Common grace due to love (not merely God giving reprobates more sticks for burning)

[MW]

Calvin discusses legal and evangelical repentance (Institutes 3.3.4) but 1) seems to apply it differently than you just did and 2) didn't seem to favor such terminology (3.3.5). That's not necessarily bad, I'm just not sure I understand exactly how you are defining it.

He was addressing a different use of the terms legal and evangelical. His laying precedence on faith before repentance and impossibility of repentance without faith is virtually the same distinction as the Marrowmen. Boston might help to show the difference a little clearer:

(1.) That repentance is the doctrine of the gospel. I do indeed think, that it cannot be denied but that the law requires repentance as a duty, in so far as it binds the apostate sinner to return to God: but in the meantime it gives no hope of mercy to the penitent, seeing its constant voice is, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." But the gospel gives the glad tidings of place for repentance, and shews how the apostate creature returning will be accepted. And there can be no true returning to God, where there is no hope of acceptance.

(2.) Repentance is a promise of the covenant of grace: Ezek. xxxvi. 31, "Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities, and for your abominations."

It is not only the duty of God's elect, but their privilege, made over to them in Jesus Christ, purchased by his death, and bestowed on them by virtue of his exaltation. Acts v. 31. And hence, as one of the benefits of that covenant, it is sealed in baptism, Mark i.4.

The sum of what is said on this second head, is, that repentance is an evangelical softness of heart, and bent of spirit to turn away from sin, and to turn to God, wrought in a soul by the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of holiness being given to Christ without measure, he puts the same Spirit in his elect in the day of his power; who by his grace melts the heart for sin, and bends it away from sin to holiness.

This is all taught under Calvin's view of "true repentance."

Would you say that when proclaiming the gospel we call every individual to evangelical repentance or legal repentance? Or do we omit the adjectives and cover both indefinitely?

A faithful teacher distinguishes with Calvin and Boston and shows the difference between repentance worked out of the sinner's own bowels and that true repentance which comes in a way of saving faith. If the distinction is not made the hearer will not be able to tell the difference between a law-work and gospel-grace.

 

[timfost]

He was addressing a different use of the terms legal and evangelical. His laying precedence on faith before repentance and impossibility of repentance without faith is virtually the same distinction as the Marrowmen.

Thanks for clarifying.

A faithful teacher distinguishes with Calvin and Boston and shows the difference between repentance worked out of the sinner's own bowels and that true repentance which comes in a way of saving faith. If the distinction is not made the hearer will not be able to tell the difference between a law-work and gospel-grace.

I have some questions below. I'm trying to understand your perspective on this. As you already know, we would have some differences on this, but these questions are solely to understand your position, not to get into the particular issues surrounding this. I also know that other reformed theologians make the distinctions that you use, so I'm in no way trying to separate your theology from reformed theology generally.

1. If the gospel offer goes out indefinitely, it is not actually offered to a non-elect person even though it might be offered to the non-elect indefinitely in the general call. Is this a correct understanding of your position? If so, if gospel grace is not actually offered to each individual in the general call, can the call to repentance be any other than legal repentance to the non-elect?

2. Is evangelical repentance required of all individually in the general gospel call though salvation is not actually offered to all individually in the gospel call?

3. Can the "faithful teacher" proclaim the gospel to all without explicitly referencing election?

4. As I understand it, Boston did not distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and the Covenant of Grace (CoG) in contrast to many others. In his thinking, are the elect always "in Christ," even prior to faith? How would you interact with the question?

5. Could you further discuss your usage of legal and evangelical repentance compared and/or contrasted to John Gill's application of the terms?

6. Does the general gospel call communicate grace in any way to the non-elect?

7. What is the difference between election and the gospel?

I really appreciate your time. Thank you!

 

[MW]

1. If the gospel offer goes out indefinitely, it is not actually offered to a non-elect person even though it might be offered to the non-elect indefinitely in the general call. Is this a correct understanding of your position? If so, if gospel grace is not actually offered to each individual in the general call, can the call to repentance be any other than legal repentance to the non-elect?

It must be actually offered to the person if it is actually offered to all. The term "indefinite" brings out the fact that elect and non-elect are not the objects of the offer. At the point of preaching elect and non-elect are not in view; sinners are in view, and that indefinitely, so that whosoever will may drink of the water of life freely. The preacher has no basis for distinguishing elect and non-elect since neither he nor the hearers could know who were the elect apart from believing the gospel which is preached.

As soon as election is brought into the call the reference must be to the effectual call. While the non-elect are genuinely called by the gospel outwardly they are never given the gifts of evangelical repentance and faith; in that sense they remain under the law which condemns them, and their refusal to repent and believe now aggravates their guilt.

2. Is evangelical repentance required of all individually in the general gospel call though salvation is not actually offered to all individually in the gospel call?

I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of questioning. Are you trying to trick me into saying that it is not actual? Of course it is actual.

3. Can the "faithful teacher" proclaim the gospel to all without explicitly referencing election?

At the point of the gospel offer and the call to believe there is no reference to election, but the preacher does not confine himself to these. He must explain the way of salvation in its fulness for the sake of ministering the certainty of faith. The whole counsel of God includes election, and it is necessary to preach for its own ends, but it is not the object of faith which is held out in the gospel offer.

4. As I understand it, Boston did not distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption (CoR) and the Covenant of Grace (CoG) in contrast to many others. In his thinking, are the elect always "in Christ," even prior to faith? How would you interact with the question?

First, Boston distinguished between the covenant of grace as made with Christ and the covenant as made with the elect. He saw the need to recognise these as one covenant, not two, because neonomianism had taken the covenant of redemption in the direction of conditionalism by separating redemption accomplished and applied.

Secondly, the question is irrelevant to the issue since men like Rutherford, who taught the covenant of redemption is a separate covenant, also maintained the doctrine which Boston would later teach on law and gospel.

5. Could you further discuss your usage of legal and evangelical repentance compared and/or contrasted to John Gill's application of the terms?

That would take an historical essay.

6. Does the general gospel call communicate grace in any way to the non-elect?

The gospel reveals grace.

7. What is the difference between election and the gospel?

The difference as it applies to this question has been explained above.

 

[timfost]

Thanks for your answers.

I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of questioning. Are you trying to trick me into saying that it is not actual? Of course it is actual.

No, not at all trying to trick you. I have a lot of trouble following your reasoning of "indefinite." Below I've quoted from Haldane's commentary on Rom. 10:9. Do you agree with it or not? Perhaps in communicating my point of reference this way I can better understand yours.

The emphasis of the second person throughout this verse should be remarked. The Apostle does not speak indefinitely, but he says emphatically, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, and shalt believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved. He speaks of every one, so that all may examine themselves, for to every one believing and confessing, salvation is promised; thus teaching each one to apply the promise of salvation to himself by faith and confession. Thus the Apostle shows that every believer has as much certain assurance of his salvation as he certainly confesses Christ with his mouth, and as he believes in his heart, that the Lord Jesus was raised from the dead. Our assurance of salvation corresponds with the measure of our faith, and the boldness of our confession of Christ.

Could you recommend an author who can succinctly define the way you use "indefinite"?

Thanks!

 

[MW]

Below I've quoted from Haldane's commentary on Rom. 10:9. Do you agree with it or not?

Haldane was evidently referring to believers, and applied the passage accordingly. Anything that refers to believers is by nature particular so as to convey the certainty of the thing promised to them. Had he applied it to the gospel offer to all men he likely would have used different terms.

Could you recommend an author who can succinctly define the way you use "indefinite"?

Here are a few from my collection of quotations. They should give a good idea of what is intended.

Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, 509: In this grammar of the Holy Ghost, observe, we, by the way, for resolution, the wisdom of God, in framing the words of the gospel. It cannot be said that God loved all the world, in Christ his beloved; and all, and every sinner, and all the race of mankind. Yet, laying down this ground, that God keepeth up in his mind, the secrets of election and reprobation, till he, in his own time, be pleased to reveal them; the Lord hath framed the gospel-offer of Christ in such indefinite words, and so general (yet without all double-dealing, lying, or equivocating; for his own good pleasure is a rule both of his doings and speeches). As, 1. seldom doth the Lord open election and reprobation to men, till they, by grace, or in the order of his justice, open both the one and the other, in their own ways; and therefore he holdeth out the offer of Christ, so as none may cavil at the gospel, or begin a plea with Christ. 3. Seldom doth the gospel speak, who they be that are elect, who reprobate; yet doth the gospel offer no ground of presuming on the one hand, or of despairing on the other. For if thou be not a believer, nor a weak reed, nor a saint, yet thou art a sinner; if not that, thou art a man; if not that, thou art one of the world.

James Durham, Revelation, 340: Ministers warrant to preach and offer salvation, is not to preach and offer the same to the elect only, whom the Lord hath kept secret from them; but it is to preach and make offer of this gospel, to those unto whom the Lord shall send them, and whom he shall gather into a visible church-state; yet, this is done for the elect’s sake among such, whom God hath thought fit to gather out among others by this preaching of the gospel, without signifying to the minister who is elect, and whom he hath designed to believe: therefore it is suitable to this manner of administration, that the gospel be preached indefinitely in respect of its call, and that indifferently, as to these who preach; that so while the call doth reach all particularly, the elect may withal be gripped with the same.

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:336: The true way of covenanting is, to take up the covenant of grace as a free promise of life and salvation, upon condition of Christ’s obedience and death performed already; to believe that promise with particular application to the sinner himself, i.e., that the sinner believe, that he shall have life and salvation, pardon of sin, repentance, sanctification, grace, and glory, and that upon the ground of Christ’s obedience and satisfaction only, Heb. 8:10. Thus the covenant is held out, as a free and absolute promise, to sinners indefinitely, like a rope to a company of drowning men, that whoever believes it may by it be drawn forth out of the waters.

John Colqhoun, Sermons, 96: In these passages, and many others which might be cited, we have express mention made of a free offer of Christ, and of his righteousness, to sinners of mankind, who are denominated the people, the Gentiles, the world, men, and the sons of men, &c., which are all indefinite terms; not, indeed, a giving of him in possession, else every sinner who hears the Gospel should possess him, and be saved by him; but a giving in offer, so that every sinner has hereby a right to take possession; and he is guilty of unbelief if he do not avail himself of this right.

John Colqhoun, Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, 117: The gospel, in its proper acceptation, contains likewise God’s gracious offers of Christ, in his person, righteousness, fulness, offices, and relations, and of Himself in Christ, to sinners of mankind in common. It comprehends also, his offer of all his promises in and with Christ, to sinners indefinitely. Hence we commonly style these offers, gospel-offers; because they form a main and special part of the gospel.

James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings, 2:174: The Gospel offer is not an expression of God’s purposes or decrees, but a plain and intelligible ground of duty to man. It comes to no one and says, “You individually and particularly are included in God's purpose of saving mercy.” If this were the nature of it, none could pretend to reconcile its acknowledged universality with the doctrines of election and reprobation. But this is so far from being the case that it simply gives to sinners a right to believe; it gives them an adequate foundation, a warrantable ground for the exercise of faith. In other words, it is such a general, indefinite, unconditional grant of Christ in all His plenitude of grace as conveys to each and every sinner who hears the joyful sound an unquestionable right to appropriate and apply the Saviour in all His fullness to his own individual case without presumption or blasphemy.

 

[timfost]

Thanks for the quotes. I look forward to considering them in more detail.

Question so that I can better understand your distinction of legal and evangelical repentance. Would you say that both kinds of repentance are the same in substance, or are they two completely different kinds of repentance? Is there also a legal and evangelical faith?

Thanks again!

 

[MW]

Would you say that both kinds of repentance are the same in substance, or are they two completely different kinds of repentance? Is there also a legal and evangelical faith?

Although they have some similarities, they have different sources which create different effects in the person. Legal repentance or faith is acted by the law or the gospel conceived as a law; evangelical repentance or faith is acted by the gospel as a pure promise. You might find the following examples to be helpful.

Edward Reynold, Works, 1:450: as sense of sin as a cursed thing (which is legal humiliation) doth arise from that faith, whereby we believe and assent to the truth of God in all his threatenings (which is a legal faith); so the abominating of sin as an unclean thing, and contrary to the image and holiness of God, (which is evangelical repentance) doth arise from evangelical faith; whereby we look upon God as most merciful, most holy, and therefore most worthy to be imitated and served.

Thomas Brooks, Works, 3:397: Look, as all legal sorrow flows from a legal faith, as you may see in Ahab’s and the Ninevites, so all evangelical sorrow flows from an evangelical faith: “They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and mourn.” All gracious mourning flows from looking, from believing. Nothing breaks the heart of a sinner like a look of faith. All tears of godly sorrow drop from the eye of faith. Godly sorrow rises and falls, as faith rises and falls. Faith and godly sorrow are like the fountain and the flood, which rise and fall together. The more a man is able by faith to look upon a pierced Christ, the more his heart will mourn over all the dishonours that he has done to Christ. The more deep and wide the wounds are that faith shows me in the heart and sides of Christ, the more my heart will be wounded for sinning against Christ.

Thomas Boston, Works, 1:361: the law is a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ; and the faith of the law makes way for the faith of the gospel. Not that this legal faith or legal repentance is the condition of the soul’s welcome to Christ and the covenant of grace; our access to Christ and the covenant is proclaimed free, without any conditions or qualifications required in us to warrant us sinners of mankind to believe in Jesus Christ. But they are necessary to move and excite us to make use of our privilege of free access to Christ and the covenant: so that the sinner will never come to Christ nor embrace the covenant without them.

Ralph Erskine, Sermons, 2:207 (3rd edition): As believers do perform gospel-obedience to the law, so unbelievers may have a legal faith of the gospel, a legal faith upon Christ, believing in their own strength, believing even before he see his inability to believe, before ever he sees his unwillingness to believe, before he be humbled under a sense of his absolute need of Christ, and before he see what right and warrant he hath from the word.

John Colquhoun, Treatise on the Covenant of Works, 289: While the true believer performs gospel-obedience to the law, the legalist exercises a legal faith of the gospel. He believes, before he be convinced of his unwillingness, or inability to believe; before he see from the word, his warrant to do so; and before he have a humbling discovery of his absolute need of a Saviour, either from sin, or from wrath.

 

[Pergamum]

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.

When the Gospel comes to the reprobate and the Spirit strives with them is it in love or hate?

Or are these things beyond our understanding?


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I would like to get back to this main point as well.

Are God's kindnesses meant as a means of fattening up the wicked for the day of slaughter? No. It appears that God's offers are borne out of love and goodwill, even if men reject these offers and these offers thus become greater condemnation to him.

 

[MW]

It appears that God's offers are borne out of love and goodwill, even if men reject these offers and these offers thus become greater condemnation to him.

It is one thing to say that love and goodwill are indefinitely manifested to sinners; it is quite another thing to say they are manifested in particular to reprobate sinners, especially when the "reprobate" are defined as those whom God has passed by with respect to the purpose of salvation.

And if the "offer" is borne out of love, out of what is the "threatening" borne? Human sentimentality likes to contemplate one half of the ways of God with men, and shies away from the other half, but it is only by contemplating both together (justice and mercy) that we understand aright an offer of actual salvation, which does not flatter sinners with an impossible possibility of saving themselves.

 

[timfost]

It is one thing to say that love and goodwill are indefinitely manifested to sinners; it is quite another thing to say they are manifested in particular to reprobate sinners, especially when the "reprobate" are defined as those whom God has passed by with respect to the purpose of salvation.

This is where I think you use categories in a way that is not helpful. As Henry pointed out, it is inconceivable to the Arminian that God would show kindness to someone that He does not purpose to save. But we maintain that He demonstrates goodness because He wants to. So why is it inconceivable to think that He could offer salvation to those He didn't purpose to save? Can't we answer the same way: because He wants to? Can He not reveal His character by offering salvation to those He didn't purpose to save (See Matt. 22:1-14, John 1:11, Rev. 2:21)?

Also, does the doctrine of preterition necessitate that God makes no offer of salvation to any of them? I believe that Shedd rightly states that it is God's determination to not effectively work faith in them, not that He refrains from offering Himself to them.

And if the "offer" is borne out of love, out of what is the "threatening" borne? Human sentimentality likes to contemplate one half of the ways of God with men, and shies away from the other half, but it is only by contemplating both together (justice and mercy) that we understand aright an offer of actual salvation, which does not flatter sinners with an impossible possibility of saving themselves.

Certainly we should not leave out justice in favor of mercy. But your logic does not follow the example of scripture. Mercy precedes justice. Your argument assumes that God's will in relation to mercy and justice necessitates simultaneously employing both. Of course God desires to punish the impenitent, but this does not exclude offers of mercy unless we adopt Perkins's logic as you have on this point. Once the proper order is realized, there is no problem whatsoever.

 

[MW]

This is where I think you use categories in a way that is not helpful. As Henry pointed out, it is inconceivable to the Arminian that God would show kindness to someone that He does not purpose to save. But we maintain that He demonstrates goodness because He wants to. So why is it inconceivable to think that He could offer salvation to those He didn't purpose to save? Can't we answer the same way: because He wants to? Can He not reveal His character by offering salvation to those He didn't purpose to save (See Matt. 22:1-14, John 1:11, Rev. 2:21)?

It was clarified above that God actually offers salvation to those who hear the gospel. The gospel holds out a warrant to believe in Christ for salvation. Regrettably you have chosen to ignore this clarification.

As noted on previous threads, God's kindness is actual. It is not ineffectual. If the gospel offer comes to a man, it is God who has kindly provided it. But the kindness does not include an intention to save all men. To claim that God exercises an ineffectual kindness is Arminianism. The category of ineffectual goodness/kindness/grace in God is not only unhelpful, it is an outright stumbling-block to faith.

Also, does the doctrine of preterition necessitate that God makes no offer of salvation to any of them? I believe that Shedd rightly states that it is God's determination to not effectively work faith in them, not that He refrains from offering Himself to them.

Again, an offer of salvation is not denied. You are arguing with a straw man.

Your doctrine of preterition would have God purposing salvation for all but holding back the means by which that salvation becomes theirs. How do you call this sincere? This is to give salvation and take it back again. Clearly this is not salvation but an impossible possibility of salvation.

Certainly we should not leave out justice in favor of mercy. But your logic does not follow the example of scripture. Mercy precedes justice. Your argument assumes that God's will in relation to mercy and justice necessitates simultaneously employing both.

Read Romans. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven. Sinners are under judgment. That is why they need mercy. On your scheme sinners are in some kind of neutral state with respect to judgment. This plainly contradicts Scripture.