# Love of complacency



## MarieP

I'm still trying to think and read through the historical distinction between God's "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" toward His children. (Looking forward to reading Mark Jones' chapter on this in a couple weeks, Lord willing!)

Here is a sample of what I found:

"Due to the love of benevolence of our God, we are justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness. The divine love of complacency for us results from our sanctification, wherein progressively our Lord loves us not in spite of who we are, but because of who we are becoming. Jesus Himself tells us as much when He declares that He and the Father love obedient disciples: 'He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him…' (Jn. 14:21). As we grow in loving obedience, the Father and Son love us with complacency, and our cause for dread diminishes"- William Harrell

"A threefold love of God is commonly held; or rather there are three degrees of one and the same love. First, there is the love of benevolence by which God willed good to the creature from eternity; second, the love of beneficence by which he does good to the creature in time according to his good will; third, the love of complacency by which he delights himself in the creature on account of the rays of his image seen in them. The two former precede every act of the creature; the latter follows (not as an effect its cause, but as a consequent its antecedent). By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image). By the first he elects us; by the second, he redeems and sanctifies us; but by the third he gratuitously rewards us as holy and just. John 3:16 refers to the first; Ephesians 5:25 and Revelation 1:5 to the second; Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 to the third"- Francis Turretin

"'Tis an untruth, that God loveth his chosen ones, as he doth love his Son; that is with the same degree of love wherewith he loves his Son; I think that not far from either gross ignorance, or blasphemy. It possibly may be the same love by proportion, with which the Father tendereth the Mediator or Redeemer, and all his saved and ransomed ones; but in regard of willing good to the creature loved, he neither loveth his redeemed with the same love wherewith he loveth his Son; except blasphemously we say, God hath as highly exalted all the redeemed, and given to them a name above every name, as he hath done to his own Son; nor doth he so love all his chosen ones, as he conferreth equal grace and glory upon all alike; as if one star differed not from another star in glory, in the highest heavens. Our own good works cannot make our Lord love us less or more, with the love of eternal election; but they may make God love us more with the love of complacency, and a sweeter manifestation of God in the fruits and gracious, effects of his love. According to that, John xiv. *J- Jesus said, if a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."- Samuel Rutherford

However, I also see the argument that the Father's pleasure and displeasure in us is not tied to His love. For instance, the term love doesn't actually appear in Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 (I realize this in and of itself doesn't disprove anything).

Also, there's the argument that God cannot love us more or less because Christ cannot have died for us more or less, and we cannot be more or less adopted by Him. Even when the Father chastens and disciplines us, it's because He loves us.

And this isn't to say that we aren't daily repenting of our sins and seeking fresh applications of forgiveness and grace. And no one is denying that God's "love of benevolence" ever changes. This also is not necessarily about the whole sanctification debate- I don't *think* denying the distinction would lead to a denial that the law is a motivation for obedience, or that sanctification is just getting used to our justification.

But I don't want to derail the topic. If possible, I want to just focus on the term "love of complacency." How would you argue for/against that terminology? Again, my question is whether we can hold to the reality that we can please and displease our Heavenly Father but say that He can't love us more or less.


----------



## iainduguid

MarieP said:


> I'm still trying to think and read through the historical distinction between God's "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" toward His children. (Looking forward to reading Mark Jones' chapter on this in a couple weeks, Lord willing!)
> 
> Here is a sample of what I found:
> 
> "Due to the love of benevolence of our God, we are justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness. The divine love of complacency for us results from our sanctification, wherein progressively our Lord loves us not in spite of who we are, but because of who we are becoming. Jesus Himself tells us as much when He declares that He and the Father love obedient disciples: 'He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him…' (Jn. 14:21). As we grow in loving obedience, the Father and Son love us with complacency, and our cause for dread diminishes"- William Harrell
> 
> "A threefold love of God is commonly held; or rather there are three degrees of one and the same love. First, there is the love of benevolence by which God willed good to the creature from eternity; second, the love of beneficence by which he does good to the creature in time according to his good will; third, the love of complacency by which he delights himself in the creature on account of the rays of his image seen in them. The two former precede every act of the creature; the latter follows (not as an effect its cause, but as a consequent its antecedent). By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image). By the first he elects us; by the second, he redeems and sanctifies us; but by the third he gratuitously rewards us as holy and just. John 3:16 refers to the first; Ephesians 5:25 and Revelation 1:5 to the second; Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 to the third"- Francis Turretin
> 
> "'Tis an untruth, that God loveth his chosen ones, as he doth love his Son; that is with the same degree of love wherewith he loves his Son; I think that not far from either gross ignorance, or blasphemy. It possibly may be the same love by proportion, with which the Father tendereth the Mediator or Redeemer, and all his saved and ransomed ones; but in regard of willing good to the creature loved, he neither loveth his redeemed with the same love wherewith he loveth his Son; except blasphemously we say, God hath as highly exalted all the redeemed, and given to them a name above every name, as he hath done to his own Son; nor doth he so love all his chosen ones, as he conferreth equal grace and glory upon all alike; as if one star differed not from another star in glory, in the highest heavens. Our own good works cannot make our Lord love us less or more, with the love of eternal election; but they may make God love us more with the love of complacency, and a sweeter manifestation of God in the fruits and gracious, effects of his love. According to that, John xiv. *J- Jesus said, if a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."- Samuel Rutherford
> 
> However, I also see the argument that the Father's pleasure and displeasure in us is not tied to His love. For instance, the term love doesn't actually appear in Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 (I realize this in and of itself doesn't disprove anything).
> 
> Also, there's the argument that God cannot love us more or less because Christ cannot have died for us more or less, and we cannot be more or less adopted by Him. Even when the Father chastens and disciplines us, it's because He loves us.
> 
> And this isn't to say that we aren't daily repenting of our sins and seeking fresh applications of forgiveness and grace. And no one is denying that God's "love of benevolence" ever changes. This also is not necessarily about the whole sanctification debate- I don't *think* denying the distinction would lead to a denial that the law is a motivation for obedience, or that sanctification is just getting used to our justification.
> 
> But I don't want to derail the topic. If possible, I want to just focus on the term "love of complacency." How would you argue for/against that terminology? Again, my question is whether we can hold to the reality that we can please and displease our Heavenly Father but say that He can't love us more or less.



I haven't read Mark Jones on the subject, so can't comment on every use of this terminology, but I would strongly disagree with several specific aspects of the Rutherford quote above. 

To begin with, Paul's point in Ephesians 1 and 2 is surely that God has loved us (all Christians not just super obedient ones but the weakest of believers) with such an incredible love that he has literally exalted us and seated us in the heavenly realms in Christ. There is no greater glory or love than that. If we are united to Christ as the body is to the head, how can God love Christ and not love us, or love some of us more or better than others?

Second, to be sure the stars in the heavens differ in glory, but does God love the more glorious stars more than "lesser stars"? Does God love "super Christians", who excel in grace and glory, more than lesser mortals (like me) who constantly fight a losing battle with indwelling sin? For that matter, does excelling in grace and glory necessarily mean excelling in obedience? If anything, Paul's emphasis in the Book of Corinthians would suggest that God actually loves weaker Christians more than "strong Christians" because they display his grace and glory more fully? Certainly, in my experience there are some Christians who are showcases of God's grace in their growth from terrible adversity in a way that others whose outward lives are more together are not because they were born with many human advantages (stable family, Christian home, bright minds, etc). 

Third, the idea that God loves us more (in any sense) _because_ we obey him better is clearly not the point of John 14:21 and introduces an alien category of "less loved" Christians. In the passage, there is only one type of Christian, those who demonstrate their love for Christ by keeping his commandments (as opposed to people who say they love Jesus but demonstrate the falsity of their claims by their lifestyle). All of these Christians are equally loved by the Father, because of their love for the Son. Certainly obedience is important for believers but it is not the ground of God's love for them. To introduce another passage, Malachi 3 speaks of the compassion that the Lord has for his faithful servants as being like "a father has compassion on a son who serves him." But again, in context there are not three categories of people: believers who serve well on whom the Lord has compassion, believers who serve badly upon whom the Lord frowns and unbelievers. There are only two: the righteous and the wicked.

Pastorally, this is a huge issue with those ordinary Christians among whom I minister, which is why I will continue to use the kind of language that Rutherford finds ignorant or blasphemous (though to be fair, his time and place may have been different from mine). Like me, the people who come to my church are very weak people, who are only too aware of the heinousness of their own sin. My people would likely hear Rutherford as saying that God doesn't really love us much most of the time, only during those exceptional weeks when I am fairly good. The subtle distinction between "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" would likely be missed by the weakest sheep, who most need to be assured of God's continual love for them. And, dare I say it, they need to be reminded that God is utterly sovereign over their sanctification, as he is over their justification, so that he is not disappointedly wishing that they would work harder and get with the program. He could instantly sanctify me tomorrow, so that fact he has chosen not to do so must be for his glory and for my good - especially given his holy hatred of sin. The fruit of my failure brings him glory and does me good, however, by exalting Christ and the gospel in a way that would not happen if he made me "practically perfect" at once. As a result, he is pleased with the work of his Holy Spirit in my life, which is accomplishing exactly what he wills in the present, and he has promised to complete it on the last day (and not before, no matter how hard I try).

Again, please don't hear this as saying that we don't need to strive for holiness or that our obedience is not important. Of course it is! We could all multiply passages to aptly make that point. But God's love for me is not dependent on my best efforts, not even in part. It is entirely wrapped up in Christ - or to put it another way, I am entirely wrapped up in him so that even on my worst days, the Lord's love for me is unchanged.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MarieP

An excellent reply, brother! Thanks!



iainduguid said:


> Pastorally, this is a huge issue with those ordinary Christians among whom I minister, which is why I will continue to use the kind of language that Rutherford finds ignorant or blasphemous (though to be fair, his time and place may have been different from mine). Like me, the people who come to my church are very weak people, who are only too aware of the heinousness of their own sin. My people would likely hear Rutherford as saying that God doesn't really love us much most of the time, only during those exceptional weeks when I am fairly good. The subtle distinction between "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" would likely be missed by the weakest sheep, who most need to be assured of God's continual love for them.



Indeed! Theology has personal consequences, doesn't it! I was actually wondering how this would be used in counseling believers...actually, someone asked Mark Jones this question after his session at the Andrew Fuller Conference (audio available in a couple of weeks). I'll be listening to his session again. His response to the question was basically that he'd need to know the details of why the Christian was struggling. He also said that usually this struggle resolves itself with prayer and time. There's only so much you can say in Q&A, so perhaps he will include more in his book!

Rutherford's quote is from "Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself," a work in considerable part in reaction to the statements of John Saltmarsh http://www.freescotcoll.ac.uk/files/Rutherford/John_12_verse_27.pdf It appears on page 85 and is part of a response to the antinomian contention that a professed Christian has no grounds to ever doubt that God has loved him eternally in Christ.

On page 92, he adds, "Now, 'tis true, the saints out of weakness, misprize the Spirit's working in them; and while they undervalue themselves, they under-rate the new creation in themselves, and tacitly upbraid and slander the grace of Christ, and lessen the heavenly treasure, because it is in an earthen vessel; but poverty of spirit and grace will see, and do see grace inherent in itself, thoí as the fruit of grace." So he does see that there are weak saints.

He goes on to say, "There is no way of arguing saints out of their unbelief, except he that laboureth to strengthen them, being an Interpreter, one of a thousand, who can shew a man his righteousness, be so acquainted with the condition of the afflicted soul, that he see in him some inherent qualification, that may argue to the physician, there is some, less or more, of Christ in the soul of the man; else, if he know him to be a person yet utterly void of Christ, sure he must deal with him that is under the law, in a more legal and violent manner, than with him whom he conceiveth to be under the gospel; for one and the same physic cannot suit with contrary complexions." 

And, "If he lay down a principle, that he was never in Christ, because of such and such sins; you are not, whoever intends to cure him, to yield so much, and to deal with him according to a false supposal, as if he were not in Christ; but must labour to prove he is in Christ."

But then he says, "which to no purpose is done, by proving fair generals, as Saltmarsh, with other Libertines, doth; that is, you but till the sand, and beat the air, to prove "That God’s love is eternal, and his covenant and decree of election to his chosen, so
stable and unalterable, as no sin can hinder the flowings of eternal love"; when you make not sure to the man, that he is loved with an everlasting love."

I understand Rutherford's goal is to do away with the notion that we can lay claim to Sonship in spite of whether or not we have fruits of sanctification in our lives. But he seems to downplay that there are objective realities for the believer- the cross and empty tomb, union with Christ, and our adoption. 

Rutherford then gives "considerations, for easing the afflicted conscience of a weak child of God." However, he doesn't really address whether he means one who, for instance, feels depressed over his growth in sanctification. If he does, then I don't see how he consistently say the following:

"The soul labouring under doubts, whether God be his Father, is to hold off two rocks, either confiding or resting on duties, or neglecting of duties: the former is to make a Christ of duties as if
Christ himself were not more lovely and desirable than the comfortable accidents of joy, comfort, and peace in doing duties. Yea, take the formal vision of God, in an immediate fruition in heaven, as a duty, and as in that notion contradistinguished from
the objective vision of Christ; then Christ is to be enjoyed, loved, rested on, infinitely above the duties of vision, beatific love, eternal resting on him, yea, above imputed righteousness, assurance of pardon, reconciliation; as the king is more than his bracelets of gold, his myrrh, spikenard, perfumes, ointment, kisses; the tree more desirable than a fleece of apples that groweth on it for the fourth part of a year."

"Another counsel is, force not a law-suit, seek not, buy not a plea against Christ. Conscience, a tender piece under jealousies, saith, O he loveth not me, Christ hath forgotten me: join not in such a quarrel with conscience. Have not cold and low thoughts of Christís love to you; because he is out of sight, he is not out of languor of love for you."

Interestingly enough, the only time he explicitly speaks of how to counsel a doubting backslider is on pages 84-85. Honestly, my first thought after reading the passage was, "I wonder what that really hard oversight meeting was about." It sounds like, from the last sentence, that he saw two options for dealing with this one. First, he could look for signs of grace in his life, which he saw as virtually impossible. Or, he could prove God's eternal counsels of love and grace to him, which he also said was impossible. But, I ask, why are these the only two options? Why not follow the advice he gives later to "force not a law-suit, seek not, buy not a plea against Christ." The author of Hebrews didn't. Paul didn't in his letters to the Corinthians (though he had harsh words as well).



> [Saltmarsh]lays down the conclusion in question, which is to be proved, to the resolving of the man's conscience, that he may be cured; the thing to be proved to the sick man, say, he were a Judas wakened in conscience, is, that notwithstanding his betraying of Christ, yet God loved him with an everlasting love, and he is in Christ. Now he cureth Judas thus, God's love is everlasting, his covenant everlasting, no sin can hinder God to love Judas, or separate a traitor to Christ, from the love of Christ. Separation supposeth an union; less loving, supposeth loving: So he healeth the man thus; no disease can overcome or hinder the art of such a skilled physician to cure a dying man. But what if this skilled physician will not undertake to cure the man, nor to move his tongue for advice, nor to stir one finger to feel the man's pulse; ergo, "The man must be cured." For if the man be a backslider in heart, and a servant of sin, Christ never touched his pulse. He hath as yet sure grounds to question, whether he be loved of God, or be in Christ, or no; for, except you prove the man to be loved with an everlasting love, you can prove nothing: and your argument will not conclude any thing for the man's peace, except you prove him to be chosen of God; which is his only question. But say that he is loved from everlasting, and that he is in Christ, by faith, 'tis easy to prove, that his sins cannot change everlasting love, nor make him less beloved of God, nor separate him from the love of God. You must then either remove the man's doubting, from signs inherent in the man, (and if he be a backslider in heart, you fetch fire and water from beyond the moon to cure him; ) or you must fetch warrants to convince him, from the mind, eternal counsels of love and free grace within God; and that is all the question between the man and you. You cannot prove God hath loved him from everlasting, because he hath loved him from everlasting."





iainduguid said:


> who constantly fight a losing battle with indwelling sin



Now, brother, I'm sure you're not constantly losing because you are still in the faith, and Satan hasn't devoured you! Yes, I know, Romans 7, I've experienced it too... But isn't that the exception rather than the rule in regards to the overall pattern of our lives? Just because we're constantly fighting a battle with indwelling sin, and even failing in certain areas, doesn't mean we're always losing, right?


----------



## MW

There are numerous aspects of the revelation of grace in which this distinction is active and necessary. First, God loves His elect with an everlasting love, but He hates the workers of iniquity. At the point His elect are still in their sins they are objects of wrath. Secondly, our Lord teaches a reciprocal love in relation to keeping the commandments of God, John 14:21. This must be distinct from prevenient love. Thirdly, if God were fully pleased with the present condition of the believer the believer himself would have no reason to bemoan his condition, contrary to the express statements of Scripture. Fourthly, chastening evinces that there is a love which does not fully rest in the present condition of the object, but joys to make the object a partaker of His holiness. One could also mention growing in grace and degrees of reward. God is our Rock but He is not without action. He is most pure act!


----------



## MarieP

armourbearer said:


> Secondly, our Lord teaches a reciprocal love in relation to keeping the commandments of God, 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.



Isn't that just saying the same thing as Acts 10:35? "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."

The ones who fear God and work righteousness are the same people who are accepted by God. The same ones who have Christ's commandments and keep them are the same ones who love Christ and are loved by the Father. The Father and Christ will continue to love us and manifest themselves to us.

Calvin himself wrote,



> But there is no debate here about cause or effect; and therefore there is no ground for the inference, that the love with which we love Christ comes in order before the love which God has toward us; for Christ meant only, that all who love him will be happy, because they will also be loved by him and by the Father; not that God then begins to love them, but because they have a testimony of his love to them, as a Father, engraven on their hearts.


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> Calvin himself wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no debate here about cause or effect; and therefore there is no ground for the inference, that the love with which we love Christ comes in order before the love which God has toward us; for Christ meant only, that all who love him will be happy, because they will also be loved by him and by the Father; not that God then begins to love them, but because they have a testimony of his love to them, as a Father, engraven on their hearts.
Click to expand...


This guards prevenient love but goes no further. You raised Acts 10:35. There Calvin teaches a "double respect of God in loving men."


----------



## MarieP

> 35. He which feareth God, and doth righteousness. In these two members is comprehended the integrity of all the whole life. For the fear of God is nothing else but godliness and religion; and righteousness is that equity which men use among themselves, taking heed lest they hurt any man, and studying to do good to all men. As the law of God consisteth upon [of] these two parts, (which is the rule of good life) so no man shall prove himself to God but he which shall refer and direct all his actions to this end, neither shall there be any sound thing in all offices, [duties,] unless the whole life be grounded in the fear of God. But it seemeth that this place doth attribute the cause of salvation unto the merits of works. For if works purchase favor for us with God, they do also win life for us which is placed in the love of God towards us. Some do also catch at the word righteousness, that they may prove that we are not justified freely by faith, but by works. But this latter thing is too frivolous. For I have already showed that it is not taken for the perfect and whole observing of the law, but is restrained unto the second table and the offices of love. Therefore it is not the universal righteousness whereby a man is judged just before God, but that honesty and innocency which respecteth men, when as that is given to every man which is his.
> 
> Therefore the question remaineth as yet, whether works win the favor of God for us? which that we may answer, we must first note that there is a double respect of God in loving men. For seeing we be born the children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3,) God shall be so far from finding any thing in us which is worthy of his love, that all our whole nature causeth him rather to hate us; in which respect, Paul saith that all men are enemies to him until they be reconciled by Christ, (Romans 5:10.) Therefore the first accepting of God, whereby he receiveth us into favor, is altogether free; for there can as yet no respect of works be had, seeing all things are corrupt and wicked, and taste of [bespeak] their beginning. Now, whom God hath adopted to be his children, them doth he also regenerate by his Spirit, and reform in them his image: whence riseth that second respect. For God doth not find man bare and naked then, and void of all grace, but he knoweth his own work in him, yea, himself. Therefore, God accepteth the faithful, because they live godly and justly. And we do not deny that God accepteth the good works of the saints; but this is another question, whether man prevent the grace of God with his merits or no, and insinuate himself into his love, or whether he be beloved at the beginning, freely and without respect of works, forasmuch as he is worthy of nothing else but of hatred. Furthermore, forasmuch as man, left to his own nature, can bring nothing but matter of hatred, he must needs confess that he is truly beloved; whereupon, it followeth that God is to himself the cause that he loveth us, and that he is provoked [actuated] with his own mercy, and not with our merits. Secondly, we must note, that although the faithful please God after regeneration with good works, and their respects of works, yet that is not done with the merit of works. For the cleanliness of works is never so exact that they can please God without pardon; yea, forasmuch as they have always some corruption mixed with them, they are worthy to be refused. Therefore, the worthiness of the works doth not cause them to be had in estimation, but faith, which borroweth that of Christ which is wanting in works.



I guess I'm not seeing where Calvin says God loves Christians in two different ways? I agree with everything Calvin says here! He says "we must first note that there is a double respect of God in loving men" but I thought he meant love for His creatures and love for His elect children? And we do please God after regeneration with good works, but how does that touch His love for us?


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> I guess I'm not seeing where Calvin says God loves Christians in two different ways? I agree with everything Calvin says here! He says "we must first note that there is a double respect of God in loving men" but I thought he meant love for His creatures and love for His elect children? And we do please God after regeneration with good works, but how does that touch His love for us?



To clarify, the distinction in the love of God is not two different "ways" of loving; that would make God changeable. It is the same love but in two different respects. One views the elect as ungodly; the other as godly. If I can go back to Rutherford for a moment, a number of times in his writings he qualifies that the love of complacence is properly conceived as the effect of the love of goodwill. Calvin did not say this in so many words, but he expressed the same idea when he wrote, "God doth not find man bare and naked then, and void of all grace, but he knoweth his own work in him, yea, himself. Therefore, God accepteth the faithful, because they live godly and justly."

Calvin's comment has nothing to say about the creature in general. "General love" is part of another distinction. Calvin's comment relates to those who find acceptance with God.

God loves His own image. God sees His own image created in His elect and delights in it. As He created His own image in the elect, the cause of complacency is entirely of His own making. This guards the nature of God's love as free, unmerited, and effectual.


----------



## MarieP

armourbearer said:


> he qualifies that the love of complacence is properly conceived as the effect of the love of goodwill



Ok, so Rutherford would deny that God can love us more one moment, and then a minute later love us less with the love of complacency?




armourbearer said:


> God loves His own image. God sees His own image created in His elect and delights in it. As He created His own image in the elect, the cause of complacency is entirely of His own making. This guards the nature of God's love as free, unmerited, and effectual.



I guess I'm making a distinction between delight and love that you're not making. When od is displeased with us, isn't it love that moves Him to discipline us?


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> Ok, so Rutherford would deny that God can love us more one moment, and then a minute later love us less with the love of complacency?



No. It seems the word "love" is getting in the way of the discussion. What does one mean by "love?" We have some good Latin terms to give it substance. Benevolence is goodwill. It is God intending the good of His people. Beneficence is doing good. The thought becomes deed. Complacence is the delight of seeing the good come to fruition. By definition it requires something to have happened. Where the goodwill has not yet been brought to fruition there cannot be complacency. Where there is no complacency there is not a completeness of "love." Where there is some complacency there must be more "love."



MarieP said:


> I guess I'm making a distinction between delight and love that you're not making. When od is displeased with us, isn't it love that moves Him to discipline us?



"Complacence" is nothing other than "delight," "resting in," etc. Benevolence or goodwill undertakes to discipline the erring child, but it is the lack of complacence or delight which calls forth the act of discipline. Love would prefer obedience and reward, which is the ultimate goal of discipline.


----------



## iainduguid

armourbearer said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so Rutherford would deny that God can love us more one moment, and then a minute later love us less with the love of complacency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It seems the word "love" is getting in the way of the discussion. What does one mean by "love?" We have some good Latin terms to give it substance. Benevolence is goodwill. It is God intending the good of His people. Beneficence is doing good. The thought becomes deed. Complacence is the delight of seeing the good come to fruition. By definition it requires something to have happened. Where the goodwill has not yet been brought to fruition there cannot be complacency. Where there is no complacency there is not a completeness of "love." Where there is some complacency there must be more "love."
> 
> 
> 
> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm making a distinction between delight and love that you're not making. When od is displeased with us, isn't it love that moves Him to discipline us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Complacence" is nothing other than "delight," "resting in," etc. Benevolence or goodwill undertakes to discipline the erring child, but it is the lack of complacence or delight which calls forth the act of discipline. Love would prefer obedience and reward, which is the ultimate goal of discipline.
Click to expand...


The complexity of this issue becomes clear if we need Latin in order truly to comprehend it! But Matthew, your last comment "Love would prefer obedience and reward which is the ultimate goal of discipline" gets us to one key aspect of the debate. For God, being sovereign, always gets what he prefers. That's what it means to be sovereign. So there must be a sense in which God preferred the world to be fallen and redeemed than for it never to know sin. To be sure God hates sin, and we may truly bewail the Fall and its terrible effects, but God preferred it to happen because he loved something else even more, namely the revelation of his glory in the gospel that would never have happened in an unfallen world. 

Likewise in our individual lives, the Holy Spirit is sovereign in our sanctification. God began the good work in us, he will bring it to completion, and he hasn't left the middle up to us. That must mean, as John Newton pointed out, that in some reverent sense we may say that our remaining sin has advantages. God's sanctifying us is not simply a matter of him ensuring that we commit less and less sins, but also growing us in our knowledge of our weakness and dependence on him and the gospel - beautiful fruit that comes only as he turns us over to ourselves to experience our sinfulness. 

The analogy that my wife uses in her book is this: when our daughter was very young she wanted to walk down the stairs like her brothers rather than scooting safely down on her bottom. We warned her of the danger repeatedly and for a while prevented her from doing it. Yet after a while, it became evident that she needed to experience the effects of her foolish choices, so one day, having warned her, we left her to try a few steps. Needless to say, there were many tears shed by her in consequence of a painful (but not dangerous) fall. Our love for her was not greater when we intervened to prevent her sinful nature ending in tears than when we turned her over to herself. Good parents at times will follow both courses of action. So too God does not love me more when, by the restraining power of his Holy Spirit, he enables me to obey than when he turns me over to myself so that I may see how weak and sinful I truly am. The outcomes of standing or falling in any particular temptation are in his hands and he determines the outcome for his glory and my good.

Again, this is not to say that we should sin that God's glory may abound: by no means! Life works much better for us when we do what God tells us to. Yet God is not frustrated and angry when we fail and fall into sin, and joyfully loving when we succeed in facing temptation. The hymn "Trust and Obey" is wrong: sometimes we prove the delights of his love and the astonishing grace of the gospel more evidently when we have failed to lay all on the altar, because by our sin God shows us more clearly our need of the One who laid himself on the altar in our place. And I think that that response of faith and gratitude delights the fatherly heart of God far more than mere obedience would have!


----------



## py3ak

*A handful of remarks*



MarieP said:


> Theology has personal consequences, doesn't it! I was actually wondering how this would be used in counseling believers...actually, someone asked Mark Jones this question after his session at the Andrew Fuller Conference (audio available in a couple of weeks). I'll be listening to his session again. His response to the question was basically that he'd need to know the details of why the Christian was struggling. He also said that usually this struggle resolves itself with prayer and time.



Marie, I think Mark is a gift to the church and has attained a remarkably lucid grasp of the system of Reformed doctrine. He is quite a young man, of course, and it's probably inevitable that it should take a while to move from understanding the system to detailed and specific application to cases of conscience. And he is right that one would have to know more: someone who feels that God _can't_ be pleased, and someone who feels that God really prefers others to himself, are struggling with different things and the answer to each one would be somewhat different.



iainduguid said:


> And I think that that response of faith and gratitude delights the fatherly heart of God far more than mere obedience would have!



Professor Duguid, in this line it seems that the point is being granted. If faith is more delightful than unbelief, then God has greater complacency in trust than in suspicion. While the particulars could be discussed, the general position that there are attitudes and actions in which God takes more delight than others has been conceded. God is pleased with godliness: there is a similarity to God in keeping with our calling and station as his image-bearers and creatures (or as his begotten and adopted children) which is delightful, while its opposite is not. 

To the question about complacency, I think it is a fact of experience that love includes delight. Whether one uses Latin words or their English equivalents, it is clear that it is natural to love to rejoice in its object.

This really doesn't need to be very complicated. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Here the Father says two things about his attitude towards the Son: that he is beloved, and that he is pleasing. There is a distinction between them, though of course they have a natural tendency to go together. Think of a mother with her baby boy; she loves him, is radically and unconditionally committed to him, and is pleased with any number of things about him. As the years go by, that bond remains, even if things take a bad turn. In one sense it doesn't matter what he does; he can tear her heart out and dance on it in the rain, and it still beats for him, yearns over him, loves him and cannot cease to wish him good. But this doesn't mean she is delighted with his arrest record or meth addiction. Indeed, it is her love for him that makes these things so peculiarly painful.

The love of benevolence is foundational. I am only vaguely pleased with the success and excellence of someone I've heard about, but don't know. And when there is that love there is an eagerness to approve - a treasuring up of every good quality and delight in the smallest of positive signs; but the very fact that we can lament so bitterly over the corruption of a loved one shows that benevolence is not the same thing as delight. In the human life and development of Christ, there was a constant increase - a progress in the grace mentioned in Luke 2:52. So he was not only beloved, but pleasing to the Father, from his infancy and childhood, though his manhood, to his baptism, when testimony was born to this fact; through the rigors and pitfalls of his temptation and public ministry he went on from strength to strength, receiving approbation again on the mountain of transfiguration; and then the conflict intensified, conspiracies were made to entrap and then destroy him, and he endured the most grievous torments there could be. But here also he was perfect, learning obedience by the things that he suffered. And so there was a final testimony to the Father's perfect pleasure not only in the being and nature of his Son, but also of his life and character, in the resurrection from the dead.

And now in union to him, on the foundation of the electing love of benevolence, we have this confidence: that however far short we fall now, we are accepted in the Beloved and are being remade into his image. God is determined to delight in us, and therefore is glorifying us with the beauty of his own Son. _Sanctification is glorification begun, as glorification is sanctification perfected._


----------



## MarieP

iainduguid said:


> Yet God is not frustrated and angry when we fail and fall into sin, and joyfully loving when we succeed in facing temptation



And yet He is displeased, dishonored, and not as glorified as He ought when we sin, no? Do we count the righteous anger of human parents toward their wayward children as out of bounds? On the other hand, we don't call it lack of love either.

Seems like it's both/and, not either or!


----------



## MarieP

py3ak said:


> Marie, I think Mark is a gift to the church and has attained a remarkably lucid grasp of the system of Reformed doctrine. He is quite a young man, of course, and it's probably inevitable that it should take a while to move from understanding the system to detailed and specific application to cases of conscience. And he is right that one would have to know more: someone who feels that God can't be pleased, and someone who feels that God really prefers other to himself, are struggling with different things and the answer to each one would be somewhat different.



I agree, he is a gift, and point granted!



py3ak said:


> There is a distinction between them, though of course they have a natural tendency to go together.



(I wrote this before reading your own citation of the following verse). Just like Jesus grew in favor with God and with man (Luke 2:52! And yet, in one sense, He was perfect, so how could he grow in favor!




py3ak said:


> I think it is a fact of experience that love includes delight.



I agree!




py3ak said:


> Think of a mother with her baby boy; she loves him, is radically and unconditionally committed to him, and is pleased with any number of things about him. As the years go by, that bond remains, even if things take a bad turn. In one sense it doesn't matter what he does; he can tear her heart out and dance on it in the rain, and it still beats for him, yearns over him, loves him and cannot cease to wish him good. But this doesn't mean she is delighted with his arrest record or meth addiction. Indeed, it is her love for him that makes these things so peculiarly painful.



This here, and the rest of your post- Amen, 100 percent- great description!


----------



## MarieP

armourbearer said:


> It seems the word "love" is getting in the way of the discussion. What does one mean by "love?" We have some good Latin terms to give it substance.



And yet we also have the Word incarnate:

"Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end"- John 13:1

"n this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another"- 1 John 4:9-11

"For God [in this manner] loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"- John 3:16

"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends"- John 15:13

"By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren"- 1 John 3:16

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us"- Romans 5:8

"Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!"- 1 John 3:1a

"And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: 'My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives.' If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons"- Hebrews 12:5-8

"I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent"- Rev. 3:18-19 [I know Jesus said this, but I take it no one is trying to put a differentiation between the love of the Father and the love of Christ toward His people?]

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them"- Eph. 2:4-10

"Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace"- 2 Thess. 2:16

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life- Titus 2:4-7

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, 'For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.' Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"- Romans 8:35

Except for the love of complacency?

"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails"-1 Cor. 13:4-8a

Doesn't this imply that love is not always synonymous with pleasure?

"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver"- 2 Cor. 9:7

Here, the Lord does love a cheerful giver, and it sounds like we could substitute "delights in" or "takes pleasure in" because, as you said, love includes delight. I'll have to meditate on this one awhile. I'd love to know the Greek words that were used to all these!

But overall, it appears that the places where the Bible commands us to behold the manner of love that God has for us point to objective realities. This keeps us from "judging God's heart by His hand." I can say, "I've sinned and displeased God, and I see the chastening hand of God, but I know that He loves me because Christ died for me, the Father adopted me, I'm being chastened as a son, and I've been given newness of life so that I would walk in the ways of God's commandments. When I run to my Heavenly Father and to Christ for forgiveness, I can have assurance God will gladly receive me."

Like py3ak wrote:


> And now in union to him, on the foundation of the electing love of benevolence, we have this confidence: that however fall short we fall now, we are accepted in the Beloved and are being remade into his image. God is determined to delight in us, and therefore is glorifying us with the beauty of his own Son. Sanctification is glorification begun, as glorification is sanctification perfected.


----------



## MW

iainduguid said:


> The complexity of this issue becomes clear if we need Latin in order truly to comprehend it!



Our Saxon words are raw and open to cultural interpretation. Hence the proliferation of Latin derivatives in our theological nomenclature. Latin is the language of theology.



iainduguid said:


> But Matthew, your last comment "Love would prefer obedience and reward which is the ultimate goal of discipline" gets us to one key aspect of the debate. For God, being sovereign, always gets what he prefers. That's what it means to be sovereign.



As already clarified, complacency is the effect of goodwill. There is no suggestion of unfulfilled or ineffectual will in God. Nevertheless, there is a temporal outworking of God's purpose. Things are not yet what they shall be. God is not detached from the realities of historical development. He reveals things to be "good," "very good," "evil," or "greatly wicked" in His sight. For this language to be meaningful there must be a place for immanence in one's view of God's sovereignty. "Who is over all, and through all, and in you all." 



iainduguid said:


> And I think that that response of faith and gratitude delights the fatherly heart of God far more than mere obedience would have!



Of course obedience should flow from faith and gratitude. We were speaking, however, of the relation of God's love to chastisement, and I raised obedience as the goal of love. Your comment has done nothing to address the point of love's preference in chastisement. Love does not delight in chastisement for its own sake. It does delight in the goal of chastisement.


----------



## a mere housewife

iainduguid said:


> Pastorally, this is a huge issue with those ordinary Christians among whom I minister, which is why I will continue to use the kind of language that Rutherford finds ignorant or blasphemous (though to be fair, his time and place may have been different from mine). Like me, the people who come to my church are very weak people, who are only too aware of the heinousness of their own sin. My people would likely hear Rutherford as saying that God doesn't really love us much most of the time, only during those exceptional weeks when I am fairly good. The subtle distinction between "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" would likely be missed by the weakest sheep, who most need to be assured of God's continual love for them. And, dare I say it, they need to be reminded that God is utterly sovereign over their sanctification, as he is over their justification, so that he is not disappointedly wishing that they would work harder and get with the program. He could instantly sanctify me tomorrow, so that fact he has chosen not to do so must be for his glory and for my good - especially given his holy hatred of sin. The fruit of my failure brings him glory and does me good, however, by exalting Christ and the gospel in a way that would not happen if he made me "practically perfect" at once. As a result, he is pleased with the work of his Holy Spirit in my life, which is accomplishing exactly what he wills in the present, and he has promised to complete it on the last day (and not before, no matter how hard I try).



I thought it might be relevant to point out that it was in the letters of Samuel Rutherford that I first learned what your wife speaks of learning in her book. I remember the days that I first read some of these words very well because of the impact they made on me, having struggled most of my Christian life with feeling that God was frustrated and angry with my sinfulness. They altered my own understanding of sanctification and what I am fundamentally supposed to be learning -- not my own righteosness, but Christ's. It is as we learn of His character -- and especially, I think as we 'taste' the quality of His goodness (merciful, gracious, patient, gentle, easy to be entreated), that we are changed into the same image; and His wisdom ordained that we learn of Him here in a context of our sin and His grace.

My favorite quote below is the second to last, the one to the Parishioners of Kilmalcom. I still have something scribbled in a notebook, I believe it was that day, under 'Rutherford' about how I could be grateful for the long and drawn out story of my sin, because it was the small hold of my own weak hands on His Love. From my own experience, Rutherford's articulation cannot be inconsistent with a very helpful pastoral approach.



> I have been seeking the Pope's wares, some hire for Grace within myself. I have not learned, as I should do, to put my stock and all my treasure into Christ's hand; but I would have a stock of mine own; and ere I was aware, I was taking hire to be the Law's advocate, to seek justification by works. I forgot that grace is the only garland that is worn in heaven upon the heads of the glorified. And now I half rejoice, that I have sickness for Christ to work upon. Since I must have wounds, well is my soul, I have a day's work for my Physician, Christ. I hope to give Christ His own calling: it setteth Him full well to cure diseases.
> 
> To Lady Culross, Aberdeen, 1637





> Fear not, Christ will not cast water upon your smoking coal; and then who else dare do it if He say nay? Be sorry at corruption, and be not secure. That companion lay with you in your mother's womb, and was as early friends with you as the breath of life. And Christ will not have it otherwise; for He delighteth to take up fallen bairns, and to mend broken brows. Binding up of wounds is His office (Isa. lxi. 1).
> 
> ​To Lady Boyd, Aberdeen, March 7, 1637





> Christ hath an advantage of you, and I pray you to let Him have it; He will find employment for His calling in you. If it were not with you as ye write, grace should find no sale nor market in you; but ye must be content to give Christ somewhat to do. I am glad that He is employed that way. Let your bleeding soul and your sores be put in the hand of this expert Physician; let young and strong corruptions and His free grace be yoked together, and let Christ and your sins deal it betwixt them.
> 
> To Earlston, the Younger, Aberdeen, June 16, 1637





> And hence it is, that He who saveth to the uttermost, and leadeth many sons to glory, is still righting my salvation; and twenty times a-day I ravel my heaven, and then I must come with my ill-ravelled work to Christ, to cumber Him (as it were) to right it, and to seek again the right end of the thread, and to fold up again my eternal glory with His own hand, and to give a right cast of His holy and gracious hand to my marred and spilled salvation. Certainly it is a cumbersome thing to keep a foolish child from falls, and broken brows, and weeping for this and that toy, and rash running, and sickness, and bairns' diseases; ere he win through them all, and win out of the mires, he costeth meikle black cumber and fashery [much black trouble and vexation -H] to his keepers. And so is a believer a cumbersome piece of work, and an ill-ravelled hesp [skein -H] (as we use to say), to Christ. But God be thanked; for many spilled salvations, and many ill-ravelled hesps hath Christ mended, since first He entered Tutor to lost mankind. Oh, what could we bairns do without Him! How soon would we mar all! But the less of our weight be upon our own feeble legs, and the more that we be on Christ the strong Rock, the better for us. It is good for us that ever Christ took the cumber of us; it is our heaven to lay many weights and burdens upon Christ, and to make Him all we have, root and top, beginning and ending of our salvation. Lord, hold us here.
> 
> To Earlston the Younger, Aberdeen 1637





> But we are still ill scholars, and will go in at heaven's gates wanting the half of our lesson; and shall still be bairns, so long as we are under time's hands, and till eternity cause a sun to arise in our souls that shall give us wit. We may see how we spill and mar our own fair heaven and our salvation, and how Christ is every day putting in one bone or other, in these fallen souls of ours, in the right place again; and that on this side of the New Jerusalem, we shall still have need of forgiving and healing grace.
> 
> To Lady Robertland, Aberdeen, Jan 1638





> "Oh," say ye, "I am slain with hardness of heart, and troubled with confused and melancholious thoughts." Answer -- My dear brother, what would ye conclude thence? That ye knew not well who aughteth [owneth -H] you? I grant: "Oh, my heart is hard! oh, my thoughts of faithless sorrow! Ergo, I know not who aughteth me," were good logic in heaven amongst angels and the glorified; but down in Christ's hospital, where sick and distempered souls are under cure, it is not worth a straw. Give Christ time to end His work in your heart. Hold on, in feeling and bewailing your hardness; for that is softness to feel hardness.
> 
> To Mr. James Wilson, St. Andrews, Jan 8, 1640





> (1.) To "want complaints of weakness" is for heaven, and angels that never sinned, not for Christians in Christ's camp on earth. I think that our weakness maketh us the church of the redeemed ones, and Christ's field that the Mediator should labour in. If there were no diseases on earth, there need be no physicians on earth. If Christ had cried down weakness, He might have cried down His own calling; but weakness is our Mediator's world; sin is Christ's only, only fair and market. No man should rejoice at weakness and diseases; but I think that we may have a sort of gladness at boils and sores, because, without them, Christ's fingers (as a slain Lord) would never have touched our skin. I dare not thank myself, but I dare thank God's depth of wise providence, that I have an errand in me while I live, for Christ to come and visit me, and bring with Him His drugs and His balm. Oh, how sweet it is for a sinner to put his weakness into Christ's strengthening hand, and to father a sick soul upon such a Physician, and to lay weakness before Him to weep upon Him, and to plead and pray! Weakness can speak and cry, when we have not a tongue. "And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee, when thou wast in thy blood, Live" (Ezek. xvi. 6). The kirk could not speak one word to Christ then: but blood and guiltiness out of measure spake, and drew out of Christ pity, and a word of life and love. (2.) As for weakness, we have it that we may employ Christ's strength because of our weakness. Weakness is to make us the strongest things; that is, when, having no strength of our own, we are carried upon Christ's shoulders, and walk as it were upon His legs. If our sinful weakness swell up to the clouds, Christ's strength will swell up to the sun, and far above the heaven of heavens.
> 
> To the Parishioners of Kilmalcolm, Anwoth, August 5, 1639





> I deny nothing that the Mediator will challenge me of; but I turn it all back upon Himself. Let Him look His own old accounts, if He be angry; for He will get no more of me. When Christ saith, "I want repentance," I meet Him with this: "True, Lord, but Thou art made a King and a Prince to give me repentance" (Acts v.34). When Christ bindeth a challenge upon us, we must bind a promise back upon Him. Be wo, and lay yourself in the dust before God (which is suitable), but withal let Christ take the payment in His own hand, and pay Himself off the first end of His own merits; else He will come behind for anything that we can do. I am every way in your case, as heart-hearted and dead as any man; but yet I speak to Christ through my sleep. Let us then proclaim a free market for Christ, and swear ourselves bare, and cry on Him to come without money and buy us, and take us home to our Ransom-payer's fireside, and let us be Christ's free-boarders.
> 
> To Robert Gordon of Knockbrex, Aberdeen, June 11, 1638


----------

