Daniel Rogers (1573–1652) on God’s Well-Meaning and Loving Offer of Grace

First, it is accidental to God’s offer of Grace, that the condemnation of the wicked is aggravated thereby. For it is not through his default, but theirs. His offer is directly to his own elect; but if the other will mix themselves, and abuse this offer, their blood be upon their heads. Put case a Prince offer his pardon to ten of whom he knows none will not accept it: is it his fault to offer it? or is he the cause of their contempt? Doth he infuse it into them? No surely. Nay further, (to stop the mouth of all such cavilers) this I add, That God doth not hereby only aggravate their judgment: for he doth by his Gospel bestow upon them many gifts of his Spirit, much restraint of sin, many merciful allowances which others want, so that by this means their condemnation is lessened.

Daniel Rogers, Naaman the Syrian His Disease and Cure (London: Printed by Th. Harper for Philip Nevil, 1642), 13 [errata; or insert at the beginning of the book].

Fifthly, let thy stony heart break in pieces between the hammer of his Sovereignty, and the pillow of his long suffering and patience toward thee. Surely in that he hath so long had thee as so infinite advantage, its strange that ever he should forbear thee so long, offer thee such means & ordinances; or should pass by the days of thine ignorance, or suffer any seed or remainder of a tender heart to abide in thee. I say, it is strange he should restore thee out of so many perils, diseases, and hazards: still present thee with hope and possibility of forgetting such a multitude of transgressions, and forgiving thy offenses. What should all this argue, save a most bountiful abatement of extremity & rigor, and that (notwithstanding his power, yet) his love is more prevailing with him, to spare thee? Shall this kindness of his, leading thee to repentance, be an occasion to forget both his sovereignty, and thine own guiltiness, and (according to thine hard heart which cannot repent) wax stout and willful against him, and so heap up wrath against the day of just vengeance [Rom. 2:4]? No, rather, this mixture of both, should keep thee within bounds, and put holy thoughts of his purpose and pleasure into thee: than breed a desperate enmity on the one side, or security on the other, (to both which thy heart is far more propense) then to come in, give up thy weapons, and tremble at thy wretchedness.

Ibid., 18. On page 19, Rogers continues to encourage sinners to repent by speaking of “those cords which the Gospel puts in, and offers thee in this dungeon, and of that ladder which is thrust in for thee to come up by.”

Also do not by this doctrine [of God’s sovereignty], disorder the secret and revealed will of God, but reverendly distinguish and observe both. The one is that by which he hath determined the ends: The other whereby he appoints the duties of men: The one is unknown to thee: adore it, but snare not thyself with it: let not that forestall thy care and diligence in use of the means appointed by the revealed will. Say not thus, if I knew myself ordained to salvation, I would apply myself willingly to them: but how do I know whether I belong to God, and shall not use the means in vain to increase my judgment? I answer thee, Election is not revealed to any to encourage them to use means, or believe. But means of faith are offered to encourage to believe. The knowledge of Election (in such as attain it) flows from faith, not faith from it. Fall thou to the means as God offers them: which shall be a sign unto thee of an humble and plain heart: and descant not upon that thou knowest not (a sign of a froward, rebellious spirit.) Thou are in the dungeon: the Lord offers thee a ladder to come out, cords and rags to hail thee up. As Ebedmelech did to Jeremiah. Should Jeremiah standing in his mire, have felt more will to descant upon Ebedmelech’s purpose in the casting in of rags and cords, then desire to apply himself to the way of coming out, might he not have lain long enough there? but if God have given thee the heart of Jeremiah, to tremble at the dungeon: thou wilt not find leisure to quarrel with Ebedmelech, what his meaning is unto thee, but simply judge his meaning by his act, his love by his cords: and say, thou mayest leave thy offer, for then thou mightest have spared this labor. Therefore, I obey thy charge, and trust thee for drawing me up, who gavest me thy cords! and when I am drawn out, then will I say, now I know thy good will by the effect thereof. Do so in this case, and prosper.

Ibid., 26–27. For virtually the same thoughts, see also Daniel Rogers, A Practicall Catechism (London: Printed by I. N. for Samuel Man, 1632), 183.

This offer will appear so much the freer, if also we mark the circumstances in which the Scripture expresseth the offer, called the cords of love by Hosea: by which he draws the soul to see his meaning, sometimes by his long patience and waiting upon her; notwithstanding all her deafness of ear, and deadness of heart, and dallying with his offer. Oh! his locks are bedewed with the drops of night! His long suffering and patience is a bottomless depth beyond all the expectation of man! It is long ere thy unbelief could weary him; he hath lengthened out the season of grace, according to the length of grace itself; forborn thee long, kept off judgment a long while, which might have swept thee away from hope many years since. He hath recovered the lives of many of us twice or thrice, that we might renew our covenants and keep them. And he hath spared us when we have broke them, pressing in upon us with renewing of good motions and affections which we had quenched, as being loth to lose us, giving us helps and means even out of season, after long contempt, confessing himself to mean as he speaks: Why lay you out your money, and not for bread, and your silver for that which profits not? Hearken unto me! eat good things!

So sometimes by his protestations of his loathness that any poor soul should perish! Why will ye die oh ye house of Israel! Anger is not in me, why should flame consume the stubble! What should I do to my vine that I have not done? Sometimes by his passions and lamentations; Luke 19:42. Oh! that thou hadst seen, even in that day, the things that concern thy peace; but now they are hidden!

Those tears and mournings over Jerusalem for her hard heart and contempt, have been and are still over thee! If there be any dampings and streightnings [sic] of spirit, thou hast caused them by thy dalliance and heart that would not repent. But the Lord for his part still cries, How oft would I have gathered thee as the Hen doth her chickens? Sometimes by his writings to this feast of his Son, sometimes by his contestation, sometimes by his entreaties and earnest exhorting, sometimes by his allurements, to persuade and toll on the heart that hangs off, by the promise of all the good things which he offereth; sometimes by his severe threats to all that refuse his offers: all these show how willing and cordial he is to part with his grace: and lastly, sometimes by the universality of it, that he dispenses it without all respect of persons, age, sex, states and conditions, who exempt not themselves.

R. P., Collections, Or Brief Notes Gathered Out of Mr Daniel Rogers’s Practical Catechism for Private Use ([London] n.p.: Printed for the Author, 1648), 118–120. See also Daniel Rogers, A Practicall Catechism (London: Printed by I. N. for Samuel Man, 1632), 178–179. Rogers distinguishes between “common grace” and “peculiar grace” on page 207.

Let this be a sweet preparative unto us, to frame us to believe. Entertain we not any base cursed thoughts of God in the simplicity of his offer. Nourish all possible persuasion in the soul of his unfeigned meaning towards thee in this kind: thou canst honor him no better, than to agree with him, in his meaning well to thee. There is no greater difficulty of faith than this seed of bondage in us, to judge of God by ourselves. We muse as we use. If we have an enemy, we cannot forget his wrongs, we meet him not without indignation: and therefore so we think of God also to us, and the rather, because he hath so much vantage over us. But oh poor wretch, jealousy against his love? Is it not rather oil to the flame? Pull down thy traitor’s heart; hate not him whom thou hast hurt; put on an holy and child-like opinion of him, who when he needed not, yet purposed, sent, received this satisfaction for thee, and therefore cannot lie in offering it to thee. Say thus: Lord, thy sweet offer, naked bosom, cords of love, passions of sick love, sometime to allure, sometime to contest, command, urge, threaten, and beseech, turning thee into all forms of persuasion, to win my soul: all these convince me of thy well-meaning towards me. If my own enmity to my enemy, and the slander of Satan that thou enviest my good, do assault me never so much, and my traitorous heart conspire with them, yet this thy gracious offer in thy Gospel, shall bear down all. Read Isa. 55:7. For my ways are not as your ways, nor my thoughts as your thoughts: but as far above them, as heaven above the earth. Add this: All the understanding of man cannot comprehend the love of this offer, no more than the eye of a needle can the great Camel: and shall I go about to lessen it?

Ibid., 125–126. See also Daniel Rogers, A Practicall Catechism (London: Printed by I. N. for Samuel Man, 1632), 184–185.

For an Offer is no otherwise differing from a promise, then as a general out of which a particular issueth: the promise is included in an offer, but yet in special, expressing the covenant of God to all that express the offer, that he will receive them, be their God, both in pardon and all-sufficiency.

Ibid., 121. See also Daniel Rogers, A Practicall Catechism (London: Printed by I. N. for Samuel Man, 1632), 180.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Brook

Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949) on God’s Will of Decree and Will of Precept, His Love, and His Emotion

71. What do we understand, respectively, by the will of decree and the will of precept?

The will of decree is God’s free determination of all that will come to pass and how it will occur. The will of precept is the rule laid down by God for rational beings to direct their conduct accordingly.

72. What difficulty does this distinction cause?

Many things that God forbids occur, and many things that He commands do not occur. Therefore, the will of decree and the will of precept seem to directly oppose each other.

73. Can all attempts to remove this difficulty be considered successful?

a) Some have denied that the existing will has the character of a will, and they wish to degrade it to merely a prescription. One must observe, however, that in God’s prescriptions His holy nature speaks and that in fact they are founded upon a strong desire in God. More precisely, the problem here is this: How can there be two desires in God, one that wills the good and abhors the evil, and one that leaves the good unrealized and permits the evil to appear?

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., 4 vols. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2014), 1:23. Clark is an example of what Vos is referring to: “It would be conducive to clarity if the term will were not applied to the precepts. Call the requirements of morality commands, precepts, or laws; and reserve the term will for the divine decree. These are two different things, and what looks like an opposition between them is not a self-contradiction.” See Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1995), 222–223. For a refutation of this position in earlier theologians, see John Howe on God's Will (Voluntas Beneplaciti, et Signi).

93. In what ways does God reveal His love ward His creatures?

By (a) His goodness; (b) His grace; (c) His lovingkindness; (d) His mercy or compassion; (e) His longsuffering.

94. What is God’s goodness and what is it sometimes called?

It is His love toward personal and sentient creatures in general and can also be called Amor Dei generalis, “God’s general love.”

Ibid., 28. Notice the interconnection between Vos’ idea of divine love with God’s goodness, grace, mercy, compassion, and longsuffering. All of these things are expressions of divine love for Vos, even in a general sense.

98. What is God’s lovingkindness?

The love of God insofar as it, as a special tenderness, seeks to lead the sinner to conversion. [Vos references Rom. 2:4, among other passages.]

Ibid., 29. Not only is divine love connected to goodness, grace, mercy, compassion, and longsuffering, it is God’s “special tenderness” that “seeks to lead the sinner to conversion.”

119. Is there emotion or feeling in God?

Not in the sense of an intense transitory movement of emotion, something passive, whereby the will retreats into the background (compare affectus from afficere, “to be affected”). Certainly, however, in the sense of an inner divine satisfaction that accompanies the energetic expression of His will and His power and His understanding.

Ibid., 35. Vos seems to think that there is emotion or feeling in God, but “Not in the sense of an intense transitory movement of emotion,” or “something passive,” such as is in the creature, as if His will retreats into the background so that He is passively affected by that outside of Himself.

Bio:  

Wiki

Pierre-Charles Marcel (1910–1992) on the Call of God and the Gospel Offer

Where there is preaching there is the call of God. The word is preached nowhere without its being by the providence and the will of God, who wishes to show his love to and through us. Since it is already established that preaching is the instrumental cause of faith, we may add that when God sends a preacher those who hear must not doubt that God loves them and wishes to provide for their salvation and to call them personally to enter his kingdom . . . . As for the listener, he must be convinced that this word is not of men but of God, and that it does not come to him from earth but from heaven. The remission of sins, the promise of eternal [p. 62 begins] life, the proclamation of salvation are not within man’s power. It is Christ who, through the mouth of his messengers, speaks and promises all. The proffered remission of sins is a veritable promise of God. The condemnation which is announced to unbelievers is a very certain judgment of God.

Pierre Charles Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching, trans Rob Roy McGregor (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1963), 61–62.

(1) Preaching is a public proclamation of the infinite love of God. For everyone indiscriminately (the unconverted who attend worship; those, protestants or no, who abstain from coming to hear the word where it is preached), the preaching of the law and the gospel bears evidence of the boundless love of God. It confirms that God does not take pleasure in the death of the sinner, but in his conversion and new life. It declares that the sacrifice of Christ is, without qualification, sufficient for the remission of all sins, that no one will suffer loss because he has the mistaken notion that this sacrifice is not sufficiently valid and efficacious for all [p. 105 begins] men: “But the free gift is not like the trespass . . . But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more . . . (Rom. 5:15, 20).

(2) Preaching is a safeguard against the self-destruction of man by sin. The preaching of the word is equally a proclamation of the goodness and compassion of God toward all men. By virtue of his holiness God everywhere wills to turn sinners from sin, which leads to death, and by virtue of his goodness and grace, he cautions them against their self-destruction. By seeing to it that the word continues to be preached, God temporarily postpones the execution of the death sentence which must fall inexorably upon all those who will not repent and believe. It a certain sense, the offer of salvation is for them a blessing. The purpose of preaching the word is to revealed clearly to all alike the divine compassion with regard to sinners (Ps. 81:13; Prov. 1:24; Ezek. 3:18, 27; 33:11; Amos 8:11; Matt. 11:20–24, 23:37, etc.).

(3) For those who are hardened in unbelief, the preaching of the word is, every often, also the source of all types of blessings and not (as some might be inclined to believe) just a malediction. Illumination of the understanding, the heavenly gift, participation in the Holy Spirit, and delight in the word of God and in the powers of the age to come, have been and sometimes are the portion of those who have fallen or who will fall away by denying Christ (Heb. 6:4–6).

Ibid., 104–105. On page 106, Marcel also argues that the preaching of the word of God is a “restraining grace.”

Bio:

Wiki

John Calvin (1509–1564) on the Gospel Invitation and Offer, Universal Promises, and the Gift of Faith

For nothing is more certain than that the Gospel is addressed to all promiscuously, but that the Spirit of faith is bestowed on the elect alone, by peculiar privilege. The promises are universal. How does it happen, therefore, that their efficacy is not equally felt by all? For this reason, because God does not reveal His arm to all. Indeed, among men but moderately skilled in Scripture, this subject needs not to be discussed, seeing that the promises of the Gospel make offer of the grace of Christ equally to all; and God, by the external call, invites all who are willing to accept of salvation. Faith, also, is a special gift.

John Calvin, “CCCIV.—To Melanchthon, (28th November 1552),” in Letters of John Calvin, ed. Jules Bonnet (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1857) 2:364–65. Also in “CCCV.—To Melanchthon (28th November 1552),” in Letters of John Calvin, ed. Jules Bonnet (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1858), 2:379–80. Credit to Donald John MacLean for the find. See “John Calvin and the Gospel Offer,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 34.1 (Spring 2016): 53–69. The above quote is on page 53.

Latin:

Nihil enim magis notum est quam verbi praedictionem omnibus promiscue esse communem, sed fidei spiritum solis electis sinculari privilegio donari. Universae sunt promissiones. Qui fit igitur ut non peraeque apud omnes vigeat earum efficacia? Nempe quia non omnibus brachium suum Deus patefacit. Nec vero apud homines mediocriter in scriptura versatos ea res disputatione indiget: quum pariter omnibus Christi gratiam offerant promissiones, et externa voce invitet Deus quoslibet in salutem: peculiare esse fidei donum.

Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. (W. Baum et al. (ed.); 59 vols.; Braunschweig, 1863–1900), 14:417 (CO 14, col. 417).

Bio:  

Wiki

John Mayer (1583–1664) on Ezekiel 18:23, 30–32

Have I any pleasure at all, that the wicked should die, but that he should turn from his ways and live? The case of a wicked man turning and living, notwithstanding his former wickedness being laid open in the premises, now he infers upon this ground that the Lord wills not, neither delights in any mans death, but in his conversion and salvation, that none, how far soever they have gone in sin, might despair, but by hope in his mercy be drawn to turn unto him, that is so gracious.

But against this it is objected both that he has fore-appointed some to damnation, and that it is not in man to will, but he works to will and to do of his own good pleasure: if then he take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why does he not turn him?

Sol[ution]. He offers him grace and pardon for all that is past to turn him, yea he counsels him to turn, and entreats him, by his benefits seeks to lead him to repentance [Rom. 2:4], and which is more than all this, he knocks at the door of his heart by his Spirit [Rev. 3:20], and who can say then, but that it is true, which is here said, he delights not in his dying?

Obj[ection]. But all this is nothing, if either he has fore-appointed him to death, or works not effectually with the means, whereby he may be converted.

Sol[ution]. He fore-ordains none to damnation, but such as he foresees will be impenitent, when he has used all the means of reclaiming them, that may be, and therefore Christ speaking of the cursed going into hell fire, says not prepared for you, but for the devil and his angels, whereas contrariwise to the blessed he says, come into the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning, so that impenitent sinners come into condemnation by their preferring of the pleasures of sin before the joy of salvation; for his effectual working upon his will, he works so by his word and Spirit, that he may, if there be not an aversion in his will, turn himself being thus holpen, as it is said here v. 32. Turn yourselves and live, for if God, who bids us thus to do, stood not ready to help and enable us, this were but a delusion. But doing all that can be expected to be done on his part, yea that he could do, as he says, Isa. 5 the impenitent sinner is unreasonable in charging him, as the cause of his non-conversion, when as indeed he is solely the cause thereof to himself and consequently of damnation, as a man in the water held up by the chin, that thrusts away his hand that holds him up that he might swim out, if he sinks and be drowned, is the sole cause of his own death. And the rather is the sinner the cause of his own damnation, because he is not only held up as it were, but exhorted over and over to turn and live, v. 30, 31, 32. so that unless God would save him against his will, or take and carry him to heaven as a block or dead thing, he never putting on to do any thing tending to salvation, and so do more for him, then for any that are saved, he can never attain life, but must die and perish everlastingly. God indeed as August[ine] has it, made thee without thee, but thou must not expect, that he should save thee without thee.

John Mayer, A Commentary Upon All the Prophets Both Great and Small (London: Printed by Abraham Miller and Ellen Cotes, 1652), 421–422. Some spelling modernized.

Bio:
DNB

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

Thomas Anyan (c.1580–1632) on the Will of God and Reprobation

For the will of God toward, mankind is (if I may so speak) Orbicular, environing universal man, with Mercies and Judgements, with Salvation, and Damnation: if with repentance and works of righteousness we turn to the right hand, we shall find a Merciful Father, and be accepted of him; but if we remain obdurate in our sin, and turn to the left hand, we shall see an Angry Judge and rue the punishments of his wrath. Which change and alteration is in us, not in God; God doth not bow to man, but man doth come to God; nor doth God leave any man of any nation, but man doth revolt from his Creator. Not only the Schools, but Expositors both Orthodox & Romish, stand at this day much distracted, with a diversity, or at least a divers conceit of the Will of God; of his Antecendent, and Consequent, Hidden and Revealed will, of his Absolute, and Conditional Will: whereas to speak properly, God’s Will is one and the same, nor can he be said to have two Wills, no more than to have two Wisdoms, two Mercies, two Goodnesses, or a diversity of other [of] his Essential Attributes. But as the Wisdom of God (to instance in that Attribute) is by St. Paul termed πολυποίκιλος, Eph. 3.10. which some render Multiformis, others Multis modis varia, and our English Manifold; which is yet but one: so the Will of God being one and the same in itself, may yet in respect of us, and the diverse effects thereof, be termed πολυποίκιλος, Manifold, and Divers. The ground of all these Distinctions is taken out of Damascene [i.e. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, ii. 29], and by Damascene out of Chrysostome, Hom. 1. in Epist. ad Eph. [or here; see also his Homily 18 on Hebrews], There is in God (saith he) a two-fold Will, θέλημα - οιον, θέλημα πρῶτον, το μη απολεσθαι ημαρτηχότας. There is in God a two-fold Will, a First and a Second; the first and principal will of God doth immediately proceed from God himself, whereby he desireth to do good unto all, τὸ μη απολεθαι ἡμαρτηχότας, & it is Voluntas simplicis complacentiæ, and may be termed Voluntas benefactiendi. His secondary will doth proceed from contingent causes without God, and is occasioned by us, and it may be termed Voluntas iustitiæ, which doth arise from our sins, which God cannot but put in execution without prejudice to his Justice. The first is the Will of God, wherein he taketh delight and pleasure, and is by the same Father termed Θέλημα προηγουμενον, the principal will of God. That which hath been spoken I thus bring home to my text. That it is the Will of God to leave many of most nations in the corrupt mass of perdition, I well know: but that it is his principal Will, his εύδοχια, or Voluntas simplicis complacentiæ, to decree the absolute reprobatio of any man of any nation, I utterly deny. Deus non est prius ultor, quam homo est peccator, saith Aug. ep. 105 [Letter 105]. Man deserves his punishment, before he hath it, & God makes no man a reprobate without just cause. The word Reprobation or Reprobate is in Scripture seldom used to this purpose, & the Greek word Αδοκιμος will hardly carry it, signifying as well Improbus, or Reprehensione dignus, as a Reprobate, and therefore should be used more sparingly, and not so absolutely determined of. In the Fathers the opposite to Predestination to life eternal is Predestination to a second death; and to Election to grace, they oppose Dereliction in the Mass of perdition, seldom Reprobation. In those parts of St. Austin, which I have read, I never met with the word Reprobus as opposite to Elect, but once; & whosoever hath spent most hours in reading the works of that Judicious Father, did never in that sense read it twice.

Thomas Anyan, A Sermon Preached at Saint Marie Spittle, April 10, 1615 (Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1615), 23–25.

Samuel Spring (1746–1819) on Natural and Moral Ability

5. Does the total depravity of man consist in the destitution of any faculties or abilities which are necessary to constitute a moral agent. For, if men were not moral agents, or were destitute of natural ability to keep the divine commands, they would be incapable of moral action. It is not possible for men to be disobedient, except they have natural ability to be obedient. For the commands of God never exceed the natural ability of man. God does not require the improvement of more talents than he has given. “For to whom much is given much shall be required.” The depravity of man, therefore, does not consist in the destitution of natural ability to obey the divine command; but in those volitions or exercises which are opposed to it. It is the will or heart of man which is depraved. Accordingly Christ does not condemn sinners because they are destitute of natural ability to come to him; but because they refuse: therefore he says, “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.” Sinners are able to do their duty, but not willing. For God requires no natural impossibilities.

Samuel Spring, Moral Disquisitions: And Strictures on the Rev. David Tappan’s Letters to Philalethes, 2nd ed. (Exeter: Printed by Charles Norris & Co., 1815), 10–11.

Bio:

Wiki