John Calvin on the Free Offer-1

[JOwen]

I listened to a most interesting debate the other day between Rev. David Silversides of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Ireland and Rev. Ron Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Church. The topic was on the subject of Common Grace. I have posted the debate in three sermons on my BLOG in the side bar to the right under Audio Lectures. Please give them a listen if you have time.

I must admit that I was strengthened and edified with both presentations. While I believe Rev. Silversides had the clearer Biblical line, I could not help myself finding many solid points in Hanko's response. I decided to clarify my own position on the subject of the free offer of the Gospel, and who better to begin with that the learned John Calvin?

I plan on posting a series of John Calvin perspectives on several key passages in the Holy Scriptures. Here is the first post on God's love toward the non-elect.


Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~

The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good "” that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration "” have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.

But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him "” which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance "” he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption (Calvin's Commentary on the harmny of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).

I see here in Calvin a discriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Herman Kuiper's Calvin and Common Grace is a very comprehensive treatment of this subject that is also worth consulting.

David Silversides' book is found here.

[Edited on 9-8-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[CDM]

Originally posted by JOwen
I listened to a most interesting debate the other day between Rev. David Silversides of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Ireland and Rev. Ron Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Church. The topic was on the subject of Common Grace. I have posted the debate in three sermons on my BLOG in the side bar to the right under Audio Lectures. Please give them a listen if you have time.

I must admit that I was strengthened and edified with both presentations. While I believe Rev. Silversides had the clearer Biblical line, I could not help myself finding many solid points in Hanko's response. I decided to clarify my own position on the subject of the free offer of the Gospel, and who better to begin with that the learned John Calvin?

I plan on posting a series of John Calvin perspectives on several key passages in the Holy Scriptures. Here is the first post on God's love toward the non-elect.


Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~

The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good "” that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration "” have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.

But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him "” which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance "” he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption (Calvin's Commentary on the harmny of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).

I see here in Calvin a discriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.

How would Psalm 11:5 be understood in light of Calvin here?

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth

 

[JOwen]

Originally posted by mangum

How would Psalm 11:5 be understood in light of Calvin here?

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth

Here is Calvin himself on Psalm 11:5,


"to approve the righteous, and to hate the wicked".

"The Hebrew word 'bachan', which we have rendered to approve, often signifies to examine or try. But in this passage I explain it as simply meaning, that God so inquires into the cause of every man as to distinguish the righteous from the wicked. It is farther declared, that God hates those who are set upon the infliction of injuries, and upon doing mischief. As he has ordained mutual intercourse between men, so he would have us to maintain it inviolable. In order, therefore, to preserve this his own sacred and appointed order, he must be the enemy of the wicked, who wrong and are troublesome to others. There is also here contrasted God´s hatred of the wicked, and wicked men´s love of iniquity, to teach us that those who please and flatter themselves in their mischievous practices gain nothing by such flatteries, and only deceive themselves."

 

[crhoades]

I will plug R. Scott Clark's essay in the Strimple festschrift The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries. It is Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology.

Found on the cheap here

 

[Peter]

Rev. Silversides has several sermons on the free offer at www.sermonaudio.com

and a lot of stuff in them is directly against the Hosekemites