. Wicked men hunger and thirst after the falls of godly men, and if at any time they fall into evil, like hungry Dogs they muzzle in their Excrements, like Horse Flies that passing by many precious Flowers fasten upon Dung. The wicked pass by the graces of Saints, and fasten upon their infirmities.

Christopher Blackwood, Exposition Upon the Ten First Chapters of the Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew (London, Printed by Henry Hills, for Francis Tyton, and John Field, and are to be sold at the Three Daggers, and at the Seven Stars in Fleetstreet, 1659), 201.

Bio:
Brook

On Obama and A Popular False Either/Or Dilemma

To posit that EITHER 1) Obama is a Muslim OR 2) Obama is a Christian is a false either/or dilemma since there is a tertium quid; namely, the option that 3) Obama is sincere in his profession to be a Christian but sincerely wrong about that, which is actually the case with millions of Americans to varying degrees.

While the consideration of the third option may offend some people, they should rather take this constructively as an opportunity to examine themselves by Apostolic standards for a change (2 Cor. 13:5).

Donald Davis Grohman on the Doctrinal Differences Between the Saumur Theologians and Francis Turretin

Also, it should be pointed out again that the doctrinal difference between the Saumur theologians and Turretin do not involve any of the fundamental tenets of the Reformed faith. Turretin himself mentions this fact in a letter to Jean Claude which we shall consider later in this thesis. As we have seen various times in this chapter, Turretin refers to the Salmurians as fellow Reformed pastors and theologians, and the Salmurians certainly view themselves as being within the Reformed tradition. In fact, Amyraut goes to great lengths in attempting to prove that the orthodox Reformed theologians are in agreement with him. Thus, even though this controversy was a serious and lengthy one, nevertheless it was entirely an internal dispute within the Reformed churches concerning nonfundamental matters.

It might seem that in a sense the doctrinal differences between the Salmurians and the orthodox theologians are only theoretical. The “universalism” of the Saumur theologians is merely hypothetical, and in the final analysis, the Salmurians accept the particularism of the Reformed doctrine of predestination: namely, that only the elect are granted faith and salvation. In fact, since hypothetical universalism was basically intended to be a new way of presenting the doctrine of predestination so as to make it seem less objectionable, it was often called a new method rather than a new doctrine. However, if one examines the arguments on both sides, it becomes apparent that there are certain real differences between the two positions.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 120–21.

These statements about the differences being intramural concur with Richard Muller’s perspective as seen here and here.

Richard Muller on Permissio and Permissio Efficax

permissio: permission; specifically, permission as distinct from active or effective willing. The concept of a divine permissio was denied by Calvin* but accepted by virtually all later Reformed theologians, including Beza and Zanchi, as a means of explaining the origin of sin and the continuing instances of sin in the course of human history. God does not will positively that sins occur but permits creatures to exercise their will in a sinful way. The concept appears also in the Lutheran scholastic systems, though Lutheran opposition to the doctrine of a decretum absolutum, or absolute decree, of predestination rendered the origin of sin and the continuing presence of sin less of a problem for Lutheran than for Reformed orthodoxy.

permissio efficax: effective permission or willing permission; especially, the providential concursus (q.v.) underlying evil acts of human beings; a concept typical of Reformed theology, which will not allow a bare or ineffectual permission on the part of God and which will acknowledge no realm of activity outside of the will of God. God therefore is viewed as positively willing to permit the free agency of human beings and as supporting their acts with his providential concursus even when those acts go against his revealed will.

Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 222.

See also David's posts on Divine Permission of Sin.

*I question whether Muller is correct that Calvin denied the concept of divine permission. Certainly he denied the concept of an unwilling divine permission, but not the concept as such. He probably followed Augustine on the idea. See some Calvin sources here (click).

William Perkins (1558–1602) on the Love of God

Object. Election is nothing else but dilection, or love: but this we know, that God loves all his creatures; therefore he elects all his creatures.

Answer. I. I deny that to elect is to love, but to ordain & appoint to love. Rom. 9.13. II. God doth love all his creatures, yet not all equally, but every one in their place.

William Perkins, "A Golden Chaine," in The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the University of Cambridge, Mr. William Perkins (London: Printed by John Legatt, 1626), 108.

Which loved us. That is, the Churches of Asia, and by portion all other Churches, being parts of the true Church.

The love of Christ hath three degrees: the first is called a general love, whereby he loves all his creatures, as they be his creatures: and this love is common to all his creatures.

The second degree is the love of mankind, in that he was content to become a redeemer for mankind, not for any other creature, no not for the Angels, which fell as well as man.

The third degree, which is most principle, is that whereby he loves his elect and chosen children, which is that love whereby he accepts of them to life everlasting.

William Perkins, Lectures Upon the Three First Chapters of the Revelation (London: Printed by Richard Field for Cuthbert Burbie, and are to be sold as his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Swan, 1604), 39–40.

Now see the meaning: I love. Christ loveth the creatures two ways: first, as a Creator: secondly, as a redeemer. As he is a Creator, he loveth them with a general and common love, whether the creatures be reasonable or unreasonable. As Redeemer, he loveth them with a special and peculiar love, not common to all, but to that part of mankind only which is elected and chosen to salvation. And of this last love he speaketh here: as if he should say, As many as I love, communicating with them my righteousness and life eternal: I rebuke.

William Perkins, Lectures Upon the Three First Chapters of the Revelation (London: Printed by Richard Field for Cuthbert Burbie, and are to be sold as his shop in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Swan, 1604), 326.

Now God being a faithful creator, tenderly loves all his creature[s].

William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles (London: Printed by John Legatt, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1595), 66–67.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB