Unsourced Melanchthon Reference

[py3ak]

On p.108 of Reformed Dogmatics, v.3, Bavinck has this quote:

"It is impossible for a creature that the love of God has not saturated fully to love itself" (Melanchthon).

The editors have not provided any more precise reference, and apparently Bavinck didn't either. So I am wondering if anyone here knows the source of this quotation from Melanchthon. I would also be interested in hearing about the context where it occurs, and thoughts on what it means.

 

[Phil D.]

According to this source it is from his Loci Communes. I don't think that work is accessible on line, although it is in print.

 

[Solparvus]

The editors have not provided any more precise reference, and apparently Bavinck didn't either. So I am wondering if anyone here knows the source of this quotation from Melanchthon. I would also be interested in hearing about the context where it occurs, and thoughts on what it means.

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36). If we love God, we love His creation because something of Himself has gone into it. This should cause us to love ourselves because we are the noblest of His creation, and we are made in His image. And so a man who does not love God can never truly appreciate who and what he is.

I imagine a married man who has one photograph of his wife that he especially loves. The photograph is not her, but every time he sees it his love for her is excited. We are not God, we are only His image, but we love God; so when we see His image in us, we will treasure ourselves more because of whom we are reminded.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Taking out the double negatives:

Because the creature is so much less than God, it must be the case that God's [infinite] love has completely saturated [the creature]...

As I read the excerpt, the challenge is with the final clause, "to love itself."

Is the action taking place by the creature, "so that itself also loves"?

Or is the action still God's action, and the meaning, "to become a lovely (flawless?) object"? (inherent attributes are swallowed up in love)

I don't think much of the notion that the intent is to say that the creature loves itself.

Perhaps there are other options?

 

[Phil D.]

I found the referenced quotation in "clearer" English here, which also shows it in its full context.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have to say (thank's Phil) that if the second quote below is the more accurate rendering, it is a much, much clearer expression.

It is impossible for a creature that the love of God has not saturated fully to love itself (from Ruben)

it is inevitable that the creature which the love of God has not permeated loves itself most. (from Phil)

What the essence of Bavink's use of the reference is, I have no idea. Is there a mistake there, and whose is it? Did Bavink rephrase for his own purpose? Lots of uncertainty.

 

[py3ak]

Thanks, Phil! I suppose it's possible that Bavinck misremembered the point of the remark. Either source for the quotation says the same thing, but they both say practically the opposite of Bavinck's citation, since that could be rendered as: "It is possible for a creature that the love of God has saturated fully to love itself".