[comments below]

Spurgeon:

Commentary:

1)

37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

What a picture of pity and disappointed love the King’s face must have presented when, with flowing tears, he uttered these words! What an exquisite emblem he gave of the way in which he had sought to woo the Jews to himself: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings “What familiar tenderness! What a warm Elysium of rest! What nourishment for the feeble! What protection for the weak! Yet it was all provided in vain: “How often would I have gathered thy children together…. and ye would not!” Oh, the awful perversity of man’s rebellious will! Let all the readers of these lines beware lest the King should ever have to utter such a lament as this over them. Charles H. Spurgeon, The Gospel of the Kingdom: a popular exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew, in loco. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Complete Sermons:

2)

NO. 2381
A SERMON INTENDED FOR READING ON LORD’S DAY,
OCTOBER 7TH, 1894,
DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON,
AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.
ON LORD’S-DAY EVENING, JULY 22ND, 1888.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent onto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” — Matthew 23:37.

THIS is not and could not be the language of a mere man. It would be utterly absurd for any man to say that he would have gathered the inhabitants of a city together, “even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings.” Besides, the language implies that, for many centuries, by the sending of the prophets, and by many other warnings, God would often have gathered the children of Jerusalem together as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings. Now, Christ could not have said that, throughout those ages, he would have gathered those people, if he had been only a man. If his life began at Bethlehem, this would be an absurd statement; but, as the Son of God, ever loving the sons of men, ever desirous of the good of Israel, he could say that, in sending the prophets, even though they were stoned and killed, he had again and again shown his desire to bless his people till he could truly say, “How often would I have gathered thy children together!” Some who have found difficulties in this lament, have said that it was the language of Christ as man. I beg to put in a very decided negative to that; it is, and it must be, the utterance of the Son of man, the Son of God, the Christ in his complex person as human and divine. I am not going into any of the difficulties just now; but you could not fully understand this passage, from any point of view, unless you believed it to be the language of one who was both God and man. This verse shows also that the ruin of men lies with themselves. Christ puts it very plainly, “I would; but ye would not.” “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not!” That is a truth, about which, I hope, we have never had any question; we hold tenaciously that salvation is all of grace, but we also believe with equal firmness that the ruin of man is entirely the result of his own sin. It is the will of God that saves; it is the will of man that damns. Jerusalem stands and is preserved by the grace and favor of the Most High; but Jerusalem is burnt, and her stones are cast down, through the transgression and iniquity of men, which provoked the justice of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Letham:

God’s Decree (WCF 3-5; LC 12-20)

Morris comments accurately what these chapters follow naturally from what has gone before, particularly in view of the Arminian controversy that had brought the decrees of God into dispute.¹ God’s plans must have been formed from eternity, he agrees, and must Include all things and events; moreover, his supreme will carries them into effect.² By placing the decree of God close to the beginning of the Confession, the divines signaled that theology is to be a God–centered enterprise. This is in keeping with the great ecumenical creeds, which focus on God the Holy Trinity, the work of Christ, and the church and sacraments.³ ‘This placement was definitely not a principle from which the rest of theology was logically deduced; we discussed the anachronistic nature of this now-discredited argument in chapter 6. The Assembly’s stress on God’s decree was greatly needed at a time of threatening instability, such as England was in during the 1640s. Nothing was certain. The institutions of state were in turmoil, the country was at war with itself, and no legal church existed. The foundations were shaken to their core. Yet in the midst of all this, God was working out his sovereign purposes to his glory and the good of his elect people. In the end, his kingdom would triumph, his church would be preserved, and his elect would be brought home to glory.

The Westminster Confession of Faith refers to the decree of God in the singular, while the Catechisms have the plural. Discussion occurred in the Assembly on this question. There was opposition to the Arminian division into separate decrees. Others raised the question of whether a commitment on such a matter should be put into a confession of faith. Morris thinks of the decrees–as the covenants–as many to our apprehension, while one in the sight of God.⁴ The single nature of the decree, he suggests, fosters the idea that its execution is irresistible; it is balanced by chapter 5 on providence, where God is said to govern ordinarily in accordance with the nature of second causes, which takes account of the introduction and permission of sin.⁵

Debates on chapter 3, including the proof texts, occupied parts of twenty days and were “extremely searching and very comprehensive.”⁶ Robert Baillie referred to “long and tough debates.”⁷ The committee report followed the Irish Articles closely. Debate focused on two main issues. The first and relatively less important was the question of God’s permitting the fall of man. It had to do with whether, as the committee reported, it happened by “the same decree” as that of election, and, if so, whether the phrase should be included in the Confession. Debate occupied two sessions (S520 M 20.10.45 and S521 TU 21.10.45).⁸ Lazarus Seaman urged its inclusion; “great debate” would follow its omission, since the Arminians distinguish the decrees and from this arises all their “odious doctrine.” Rutherford, on the other hand, urged caution. While all agree that God decrees both the end and the means, and while it is probably one decree, it is doubtful whether such a statement should be included in a confession of faith, he urged. Certainly, if a proof was produced to establish the point, he believed the Assembly would be glad to hear it. Whitaker significantly (in view of the debate of the next few days) pointed out that “our conceptions arc very various about the decrees,” yet he did not know why the phrase should be left out, since it is the same decree in reference to time, since they an: all “simull & semel.” Gillespie wanted the freedom of each man to “enjoy his own sense.” Reynolds argued strongly against inclusion: “Let us not put in disputes & scholasticall things into a confession of faith,” Besides, he added, from our perspective they are different decrees. Seaman continued to be adamant for inclusion, again citing the Remonstrants for making two decrees concerning election. While Calamy supported Reynolds (“I desire that nothing be put”), Palmer to the contrary insisted that “it will be worse to leave it out.” Meanwhile Gillespie pointed out that in the order of nature God’s ordaining man to glory preceded his decree to permit the fall. In the end, the phrase was left out. However, the chapter avoids any idea that these decrees are separable by casting its title in the singular–“Of God’s eternal decree”–and reaffirming the point in 3.3 by viewing both predestination to life and foreordination to death as aspects of this one “decree.”⁹ However, LC 12 speaks of God’s decrees in the plural, as eternal acts of God’s will. It could be argued that the: plural signifies the variety of things decreed by God, while the singular refers to the unity of his purpose, but there is no evidence that this is how the Assembly saw it. wisely comments that the Assembly was after a generic Calvinism rather than any particular variety of it.¹⁰

The most significant differences emerged during the debate on the statement, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (WCF 3.6). The most vivid discussion occurred in S522 W 22.10.45 through S524 I; 24. 10.45,¹¹ although debates continued until S3.1 0.45.¹² The leading opponent of the clause was Calamy. His position, as accurately describes it, was hypothetical universalism. In S522 W 22.10.45, he insisted:

I am farre from universall Redemption in the Arminian sence, but that that [sic] I hould is in the sence of our devines in the sinod of Dort; that Christ did pay a price for all, absolute for the elect, conditionall for the reprobate, in case they doe beleive; that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami; that Jesus Christ did not only dy sufficiently for all, but God did intend in giving of Christ & Christ in giving hin1selfe did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they doe beleive.¹³

Reynolds was incredulous that Calamy was not differing from Arminius and the Remonstrants, since his proposal supposed that salvation was conditional on a response they could not perform and which God never intended to give them. However, Calamy proceeded to distinguish his position from Arminianism: Arminians say that Christ paid a price placing all in an equal state of salvation. “They say Christ did not purchase any impetration.” Calamy insisted his views “doth neither intrude upon either [the] doctrine of speciall election or speciall grace.” His point was that Arminianism asserted that Christ simply suffered; all people are in a potentially salvable situation, so that any who believe will be saved. In contrast, he himself believed that Christ’s death saves his elect and grants a conditional possibility of salvation to the rest. Seaman, supporting Calamy, argued that the views of the Remonstrants were irrelevant; what mattered was the truth or falsity of the case. Calamy, he insisted, was talking not of a salvability in relation to man, but to God; he has so far reconciled himself to the world that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy. Palmer probed closely, wanting to know whether Calamy understood this of all people. Calamy’s rather limp reply was “de adultis” (of adults).

Read the rest of this entry »

Perkins:

1) The first is touching the will of Christ, I would. According to the two natures of Christ: so be there two wills in him, the will of his godhead and the will of his manhood. Some think that these words are meant of the will of his manhood. For they suppose him here to speak as the minister of circumcision, and consequently as a man. This I think is a truth, but not all the truth. Because the thing which he wills, namely the gathering of the Jews by the ministry of the Prophets, was begun and practiced long before his incarnation. Wherefore (as I take it) here his divine will is meant or the will of his Godhead, which is also the will of the Father, and the Holy Ghost. William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace, and Man’s Free Will (Cambridge: Printed by John Legat And are to be sold at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Churchyard by Simon Waterson, 1601), 23. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

2) If we compare this text with Isa. 6:10 they seem to be contrary. For here Christ says, I would have gathered you: there he says, Harden them that they be not gathered and converted. God therefore seems to will and not to will one and the same thing. Answ. There is but one will in God: yet doth it not equally will all things, but in divers respects it doth will and nill the same thing. He wills the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approves it as a good thing in itself: in that he commands it, and exhorts men to it: in that he gives them all outward means of their conversion. He wills it not, in that he did not decree effectually to work their conversion. For God doth approve, and he may require many things, which nevertheless for just causes known to himself, he will not do. The confirmation of the Angels that fell, God approved as a thing good in itself, yet did not he will to confirm them. A judge in compassion approves and will the life of a malefactor: and yet withal he wills the execution of justice in his death. Even so God sometimes wills that in his signifying will, which he wills not in the will of his good pleasure.

By this which hath been said, we learn, that where God erects the ministry of his word, he signifies thereby that his pleasure is to gather men to salvation. In this regard the prophet Isaiah says, that the preaching of the gospel is a banner displayed that all nations may come unto it. All this is verified in this our English nation. For more then forty years hath God displayed this banner unto us, and more then forty years hath he signified in the ministry of his word, that his will is to give mercy and salvation unto us. First therefore we owe unto God all thankfulness and praise for this endless mercy. Secondly we are to reverence the ministry of the word, in as much as God signifies his good will unto us thereby, and we are in all obedience to subject ourselves to it: and for this cause we must suffer our selves to it: and for this cause we must suffer our selves to be converted and gathered by it. Subjects use to reverence the letter of their Prince, how much more then must we reverence the letter of the living God sent unto us, that is, the ministry of the word, & conform ourselves to it. Thirdly, here we may learn to foresee our miserable condition in this land. For though God for his part have long signified his will unto us touching our everlasting good, yet there is nothing to be found in the most of us, but a neglect or contempt of the gospel: and in most places men are weary of it as the Israelites were of manna. What, weary of the goodness of God, that offers and proclaims mercy unto us? Yea, verily. And the more weary are we of our own happiness, and consequently hasten to our own perdition. William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace, and Man’s Free Will (Cambridge: Printed by John Legat And are to be sold at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Churchyard by Simon Waterson, 1601), 44-47. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

Scott:

But what is the general purport of this commission? Let us hear the word of God: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.” “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.”–”His blood is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” John i. 29, iii. 16–20. 1 Tim. i. 15, ii. 5, 6. Had the penmen of the Scriptures been as scrupulously careful to prevent even the appearance of deviating from exact systematical consistency, as many moderns are, they would never have thus expressed themselves.–For my part I dare not use any of the above-mentioned arts of criticism, to narrow the obvious sense of these and similar texts: and as I nope this day, previously to receiving and administering the Lord’s Supper, to use the following terms in solemn prayer, Christ “by his own oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;”¹ I would no more contradict this solemn profession from the pulpit, than I would preach against the seventeenth article respecting predestination.–The compilers of our Liturgy evidently thought both true, and consistent with each other; and I am happy to coincide in sentiment with these venerable characters.² It will appear that none but the elect can eventually be benefitted by the death of Christ; yet there is a sense, of vast importance, in which it may be properly said, and the Holy Spirit hath expressly said, that “his blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”

The principal, though not the only object of Christ’s appearing in human nature, and living so many years a holy sufferer, and dying in unknown agonies on the cross, was to ” bring in everlasting righteousness, and to make propitiation for iniquity;” as preparatory to his mediatory office in heaven, and his intercession for sinners. The perfection of his arduous obedience, and the intenseness of his complicated sufferings, were doubtless of indispensable necessity, and of vast efficacy, in this plan of redemption: yet it was the union of the Deity with the Man Christ Jesus, in one mysterious person, which stamped its full value on this sacrifice for sin. But can any man, who believes the real Deity of Christ, hesitate to pronounce it an infinite random? Infinite honor was given to the divine law by his obedience, and infinite satisfaction made to divine justice by his atoning sacrifice.³ And through this infinite sufficiency, that hindrance, which arose from the perfect holiness and righteousness of God, and the inconceivable demerit of sin, is once for all entirely removed; so that it would be no impeachment of the purity of the divine character, no deduction from the honor of the law, and no abatement of the horror and hatred which we ought to conceive against sin; should God through Christ pardon all the sinners who now live, or who ever shall live, on earth.

Thomas Scott, ‘The Doctrines of Election and Final Perseverance,” in The Theological Works of the Rev. Thomas Scott, (Edinburgh: Peter Brown and Thomas Nelson, 1830), 143-144. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »