Does Christ Love Some Redeemed More than Others

Status
Not open for further replies.

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
PBr's,

Someone in my congregation forwarded this quote to me today asking for clarification on Thomas Brooks' 5th remedy in "Precious Remedies". I can't seem to find a theological category to place this in so I was thinking that some of my more seasoned colleagues might weigh in on this.

Remedy (5). The fifth remedy against this device of Satan is, to consider, That the greater sinner you are, the dearer you will be to Christ, when he shall behold you as the travail of his soul (Is. 53:11): 'He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.' The dearer we pay for anything, the dearer that thing is to us. Christ has paid most, and prayed most, and sighed most, and wept most, and bled most for the greatest sinners; and therefore they are dearer to Christ than others that are less sinful. Rachel was dearer to Jacob than Leah, because she cost him more; he obeyed, endured, and suffered more by day and night for her than for Leah. Ah! sinners, the greatness of your sins does but set off the freeness and riches of Christ's grace, and the immensity of his love! This makes heaven and earth to ring of his praise, that he loves those who are most unlovely, that he shows most favor to those who have sinned most highly against him, as might be showed by several instances in Scripture, as Paul, Mary Magdalene, and others. Who sinned more against Christ than these? And who had sweeter and choicer manifestations of divine love and favor than these?

To my mind, this seems an embellishment on Brooks' part, no? We understand that Christ's satisfaction on the cross meant that He regarded every sin of the elect, thus knew each sin individually. Christ then felt the deepness and breadth of the sins of a Manasseh in its great intensity, while John the Baptist's, being regenerated were less in number. Love TO Christ seems then to differ from saint to saint. But what of love TO saint to saint? Is Christ's love not an even distribution among all the redeemed? Am I misreading here? Thoughts would be welcome.
 
Jerrold, The distinction between "essential" and "manifestative" might be needed. The last line specifically uses the word manifestations. In relation to love there is also the important distinction between benevolence and complacency.

Part of the problem with clear-cut distinctions (and the Puritans were masters of them) is that the distinguishing lines grow faint over time. What an author might have regarded as safe language within well accepted limits can be applied in ways he never imagined.
 
Last edited:
Jerrold, The distinction between "essential" and "manifestative" might be needed. The last line specifically uses the word manifestations. In relation to love there is also the important distinction between benevolence and complacency.

Part of the problem with clear-cut distinctions (and the Puritans were masters of them) is that the distinguishing lines grow faint over time. What an author might have regarded as safe language within well accepted limits can be applied in ways he never imagined.

Thanks Matthew, I was hoping you would respond. I think you have touched on the right point in explaining this passage. Thanks brother.
 
Part of the problem with clear-cut distinctions (and the Puritans were masters of them) is that the distinguishing lines grow faint over time. What an author might have regarded as safe language within well accepted limits can be applied in ways he never imagined.

I think another problem is that we Reformed have a tendency to minimize the importance of the "manifestative" in reaction to its over-emphasis in other Evangelical circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top