Anthony Hoekema on “Irresistible Grace” and a Criticism of TULIP

It is commonly said that Calvinists believe in "irresistible grace." This expression is, in fact, part of the "TULIP" acronym, which stands for the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism": Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.²² The term "irresistible grace" conveys an important biblical truth. As we saw, regeneration is monergistic and not synergistic. It is not a work in which God and man cooperate, but it is the work of God alone. All that was said about the natural state of fallen human beings, about effectual calling, and about the way in which God regenerates his people supports the affirmation that the grace which regenerates us is indeed irresistible.

Objections, however, have been raised against the use of the expression "irresistible grace." The first objection is that this term suggests a kind of overpowering domination on God's part, giving the impression that God violates our wills and deals with us as if we were things instead of persons. A second objection is the contention that God's grace may indeed sometimes be resisted--does not the Bible speak of those who resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)?

These objections, however, can be answered. I dealt with the first objection earlier, in connection with effectual calling.²³ In reply to the contention that God violates our wills in regeneration, we may say that since we are by nature dead in sin, our wills need to be renewed so that we may again serve God as we should. God's action in regenerating us, therefore, is no more a violation of our wills than is the artificial respiration applied to a person whose breathing has stopped. Herman Bavinck has put it well: God's [effectual] calling "is so powerful that it cannot be conquered, and yet so loving that it excludes all force."²⁴ Or listen to C. S. Lewis: "The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and his compulsion is our liberation."²⁵

In connection with the second objection, it should be noted that the expression "irresistible grace" did not originate with the Calvinists. It was the Remonstrants (or Arminians) at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) who used this expression, which they had gotten from the Jesuits, to characterize the Reformed position on regeneration.²⁶ Bavinck goes on to say that Reformed theologians did not wish to deny that God's grace was often resisted. Therefore they preferred to speak of "invincible" or "unconquerable" grace, or to say that God's saving grace was "finally irresistible."²⁷ The grace of God may indeed be resisted, but it will not be successfully resisted by those whom God has chosen in Christ to salvation from before the creation of the world. As Cornelius Plantinga aptly says, "Nobody can finally hold out against God's grace. Nobody can outlast Him. Every elect person comes . . . to 'give in and admit that God is God.'"²⁸
_______________
22. For helpful discussions of these five points, together with Scriptural proof, see Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972); also David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965).
23. See above, pp. 89–91.
24. Roeping en Wedergeboorte (Kampen: Zalsman, 1903), p. 224.
25. Surprised by Joy (London: Collins, Fontana Books, 1960), p. 183.
26. Bavinck, Dogmatiek, 4:65.
27. Ibid., pp. 65-66.
28. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., A Place to Stand (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1979), p. 151.

Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 104–105.

Commenting on this section in Hoekema, particularly the last paragraph, Kenneth Stewart writes:

A fine scholar from this branch of the Reformed family pointed out, for example, in 1989, that the I in TULIP was actually a caricature of the position championed in the Synod of Dordt. Those who derided the Reformed idea of effectual calling or prevailing grace branded it "irresistible."⁵³ This is the kind of inside information that needs circulating. It should change popular Calvinism's use of TULIP.
_______________
53. The "I" of the acronym T-U-L-I-P, far from encapsulating Dordt's intended emphasis, actually relays the protest of the Dutch Remonstrants against early seventeenth-century Calvinism in a way dependent on Jesuit writers of that time. How is it possible that irresistible, a term intended to besmirch and caricature the concept of a grace that eventually prevails over all opposition, has been taken up and championed by those it was meant to portray unfavorably? See Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 104–105.

Kenneth J. Stewart, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 91.

See also A. A. Hodge's criticism of the term.

Joseph Seiss on "the Sorry Fault of the Church of Ephesus"

I immediately thought of some "discernment ministries," apologists, and many others when I read these words by Seiss, due to the way they treat people:

There is such a thing as having and exercising a sharp penetration into the true and the false, a correctness of judgment in sacred things, a zealous and self-sacrificing devotion to the right and true, and an earnest-minded severance from false apostles and all evildoers, and yet being without that warmth and purity of love which is the first impulse in the breast of young disciples, and without which, well cherished and kept in vigorous life, there is unfitness to meet the judgment or to stand in it. And this was the sorry fault of the Church of Ephesus.

Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1987), 70.

A Brief Comment on God’s Love of Benevolence and Love of Complacency

A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted a picture that included these words:

God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn’t do.

I left this comment:

While this quote says something that is true, it is too simple. As far as God’s “love of benevolence” which He has for all mankind made in His image, no matter what they do or don’t do, the quote is true. However, theologians rightly distinguish this sense of love from God’s “love of complacency,” which concerns God’s love for and delight in those who are obedient. The following passages speak to this second sense of God’s love, such that we may or may not abide in this love:

NKJ John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

NKJ John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.”

NKJ John 15:9–10 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”

One can see that this sense of God’s love is conditional, and depends on what we do or don’t do. We can liken these two senses of God’s love to human parents who love all their children no matter what they do or don’t do (“love of benevolence”), but take delight in and have a growing affection (“love of complacency”) for children who are obedient. Considering these two aspects of God’s love allows us to account for the above passages which are conditional, as well as for others that differ, and are unconditional in nature. The distinction is important.

Mark Jones noted:

This view [on love of benevolence and love of complacency, and God loving obedient Christians more and more] is by far the majority position among Reformed divines from the time of the Reformation onward, but today it is hardly ever discussed or preached on in Reformed circles.

Mark Jones, Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? (Phillipsburg: NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 86.

John Hannah (1940–) on Issues of Calvinism at DTS and S. Lewis Johnson’s (1915–2004) Departure

I am including this quote in order to let people read about Dr. Johnson’s departure from Dallas Theological Seminary over the issue of the extent of the atonement. One can see the confusion that existed there at the time, and some of this confusion still remains, even in the language that Hannah himself uses to describe the different positions regarding the atonement (“effective extent of the atonement,” for example, is misleading). Though Hannah is merely being descriptive with this Walvoordian language, I’ll add that the difference was not in Johnson’s embracing of so-called “Dordtian Calvinism” (since the moderate orthodox view was also present at the Synod of Dort), but in his adoption of the higher orthodox or strict position present at Dort, which taught a limited imputation of sin to Christ, or a limited substitution (i.e., Owenism).

The usefulness of this quote is not that it will help one to properly understand the categorical differences in the debate about the extent of the atonement, but rather that it will help one to understand the historical circumstances and issues surrounding Johnson’s departure from DTS.

Hannah wrote:

The Issue of Calvinism. Clarification of doctrinal issues is usually a product of challenges and controversy. The institution historically described itself as within the Calvinistic tradition, and distanced itself from the Arminian tradition. Walvoord was willing to speak for the ailing Chafer, stating, “Arminianism is a departure from the faith.”¹⁵³ The creed of the seminary makes this clear by affirming such doctrines as the total corruption of all human faculties because of Adam’s first sin in which the race was implicated; the priority of divine grace in salvation rooted in divine, unconditional election and predestination; the creature as the respondent to grace, not the cause of grace; and eternal security. The consistent designation for the kind of Calvinism expressed in the creed is most appropriately “moderate Calvinism.” The moderation stemmed from two factors: first, the school consistently affirmed an unlimited purpose in the atonement of Christ. The position was rooted in a firm belief that this is taught in Scripture, and a limiting of the atonement would limit the Great Commission, leaving the relationship of the free offer of salvation to all and divine election as “a great mystery.”¹⁵⁴ Second, the dispensational premillenarian position of the seminary made it historically an uneasy fit in Calvinism.

Conflict emerged when a prominent teacher at the seminary embraced a more strident form of Calvinism, dubbed “extreme Calvinism,” “strict Calvinism,” or “Dordtian Calvinism.” S. Lewis Johnson came to the seminary as a student in 1942, completing the ThM in 1946 and the doctorate in 1949. He eventually became the chair of the department of New Testament studies, replacing J. Dwight Pentecost, who would chair the department of Bible exposition. He began his teaching career at the seminary in 1946; it would span thirty years. As the years passed, however, Johnson became increasingly uncomfortable with the seminary’s moderate Calvinism as well as the general academic direction of the institution. Writing from Europe, where he was on study leave, Johnson expressed concern that the curriculum revisions of 1973 weakened the academic strength of the institution (he perceived a weakening of language requirements and theological instruction). Further, he felt the faculty to be generally in need of strengthening at that instruction should be taught through a comprehensive worldview of life (which he considered to be completely lacking). “The change needed at Dallas is a change from emphasis upon one level to another deeper level of learning. Let us not abandon the practical emphasis which has been a winning thing for us, but let us deepen our approach to the Word of God. I am for beefing up our program at Dallas, not thinning it down.”¹⁵⁵

Walvoord’s reply constituted a denial of Johnson’s assertions (the institution was not weakened by the 1973 curriculum revision, the professional purpose of the institution was consistent with a greater emphasis on the practical, and the school does present a world and life view to the students, though he conceded that the faculty could be strengthened). At this point, Walvoord raised the issue of doctrinal deviation, based on hearsay, particularly Johnson’s view of the extent of the atonement.¹⁵⁶ Johnson made it clear that he had embraced the view he was accused of affirming and was willing to resign. However, Walvoord stated that Johnson’s view was not contrary to the school’s creed, if held in moderation. “Our traditional point of view has been unlimited atonement as you know, but I do not believe that our doctrinal statement prohibits the limited atonement view unless it is unduly pressed.”¹⁵⁷

Johnson must have taken Walvoord’s comments as offering no hindrance to his return to the school, in spite of his more-than-moderate Calvinism. Walvoord’s view was that Johnson was expressing theological issues that he was still in the process of resolving when he returned in 1973 (and later took a strident Calvinistic position); Johnson’s view was that he had expressed himself clearly before returning to the school and he was accepted. Subsequent correspondence suggests that the charge that brought about Johnson’s resignation was that he “pressed” his view inordinately to the detriment of the institution.¹⁵⁸

The doctrinal issues were two: the effective extent of the atonement of Christ and the relation of divine regeneration to human faith. Johnson argued that placing faith before regeneration decays absolute human inability, resulting in a loss in the vitality of Christianity. Walvoord responded that such views were contrary to the doctrinal statement, adversely affecting the student body, and would prove a disruptive influence among the churches that trusted the seminary to supply pastors reflective of the seminary’s doctrine. More importantly, “We believe that extreme Calvinism goes beyond what the Scriptures teach, affirming that Christ died only for the elect.”¹⁵⁹

Johnson was granted a leave of absence in the fall of 1977, and when his contract expired in December of that year, it was not renewed.¹⁶⁰ The Board of Regents minutes states that the reason for the nonrenewal of his contract was the embrace of five-point Calvinism; in particular, it was noted, “He is in agreement with Dordtian Calvinism, and holds that Christ died for the elect and that regeneration precedes faith.”¹⁶¹ The issue of the relationship between regeneration and accenting faith is more difficult to untangle. A phrase in the doctrinal statement (“When the unregenerate believes...”) seemed to be a flashpoint. Johnson argued that it is impossible for the unregenerate to believe, because to do so would reduce the wonder of redemption to a bilateral contract, denying that grace is without condition.

There is evidence that the administration sought to accommodate Johnson on the first issue, but his position on the second was too much.¹⁶² This is interesting because Walvoord had expressed himself earlier to the effect that faith does not precede regeneration; the two occur simultaneously: “The Calvinist position is that regeneration is simultaneous with salvation.”¹⁶³ It is easy to gain the impression that the controversy was a battle of two friendly titans, one desiring to narrow the school’s theological creed (perhaps sensing also a decline of a rigorous Calvinism on the part of faculty and boards) and the other seeking to preserve the school within “moderate Calvinism.” The president had the tradition of the institution and the creed on his side. Though the parties may not have separated in the most amiable of circumstances, in 1987 Johnson was accorded the title of Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis, Emeritus, in recognition of his contribution to the school.
____________________
153. Letter, John F. Walvoord to Arthur F. Williams, Dallas, Texas, 14 April 1948, ADTS. Later he wrote, “As our doctrinal statement indicates, we are in the Reformed tradition of theology” (Letter, John F. Walvoord to J. J. Barnhart, Dallas, Texas, 29 October 1949, ADTS).
154. Letter, John F. Walvoord to Mr. and Mrs. Jim Halston, Dallas, Texas, 5 April 1982, ADTS. Walvoord extended the same “mystery” to the relationship of evangelism to predestinarianism. It seems accurate to say that the practical missions concerns of the seminary’s leaders were a paramount motive in maintaining these tensions.
155. Letter, S. Lewis Johnson to John F. Walvoord, Basel, Switzerland, 30 April 1973, John F. Walvoord Papers, ADTS.
156. Letter, John F. Walvoord to S. Lewis Johnson, Dallas, Texas, 10 May 1973, John F. Walvoord Papers, ADTS.
157. Ibid., 5.
158. Letter, S. Lewis Johnson to John F. Walvoord, Dallas, Texas, 2 October 1977. John F. Walvoord Papers, ADTS. Wrote Johnson, “I had expressed such views to you about four years earlier in a letter to you. It was your view that such a deviation from the doctrinal statement was not sufficient to prevent one from teaching at the institution, and I taught at the seminary for the intervening years under the impression that my deviation was not so serious as to preclude faculty service.” See also Letter, S. Lewis Johnson to John F. Walvoord, 17 October 1977, John F. Walvoord Papers, ADTS (“I have taught for four years with the assurance that you stood behind your words to me in 1973”).
159. Letter, John F. Walvoord to Terry Branscombe, Dallas, Texas, 3 October 1979, ADTS. See also Letter, John F. Walvoord to Alvin L. Baker, Dallas, Texas, 23 November 1981, ADTS; and Letter John F. Walvoord to Mr. and Mrs. J. E. Salser, Dallas, Texas, 15 May 1979, ADTS. Further see Letter, S. Lewis Johnson to John F. Walvoord, Dallas, Texas, 14 January 1977, John F. Walvoord Papers, ADTS.
160. Minutes, Executive Board of Regents, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 7 March 1977, 129; Minutes, Board of Regents, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 13 October 1977, 137; and Minutes, Board of Incorporate Members, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 14 October 1977, 117.
161. Minutes, Board of Regents, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 13 October 1977, 137.
162. Ibid.
163. Letter, John F. Walvoord to Howard Gould, Dallas, Texas, 26 September 1947, ADTS. He wrote further, “Simultaneously the individual believer is regenerated, repents, is justified, adopted, and positionally sanctified. I do not believe that there is any possibility of working out satisfactorily the logical order of all these elements.”

John D. Hannah, An Uncommon Union: Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 174–76.

Stephen Strehle on the Diversity and Compromise at the Synod of Dort on the Subject of the Atonement

Now since there was a heterogeneity of opinions concerning the second article, not simply between delegations, but also among them, a certain amount of compromise became imperative. The Golden Remains of John Hales, for example, gives indications of a serious split among the English constituency over this article.[1] Two of the delegates, John Davenant and Samuel Ward, held a strong unlimited position, similar to that of Martinius', and Davenant in particular would rather have "his right-hand cut off" than change his position.[2] The other delegates were essentially limited in their conception of the atonement, but not so vehemently and dramatically dogmatic.[1] Among the areas of conflict were the following: the received distinction that Christ has sufficiently died for all, non secundum proprietatem redemptionis,[2] the statement that Christ did pay actu a price for any except the elect,[3] and the meaning of the phrase "totius mundi" in both the Scriptures and The Thirty-Nine Articles.[4] Yet the need for compromise prevailed upon them,[5] and a mutually agreeable statement upon the subject was finally ascertained, with the result that both factions were pacified.

To carry this matter further, the English delegation not only achieved unanimity among themselves, but also cultivated the cause of compromise and moderation among the entire Synod.[1] This policy was in accordance with instructions from the homeland, to conform to the received distinction and restriction, yet to provide for as general a proposition as possible[2] The task was not insurmountable though, since expectations and desires for the success of the Synod were running high among almost all involved. Some, it is true, were not ashamed of displaying open hostility toward opponents--Gomarus in particular at one point challenging Martinius to a duel.[3] Nevertheless, through the work of such ecumenists as George Carleton[4] and the political clout of England,[5] the English were successful in their endeavors, and advanced this cause among the rest of the Synod.
_______________
1. Hales, Golden Remains, pp. 470, 577. cf. Harrison, Arminianism, pp. 336–37. The delegation of Bremen was so divided that, as was already seen, they submitted separate statements to the Synod.
2. Ibid., pp. 577–78, 581.

1. Ibid., pp. 471, 577–78.
2. Ibid., p. 476: "Primo, An retinenda sit illa distinctio quae receptissima est apud Reformatos Doctores, quemque Episcopus Sarisburiensis astruit, pag. 35. & sequentibus, mortuus est pro omnibus secundum sufficientiam seu magnitudinem pretii, non secundum proprietatem redemptionis, quidam putant non retinendum esse quia putant sic sufficienter dici posse mortuum pro Diabolis."
3. Ibid.: "Secundo, Contravertitur de hac propositione. Christus obtulit se pro omnibus, seu persolvit redemptionis pro omnibus: quidam putant sensum esse, persolvit pretium quod sufficit pro omnibus, non autem actu solvit pretium illud nisi pro redimendis electis: alii putant hanc expositionem, incommodam, quia putant commentarium hunc verba ipsa destruere. Ea etenim putant sequi Christum quidem habuisse pretium in numerate, quod persolutum sufficisset omnibus redimendis; verum Christum non persolvisse actu pretium illud, aut factum esse propitiationem pro peccatis totius mundi."
4. Ibid., p. 477: "Tertio, Contravertitur de sensu horum verborum, totius mundi quidam putant intelligi de singulis hominibus: alii de solis electis." cf. Ibid., pp. 471, 586, 588. The Thirty-Nine Articles XXXI: "The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole worlde, both originall and actuall."
5. Ibid., p. 578. The need for compromise is certainly a contributing factor to the inexplicitness of the pronouncements of many of the delegations.

1. Ibid., pp. 517, 522. Calder, Memoirs, p. 237.
2. Ibid., pp. 512–13: "Our Judgment in the second article, is already read in the Synod, so we must study to frame our selves to our directions from England, in making of the Canons: my Lord his Grace's Letter is to have us conform our selves to the received distinction and restriction, with which his Grace acquainted his Majesty and received approbation from him: but I must needs say, that the directions which your Lordship hath sent from Secretary Nanton do seem to will us to be as favourable to the general Propositions as may be, giving as little offence to the Lutherans as we can; which Counsel in my poor judgment we have in our Theses already followed." Davenant felt that if the Contra-Remonstrants could be tempered in this matter, the Lutherans could be more easily won over to the Augustinian doctrine of predestination (Ibid., p. 591) cf. Brandt, Reformation (1725), 2:499, 690–92.
3. Ibid., pp. 455–56. cf. Ibid., pp. 480, 486–87, Brandt, Reformation (1725), 2:478–80, 482, 497–98.
4. Ibid., p. 456.
5. Godfrey mentions three motivations for compromise: 1) the need for a unanimous decision at Dort, 2) the final form of the Canons was to be stated, and 3) the desire to placate the English delegation, since they were a strong ally of the United Provinces and the largest Reformed Church (Godfrey, "Tensions," pp. 254f).

Stephen Alan Strehle, The Extent of the Atonement Within the Theological Systems of the Sixteenth and Seventheenth Centuries (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 236–238.

From the English Delegation's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (March 21, 1618) on the Extent of Redemption

The British delegation to the Synod of Dort identified their differences with the Remonstrants in this letter as follows:

In our avouching and declaring in this and other Articles, some fruits of Christ's death, not comprised in the Decree of Election, but afforded more generally, yet confined to the Visible Church (as viz. true and spiritual Graces accompanying the Gospel, and conferred upon some non-electi) we gain ground of the Remonstrants, and thereby easily repel, not only their Instances of Apostasie, but also their odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical Promises, as we are ready more clearly to demonstrate. Nor do we with the Remonstrants leave at large the benefit of our Saviour's death, as only propounded loosely to all ex aequo, and to be applied by the arbitrary act of man's will; but we expressly avouch, for the behoof of the Elect, a special intention both in Christ's offering, and God the Father accepting, and from that intention a particular application of that Sacrifice, by conferring Faith and other Gifts infallibly bringing the Elect to Salvation. And that our care in advancing this Doctrine might be the more remarkable, we in these our Theses have set in the forefront our Propositions concerning God's special Intention.

John Hales, Golden Remains, of the ever memorable Mr. John Hales (London: Printed by T. B. for G. Pawlet at the sign of the Bible in Chancery-Lane, 1688), 584–585. Quoted in Stephen Alan Strehle, The Extent of the Atonement Within the Theological Systems of the Sixteenth and Seventheenth Centuries (Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 217n.2.

See also my post on "Godfrey on the Concerns of the Moderates at [the Synod of] Dort." He wrote:

This moderate concern focused on a particular doctrinal point: the importance of the universal offer of the Gospel. The Christian preacher must be able to declare the offer of salvation unreservedly to all who would believe. The moderates claimed that the sincere offer of the Gospel could only be undergirded by a broad statement on the sufficiency of Christ's death. Only such a statement, the moderates argued, would insure the continuity of the Reformed Church with the patristic and medieval history of the Church and guard against any charge of sectarianism.

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) on Deut. 5:28–29 and God's True and Earnest Desire

3. God's approbation of their request. (1.) He commends what they said, v. 28. They spoke it to Moses, but God took notice of it; for there is not a word in our tongue but he knows it. He acknowledges, They have well said. Their owning the necessity of a mediator to deal between them and God was well said. Their desire to receive further directions from God by Moses, and their promise to observe what directions should be given them, were well said. And what is well said shall have its praise with God, and should have with us. What is good, as far as it goes, let it be commended. (2.) He wishes they were but sincere in it: O that there were such a heart in them! v. 29. [1.] Such a heart as they should have, a heart to fear God, and keep his commandments for ever. Note, The God of heaven is truly and earnestly desirous of the welfare and salvation of poor sinners. He has given abundant proof that he is so: he gives us time and space to repent, by his mercies invites us to repentance, and waits to be gracious; he has sent his Son to redeem us, published a general offer of pardon and life, promised his Spirit to those that pray for him, and has said and sworn that he has no pleasure in the ruin of sinners. [2.] Such a heart as they now had, or one would think they had. Note, It would be well with many if there were always such a heart in them as there seems to be sometimes, when they are under conviction of sin, or the rebukes of Providence, or when they come to look death in the face: How gracious will they be when these pangs come upon them! O that there were always such a heart in them! (3.) He appoints Moses to be his messenger to them, to receive the law from his mouth and to communicate it to them, v. 31. Here the matter was settled by consent of both parties that God should hence-forward speak to us by men like ourselves, by Moses and the prophets, by the apostles and the evangelists, and, if we believe not these, neither should we be persuaded though God should speak to us as he did to Israel at Mount Sinai, or send expresses from heaven or hell.

Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1991), 243.

HT: Bob Gonzales

Nathanael Vincent (1638–1697) on the Cords of God’s Love and Romans 2:4

7. Not only his Word, and Ministers, and Spirit, but also his Providences call upon you to turn to God. Both his mercies and his judgements do press this exhortation to conversion. The streams of goodness that continually run towards you, and which sometimes swell and overflow abundantly, do signifie that ’tis your wisdom to forsake the broken cisterns, and come to the fountain of living waters. His mercies speak this language, that 'tis good to return into, and obtain an interest in the Father of them. Then these mercies will be in mercy. Cords of love are cast about you on purpose to draw you unto the God of love and peace. Oh that you would run to him! The riches of his goodness are unlocked and discovered, that hereby you may be led unto repentance, Rom. 2.4.

Nathanael Vincent, The Conversion of a Sinner Explained and Applied (London: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Golden Bible on London-Bridge, under the Gate, 1669), 88.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB