Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) on God's Love

It appears to me an incontrovertible fact that God is represented in his word as exercising goodness, mercy, kindness, long-suffering, and even love towards men as men. The bounties of Providence are described as flowing from kindness and mercy; and this his kindness and mercy is held up as an example for us to love our enemies, Matt. v. 44, 45; Luke vi. 35, 36. And this the apostle extols; calling it, "The riches of his goodness," &c., keenly censuring the wicked for despising it, instead of being led to repentance by it, Rom. ii. 4. And what if God never intended to render this his goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering effectual to the leading of them to repentance? Does it follow that it is not goodness? And while I read such language as this, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,"—and that the ministry of reconciliation was in this strain—"We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [men] by us; we pray [them] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."—I can draw no conclusion short of this, that eternal life through Jesus Christ is freely offered to sinners as sinners, or as Calvin, on John iii. 16, expresseth it, "He useth the universal note both that he may invite all men in general unto the participation of life, and that he may cut off all excuse from unbelievers. To the same end tendeth the term world; for although there shall nothing be found in the world that is worthy of God's favour, yet he showeth that he is favourable unto the whole world, when he calleth all men without exception to the faith of Christ. But remember that life is promised to all who shall believe in Christ, so commonly, that yet faith is not common to all men; yet God doth only open the eyes of his elect, that they may seek him by faith."

Andrew Fuller, "On the Love of God, and Whether It Extends to the Non-Elect," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 3:770.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

John Howe (1630–1705) on Waiting For A Heavenly Understanding

It were very unreasonable to expect, since this world shall continue but a little while, that all God's managements and ways of procedure, in ordering the great affairs of it, should be attempered and fitted to the judgment that shall be made of the present apprehension and capacity of our (now so mudded and distemptered) minds. A vast and stable eternity remains, wherein the whole celestial chorus shall entertain themselves with the grateful contemplation and applause of his deep counsels. Such things as now seem perplex and intricate to us, will appear most irreprehensibly fair and comely to angelical minds, and our own, when we shall be vouchsafed a place amongst that happy community. What discovery God affords of his own glorious excellencies and perfections, is principally intended to recommend him in that state wherein he, and all his ways and works, are to be beheld with everlasting and most complacential approbation. Therefore, though now we should covet the clearest and most satisfying account of things that can be had, we are yet to exercise patience, and not precipitate our judgment of them before the time; as knowing our present conceptions will differ more from what they will be hereafter, than those of a child from the maturer thoughts of the wisest man; and that many of our conceits, which we thought wise, we shall then see cause to put away as childish things.

John Howe, “The Reconcilableness of God’s Prescience of the Sins of Men, with the Wisdom and Sincerity of His Counsels, Exhortations, and Whatsoever Means He Uses to Prevent Them,” in The Works of John Howe, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990), 2:513.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Restoring the Revealed Will

For those who may not realize it yet, my blog is frequently devoted to an attempt to revive the revealed will of God among Calvinists. I am not seeking to subtract or minimize what is true of God's special or decretal will (as some of them suspect), but only to underline certain biblical, historical and systematic teachings that I hope will restore a clearer vision of God's revealed will. I believe that the revealed will, and truth that pertains to it, has been eclipsed by a strong interest in God's decrees. This emphasis on and interest in God's special decrees is understandable, given the rampant free will theologies prevalent in our autonomous culture(s). Also, since God has told us some things about his decrees in scripture, believers find tremendous comfort in the fact that God is indeed almighty, and he will certainly bring his special purposes and promises to pass. All historic Calvinists rejoice in God's glorious sovereignty.

However, we should not favor some truth as the expense of others. For this reason, I am seeking to get fellow "Calvinists" to climb from point 1 to point 5 below:

1) The bible distinguishes between a decretal (sometimes called secret) and preceptive (sometimes called revealed) will in God.

2) God commands all that hear the gospel call to believe in Christ and repent.

3) This preceptive will reveals an ardent and sincere desire in God that men believe (or comply with the command).

4) This shows that God wills the salvation of all (I don't mean equally), for repentance is salvation.

5) God wills the salvation of all by a righteous and completely sufficient means, i.e. on the basis or ground of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So, there is a sense in which Christ can be said to have died for the salvation of all.

Some get stuck at point 1 (not really thinking of the latter as a "will"), while others are fine up until point 3. Many of them choke on points 4 and 5 (especially what I am saying about point 5), see the logic, and then revert back to problems that pertain to point 3 (and 1 by implication).

These are my 5 points for restoring God's revealed will. Once they are completely and coherently adopted, the ripple effect for the rest of one's systematic and biblical theology is quite profound. I believe that the above 5 truths (viewed in conjunction with truths that pertain to God's sovereign decrees) will produce a warm and truly evangelistic Calvinism so necessary for our day.

If you ever wonder where I am at in my daily theological meditations, I am at Golgatha, contemplating what the Godman was doing on the cross, and reflecting on how it should impact all of my thinking and behavior. The Apostle Paul was frequently there himself.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

R. L. Dabney (1820–1898) on Commercialism, Sufficiency and 1 John 2:2

But sacrifice, expiation, is one—the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam's race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ's expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. This is the blessed sense in which the Apostle John says (1 Jn. 2:2): "Christ is the propitiation (the same word as expiation) for the sins of the whole world."

R. L. Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1992), 61.

Bio:  
Wiki

Two W. G. T. Shedd (1820–1894) Quotes from Calvinism: Pure & Mixed

The following declaration is found in Confession xv. I, Larger Catechism, 159. ‘Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached in season and out of season by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.’ This certainly teaches that faith and repentance are the duty of all men, not of some only. No one contends that the Confession teaches that God has given a limited command to repent. ‘God commandeth all men everywhere to repent.’ But how could he give such a universal command to all sinners if he is not willing to pardon all sinners? If his benevolent love is confined to some sinners in particular? How could our Lord command his ministers to preach the doctrine of faith and repentance to ‘every creature’, if he does not desire that every one of them would believe and repent? And how can he desire this if he does not feel infinite love for the souls of all? When the Confession teaches the duty of universal faith and repentance, it teaches by necessary inference the doctrine of God’s universal compassion and readiness to forgive. And it also teaches in the same inferential way, that the sacrifice of Christ for sin is ample for the forgiveness of every man. To preach the duty of immediate belief on the Lord Jesus Christ as obligatory upon every man, in connection with the doctrine imputed to the Confession by the reviser, that God feels compassion for only the elect, and that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient for all, would be self-contradictory. The two things cannot be put together.”

W. G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure & Mixed (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986), 25.

Larger Catechism, 95, declares that ‘the moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature; to humble them in the sense of sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.’ But what is the use of showing every man his need of Christ, if Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient for every man? What reason is there for convincing every man of the pollution of his nature, and humbling him for it, unless God is for every man ‘most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin?’ The doctrine taught in this section, that all men are to be convicted of sin, like the doctrine that all men are to repent and to pray, supposes that God sustains a common benevolent and merciful relation to them all.

Ibid., 26.

Bio:  
Wiki

John Howe (1630–1705) on God’s Revealed Will (Voluntas Beneplaciti, et Signi)

What’s significant about the following quote is that John Howe is saying that some theologians, who distinguish between the will of God’s good pleasure (voluntas beneplaciti) and will of sign (voluntas signi), do not think of the will of sign (or God’s revealed will) as a "will" (voluntas) at all. In effect, they think the only real will is God’s secret will (voluntas beneplaciti). They basically make a distinction without a difference in their system. Some think of God’s command as not indicating a desire or will in God for compliance, but that God only willed the command (or sign) itself. As one modern hyper-Calvinist put it, “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” (Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation [Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1995], 222–223). Clark is doing what Vos describes (and tries to correct): "Some have denied that the existing [or the preceptive] 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" (Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Theology Proper, ed. R. B. Gaffin [Grand Rapids: Lexham Press, 2012–2014], 1:23). Howe also tried to correct this problem long again, and said that such conceptions of God’s will are not adequate to address the “ignominious slander which” men of “profane and atheistical dispositions would fasten upon God.”

I must here profess my dislike of the terms of that common distinction, the voluntas beneplaciti, et signi, in this present case. Under which, such as coined, and those that have much used it, have only rather, I doubt not, concealed a good meaning, than expressed by it an ill one. It seems, I confess, by its more obvious aspect, too much to countenance the ignominious slander which profane and atheistical dispositions would fasten upon God, and the course of his procedure towards men; and which it is the design of these papers to evince of as much absurdity and folly, as it is guilty of impiety and wickedness: as though he only intended to seem willing of what he really was not; that there was an appearance to which nothing did subesse. And then why is the latter called voluntas? Unless the meaning be, he did only will the sign; which is false and impious:—and if it were true, did he not will it with the will of good pleasure? And then the members of the distinction are confounded. Or, as if the evil actions of men were, more truly, the objects of his good pleasure, than their forbearance of them. And of these faults the application of the distinction of God’s secret will, and revealed, unto this case, though it be useful in many, is as guilty.

John Howe, “The Reconcilableness of God’s Prescience of the Sins of Men, with the Wisdom and Sincerity of His Counsels, Exhortations, and Whatsoever Means He Uses to Prevent Them,” in The Works of John Howe, 3 vols. (1848; repr. Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990), 2:502.

He also wrote:

Sect. XXII. And whereas it may be thought to follow hence, that hereby we ascribe to God a liableness to frustration, and disappointment, that is without pretence; the resolve of the divine will, in this matter, being not concerning the event, what man shall do, but concerning his duty, what he should; and concerning the connection between his duty, and his happiness: which, we say, he doth not only seem to will, but wills it really and truly. Nor would his prescience of the event, which we all this while assert, let frustration be so much as possible to him; especially, it being at once foreseen that his will, being crossed in this, would be fulfilled in so important a thing as the preserving the decorum of his own government;—which had been most apparently blemished, beyond what could consist with the perfections of the Deity, if either his will concerning man’s duty, or the declarations of that will, had not been substantially the same that they are. We are, therefore, in assigning the object of this or that act of the divine will, to do it entirely, and to take the whole object together, without dividing it, as if the will of God did wholly terminate upon what indeed is but a part (and especially if that be but a less considerable part) of the thing willed. In the present case, we are not to conceive that God only wills either man’s duty or felicity, or that herein his will doth solely and ultimately terminate; but, in the whole, the determination of God’s will is, that man shall be duly governed, that is, congruously both to himself, and him:—that such and such things, most congruous to both, shall be man’s duty; by his doing whereof the dignity and honour of God’s own government might be preserved, which was the thing principally to be designed, and in the first place; and, as what was secondarily thereto, that hereby man’s felicity should be provided for. Therefore, it being foreseen a violation would be done to the sacred rights of the divine government, by man’s disobedience, it is resolved they shall be repaired and maintained by other means. So that the divine will hath its effect, as to what was its more noble and principal design; the other part failing, only by his default whose is the loss.

And if yet it should be insisted, that in asserting God to will what by his laws he hath made become man’s duty, even where it is not done, we shall herein ascribe to him, at least, an ineffectual and an imperfect will, as which doth not bring to pass the thing willed;—it is answered, that imperfection were with no pretence imputable to the divine will, merely for its not effecting every thing, whereto it may have a real propension. But it would be more liable to that imputation, if it should effect any thing which it were less fit for him to effect, than not to effect it. The absolute perfection of his will stands in the proportion which every act of it bears to the importance of the thing about which it is conversant. Even as, with men, the perfection of any act of will is to be estimated, not by the mere peremptory sturdiness of it, but by its proportion to the goodness of the thing willed. Upon which account, a mere velleity, (as many love to speak,) when the degree of goodness in the object claims no more, hath unconceivably greater perfection in it, than the most obstinate volition. And since the event forbids us to admit that God did ever will the obedience and felicity of all, with such a will as should be effective thereof; if yet his plain word shall be acknowledged the measure of our belief in this matter, which so plainly asserts him some way to will the salvation of all men, it is strange if, hereupon, we shall not admit rather of a will not effective of the thing willed, than none at all.

The will of God is sufficiently to be vindicated from all imperfection, if he have sufficient reason for all the propensions and determinations of it, whether from the value of the things willed, or from his own sovereignty who wills them. In the present case, we need not doubt to affirm, that the obedience and felicity of all men is of that value, as whereunto a propension of will, by only simple complacency, is proportionable. Yet, that his not procuring as to all (by such courses as he more extraordinarily takes with some) that they shall, in event, obey and be happy, is upon so much more valuable reasons, (as there will be further occasion to show ere long) as that not to do it was more eligible, with the higher complacency of a determinative will. And since the public declarations of his good-will towards all men import no more than the former, and do plainly import so much; their correspondency to the matter declared is sufficiently apparent. And so is the congruity of both with his prescience of the event. For though, when God urges and incites men, by exhortations, promises, and threats, to the doing of their own part, (which it is most agreeable to his holy, gracious nature to do) he foresees many will not be moved thereby, but persist in wilful neglect and rebellions till they perish:—he, at the same time, sees that they might do otherwise, and that, if they would comply with his methods, things would otherwise issue with them; his prescience no way imposing upon them a necessity to transgress. For they do it, not because he foreknew it, but he only foreknew it, because they would do so. And hence he had, as it was necessary he should have, not only this for the object of his foreknowledge, that they would do amiss and perish: but the whole case in its circumstances, that they would do so, not through his omission, but their own. And there had been no place left for this state of the case, if his public edicts and manifestos had not gone forth, in this tenor as they have. So that the consideration of his prescience being taken in, gives us only, in the whole, this state of the case, that he foresaw men would not take that course which he truly declared himself willing they should, (and was graciously ready to assist them in it) in order to their own well-being. Whence all complaint of insincere dealing is left without pretence.

Ibid., 2:503–505.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) on 1 John 2:2

What Paul teaches so abundantly of the sacrificial death of Christ is taught by the Apostle John (First Epistle, ii. 2). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The word here used is hilasmos, propitiation, expiation; from hilaskomai, to reconcile one's self to any one by expiation, to appease, to propitiate." And in chapter iv. 10, it is said, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The inconsistency between love, and expiation or satisfaction for sin, which modern writers so much insist upon, was not perceived by men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. In chapter i. 7, this same Apostle says, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." To cleanse, katharizein, kathairein, katharismon poiein, agiazein, louein (Revelation i. 5) are established sacrificial terms to express the removal of the guilt of sin by expiation.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:511.

This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches.

Ibid., 2:558–559.

Bio:  
Wiki

John Howe (1630–1705) Quote on Our Mental Limitations

It cannot be unobserved by them that have made themselves any part of their own study, that it is very incident to our minds, to grasp at more than they can compass; and then, through their own scantiness (like the little hand of a child) to throw away one thing that hath pleased us, to make room for another, because we cannot comprehend both together. It is not strange, that our so straitly limited understanding should not be able to lodge commodiously the immense perfections of a Deity; so as to allow them liberty to spread themselves in our thoughts in their entire proportions. And because we cannot, we complain, when we feel ourselves a little pinched, that the things will not consist; when the matter is, that we have unduly crowded and huddled them up together in our incomprehensive minds, that have not distinctly conceived them.

And though this consideration should not be used for the protection of a usurped liberty of fastening upon God, so arbitrarily and at random, what we please (as indeed what so gross absurdity might not any one give shelter to by such a misapplication of it?) we ought yet to think is seasonably applied when we find ourselves urged with difficulties on one hand and on the other, and apprehend it hard with clearness and satisfaction to ascribe to God what we also find it not easy to ascribe. Nor would it be less unfit to apply it for the patronage of that slothfulness wherein our discouraged minds are sometimes too prone to indulge themselves. To which purpose I remember somewhat very apposite in Minucius Felix, that many through the mere tediousness of finding out the truth, do rather, by a mean succumbency, yield to the first specious show of any opinion whatsoever, than be at the trouble, by a pertinacious diligence, of applying themselves to a thorough search. Though the comprehension of our minds be not infinite, it might be extended much farther than usually it is, if we would allow ourselves with patient diligence to consider things at leisure, and so as gradually to stretch and enlarge our understandings. Many things have carried the appearance of contradiction and inconsistency, to the first view of our straitened minds, which afterwards, we have, upon repeated consideration and endeavor, found room for, and been able to make fairly accord, and lodge together.

Especially we should take heed lest it be excluded by over-much conceitedness, and a self-arrogating pride, that disdains to be thought not able to see through every thing, by the first and slightest glance of a haughty eye; and peremptorily determines that to be unintelligible, that an arrogant, uninstructed mind hath only not humility enough to acknowledge difficult to be understood. When it is too possible some may be overprone to detract from God what really belongs to him, lest any thing should seem detracted from themselves; and impute imperfection to him rather than confess their own; and may be so over-ascribing to themselves, as to reckon it a disparagement not to be endured, to seem a little puzzled for the present, to be put to pause, and draw breath awhile, and look into the matter again and again; which, if their humility and patience would enable them to do, it is not likely that the Author of our faculties would be unassisting to them, in those our inquiries which concern our duty towards himself. For though, in matters of mere speculation, we may be encountered with difficulties whereof perhaps no mortal can ever be able to find out the solution, (which is no great prejudice, and may be gainful and instructive to us,) yet, as to what concerns the object of our religion, it is to be hoped we are not left in unextricable entanglements; nor should think we are, till we have made our utmost trial; the design being not to gratify our curiosity, but to relieve ourselves of uncomfortable doubtfulness in the matter of our worship, and (in a dutiful zeal towards the blessed object thereof) to vindicate it against the cavils of ill-minded men.

John Howe, “The Reconcilableness of God’s Prescience of the Sins of Men, with the Wisdom and Sincerity of His Counsels, Exhortations, and Whatsoever Means He Uses to Prevent Them,” in The Works of John Howe, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990), 2:476–478.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Some of the writings of John Howe can be found online HERE.