Evangelical Answers : May 2021

(John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Volume Second, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], on Mark 10:21, pp. 398-399.)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Ps 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God’s eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence.

(Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], pp. 123-124.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

(3) Through his own infinite goodness, God has dispensed and does dispense all good that all creatures—even the worst, down to the reprobate and the demons—possess, but by his goodness he is not strictly bound to dispense eternal salvation to each and every person. (4) Nor does it hinder the divine goodness that he dispenses his goodness in various ways and degrees among his own creatures and does not confer every good to every creature, that for example, the goodness he confers on angels he does not confer on men, and what he dispensed to man he does not cast to the beasts. Thus, it absolutely does not hinder the divine goodness that he does not dispense to dogs the good that belongs to his children (Matt. 15:24). Furthermore, (5) with his goodness not standing in the way, he wills to condemn most of mankind eternally (Prov. 1:26-27; Rom. 9:15, 18).

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], Part 1, Book 2, Chapter 16, §. 14.) Preview.

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Petrus Van Mastricht:

X. Moreover, the goodness of God is transferred to the creatures in different ways: (1) in a universal way, to all creatures, by creating, bearing, governing, and equipping them (Ps. 36:6; 147:9). (2) In a common way, to men indiscriminately, to the elect as well as the reprobate (1 Tim. 4:10), in piling upon them various common kindnesses (Rom. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6:17). (3) In a special way, to the elect (Ps. 36:7; 73:1), in dispensing saving goods to them (Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3-4). For this reason, according to its various respects it takes on various names: love, grace, mercy, longsuffering, patience, clemency, and kindness (all which will be treated expressly in the next chapter).

Edward Leigh:

Gods love to Christ is the foundation of his love to us, Matth. 3. 17. Ephes. 1.6.

God loves all creatures with a General Love, Matth. 5.44, 45. as they are the work of his hands; but he doth delight in some especially, whom he hath chosen in his Son…

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 2.8, p. 167.)

Francis Turretin:

From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follows creatures, called “love of the creature” (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called “love of man” (philoanthrōpia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called “the love of the elect” (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroēn) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase and diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992], 3.20.4, p. 241.)

John Frame:

To whom is God good? Psalm 145:9 says that he is “good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.” He is good to his people (73:1), but is good to them even before they become his people, before they embrace him as Lord (Rom. 5:8). What of those who never embrace him, who always remain God’s enemies? Scripture teaches that he is good to them as well (Matt. 5:45), sending rain and sunshine on the just and the unjust.

This is not to say, however, that God gives the same blessings to everyone. He is not obligated to do that, and he does not do it. His goodness to the elect, for example, is very different from his goodness to the reprobate (chapter 11). But even the reprobate receive God’s blessings of rain and sunshine. These blessings are substantial, so much that they ought to motivate repentance (Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:4), though the reprobate refuse to give heed.

An important conclusion to this discussion is that nobody can complain that God has not been good to him. Even the lost in hell cannot complain that God has never done anything good to them. In Jesus’ parable of the rich man in Hades, the “good things” that the rich man received in life (Luke 16:25) bear witness against him.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 12: God’s Attributes: Love and Goodness.)

John Calvin:

Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist, innumerable: all which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish, or come “to perdition.” This fact, however, forms no reason whatever, why God should not confine his especial, or peculiar love, to a few whom he has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to choose, out of the rest!

(John Calvin, Calvin’s Calvinism: First Part: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Henry Cole, [London: Wertheim and Macintosh, 1856], p. 48.)

John Calvin:

It is true that Saint John saith generally, that hee loved the worlde. And why? For Jesus Christ offereth himselfe generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer. …Thus we see three degrees of the love that god hath shewed us in our Lord Jesus Christ. The first is in respect of the redemption that was purchased in the person of him that gave himselfe to death for us, and became accursed to reconcile us to God his father. That is the first degree of love, which extendeth to al men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ reacheth out his armes to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to him. But there is a speciall love for those to whom the gospel is preached: which is, God testifieth unto them that he wil make them partakers of [the] benefite that was purchased for them by the death and passion of his sonne. And for asmuch as we be of that number, therefore are we dubble bound alreadie to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as it were strait tyed unto him. Now let us come to the third bonde, which dependeth upon the thirde love that God sheweth us: which is, that he not only causeth the gospel to be preached unto vs, but also maketh us to feel the power therof, so as we know him to be our father & sauiour, not douting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christes sake, who bringeth us the gift of the holy Ghost, to reforme us after his owne image.

(John Calvin, The Sermons of M. John Calvin Upon the Fifth Booke of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding, [London: Henry Middleton, 1583], p. 167.)

James Usher:

If it be asked whether doth God love all men alike, we answer no; for he loveth his elect better than the reprobate; for the elect he calleth effectually by his Spirit in their hearts, when he calleth others but by the outward voice of the gospel, &c.

Again, amongst the elect themselves, some are actually wicked, and not yet reconciled nor called: as was Paul before his conversion. But the rest are called and already made holy by faith in Christ, as Paul was after his conversion. And of these, he loveth the latter sort with a greater measure of love than the former; as the scripture testifieth, (Prov. viii. 17.)

(James Usher, A Body of Divinity: A New Edition, ed. Hastings Robinson, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841], p. 81.)

John Frame:

As with goodness, God’s love extends to everyone, but in different ways. God loves himself in his Trinitarian society. The Father loves the Son (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 17:24, 26); the Son loves the Father (John 14:31). The love between the three persons is eternal. So he would have been a loving God even if he had not created the world. His love is a necessary attribute, one without which he would not be God. As 1 John 4:8 and 16 teach us, God is love.

God also loves everything that he has made, including his enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), as we have seen. His gift of Christ is also universal in one sense: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). In this verse, although only believers receive eternal life, God’s love in sending Christ is directed to the world as a whole. In John’s writings, the world is the object of salvation, not only in 3:16, but also in 1:29; 3:17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 9:5; 12:47; and 17:21, 23. The work of Christ is the redemption, re-creation, reconstitution of the whole world.

This usage does not imply universal salvation. John makes it perfectly clear that not everyone in the world is saved, but only those who believe in Christ. When Christ comes to save the world, it is only “whoever believes in him” (John 3:16) who will not perish (cf. 1:12; 3:17-21, 36). Those who do not believe are condemned (3:18-21). So Jesus, before his death, prays for his disciples and, specifically, not for the world (John 17:9).

My conclusion is that God sent his Son, motivated by his love for the whole world. Jesus comes as “Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14), although not every individual in the world will be saved. Through Christ, God will lift the curse from the creation, and the creation will again be under the dominion of those who love God. God will banish those who serve Satan, the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cf. Eph. 2:2), from the world to come.

Does the coming of Christ benefit the reprobate? Certainly the general cultural benefits of Christianity benefit all. So to the providential benevolence of God to all people, we should add that God blesses all human beings by the coming of Jesus and the Spirit. And the reprobate are also blessed by the fact that God gives them an opportunity to turn from their wickedness and believe in Christ. None of these benefits are accidental. God intends them for good, and so they come from God’s love.

To be sure, all these benefits (both providential and redemptivehistorical), on the last day, bring greater condemnation on the reprobate, on those who never do believe. Some Calvinists conclude that these benefits, therefore, have nothing to do with God’s love, but only with his wrath. But divine attributes are not easily separable. And it is important for us to take history seriously. Before they come to faith, believers are under the wrath of God, real wrath (Eph. 2:3). Similarly, in the time before the last judgment, unbelievers, even the reprobate, experience the love of God, real love. God’s grand historical novel (see chapters 14 and 35) is not concerned only with endings, but also with beginnings and middles. His love to the reprobate is real love, even though it leads later to wrath. God judges the wicked because they have despised his kindness (Rom. 2:4). That kindness must be real kindness if it is to be a valid ground of condemnation.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 12: God’s Attributes: Love and Goodness.)

Richard Muller:

Considered as a divine attribute, the amor Dei can be defined as the propensity of the divine essence or nature for the good, both in the sense of God’s inward, intrinsic, benevolentia, or willing of the good, and in the sense of God’s external, extrinsic, beneficentia, or kindness, toward his creatures. The amor Dei, then, is directed inwardly and intrinsically toward God himself as the summum bonum, or highest good, and, among the persons of the Trinity, toward one another. Externally, or extrinsically, the amor Dei is directed toward all things, but according to a threefold distinction. The amor Dei universalis encompasses all things and is manifest in the creation itself, in the conservation and governance of the world; the amor Dei communis is directed toward all human beings, both elect and reprobate, and is manifest in all blessings, or benefits (beneficia) of God; and the amor Dei proprius, or specialis, is directed toward the elect or believers only and is manifest in the gift of salvation.

(Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], pp. 31-32.)

Cf. Richard Muller:

The Reformed orthodox also make a set of distinctions within the category of amor voluntarius, dividing it either into two main parts, the amor benevolentiae (love of benevolence) and amor complacentiae vel amicitiae (love of delight or friendship) and then dividing the amor benevolentiae into subcategories of general and special — or, in a more soteriologically specified approach for the purpose of identifying the love of God toward rational creatures, into three parts: the amor benevolentiae; the amor beneficentiae (love of beneficence or kindness); and the amor complacentiae vel amicitiae. The first of these approaches, the amor benevolentiae, is defined as an antecedent love resting on the benevolentia or good will of God toward all creation — and must be distinguished, like the providence of God, into the categories of universal (or general) “affective” love and special “effective” love, specifically, the universal love of God for all created good and the special love according to which God unequally loves various creatures, given the inequality of the goodness in them — and, beyond this, the special love that he has for Christ and for rational creatures and, among the rational creatures, for his elect…

(Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Volume Three: The Divine Essence and Attributes, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003], p. 566.)

A. A. Hodge:

Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on account of sin, and provides for their welfare.

The love of complacency is that approving affection with which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image and reflection of them in his creatures,

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878], p. 252.)

Loenard Riissen:

The question is not of God’s general love and φιλανθρωπία, which He exercises towards all creatures, but of His special saving love, by which He has willed to pity them unto salvation.

(Leonardus Riissenius, Francisci Turretini Compendium Theologiae didacticoelencticae ex theologorum nostrorum Institutionibus auctum et illustratum, [Amsterdam, 1695], VI.18.2; Quoted in: Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 173.)

Cf. Heinrich Heppe:

19.—Therefore the number of the elect has been fixed by God from eternity. His universal love and grace God of course shows to all His creatures. But His redeeming grace is not universal but particular. It has only chosen those whom according to His unsearchable counsel God wished to elect, in order to make known to them the glory of His sin-forgiving love, which rescues them from eternal death.

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 172.)

Thomas Goodwin:

There is a common love to men as creatures, so he loves every man and thing he hath made…

(Thomas Goodwin, “An Exposition of the First Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Sermon 2; In: The Works of Thomas Goodwin: Vol. I, [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861], p. 41.)

Charles Hodge:

Goodness, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes benevolence, love, mercy, and grace. By benevolence is meant the disposition to promote happiness; all sensitive creatures are its objects. Love includes complacency, desire, and delight, and has rational beings for its objects. Mercy is kindness exercised towards the miserable, and includes pity, compassion, forbearance, and gentleness, which the Scriptures so abundantly ascribe to God. Grace is love exercised towards the unworthy. The love of a holy God to sinners is the most mysterious attribute of the divine nature.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1872], p. 427.)

Charles Hodge:

4. Positively, it means that love in God, as desire, complacency and benevolence, is essential, eternal and infinite, a. It is universal, extending to all his creatures, b. It is intelligent, c. It is holy. d. It is unfathomable, e. It is sovereign and discriminating. One creature is an angel, another a man, and another a brute, another an insect. Of rational creatures, some are preserved holy, some left to sin. Of the latter some are redeemed and others are not. f. It is affluent, rejoicing in enriching and adorning his creatures, g. It is immutable in all its forms, whether of simple benevolence or of electing saving love. h. It is manifold, manifesting itself in one form towards merely sentient creatures, in another towards rational beings, in another towards the unholy, and in another towards the redeemed, his peculiar ones, his יְחִידִים. (if that word can have a plural.)

(Charles Hodge, Princeton Sermons, [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879], “I. God and His Attributes,” VIII. God is Love, p. 12.)

Geerhardus Vos:

94. What is God’s goodness and what is it sometimes called?

It is His love toward personal and sentient creatures in general and can also be called Amor Dei generalis, “God’s general love.”

(Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Single-Volume Edition, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020], 1.2.94, p. 38.)

John Ball:

Q. What is goodnesse in God?

A. Goodnesse is that whereby God being the chief good, Mark 10.18. sheweth himselfe very good and bountiful to all his Creatures, Psalm 86.5. Gen. 1. 31. Psalm 33.5. and 36.6. and 145.9.

(John Ball, A Short Treatise Containing all the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion, [London: For John Wright, 1656], p. 74.)

Edward Leigh:

Bonitas rei Bonitas creatæ est illa perfectio, qua apta sit ad usum, cui inservit, Amesius. Hæc bonitas duplex est, 1. Generalis omnium creaturarum, viz. Integritas & Perfetio omnium donorum & virium naturalium, quarum beneficio suas operationes exercere possunt conformiter ad divinam voluntatem & ordinare ad proprios fines. 2. Specialis, creaturæ rationalis, Angelorum & hominum; qui donis supernaturalibus ornat: sunt, quæ vocantur uno nomine sanctitas sive imago Dei. Gen.1.26.

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

The goodness of a thing, the goodness of the created thing, is that perfection by which it is suited for the use it serves, according to Ames. This goodness is twofold: 1. General, of all creatures, namely, the integrity and perfection of all natural gifts and powers, by which they can perform their operations in accordance with the divine will and be directed to their proper ends. 2. Special, of rational creatures, Angels and humans, who are adorned with supernatural gifts: these are called by one name, holiness or the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

John Norton:

The goodness communicated from God unto the creature, is either special, bestowed upon Angels and men: Or common, bestowed upon the rest of the Creation: The Earth is full of the goodness of the Lord, Psal. 33.5. The impression of his Image is upon the reasonable, the impression of his Footsteps, is upon the unreasonable creature.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13.)

Amandus Polanus:

Bonitas Dei, quâ extra se omnis boni autor existit vel generalis est vel specialis.

Generalis bonitas Dei, est quæ ad omnes creaturas generatim se extendit, non tantùm erga eas quæ in bonitate, cum qua creatæ erant, manserunt: sed etiam erga illas, quæ à bonitate primigenia defecerunt; ut erga malos Angelos & homines, Psalm.33.versic.5. Repleta est terra bonitate Jehovæ.

Specialis bonitas Dei, est quâ Deus bene vult electis Angelis & hominibus: de qua dicitur Psalm. 73. versiculo primo. Atqui bonus est Israëli Deus, puris animo. Et Psalm.103.versicul.11.17. Quàm alti sunt cæli supra terram, prævalet benignitas ejus erga timentes eum. Benignitas Jehovæ inde à seculo usque in seculum est erga timentes ipsum. Inprimis erga Ecclesiam adhuc in terris militantem, demonstrat bonitatem suam, tum liberando eam à malis, tum afficiendo bonis. Psalm.136.versic.10. & sequentibus. Idq́ue inde ab initio mundi quo vis tempore, Psalm.25.6. Recordare miserationum tuarum, Jehovæ, & benignitatum tuarum, eas à seculo esse.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.20, pp. 295-296.)

English:

The goodness of God, by which He is the author of all good things outside Himself, is either general or special.

The general goodness of God extends to all creatures universally, not only to those who remained in the goodness with which they were created but also to those who have fallen from their original goodness, such as evil Angels and humans, as stated in Psalm 33:5, “The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.”

The special goodness of God is that by which God wills good for the elect Angels and humans. Of this, it is said in Psalm 73:1, “Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart,” and in Psalm 103:11,17, “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. The lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him.” Especially towards the Church still militant on earth, He demonstrates His goodness by both delivering it from evils and bestowing good things upon it, as seen in Psalm 136:10 and following. This is true from the beginning of the world and at all times, as stated in Psalm 25:6, “Remember, O Lord, Your compassion and Your lovingkindnesses, for they have been from of old.”

Amandus Polanus:

Gratia Deo propriissimè attribuitur; est enim ei essentialis, imò essentia ipsa divina: & sic describitur;

Gratia in Deo residens, est essentialis proprietas ejus, nimirum benignissima voluntas Dei & favor, per quem verè & propriè est gratiosus, quo favet & gratis benefacit creaturæ suæ.

Eaq́ue vel generalis est vel specialis.

Generalis gratia Dei, est voluntas ejus quæ communiter ad universas res à Deo conditas extenditur, quatenus omnibus illis ex favore benefacit, omniumq́; est conservator, ita ut de hac gratia conqueri nulla res queat, ac si eam Deus non declaret erga ipsam.

Specialis gratia Dei, est gratuita benevolentia Dei, quâ in Christo peculiariter complectitur solos electos, Angelos & homines servandos: & dicitur gratia gratum faciens, item gratia acceptans, hoc est, quæ Deo sive Angelum, sive hominem gratum & acceptum facit; item hominum respectu gratia salvans, gratia justificans, gratia regenerans, quâ ad lucem æternam in Christo electi, vocati, justificati, regenerati sumus.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.21, p. 297.)

English:

Grace is most properly attributed to God; it is essential to Him, indeed it is His very essence, and is described as follows:

The grace residing in God is His essential property, namely the most benevolent will of God and favor, by which He is truly and properly gracious, favoring and freely doing good to His creatures.

This grace is either general or special.

The general grace of God is His will that extends universally to all things created by God, in that He does good to all of them out of favor and is the preserver of all, so that no thing can complain about this grace, as if God did not declare it toward them.

The special grace of God is the free benevolence of God, by which in Christ He particularly embraces only the elect, Angels, and humans to be saved. It is called grace making one acceptable, or accepting grace, that is, which makes either an Angel or a human pleasing and acceptable to God; in respect to humans, it is saving grace, justifying grace, regenerating grace, by which the elect are called, justified, and regenerated to eternal light in Christ.

Amandus Polanus:

Amor Dei voluntarius, est quo creaturas suas amat.

Estq́ue vel generalis vel specialis.

Generalis seu communis amor Dei, est quo omnes prorsus res abs se conditas, quatenus creaturæ sunt, complectitur; ijsq́ue benefacit, easq́; conservat & sustenta. Sap.11.v.24.

Hoc pacto nemo est vel hominum vel etiam dæmoniorum, qui dicere queat, se non amari à Deo. Etsi enim Deus in illis odio habeat peccatum, amat tamen naturam quam creavit, Matt.5.44.45. Hujus amoris cursus peccato hominis inhibetur.

Specialis seu singularis amor Dei, est quo singulos electos peculiariter prosequitur.

Estq́ue tum erga Christum quò ad humanam ejus naturam, tum erga electos in Christo.

Amor Dei erga Christum, est quo Pater Christum complectitur; non tantùm ut λόγον, sed etiam ut hominem & Mediatorem ab æterno constitutum, Joh.3.v.35. Pater diligit Filium, & omnia dedit ei in manum. Atque hic amor Patris erga Filium, est fundamentum amoris Dei erga nos: quia Deus dilexit nos in illo dilecto, Eph.1.v.6.

Amor Dei erga electos in Christo est tum erga sanctos Angelos, tum erga homines servandos.

De speciali amore erga homines servandos dicitur Joh.3.v.16. Ita Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum Unigenitum dederit; ut quisquis credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam. Et Rom.8.39. Nulla res condita potest nos separare à charitate Dei, quæ est in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Ergo quatenus homines, complectitur Deus singulos communi amore; quatenus Christianos, complectitur eos singulari amore in Christo.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 2.22, p. 313.)

English:

The voluntary love of God is that by which He loves His creatures.

This love is either general or special.

The general or common love of God is that by which He embraces all things created by Himself, insofar as they are creatures, does good to them, preserves and sustains them, as stated in Wisdom of Solomon 11:24. Thus, there is no one among humans or even demons who can say they are not loved by God. Although God hates sin in them, He still loves the nature He created, as seen in Matthew 5:44-45. The course of this love is hindered by human sin.

The special or singular love of God is that by which He particularly pursues each of the elect.

This love is both towards Christ in respect to His human nature, and towards the elect in Christ.

The love of God towards Christ is that by which the Father embraces Christ, not only as the Word [λόγον] but also as a man and mediator appointed from eternity, as stated in John 3:35, “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand.” This love of the Father towards the Son is the foundation of God’s love towards us, because God loved us in the beloved, as stated in Ephesians 1:6.

The love of God towards the elect in Christ is both towards the holy Angels and towards humans to be saved.

Regarding the special love towards humans to be saved, it is said in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life,” and in Romans 8:39, “No created thing can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Therefore, insofar as humans, God embraces each with common love; insofar as Christians, He embraces them with singular love in Christ.

Johannes Maccovius:

6. Goodness is either natural, or moral, or supernatural.

Natural goodness belongs to all being. In this respect the devil is also good. Moral goodness is an ethical virtue such as the gentiles possessed. Supernatural goodness belongs to Christians in so far as they believe.

(Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulæ Theologicæ ac Philofophicæ, [Franequeræ: Sumptibus Joannis Archerii, 1653], 23.4.6, p. 178; trans. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. & ed. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda, [Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009], 23.4.6, p. 327.)

W. Brenton Greene:

(5) His goodness, in all its forms, is boundless. It includes (a) benevolence, which has for its objects all sensitive creatures (Ps. CXLV:9); (b) love, which has rational beings for its objects (John III: 16); (c) mercy, which has for its objects the miserable (Isa. LXIII:9); (d) grace, which has for its objects the undeserving (Rom. V:8). When any suffer, it is at least because this is right; it cannot be because of lack of power or of mercy in God. When sinners are lost it is at least because His justice so requires; it cannot be because God lacks either the power (Heb. VII: 25) or the wish to save them (I Tim. II:4). Hence, “God is love” (I John IV:8). Though He is much else, love is that in which He delights. Moreover, as the expression of His love ever harmonizes with His justice, so His justice is always exercised in love. God never feels so much compassion as when He punishes most severely (Ezek. XXXIII: 11).

(W. Brenton Greene, Christian Doctrine, [Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1905], pp. 15-16.)

Note: Greene was a close personal friend of J. Gresham Machen. (Cf. Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954], p. 439.)

1.1. Wrath and Love: Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 5:8. Return to Outline.

Ephesians 2:3:

Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Romans 5:8:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Note: The elect were “children of wrath” and yet “God demonstrates His own love toward us . . . while we were still sinners”. The two are clearly not antithetical opposed. In one sense the elect are enemies of God, and yet in another sense God loves them.

Stephen Charnock:

God doth hate his elect in some sense before their actual reconciliation. God was placable before Christ, appeased by Christ. But till there be such conditions which God hath appointed in the creature, he hath no interest in this reconciliation of God; and whatsoever person he be in whom the condition is not found, he remains under the wrath of God, and therefore is in some sense under God’s hatred.

(Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of God’s Being the Author of Reconciliation,” In: The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock: Vol. III, [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865], p. 345.)

R. C. Sproul:

…God may love a person in one sense or in one way, while at the same time hating him in another sense or another way. In essence, not all kinds of divine love are absolutely antithetical to all kinds of divine hatred.

(R. C. Sproul, Loved by God, [Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001], p. 106.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

If you should say, How could he love the workers of iniquity? (Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4-5), then I will say, He loved the workers while he hated their works; he loved them by his love of benevolence, not by his love of complacency (Ezek. 16:5).

Note: See further: The Opposite of Love Is Not Hate, It Is Indifference.

John Frame:

God loves all his creatures, even his enemies. He makes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:43-48)... We should recognize, however, that God is also a wrathful God, a God of judgment. The Bible even says he hates some people—he hates the wicked every day (Lev. 20:23; Deut. 25:16). Sometimes his hatred ends in eternal punishment. We must remember that once he hated us as well (Eph. 2:3), yet reached out in love to save us in Christ. Even while he was hating us, he loved us in Christ before the foundation of the world. See the paradox? It is possible to love and hate the same person at the same time: to hate him for his wickedness and, yet, in the long run to love him so that you want to rescue him from wickedness.

How can God hate people if he is love? First, God’s love is a jealous love (Ex. 34:14). As in a human marriage, God has the right to expect us to be faithful to him. When we are not, we incur his wrath. Second, although God is love, he is not obligated to distribute his love equally to all. As we have seen, he loves everybody in the sense that everybody receives some blessings from his hand (Matt. 5:43-48). Indeed, he treats all of us far better than we deserve. However, he reserves his best blessings only for his Son and for the people the Son has purchased by his blood.

(John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2006], pp. 23-24.)

John M. Frame:

What, then, should we conclude about God’s love? His hate and his love do not exclude each other in every respect, so the attribute of hatred does not in itself compromise Scripture’s teaching that “God is love.” God does love and hate some people at the same time, in different respects.

There are some, of course, who eventually receive no love from God: the devil and his angels, and the lost in hell.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 13: God’s Attributes: Righteousness and Holiness.)

Edward Leigh:

Object. How could God love them when they were workers of inequity, Hab. 1.13. Psal. 5.3,4. He loved their persons, but hated their works and wayes. God loved Christ’s person, yet was angry with him when the guilt of our sins was upon him.

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 2.8, p. 167.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

2,18. But at this point we must strive to see, with the Lord’s assistance, how both these statements are true: You hate nothing that you have made and I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. For if he hated Esau because he was a vessel made for reproach, and it was the same potter who made one vessel for honor and another for reproach, how is it that you hate nothing that you have made? For obviously he hates Esau, because he made him a vessel for reproach. This problem is solved if we understand that God is the maker of all creatures. But every creature of God is good,[fn. 50: See 1 Tm 4:4.] and every human being, insofar as he is a human being and not insofar as he is a sinner, is a creature. God, therefore, is the creator of the human body and soul. Neither of these is evil and neither is hated by God, for he hates nothing that he has made. The soul, however, is more excellent than the body, but God, the author and creator of each, is more excellent than both soul and body, and he hates nothing in the human being other than sin. Sin, however, is a disorder and a perversion in the human being—that is, a turning away from the creator, who is more excellent, and a turning to created things, which are inferior. God, therefore, does not hate Esau the human being, but God does hate Esau the sinner…

(Augustine of Hippo, Miscellany of Questions in Response to Simplician (Ad Simplicianum de Diversis Quaestionibus), 1.2.18; trans. WSA, I/12:199-200.)

John Calvin:

I will quote a passage of Augustine… “Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,’ (Rom. v. 8.) Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly, in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made.” Such are the words of Augustine, (Tract in Jo. 110.)

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume Second, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 2.16.4, p. 51.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

6. Therefore, the love by which God loves is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For he did not begin to love us from the time when we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son; but before the foundation of the world he loved us, that we, too, might be his sons together with his Only-Begotten, before we were anything at all. Let the fact, therefore, that we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son not be so heard of, not be so taken, as if the Son reconciled us to him for the very purpose that he might now begin to love those whom he hated, as an enemy is reconciled to an enemy, in order that from then on they may be friends and they who hated one another may love one another. But we were reconciled to him already loving us, with whom we carried on enmities because of sin. But whether I say this truly, let the Apostle attest: “God commends,” he says, “his love in us, because when we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[fn. 27: Rom 5.8-9 (NAB 5.8).] Therefore, he had love toward us even when we, exercising enmities against him, worked iniquity; and nevertheless it was most truly said to him, “You hate, Lord, all who work iniquity.”[fn. 28: Ps 5.7 (NAB 5.6).]

Accordingly, in a wondrous and divine manner he loved us even when he hated us; for he hated us when we were in such a state as he had not made. And because our iniquity had not devoured his work in every part, he knew how simultaneously in each one of us both to hate what we had made and to love what he had made. And this indeed can be understood in all things about him to whom it was truly said, “You hate none of the things that you have made.”[fn. 29. Wis 11.25 (NAB 11.24).] For he would not have wanted whatever he hated to exist, nor would what the Omnipotent did not want to exist at all exist unless there were also in that which he hates [something] that he might love. For indeed, he rightly hates and repudiates vice as incompatible, as it were, with the rule of his creative knowledge; nevertheless even in the doers of vice he loves either his own benefaction by healing or judgment by damnation. Thus, God both hates none of the things that he made (for, the Creator of natures, not of vices, he did not make the evils that he hates); and concerning the same evils, either by his healing them through mercy or by his setting them in order through judgment, the things that he makes are good.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 110.6; trans. FC, 90:296-297. Cf. NPNF1, 7:411.) See also: ccel.org.

Thomas Aquinas:

For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God’s sake.

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II.25.6; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part II (Second Part): QQ. I.—XLVI., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [New York: Benziger Brothers, 1917], P. II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, p. 317.)

Full. Thomas Aquinas:

Two things may be considered in the sinner, his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for happiness, on the fellowship of which charity is based, as stated above (A. 3: Q. XXIII., AA. 1, 5), wherefore we ought to love sinners, out of charity, in respect of their nature. On the other hand their guilt is opposed to God, and is an obstacle to happiness. Wherefore, in respect of their guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to be hated… For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God’s sake.

Stephen Charnock:

…God only hates the sin, not the sinner; he desires only the destruction of the one, not the misery of the other. The nature of a man does not displease him, because it is a work of his own goodness; but the nature of the sinner displeases him, because it is a work of the sinner’s own extravagance. Divine goodness pitches not its hatred primarily upon the sinner, but upon the sin; but since he cannot punish the sin, without punishing the subject to which it cleaves, the sinner falls under his lash. Who ever regards a good judge as an enemy to the malefactor, but as an enemy to his crime, when he does sentence and execute him?

(Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God: First American Edition, In Two Volumes: Vol. II., [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1840], Discourse XII: The Goodness of God, p. 283.)

2. The Creation and the Imago Dei. Return to Outline.

Note: See further: Angels and the Image of God (Imago Dei).

W. G. T. Shedd:

Goodness is a special attribute with varieties under it. 1. The first of these is Benevolence. This is the affection which the Creator feels towards the sentient and conscious creature, as such. Benevolence cannot be shown to insentient existence; to the rocks and mountains. It grows out of the fact that the creature is his workmanship. God is interested in everything which he has made. He cannot hate any of his own handiwork. The wrath of God is not excited by anything that took its origin from him. It falls only upon something that has been added to his own work. Sin is no part of creation, but a quality introduced into creation by the creature himself.

God’s benevolent love towards his creatures, considered as creatures merely, is infinitely greater than any love of a creature towards a creature. No earthly father loves his child with a benevolence equal to that which the Heavenly Father feels towards his created offspring. Luke 6:35, “The Highest is kind (χρηστός) unto the unthankful and to the evil.” Matt. 5:45, “Your Father which is in heaven maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Disobedience and ingratitude deaden and destroy the benevolent feeling of man towards man, but not that of God towards his creatures. Sinful men are the objects of God’s providential care, as well as renewed men. Even Satan and the fallen angels are treated with all the benevolence which their enmity to God will admit of. God feels no malevolence towards them.

The benevolent interest which God as a creator takes in the sentient creature, as the product of his omnipotent power, is illustrated by the following from Aristotle. “The benefactor loves him whom he has benefited, more than he who has been benefited loves the benefactor. The workman loves his own work, more than the work loves the workman. All men feel greater love for what they have acquired with labor; as those who have earned their money love it more than those who have inherited it. Mothers are more fond of their children than fathers are; for the bringing them forth is painful. Parents have greater love for their children, than children have for their parents.” Ethics, IX. vii. Upon this principle, the benevolent affection of God towards his creatures is greater than that of creatures towards each other. God’s compassionate love is more tender than that of an earthly father or mother. Ps. 27:10, “When my father and mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.” Men are commanded to imitate the Divine benevolence as the highest form of this affection. Matt. 5:44: “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven. Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Compare Plato: Republic, I. 33. Montaigne: Essays, VI. viii. (Of the Affection of Fathers).

God’s benevolent interest in the sentient creature, and his care for its welfare, is proportioned and suited to the nature and circumstances of the creature. (a) It extends to the animals: Ps. 145:16, “Thou openest thine hand, and suppliest the desire of every living thing.” Ps. 104: 21, “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.” Compare the whole psalm. Job 38:41, “Who provideth for the raven his food?” Matt. 6:26, “Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.” Ps. 36: 6, “Thou preservest man and beast.” (b) It extends to man. Acts 14: 17, “He left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven.” (c) It extends to sinful man. Matt. 5: 45, “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.” Acts 14:17, “He suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, nevertheless, filling their hearts with food and gladness.” Neh. 9:17, “But thou art a God slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.”

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 385-387.)

John Gill:

All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Gen. i. 31; he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works; Psalm civ. 81; he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psalm xxxvi. 6, and cxlv. 9; and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21; by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Col. ii. 10; and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matt. xviii. 10; yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, Acts xvii. 28, and xiv. 17, Matt. v. 45; but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his great love, Eph. 11. 4; whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, Eph. i. 3, 4; and which love is distinguished and discriminating, Mal. i, 1, 2. Rom. ix, 11, 12.

(John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures: A New Edition: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978], pp. 113-114.)

Note: There is a love that all parents have for their children—which is derived solely from the relational bond that exists between parent and child—irrespective of the child’s behavior. Certainly the love that a parent has for a wicked and evil child is different from the love which a parent has for a righteous and just child—yet every parent retains a certain love toward their child, no matter how wicked or evil they become (for that child, irrespective of what he or she does, still bears the image of his or her parent). So too with God. The reprobate are no less bearers of God’s image than the elect. It is wholly appropriate to speak of God’s love for His own image; therefore, insofar as the reprobate are still bearers of the image of God, it is acceptable to speak of God’s love toward the reprobate.

Charles Hodge:

…1 Timothy ii. 3, 4. “God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth;” and Ezekiel xxxiii. 11, “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” God forbid that any man should teach anything inconsistent with these precious declarations of the Word of God. They clearly teach that God is a benevolent Being; that He delights not in the sufferings of his creatures; that in all cases of suffering there is an imperative reason for its infliction, consistent with the highest wisdom and benevolence. God pities even the wicked whom He condemns, as a father pities the disobedient child whom he chastises. And as the father can truthfully and with a full heart say that he delights not in the sufferings of his child, so our Father in heaven can say, that He delights not in the death of the wicked. The difficulty as to the passage in 1 Timothy 2:4, arises simply from the ambiguity of the word θέλειν there used. Commonly the word means to will, in the sense of to intend, to purpose. Such cannot be its meaning here, because it cannot be said that God intends or purposes that all men should be saved; or, that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. This is inconsistent with Scripture and experience. The word, however, often means to delight in, and even to love. In the Septuagint it is used as the equivalent of הָפֵץ, as in Psalms xxii. 9, cxii. 1, cxlvii. 10. In Matthew, xxvii. 43, εἰ θέλει αὐτὸν, is correctly rendered in our version, “If he will have him.” (Heb. 1x. 5, 8; Luke xx. 46; Mark xii. 38; Col. ii. 18.) The Apostle, therefore, says only what the prophet had said. God delights in the happiness of his creatures. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But this is perfectly consistent with his purpose not to “spare the guilty.”

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. II, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1883], pp. 651-652.)

Louis Berkhof:

a. The goodness of God towards His creatures in general. This may be defined as that perfection of God which prompts Him to deal bountifully and kindly with all His creatures. It is the affection which the Creator feels towards His sentient creatures as such. The Psalmist sings of it in the well known words: “Jehovah is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works. . . . The eyes of all wait for thee; and thou givest them their food in due season. Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing,” Ps. 145:9,15,16. This benevolent interest of God is revealed in His care for the creature’s welfare, and is suited to the nature and the circumstances of the creature. It naturally varies in degree according to the capacity of the objects to receive it. And while it is not restricted to believers, they only manifest a proper appreciation of its blessings, desire to use them in the service of their God, and thus enjoy them in a richer and fuller measure. The Bible refers to this goodness of God in many passages, such as Ps. 36:6; 104:21; Matt. 5:45; 6:26; Luke 6:35; Acts 14:17.

b. The love of God. When the goodness of God is exercised towards His rational creatures, it assumes the higher character of love, and this love may again be distinguished according to the objects on which it terminates. In distinction from the goodness of God in general, it may be defined as that perfection of God by which He is eternally moved to self-communication. Since God is absolutely good in Himself, His love cannot find complete satisfaction in any object that falls short of absolute perfection. He loves His rational creatures for His own sake, or, to express it otherwise, He loves in them Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts. He does not even withdraw His love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state, though the latter’s sin is an abomination to Him, since He recognizes even in the sinner His image-bearer. John 3:16; Matt. 5:44,45. At the same time He loves believers with a special love, since He contemplates them as His spiritual children in Christ. It is to them that He communicates Himself in the fullest and richest sense, with all the fulness of His grace and mercy. John 16:27; Rom. 5:8; I John 3:1.

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 70-71.)

William Gearing:

1. Because where ever we see any part of Gods goodness, we are to love it. It is said that our Saviour beholding the rich young man that came unto him, Loved him, Mar. 10.21. There is some Print of Gods goodness in many that are not Godly, which ought to draw our affection to it; Goodness being the Object of Love. This is the reason why God himself loveth all his Creatures, because there is a participation of his Goodness in them. There are some Reliques of Gods Image in prophane men, that God beareth a general Love unto, that we also may do the like.

(William Gearing, Philadelphia, Or, A Treatise of Brotherly-Love, [London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1670], pp. 39-40.)

James Usher:

…in every wicked man we must consider two things: First, his nature; Secondly, his sin. His nature is the work of God, and that he loveth; but his iniquity is not of God, and that he hateth.

(James Usher, A Body of Divinity: A New Edition, ed. Hastings Robinson, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841], p. 80.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

St. Augustine of Hippo:

…let the Apostle attest: “God commends,” he says, “his love in us, because when we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”[fn. 27: Rom 5.8-9 (NAB 5.8).] Therefore, he had love toward us even when we, exercising enmities against him, worked iniquity; and nevertheless it was most truly said to him, “You hate, Lord, all who work iniquity.”[fn. 28: Ps 5.7 (NAB 5.6).]

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 110.6; trans. FC, 90:296-297.)

Thomas Larkham:

But this Attribute of Love is to be considered as it hath a double object, either general, or special. The former is every creature, every entity; in this respect God’s love reacheth to the very meanest creature. Neither are these creatures in general only said to be the objects of God’s love, in regard of those acts which he exerciseth on them; as in their creation, so in their preservation and ordering of them: but also the creation is an object of God’s love of complacency in some sort, for Omne Ens est bonum, Every created being is good; and therefore God must needs love it, because the divine Will was the cause of their being, even of the being of each thing.

(Thomas Larkham, The Attributes of God Unfolded, and Applied: The Second Part, [London: Printed for Francis Eglesfield, 1656], p. 158.)

John Robinson:

For first, it is true, that God hateth nothing that he hath made, so far as it is his work but as sin, coming in, hath destroyed the work of God, though not in respect of the nature, or being, yet of the integrity, and holy being of the creature; so God, through his unchangeable holiness, hating sin, doth, also, most fervently hate and abhor from the sinful creature, in whom it reigneth, in respect of it, as the Scriptures do expressly and plentifully teach, Mal. ii. 8; Psa. v. 5, 6; Prov. xvi. 5; Tit. i. 16. And God loving himself and his own holiness in the first place and most, and the creature and his good, but in the second place, the love of the creature must give way to the love of himself, and so he, necessarily, hate the obstinate sinner. And this it is most needful for all men firmly to believe, and continually to bear in mind, that they may always bewail their sins, and nourish in themselves the hatred of that which God so hateth, and for it, the creature; and for which he punisheth it with most horrible curses, and punishments for ever.

And yet, even in the very execution of his most fearful vengeance upon the reprobate, men and angels, he retaineth the general love of a Creator; and out of it, preserveth the being of the creature, which in itself, and in respect of the universal is better than not to be, though not so in the sense of the person and also moderateth the extremity of that torment, which he both could, and might in justice, inflict.

(John Robinson, “Of Religious Communion, Private and Public,” Ch. 6, Sect. 2; In: The Works of John Robinson: Volume III, [London: John Snow, 1851], pp. 253-254.)

Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-26:

…you are merciful to all, for you can do all things . . . you love all things that exist and detest none of the things that you have made, for you would not have formed anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord…

(New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.)

R. L. Dabney:

A stage has now been reached in this discussion, at which it is necessary to introduce a few plain distinctions. One is the well-known distinction of divines between the love of complacency and the love of benevolence. The former is founded on moral approbation for the character of its object, and implies moral excellence in it. The other does not, and may exist notwithstanding moral disapprobation of its object. Of the former kind is the love of God the Father for God the Son. Of the latter kind is the love of the Trinity for sinners. Obviously the love of complacency is directed towards its object’s character, while the love of benevolence is directed to the person of its object, and exists in spite of his obnoxious character. And it is thus possible that love may hate the character and compassionate the person of the same man. Such, in fact, was Christ’s love to us “while we were yet sinners.” The adjustment between the New Testament and the Old is partly to be found in this distinction. When Jesus Christ commands us to love our enemies, it is with the love of benevolence and compassion. When David declared that he hated God’s enemies with a perfect hatred, he meant that he did not entertain for them the love of moral complacency, but, as was proper, the reverse. This love of benevolence for the person of a bad man ought to be, in the Christian, the finite reflexion of what it is in God, limited only by the higher attribute of righteousness.

(Robert L. Dabney, Discussions: Vol I. Theological and Evangelical, ed. C. R. Vaughan, [Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890], “The Christian’s Duty Towards His Enemies,” pp. 716-717.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

(Augustine of Hippo, Miscellany of Questions in Response to Simplician (Ad Simplicianum de Diversis Quaestionibus), 1.2.18; trans. WSA, I/12:199-200.)

Stephen Charnock:

There is a goodness of being, which is the natural perfection of a thing: there is the goodness of will, which is the holiness and righteousness of a person: there is the goodness of the hand, which we call liberality, or beneficence, a doing good to others.

(1.) We mean not by this the goodness of his essence, or the perfection of his nature. God is thus good, because his nature is infinitely perfect, he has all things requisite to the completing of a most perfect and sovereign Being. All good meets in his essence, as all water meets in the ocean. Under this notion all the attributes of God, which are requisite to so illustrious a Being, are comprehended. All things that are, have a goodness of being in them, derived to them by the power of God, as they are creatures; so the devil is good, as he is a creature of God’s making; he has a natural goodness, but not a moral goodness; when he fell from God, he retained his natural goodness as a creature; because he did not cease to be, he was not reduced to that nothing from whence he was drawn, but he ceased to be morally good, being stripped of his righteousness by his apostasy: as a creature, he was God’s work, as a creature he remains still God’s work, and therefore as a creature remains still good, in regard of his created being. The more of being any thing has, the more of this sort of natural goodness it has: and so the devil has more of this natural goodness than men have; because he has more marks of the excellency of God upon him, in regard of the greatness of his knowledge, and the extent of his power, the largeness of his capacity, and the acuteness of his understanding, which are natural perfections belonging to the nature of an angel, though he has lost his moral perfections. God is sovereignly and infinitely good in this sort of goodness. He is unsearchably perfect, Job xi. 7; nothing is wanting to his essence that is necessary to the perfection of it; yet this is not that which the Scripture expresses under the term of goodness, but a perfection of God’s nature as related to us, and which he pours forth upon all his creatures, as goodness which flows from this natural perfection of the Deity.

Stephen Charnock:

The holiness of God is the rectitude of his nature, whereby he is pure, and without spot in himself. The goodness of God is the efflux of his will, whereby he is beneficial to his creatures. The holiness of God is manifest in his rational creatures; but the goodness of God extends to all the worksof his hands. His holiness beams most in his law, his goodness reaches to every thing that had a being from him. “The Lord is good to all,” Psal. cxlv. 9.

Stephen Charnock:

God’s goodness extends to the angels, that, kept their standing, and to man in innocence, who in that state stood not in need of mercy. Goodness and mercy are distinct, though mercy be a branch of goodness; there may be a manifestation of goodness, though none of mercy. Some think Christ had been incarnate, had not man fallen; had it been so, there had been a manifestation of goodness to our nature, but not of mercy, because sin had not made our natures miserable. The devils are monuments of God’s creating goodness, but not of his pardoning compassions. The grace of God respects the rational creature, mercy the miserable creature, goodness all his creatures, brutes, and the senseless plants, as well as reasonable man.

1 Timothy 4:4a:

For everything created by God is good…

(New American Standard Bible.)

Stephen Charnock:

The goodness of God is his inclination to deal well and bountifully with his creatures. It is that whereby he wills there should be something besides himself for his own glory. God is good in himself, and to himself, that is, highly amiable to himself; and therefore some define it a perfection of God, whereby he loves himself and his own excellency; but as it stands in relation to his creatures, it is that perfection of God whereby he delights in his works, and is beneficial to them. God is the highest goodness, because he does not act for his own profit, but for his creatures’ welfare, and the manifestation of his own goodness; he sends out his beams, without receiving any addition to himself, or substantial advantage from his creatures. It is from this perfection that he loves whatsoever is good, and that is, whatsoever he has made, “For every creature of God is good,” 1 Tim. iv. 4; every creature has some communications from him, which cannot be without some affection to them; every creature has a footstep of Divine goodness upon it; God therefore loves that goodness in the creature, else he would not love himself. God hates no creature, no not the devils, and damned, as creatures; he is not an enemy to them, as they are the works of his hands: he is properly an enemy that does simply and absolutely wish evil to another; but God does not absolutely wish evil to the damned; that justice that he inflicts upon them, the deserved punishment of their sin, is part of his goodness (as shall afterwards be shown.)

Stephen Charnock:

He is good by his own essence. God is not only good in his essence, but good by his essence; the essence of every created thing is good, so the unerring God pronounced every thing which he had made, Gen. i. 31. The essence of the worst creatures, yea, of the impure and savage devils, is good, but they are not good per essentiam, for then they could not be bad, malicious, and oppressive. God is good as he is God, and therefore good by himself, and from himself, not by participation from another; he made every thing good, but none made him good. Since his goodness was not received from another, he is good by his own nature.

Richard A. Muller:

The second kind of divine love that Musculus identifies is the love of the creator for all his creatures, resting on his creation of all things as good in the beginning. It would be impossible, Musculus notes, given the nature of God, for God to “make evil things and love them after they were made” or to “make good things and not love them when they were made.” Nor could it be that God loved his creation in the beginning and subsequently ceased to love it—for God’s love is immutable. Nor, again, is God’s love hindered by the subjection of the created order to corruption after the fall, for the creation not only remains God’s work despite this corruption, but also it was God’s own “most wise and unsearchable purpose” that has subjected the entire creation to this bondage and vanity, as the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 8, or indeed as is written in the Wisdom of Solomon, “thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made.”[fn. 475: Musculus, Loci communes, XLVIII (Commonplaces, pp. 960-961), citing Wisdom, 11:25.]

Heinrich Heppe:

32.—God’s holiness is manifested generally as perfect kindness and love and as perfect righteousness. Both rest upon a “certain benevolent and beneficent propension towards the creatures”, which is present in God (MASTRICHT II, xvii, 3). “The love of God is the essential property or essence of God, whereby delighting Himself in it He wishes it the good which He approves.” To be distinguished are the “general love of God”, the object of which is creation generally, so that “no one either of men or even of demons may say that he is not loved by God”; God hates the sin in the godless, but loves the nature created by Him—and the “special love of God, by which He peculiarly pursues the separate elect” (POLAN, II, 122). Herein is manifested the “goodness of God”, according to which God is in and for Himself “supremely good” and towards creation “beneficent” (RISSEN III, 41). Since then God’s love for the creature is essentially a “love not due”, it appears as grace. “God’s grace is His virtue and perfection, by which He bestows and communicates Himself becomingly on and to the creature beyond all merit belonging to it” (HEIDEGGER III, 94). Over against the misery of the creature God’s love is manifested (1) as mercy. Etymologically misericordia is wretchedness of heart due to a sense of another’s wretchedness together with alacrity in succouring the wretched. Actually in God it is nothing but grace towards the wretched” (MASTRICHT II, xvii, 22); (2) as patience and long suffering. “Patientia Dei is His most benign will, by which He so controls His anger, that He either bears sinning creatures long and puts off punishment, awaiting their repentance, or He does not pour forth all His anger in one moment upon them, lest they should be reduced to naught”; and (3) as gentleness: “God’s clemency is His most benign will, by which mindful of His mercy in wrath He is propitious to us and spares us, although we have deserved otherwise, preferring our repentance and conversion to our death” (POLAN II, 24 and 25).

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], pp. 95-96.)

Wolfgang Musculus:

This is the love wherin God as creator loveth al his creatures, in as much he created them all very good at the beginnyng, accordyng unto that: And God sawe all thyng that he had made, and they were very good. Bothe these shoulde be farre from the nature of God, if he should eyther make evill things, and love them after they were made: eyther make good things, and not love them when they were made: Neyther is it to bee imagined, that he loved hys workes at that tyme when he firste made them, and that afterwardes this love decayed by the processe of so many hundred yeares, and fell to be a lothsomenesse. God forbid. For the love of God is as immutable, as his very nature and goodesse is immutable. Neither doth it hinder this love at all, that the creature is subject unto vanitie and bodage of corruption. For whatsoever it is, it is his worke, for he made it subject unto vanitie, by his moste wise and unsearchable purpose unto us. For the Apostle dothe not say simply, Eache creature is vayne, but each creature is subjecte unto vanitie: And he addeth not willingly, bycause of him who made it subjecte in hope. Of whiche wordes wee have noted in our Commentaries upon the Epistle unto the Romaines. Therefore it is not without reason, that the author of the booke of Sapience sayth in this wise: Thou lovest all things that be, & hatest none of those things which thou hast made.

(Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans. John Man, [London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578], pp. 960-961.)

Amandus Polanus:

The goodnesse of God, is his wil, by which he himselfe is by all meanes good, being both in himselfe and without himselfe, the authour of all good things.

In himselfe he is good, by his essence and chiefly.

In his essence, because he is good, not by participation of good from another, but naturally, and of himselfe, and that from eternitie: neither is he so, by any accidentall goodnesse, but it is his owne very goodnesse.

Chiefly, because he only is the chiefe good, that is to be desired of all.

Without himselfe hee is the authour of all goodnesse, both in making so many good creatures, and also by doing good to the creatures that he hath made.

This goodnesse of God, by which he is the author of all good things without himselfe, is either generall or speciall.

Generall is that, which generally extendeth it selfe unto all creatures, not onely towards them, which have continued in that goodnes in which they were created, but also towards those which have fallen from their first goodnesse, as towards the evill Angels, and wicked men.

The speciall goodnesse of God is that, by which God willeth well to the elect Angels, and his chosen amongst men. Psal. 73.1.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], pp. 16-17.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

So likewise his generall love &c, so God hates nothing of that he hath made so farre forth as he made it.

(Amandus Polanus, A Treastise of Amandus Polanus Concerning Gods Eternall Predestination, [Cambridge: Printed by John Legat, 1599], p. 178.)

Amandus Polanus:

The love of God towards the creatures, is either generall or speciall.

The generall love of God, is that with which hee embraceth altogether all things which hee hath made, and doth good unto them, and preserveth and sustaineth them.

For though he hate sinne, yet he loveth the nature which he hath created.

The speciall love of God is that, with which he doth peculiarly prosecute the elect only.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 18.)

Amandus Polanus:

When love is attributed to God in Scripture, it does not mean a passion or an affect, for God is dispassionate [ἀπαθής], the freest, the most blissful, the most blessed, the most perfect. Nothing slavish happens to Him, nothing lowly, and finally nothing that indicates any imperfection. But God’s love denotes three completely, perfect things: eternal benevolence, actual beneficence, and actual delight in the thing loved. For he who loves something is well-disposed towards it, does it whatever good he is capable of, and delights in it. These three things are found in the love of God. Now this love is first the love of God in himself, and then towards his creatures. For God loves himself and above all things: the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit the Father and the Son. God’s love for his creatures is first general and then special. That general love is the one by which he fully embraces all things created by him, blesses them, and preserves and sustains them. In this way there is no one, no man, and no devil either, who can say that he is not loved by God. The special love is that by which alone he leads the elect to eternal life, as he acknowledges them to be his own children in Christ: this passage [Mal. 1:2] here must be understood from this special love.

(Amando Polano à Polansdorf, Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevæ Proposita, [Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597], p. 10; trans. Damianus Cathedralulus.)

Cf. Amandus Polanus:

Dilectio cúm in Scriptura Deo attribuitur, non significat passionem, seu affectionem, quia Deus est ἀπαθής, liberrimus, beatissimus, fœlicissimus, perfectissimus, in quem nihil cadit servile, nihil humile, nihil denique quod aliquam significet imperfectionem. Sed denotat tres res omnino perfectas, æternam benevolentiam, actualem beneficentiam & oblectationem in re amata. Qui enim amat aliquem, bené ei vult: quicquid boni potest, ei præstat: & eo oblectatur. Hæc tria in amore divino reperiuntur. Hæc veró dilectio est tum Dei intra se, tum erga creaturas. Deus enim se ipsum & ante omnia amat: Pater Filium & Spiritum Sanctum: Filius Patrem & Spiritum Sanctum: Spiritus Sanctus Patrem & Filium. Dilectio Dei erga creaturas vel generalis est, vel specialis. Illa, est quâ omnes prorsus res abs se conditas complectitur, iis benefacit, easq́; conservat & sustentat. Hoc pacto nemo est, vel hominum, vel etiam diabolorum qui dicere queat, se non diligi á Deo. Hæc veró, est quâ solos electos ad vitam æternam prosequitur, ut quos pro filiis suis in Christo agnoscit: De hac dilectione præsens locus est intelligendus.

(Amando Polano à Polansdorf, Analysis Libelli Prophetae Malachiae, Aliquot Praelectionibus Genevæ Proposita, [Basileae: Per Conradum Waldkirch, 1597], p. 10.)

Marcus Friedrich Wendelin:

THESIS XXIII: The Love of God is that whereby He delights Himself in that of which He approves, and desires good for it, and unites it to Himself.

EXPLANATION: I. Scripture attributes Love to God, John 3:16, God so loved the world; and verse 35, the Father loveth the Son; Romans 5:8, God commendeth His love toward us, etc.; 1 John 4:8, God is love.

II. A distinction in the divine love into natural and voluntary, which is related by some, is to be observed.

That is natural, whereby God necessarily loves Himself, and the Persons of the most holy Trinity one another. Thus the Father is said to love the Son, John 5:20. Nevertheless, this love is also in some manner voluntary, although it is manifestly necessary: because, with respect to order, it follows knowledge and has regard to ethical perfection. But, what things are merely natural, do not presuppose knowledge.

That is called voluntary in a special manner, wherewith God freely pursues His creatures: and it is either universal or special.

That is universal, whereby God in some manner loves all creatures: according to that saying in Wisdom of Solomon 11:24, thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made. The same is proven by reason: For, to love is to will good to anyone. But God wills some good to all creatures. Hence Christ in Matthew 5:45, He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. Now, evil men, whom God hates, He nevertheless loves, not with respect to their evil, but with respect to nature, which is not effaced by sin. Whence that saying of Augustine, book 1 ad Simplicianum, question 2, God does not hate Esau as man, but Esau as sinner.

There is a special love, because God unequally loves these and those creatures, with respect to the unequal good that He wills to them. Thus He loves irrational creatures in one degree, rational creatures in another: and among rational creatures, the man Christ in one degree, the remaining mere men in another: and among these, the elect and pious in one degree, and the reprobate and impious in another. Hence Augustine in tractate 110 on John, God loves all the things that He has made, and among those He loves rational creatures more, and among them those that are members of His only begotten even more: and much more the only begotten Himself.

(Marci Friderici Wendelini, Christianæ Theologiæ: Libri II, [Hanoviæ: Typis Wechelianis, sumptibus Clementis Schleichii, & Petri de Zetter, 1634], Lib. I, Cap. I, Thes. XXIII, pp. 78-79; trans. Steven Dilday.)

Andrew Fuller:

That God loves all mankind I make no doubt, and all the works of his hands, as such considered, fallen angels themselves not excepted; but the question is whether he loves them all alike; and whether the exercise of punitive justice be inconsistent with universal goodness.

(Andrew Fuller, ‘Defence of the “Gospel Worthy if All Acceptation,” In Reply to Mr. Button And Philanthropos,’ Reply to the Observations of Philanthropos, §. 4; In: The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: In Three Volumes: Vol. II, [Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1848], p. 494.)

Henry Ainsworth:

Gods vertues in respect of his will are bounty, and justice: Bounty is that, by which out of love, God procureth to every creature the good thereof, and it is common, and particular: common bounty is towards all creatures, even such as offend him, directing them to their naturall good, and sustaining them therein, so long as justice suffereth, Luk. 6.36. God cannot hate his creatures, as his workes, for so they carry a similitude of God, the first cause: and none can hate himselfe, or his similitude, for a similitude is something of himselfe. Gods bounty to his creatures presupposeth not any debt or duty, which implyeth imperfection; and if God were bound to his creatures, he should depend on them, and be imperfect.

Gods bounty which is infinite, giveth creatures good things, of nature, of soule, and body, and of outward things.

Such is Gods bounty, as the creatures suffer no evill, unlesse Gods justice require it, or a greater good confirme it; of this vertue God is called patient, and long suffering.

(Henry Ainsworth, The Old Orthodox Foundation of Religion, [London: Printed by E. Cotes, 1653], Part 2, p. 16.)

William Cooper:

2. The love of God is voluntary: thus he loves his creatures with a general love.

(1.) Because he made them, and made them good, (Gen. i. 31,) therefore he preserves them for though sin be really evil, and none of God’s making, but contrary to God, and hated of God; yet God loves the creatures as his creatures, although sinful, with a general love. (Matt. v. 44, 45.)

(William Cooper, “Sermon VI: How a Child of God is to Keep Himself in the Love of God;” In: The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate, St. Giles in the Fields, and in Southwark: In Six Volumes: Vol. III, [London: Printed for Thomas Tegg, 1844], p. 131.)

James Rawson:

…And thus God loves the reprobates less than he doth the elect; but it cannot hence be concluded, that the Lord doth absolutely hate any creature of his own making, for they were all good, yea very good:[Gen. 1.31.] and Wisd. 11.24. thou lovest all things that are, and abhorrest nothing that thou hast made. Tis true God hates sin, because he made it not, and this hatred hath an influx upon the sinner, as he is a sinner, because God made him not so…

(James Rawson, Gerizim, Election, and Ebal, Reprobation. Or, The Absolute Good Pleasure of Gods Most Holy Will to All the Sons of Adam Specificated, [London: Printed by John Owsley, for Henry Shephard, 1658], p. 170.)

Thomas Ridgley:

Persons are denominated good, as having all those perfections that belong to their nature. This is the most extensive sense of goodness. It is taken also in a moral sense, and so consists in the rectitude of their nature.

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 108.)

Arthur W. Pink:

The original Saxon meaning of our English word God is “The Good.” God is not only the greatest of all beings, but the best. All the goodness there is in any creature has been imparted from the Creator, but God’s goodness is underived, for it is the essence of His eternal nature. …All that emanates from God—His decrees, His creation, His laws, His providences—cannot be otherwise than good: as it is written. “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus, the goodness of God is seen, first, in creation.

(Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001], pp. 57-58.)

John Arrowsmith:

It is twofold, one essential, that wherewith God is good in himself, the other relative, that whereby he doth good to his creatures. The former is here set forth by the term Jehovah, which is doubled, and doth most fully serve to express it, as coming from a root, that signifieth being. For goodness and entity are convertible, and every thing so far forth as it partaketh of being, partaketh also of goodness… Diabolus in quantum est bonus est [The devil, insofar as he exists, is good].

(John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles, [Edinburgh: Printed By Thomas Turnbull, 1822], Aphorism IV, Exercitation I, §. 2, p. 118.)

Cf. John Arrowsmith: (Original)

It is twofold, one Essential, that wherewith God is good in himself, the other Relative, that whereby he doth good to his creatures. The former is here set forth by the term Jehovah, which is doubled, and doth most fully serve to express it, as coming from a root, that signifieth Being. For Goodness and Entity are convertible, and every thing so far forth as it partaketh of Being, partaketh also of Bonity… Diabolus in quantum est bonus est [The devil, insofar as he exists, is good].

(John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles, [Cambridge: Printed by John Field, Printer to the University, 1659], Aphorisme IV, Exercitation I, §. 2, pp. 158-159.)

Note: The word “bonity” comes from the Latin bonitās and means goodness.

St. Augustine of Hippo:

3. For we Catholic Christians worship God, from whom all goods come, whether great or small, from whom all limit comes, whether great or small, from whom all form comes, whether great or small, and from whom all order comes, whether great or small. For it is certainly the case that all things are better to the extent that they are more limited, formed, and ordered. But they are less good to the extent that they are less limited, less formed, and less ordered. These three, then, limit, form, and order to pass over in silence countless features that are shown to pertain to these three these three, then, limit, form, and order, are like universal goods in the things made by God, whether in a spirit or in a body. God is therefore above every limit of a creature, above every form, above every order. He is not above them by spatial distance but by his ineffable and singular power, for from him comes all limit, all form, and all order. Where these three are great, there are great goods; where they are small, there are small goods; where they are not at all, there is no good. And again, where these three are great, there are great natures; where they are small, there are small natures; where they are not at all, there is no nature. Every nature, therefore, is good.

4. Hence, when the question arises where evil comes from, one should first ask what evil is. For it is nothing but the corruption of either a natural limit or form or order. A nature that has been corrupted, then, is said to be evil. For an uncorrupted nature is certainly good. But even a corrupted nature is good insofar as it is a nature, while it is evil insofar as it has been corrupted.

5. But it is possible that a certain nature that has received a more excellent order by its natural limit and form is still better, even when corrupted, than another uncorrupted nature that has received a lower order with a lesser natural limit and form. For example, in the judgment of human beings, in terms of the quality that is exposed to their eyes, gold, even when corrupted, is certainly better than uncorrupted silver, and silver, even when corrupted, is better than uncorrupted lead. In that way, in natures that are more powerful and spiritual, a rational spirit, even when corrupted by an evil will, is better than an uncorrupted non-rational spirit. And any spirit, even when corrupted, is better than any uncorrupted body. For a nature that, when it is present to a body, gives it life is better than the nature to which life is given. But, however corrupt may be the spirit of life that has been made, it can give life to the body, and, for this reason, even when it has been corrupted it is better than an uncorrupted body.

(Augustine of Hippo, The Nature of the Good (De Natura Boni), 3-5; PL, 42:553; trans. WSA, I/19:326-327. Cf. NPNF1, 4:352.)

Johnathan Edwards:

It is abundantly plain by the holy scriptures, and generally allowed, not only by Christian divines, but by the more considerable deists, that virtue most essentially consists in love, And I suppose, it is owned by the most considerable writers, to consist in general love of benevolence, or kind affection: Though it seems to me, the meaning of some in this affair is not sufficiently explained which perhaps occasions some error or confusion in discourses on this subject.

When I say, true virtue consists in love to being in general, I shall not be likely to be understood, that no one act of the mind or exercise of love is of the nature of true virtue, but what has Being in general, or the great system of universal existence, for its direct and immediate object: So that no exercise of love or kind affection to any one particular Being, that is but a small part of this whole, has any thing of the nature of true virtue. But, that the nature of true virtue consists in a disposition to benevolence towards Being in general. Though, from such a disposition may arise exercises of love to particular Beings, as objects are presented and occasions arise. No wonder, that he who is of a generally benevolent disposition, should be more disposed than another to have his heart moved with benevolent affection to particular persons, whom he is acquainted and conversant with, and from whom arise the greatest and most frequent occasions for exciting his benevolent temper. But my meaning is, that no affections towards particular persons, or Beings, are of the nature of true virtue, but such as arise from a generally benevolent temper, or from that habit or frame of mind, wherein consists a disposition to love Being in general.

And perhaps it is needless for me to give notice to my readers, that when I speak of an intelligent Being’s having a heart united and benevolently disposed to Being in general, I thereby mean intelligent Being in general. Not inanimate things, or Beings that have no perception or will, which are not properly capable objects of benevolence.

Love is commonly distinguished into love of benevolence and love of complacence. Love of benevolence is that affection or propensity of the heart to any Being, which causes it to incline to its well being, or disposes it to desire and take pleasure in its happiness. And if I mistake not, it is agreeable to the common opinion, that beauty in the object is not always the ground of this propensity: But that there may be such a thing as benevolence, or a disposition to the welfare of those that are not considered as beautiful; unless mere existence be accounted a beauty. And benevolence or goodness in the divine Being is generally supposed, not only to be prior to the beauty of many of its objects, but to their existence: So as to be the ground both of their existence and their beauty, rather than they the foundation of God’s benevolence; as it is supposed that it is God’s goodness which moved him to give them both Being and beauty. So that if all virtue primarily consists in that affection of heart to Being, which is exercised in benevolence, or an inclination to its good, then God’s virtue is so extended as to include a propensity, not only to Being actually existing, and actually beautiful, but to possible Being, so as to incline him to give Being, beauty and happiness. But not now to insist particularly on this. What I would have observed at present, is, that it must be allowed, benevolence doth not necessarily presuppose beauty in its object.

What is commonly called love of complacence, presupposes beauty. For it is no other than delight in beauty; or complacence in the person or Being beloved for his beauty.

If virtue be the beauty of an intelligent Being, and virtue consists in love, then it is a plain inconsistence, to suppose that virtue primarily consists in any love to its object for its beauty; either in a love of complacence, which is delight in a Being for his beauty, or in a love of benevolence, that has the beauty of its object for its foundation. For that would be to suppose, that the beauty of intelligent Beings primarily consists in love to beauty; or, that their virtue first of all consists in their love to virtue. Which is an inconsistence, and going in a circle. Because it makes virtue, or beauty of mind, the foundation or first motive of that love wherein virtue originally consists, or wherein the very first virtue consists; or, it supposes the first virtue to be the consequence and effect of virtue. So that virtue is originally the foundation and exciting cause of the very beginning or first Being of virtue. Which makes the first virtue, both the ground, and the consequence, both cause and effect of itself. Doubtless virtue primarily consists in something else besides any effect or consequence of virtue. If virtue consists primarily in love to virtue, then virtue, the thing loved, is the love of virtue: So that virtue must consist in the love of the love of virtue. And if it be inquired, what that virtue is, which virtue consists in the love of the love of, it must be answered, it is the love of virtue. So that there must be the love of the love of the love of virtue, and so on in infinitum. For there is no end of going back in a circle. We never come to any beginning, or foundation. For it is without beginning and hangs on nothing.

Therefore if the essence of virtue or beauty of mind lies in love, or a disposition to love, it must primarily consist in something different both from complacence, which is a delight in beauty, and also from any benevolence that has the beauty of its object for its foundation. Because it is absurd, to say that virtue is primarily and first of all the consequence of itself. For this makes virtue primarily prior to itself.

(Johnathan Edwards, “The Nature of True Virtue,” Ch. 1; In: The Works of President Edwards: In Eight Volumes: Volume II, [Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, 1808], pp. 397-400.)

3. Love: Mercy, Grace, Long-Suffering, etc. Return to Outline.

Louis Berkhof:

c. The grace of God. The significant word “grace” is a translation of the Hebrew chanan and of the Greek charis. According to Scripture it is manifested not only by God, but also by men, and then denotes the favor which one man shows another, Gen. 33:8,10,18; 39:4; 47:25; Ruth 2:2; I Sam. 1:18; 16:22. In such cases it is not necessarily implied that the favor is undeserved. In general it can be said, however, that grace is the free bestowal of kindness on one who has no claim to it. This is particularly the case where the grace referred to is the grace of God. His love to man is always unmerited, and when shown to sinners, is even forfeited. The Bible generally uses the word to denote the unmerited goodness or love of God to those who have forfeited it, and are by nature under a sentence of condemnation. The grace of God is the source of all spiritual blessings that are bestowed upon sinners. As such we read of it in Eph. 1:6,7; 2:7-9; Tit. 2:11; 3:4-7. While the Bible often speaks of the grace of God as saving grace, it also makes mention of it in a broader sense, as in Isa. 26:10; Jer. 16:13. The grace of God is of the greatest practical significance for sinful men. It was by grace that the way of redemption was opened for them, Rom. 3:24; II Cor. 8:9, and that the message of redemption went out into the world, Acts 14:3. By grace sinners receive the gift of God in Jesus Christ, Acts 18:27; Eph. 2:8. By grace they are justified, Rom. 3:24; 4:16; Tit. 3:7, they are enriched with spiritual blessings, John 1:16; II Cor. 8:9; II Thess. 2:16, and they finally inherit salvation, Eph. 2:8; Tit. 2:11. Seeing they have absolutely no merits of their own, they are altogether dependent on the grace of God in Christ. In modern theology, with its belief in the inherent goodness of man and his ability to help himself, the doctrine of salvation by grace has practically become a “lost chord,” and even the word “grace” was emptied of all spiritual meaning and vanished from religious discourses. It was retained only in the sense of “graciousness,” something that is quite external. Happily, there are some evidences of a renewed emphasis on sin, and of a newly awakened consciousness of the need of divine grace.

d. The mercy of God. Another important aspect of the goodness and love of God is His mercy or tender compassion. The Hebrew word most generally used for this is chesed. There is another word, however, which expresses a deep and tender compassion, namely, the word racham, which is beautifully rendered by “tender mercy” in our English Bible. The Septuagint and the New Testament employ the Greek word eleos to designate the mercy of God. If the grace of God contemplates man as guilty before God, and therefore in need of forgiveness, the mercy of God contemplates him as one who is bearing the consequences of sin, who is in a pitiable condition, and who therefore needs divine help. It may be defined as the goodness or love of God shown to those who are in misery or distress, irrespective of their deserts. In His mercy God reveals Himself as a compassionate God, who pities those who are in misery and is ever ready to relieve their distress. This mercy is bountiful, Deut. 5:10; Ps. 57:10; 86:5, and the poets of Israel delighted to sing of it as enduring forever, I Chron. 16:34; II Chron. 7:6; Ps. 136; Ezra 3:11. In the New Testament it is often mentioned alongside of the grace of God, especially in salutations, I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:4. We are told repeatedly that it is shown to them that fear God, Ex. 20:2; Deut. 7:9; Ps. 86:5; Luke 1:50. This does not mean, however, that it is limited to them, though they enjoy it in a special measure. God’s tender mercies are over all His works, Ps. 145:9, and even those who do not fear Him share in them, Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Luke 6:35,36. The mercy of God may not be represented as opposed to His justice. It is exercised only in harmony with the strictest justice of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ. Other terms used for it in the Bible are “pity,” “compassion,” and “lovingkindness.”

e. The longsuffering of God. The longsuffering of God is still another aspect of His great goodness or love. The Hebrew uses the expression ’erek ’aph, which means literally “long of face,” and then also “slow to anger,” while the Greek expresses the same idea by the word makrothumia. It is that aspect of the goodness or love of God in virtue of which He bears with the froward and evil in spite of their long continued disobedience. In the exercise of this attribute the sinner is contemplated as continuing in sin, notwithstanding the admonitions and warnings that come to him. It reveals itself in the postponement of the merited judgment. Scripture speaks of it in Ex. 34:6; Ps. 86:15; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; I Pet. 3:20; II Pet. 3:15. A synonymous term of a slightly different connotation is the word “forbearance.”

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 71-73.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Petrus Van Mastricht:

I. The goodness of God that we called his transferred goodness operates either by giving or by directing, and the latter either by prescribing or retributing. From this latter directing it is designated righteousness. From the former giving it is, according to the diverse way of reckoning, first the things given and then the giving itself, designated as (1) love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself; (2) grace, which is nothing but love that is not owed; (3) mercy, which is nothing but grace toward the miserable; (4) patience, which is nothing but mercy toward a sinner; (4) longsuffering, which is nothing but patience that is long-lasting; and (5) kindness, which is nothing but longsuffering with beneficence. And these are the affections of the gracious God, about which Moses speaks in Exodus 34:6.

Thomas Ridgley:

The mercy of God is either common or special. Common mercy gives all the outward conveniences of this life; which are bestowed without distinction. ‘He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’[fn. n: Matt. v. 45.] ‘His tender mercies are over all his works.’[fn. o: Psal. cxlv. 9.] But his special mercy is that which he bestows on, or has reserved for, the heirs of salvation…

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 109.)

John Norton:

The Effects of Mercy, are either special: proper to the Elect, as flowing from special grace, Rom. 9.23. The Elect are called (and by effectual calling so made) vessels of mercy. Or common, extended to those who are not elected, Luke 6.35, 36. Unto the beasts of the field, Psal. 104.27. Yea, over all his works, Psal. 145.9.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 14.)

Millard J. Erickson:

But God’s patience was not limited to his dealings with Israel. Peter (1 Peter 3:20) even suggests that the flood was delayed as long as it was in order to provide opportunity of salvation to those who ultimately were destroyed. In speaking of the future day of great destruction, Peter also suggests that the second coming is delayed because of God’s forbearance. He does not wish “anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

(Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology: Third Edition, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013], pp. 266-267.)

John Murray:

When Paul, referring past generations of the history of the world, says that the times of ignorance God overlooked (Acts 17:30), he is not referring to any indifference or connivance on the part of God-his first chapter of the epistle to the Romans disproves any such interpretation—but among other things he is making reference to the fact that God refrained from executing the full measure of his judgment. It is true that God did not manifest his grace as now when he commands that men should all everywhere repent, but in the word we have translated ‘overlooked’ there is also implied the ‘passing by’ of forbearance.

Romans 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 may have believers particularly in mind, but, even so, the longsuffering mentioned in both passages involves the suspension of judgment over periods of time, and such suspension of judgment draws even the wicked and reprobate within its scope.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 101.)

W. G. T. Shedd:

2. Mercy is a second variety of the Divine Goodness. It is the benevolent compassion of God towards man as a sinner.

…Grace is an aspect of mercy. It differs from mercy, in that it has reference to sinful man as guilty, while mercy has respect to sinful man as miserable. The one refers to the culpability of sin, and the other to its wretchedness. The two terms, however, in common use are interchangeable. Grace, like mercy, is a variety of the Divine goodness.

Both mercy and grace are exercised in a general manner, towards those who are not the objects of their special manifestation. All blessings bestowed upon the natural man are mercy, in so far as they succor his distress, and grace, so far as they are bestowed upon the undeserving. Matt. 5:45, “He maketh his sun to rise upon the evil.” Ps. 145: 9, “The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.” Ps. 145: 15, 16, “The eyes of all wait upon thee.”

This general manifestation of mercy and grace is in and by the works of creation and providence. It is also seen in one aspect of the work of redemption. Men who are not actually saved by the Divine mercy, yet obtain some blessings from it. (a) The delay of punishment is one; namely, the pretermission (πάρεσις) of sin, in distinction from its remission (ἀφεσις). Rom. 3:25. God’s forbearance and long-suffering with a sinner who abuses this by persistence in sin, is a phase of mercy. This is “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” It is made possible by it. Without Christ’s work, there would have been instantaneous punishment, and no long-suffering. This is also taught in 1 Pet. 3:20, “The long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” (b) The common influences of the Holy Spirit are another manifestation of mercy in its general form.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 389, 390-391.)

Note: Grace, mercy and long-suffering are derivatives of love. If God shows grace, mercy or long-suffering to the reprobate then He is showing them a form of love. Matthew 5:43-48 specifically links love with common grace.

James P. Boyce:

2. The second kind of love, is the love of benevolence, which corresponds to the idea of God’s goodness towards his creatures.

This is the product of his wishes for their happiness. It is not dependent on their character, as is the love of complacency, but is exercised towards both innocent and guilty.

It is general in its nature, not special, and exists towards all, even towards devils, and wicked men, because God’s nature is benevolent, and, therefore, he must wish for the happiness of his creatures.

That that happiness is not attained, nor attainable, is due, not to him, but to their own sin.

When the benevolence of God is exercised actively in the bestowment of good things upon his creatures, it is called his beneficence. By the former, he wishes them happiness, by the latter, he confers blessings to make them so.

This is done to the wicked also, as well as to the righteous. It is to this that Christ refers, Matt. 5:45, “He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”

3. The third form of love is the love of compassion.

This corresponds to our idea of pity. It is benevolent disposition to those who are suffering or in distress.

This also may be exercised towards the guilty or the innocent, if it be possible to suppose that guilt and suffering are separable.

…If misery, then, may be the lot of the innocent, God’s love of compassion can be exercised toward such.

It can be and is also exercised toward the guilty. We see this in the forbearance with which he delays their punishment, in his constant offers of mercy, in his yearnings after their salvation, and most signally, in the gift of his only begotten Son, “that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16.

4. A fourth form of the love of God corresponds to what we call mercy.

This can be exercised only toward sinners.

Its very nature contemplates guilt in its objects.

It consists, not only in the desire not to inflict the punishment due to sin…

(James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], pp. 104-105, 105.)

Herman Bavinck:

Conversely, the reprobates also receive many blessings, blessings that do not as such arise from the decree of reprobation but from the goodness and grace of God. They receive many natural gifts—life, health, strength, food, drink, good cheer, and so forth (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:17; 17:27; Rom.1:19; James 1:17)—for God does not leave himself without a witness. He endures them with much patience (Rom. 9:22). He has the gospel of his grace proclaimed to them and takes no pleasure in their death (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Matt. 23:27; Luke 19:41; 24:47; John 3:16; Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Pelagians infer from these verses that God’s actual intention is to save all people individually, and therefore that there is no preceding decree of reprobation. But that is not what these verses teach. They do say, however, that it is the will of God that all the means of grace be used for the salvation of the reprobates. Now, these means of grace do not as such flow from the decree of reprobation. They can be abused to that end; they may serve to render humans inexcusable, to harden them, and to make their condemnation all the heavier—like the sun, which may warm but also scorch a person. Yet in and by themselves they are not means of reprobation but means of grace with a view to salvation.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 247, p. 398.)

4. Common Grace. Return to Outline.

Michael Horton:

As Murray points out, common grace is responsible for a variety of benefits to all people indiscriminately. First, it is a restraint on sin. Things may be bad because of the human heart and institutions in which sinful habits (including those of believers) become deeply embedded, but they are never as bad as they could be—because of God’s common grace. Second, God’s common grace is a restraint on God’s own wrath. God placed his mark even on violent Cain, so that he could build a city (Ge 4:15). Because of his common grace, God was long-suffering in the face of human depravity “in the days of Noah” (1Pe 3:20). Furthermore, after the flood God covenants with humankind and even the nonhuman creation never to destroy the earth by water again. Although this grace overlaps with his concern for the salvation of his people, it was his common grace that led God to overlook the ignorance of humans before Christ (Ac 17:30), and that led him to suspend his judgment on the world for a long period of time (Ro 2:4; 2Pe 3:9). Third, common grace not only restrains his wrath (i.e., shows mercy) but positively gives (grace). Murray observes that God motivates unbelievers as well “with interest and purpose to the practice of virtues, the pursuance of worthy tasks, and the cultivation of arts and sciences that occupy the time, activity, and energy of men and that make for the benefit and civilization of the human race. He ordains institutions for the protection and promotion of right, the preservation of liberty, the advance of knowledge, and the improvement of physical and moral conditions.” Scripture is replete with examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms. “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. . . . You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps 145:9, 16).

In the field of common endeavor ruled by God’s creation and providence, there is no difference in principle between believers and unbelievers in terms of gifts and abilities. Jesus calls on his followers to pray for their enemies for precisely this reason: “for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Mt 5:45). Christians are called on to imitate this divine disposition. It is clear from the parable of the sower, in fact, that unbelievers may even benefit from the Spirit’s work through the Word. It is undoubtedly true that, although much harm has been done in the name of Christendom, innumerable benefits have come to civilization as a result of biblical influences. But even pagan rulers exercise their dominion as a result of God’s providence (Ro 13:1-7; 1Pe 2:14). Some non-Christians rescued slaves, while some Christians abused them.

(Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], pp. 365-366.)

John Murray:

Unregenerate men are recipients of divine favour and goodness. The witness of Scripture to this fact is copious and direct. Attention will be focused on a few of the most notable examples.

In Genesis 39:5 we are told that ‘the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake’. Truly it was for Joseph’s sake and for Joseph as the instrument through whom the chosen people were to be preserved and God’s redemptive purpose with respect to the world fulfilled. But, just as we have found already in the case of Abimelech, the reason for the blessing bestowed does not destroy the reality of the blessing itself.

Perhaps the most significant part of Scripture bearing upon this phase of our subject is the witness of Paul and Barnabas at Lystra in Iconium. ‘Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, doing good, and giving rains to you from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness’ (Acts 14:16, 17). The ‘generations gone by’ of this passage are the same as ‘the times of ignorance’ mentioned by Paul in his speech on Mars’ hill (Acts 17:30). Paul and Barnabas in this case are referring to the past of those who had served dumb idols. They expressly state that although God allowed them to walk in their own idolatrous ways yet God did not leave them without a witness to himself. The particular witness mentioned here is that he did good and gave them rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. This is the most direct and indisputable assertion that men, left to their own ungodly ways, are nevertheless the subjects of divine benefaction. God showed them favour and did them good, and the satisfaction and enjoyment derived from the product of rains and fruitful seasons are not to be condemned but rather regarded as the witness, or at least as the proper effect of the witness, God was bearing to his own goodness. And it would be wanton violence that would attempt to sever this ‘doing good’ from a disposition of goodness in the heart and mind of God. Paul says that the ‘doing good’ and ‘giving rain from heaven and fruitful seasons’ constituted the witness God gave of himself. In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

The testimony of our Lord himself, as recorded in Matthew 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36, establishes the same truth as that discussed in the foregoing passage. ‘But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.’ ‘But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’ Here the disciples are called upon to emulate in their own sphere and relations the character of God, their Father, in his own sphere and relations. God is kind and merciful to the unthankful and to the evil; he makes his sun to rise upon evil and good, and sends rain upon just and unjust. Both on the ground of express statement and on the ground of what is obviously implied in the phrases, ‘sons of your Father’ and ‘sons of the Most High’, there can be no escape from the conclusion that goodness and beneficence, kindness and mercy are here attributed to God in his relations even to the ungodly. And this simply means that the ungodly are the recipients of blessings that flow from the love, goodness, kindness and mercy of God. Again it would be desperate exegetical violence that would attempt to separate the good gifts bestowed from the disposition of kindness and mercy in the mind of God.

Finally, we may appeal to Luke 16:25, ‘Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou art tormented’. The rich man was reprobate; but the gifts enjoyed during this life are nevertheless called ‘good things’.

It is without question true that good gifts abused will mean greater condemnation for the finally impenitent. ‘To whom much is given, of the same shall much be required’ (Luke 12:48). But this consideration, awfully true though it be, does not make void the fact that they are good gifts and expressions of the lovingkindness of God. In fact, it is just because they are good gifts and manifestations of the kindness and mercy of God that the abuse of them brings greater condemnation and demonstrates the greater inexcusability of impenitence. Ultimate condemnation, so far from making void the reality of the grace bestowed in time, rather in this case rests upon the reality of the grace bestowed and enjoyed. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for Capernaum. But the reason is that Capernaum was privileged to witness the mighty works of Christ as supreme exhibitions of the love, goodness and power of God.

The decree of reprobation is of course undeniable. But denial of the reality of temporal goodness and kindness, goodness and kindness as expressions of the mind and will of God, is to put the decree of reprobation so much out of focus that it eclipses the straightforward testimony of Scripture to other truths.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” pp. 104-106.)

Excursus: Common Grace — Judgment and Condemnation.

Heinrich Heppe:

25.—But while by praeteritio God refuses His redeeming grace to the rejected He does not deprive them of His common grace, which latter would have sufficed man in his original state to attain to eternal blessedness, and of which man continues to receive so much that he has no ground for excuse left at the judgment seat of God.—LEIDEN SYNOPSIS (XXIV, 54-55): “For this to be understood correctly, careful note must be taken that this praeterition does not remove or deny all grace in those passed over, but that only which is peculiar to the elect. But that which through the dispensation of common providence, whether under the law of nature or under gospel grace, is dispensed to men in varying amount, is not by this act of praeterition removed but is rather presupposed; the non-elect are left under the common government of divine providence and the exercise of their own arbitrium.—55: Moreover this dispensation of common providence always involves the communication of outward and inward benefits; which indeed sufficed for salvation in the unimpaired nature, as is clear in the rejected angels and the whole human race considered in the first parent before the fall, But in the corrupt nature so much has survived or been superadded to nature under the gospel, that they have been stripped and deprived of every pretext of excuse before the divine judgment, as the apostle testifies Ac. 14. 27 (they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how they had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles), Rom. 1.20 (the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse) 2.1 (Wherefore thou art without excuse, whosoever thou art that judgest: wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest practisest the same things); also Jn. 15. 22 (If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin) 1 Cor. 4. 3 (with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea I judge not mine own self) and elsewhere.”—WALAUS 490-491: “But reprobation does not deny in the reprobate all grace or every gift saving in itself: for we see that even to the reprobate many even supernatural things are communicated above the gifts of nature, as the propounding of the gospel, many other charisms, and illumination of the mind, and some improvement of the affections or joy, and a taste of future benefits (Heb. 6; Mt. 13); by these gifts they are set in order for salvation, did they not suppress them themselves and render God’s counsel towards themselves of no effect, as saith Scripture in Lk. 7, and Rom. 1, also Ac. 7, resist the H. Spirit. For it must assuredly be held that they first desert God before they are deserted by God, as Augustine often says. For God endures with much longsuffering vessels of wrath, etc. Rom. 9. 22. In fact we say more with the same Augustine, that it does not conflict with reprobation that even grace sufficient for salvation is given them, as is clear from the example of the reprobate angels, as well as of all men created in Adam in the image of God. Only they are denied grace infallibly effectual for salvation. In Adam all had strength to keep the law, even also to believe in Christ, had it been revealed to them (as even theologians themselves confess who ascend above the fall in this article), and they lost it in him (sc. Adam). Therefore grace sufficient for salvation is consistent with the decree of reprobation.”

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], pp. 185-186.)

Note: In the concept of praeterition (God passing over the non-elect), God withholds His special redeeming grace but does not deprive the non-elect of His common grace. This common grace, which includes the benefits of God’s providence and the law of nature, is sufficient to leave the non-elect without excuse before God’s judgment. Despite not receiving the grace that guarantees salvation, the non-elect receive enough grace to recognize God’s power and divinity and are thus accountable for their rejection of God. This common grace ensures they cannot claim ignorance or lack of opportunity when judged. The non-elect’s resistance to this grace and their desertion of God precede God’s definitive abandonment of them. Thus, while they lack the infallible, effectual grace for salvation, they still receive sufficient grace to be held responsible for their actions—and, as Antonius Walaeus correctly observed, this is true “of the reprobate angels, as well as of all men created in Adam”. Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht: …love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself… (Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], Book 2, Chapter 17, §. 1.) Cf. John Murray: In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed. (John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

Cf. James Usher:

His goodness too is extended unto all creatures; and as this is known by daily experience, so it is witnessed by the Scriptures following. (Psalm cxix. 64 : cxlv. 15. Matt. V. 45.) Yet he hath not shewed his goodness to all alike, for the things created are of two sorts; either invisible or visible; invisible, as angels; unto whom the Lord hath given more excellent gifts than to the other. But neither was his goodness parted equally among them; for some he suffered to fall into sin, for which they were thrust down from heaven to hell; (2 Peter ii. 4,) others he hath preserved by his grace, that they should not fall away from him. Neither also is his goodness alike to his visible creatures, for of them some are endued with reason, as mankind; some are void of reason; and therefore is man called a Lord over the rest of the creatures. Nor, lastly, is the goodness of God alike to reasonable creatures? for of them God in his mercy hath chosen some to eternal life, whom he hath purposed to call effectually in his time, that they may be justified and glorified by Christ; others he hath in his justice left in their sins without any effectual calling, to perish for ever. And we have the testimony of Scripture, that God’s goodness is far greater to the elect than to the reprobate, for it appeareth by the words of our Saviour Christ, (Matt. xiii. 11,) and of the prophet Asaph, (Psalm Ixxiii. 1,) who saith that God is good, that is, singularly good to Israel, even to the pure in heart; but God makes his elect only to be pure in heart. (Psalm li. 10.) Further, the goodness of God towards all men turneth not to the good of all men; for in the reprobate, God’s goodness is turned into evil, and serveth to their destruction. (2 Cor. ii. 15.) And that is through their own fault; for they do contemn and altogether abuse the goodness of God; and for all his goodness bestowed upon them continually, they never trust him, nor trust in him. (Rom. ii. 4. Psalm cvi. 13.).

(James Usher, A Body of Divinity: A New Edition, ed. Hastings Robinson, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1841], p. 76.)

Cf. Stephen Charnock:

God hates no creature, no not the devils, and damned, as creatures; he is not an enemy to them, as they are the works of his hands: he is properly an enemy that does simply and absolutely wish evil to another; but God does not absolutely wish evil to the damned; that justice that he inflicts upon them, the deserved punishment of their sin, is part of his goodness (as shall afterwards be shown.)

5. Does God Love the Unbeliever? Return to Outline.

John Frame:

Some Calvinists hesitate to say to unbelievers, “God loves you,” for they think God loves only the elect, and it is impossible to know whether any particular unbeliever is elect. Obviously, such a phrase can be misunderstood. But in Deuteronomy 7, God tells Israel that he “set his love on you” (v. 7) and “chose” her (v. 6; cf. 4:37; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3; Ps. 44:3; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:1; Mal. 1:2), even in a context where it is evident that there have been, are, and will be unbelievers within Israel. His covenant with her is a “covenant of love” (Deut. 7:12 NIV). The prophets tell the people of God’s love for them to motivate their faithfulness.

And Paul witnesses to unbelievers of God’s kindness to them, in Acts 14:17, as well as implicitly in Acts 17:26-30 and Romans 2:4. We certainly are well within the limits of Scripture when we point out to non-Christians that God has loved them in many ways, by giving them life, health, and various measures of prosperity. And we can add, as I will explain later (chapter 16), that God desires their salvation (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). In his patience, he has given time for repentance (2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 2:21). These kindnesses should motivate the unbeliever to turn to the Lord.

On the basis of John 3:16, we can also say, “God loves you because you are his handiwork, his image. God sent his Son to die, to redeem a people from this fallen world. So he gave you a priceless opportunity: if you believe, you will be saved. If you do believe, you will enjoy the fullness of God’s blessing. If you do not, you have only yourself to blame.” I grant that such an appeal “sounds Arminian.” It appears to say that God sent Jesus only to make salvation hypothetically possible for all, but that the final determination is made by man. But the appeal does not say that at all. The final determination is by God; but here as in many other cases God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility, but makes it all the more important. God makes the final determination as to who is saved, but one may not be saved unless he believes (John 1:12; 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 20:31), and those who disbelieve die for their own sins.

The full story is this: God sent his Son with both hypothetical and categorical intentions. Categorically, Christ died only for his elect, limited atonement. Hypothetically, he died so that if anyone at all should believe, he would be saved. His death makes that hypothetical statement true. So Christ died to guarantee salvation to the elect and to provide the opportunity of salvation for all.

Some may say that this “opportunity” is meaningless for the nonelect, for God has predetermined that they will never avail themselves of it. But that is to think unhistorically. As we saw earlier, when God sends rain and sunshine on the unjust (including the reprobate), these are genuine benefits, even though in the end it increases their condemnation. The rain and sunshine are not curses, but in the cases of the reprobate they become so, because they are blessings spurned. These must be genuine blessings if they are indeed to increase the sinner’s condemnation.

God’s natural blessings in Scripture are means by which he calls sinners to repent and believe (Acts 14:14-18; Rom. 2:4). The opportunity to believe in Christ is also a genuine blessing of God that should motivate repentance and faith. It, too, must be a genuine blessing if the rejection of it increases the condemnation of the nonelect. And it is: God’s free offer of the gospel is entirely sincere and true—if anyone believes in Jesus, he will certainly be saved.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 12: God’s Attributes: Love and Goodness.)

John Frame:

If God desires for people to repent of sin, then certainly he desires them to be saved, for salvation is the fruit of such repentance. Some Calvinists, however, have denied this conclusion, reasoning that God cannot possibly desire something that never takes place. But I have dealt with that objection already. Scripture often represents God as desiring things that never take place. As we have seen, he wants all people to repent of sin—but we know that many people never repent. And there are many, many other examples. God desires that all people will turn from false gods and idols, hold his name in reverence, remember the Sabbath, honor their parents, and so on. But those desires are not always fulfilled.

The reason is that God’s “desires” in this sense are expressions of his preceptive will, not his decretive will. His decretive desires always come to pass; his preceptive desires are not always fulfilled. So there is nothing contrary to Calvinistic theology in the assertion that God wants everyone to be saved.

Further, there are specific passages that lead to this conclusion. We saw in chapter 12 that in some senses God is gracious and loving to all his creatures, including those that are unrighteous (Matt. 5:44-48). God sends rain and fruitful seasons to everybody and even fills their hearts with gladness (Acts 14:17). God desires the best for his creatures, and of course, what is the very best for them is salvation in Christ.

Then in Deuteronomy 5:29, God expresses his desire in passionate terms:

Oh that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!

Cf. Deut. 32:29; Ps. 81:13-14; Isa. 48:18. In these passages God expresses an intense desire not only for obedience, but also for the consequence of obedience, namely, the covenant blessing (cf. Ex. 20:12) of long life and prosperity. Ultimately the covenant blessing is nothing less than heaven itself, eternal fellowship with God.

Divine passion is even more obvious in Matthew 23:37 (Luke 13:34), where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, saying:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

The gathering here certainly includes the blessings of salvation. Jesus wants the people of Jerusalem to be gathered to him.

In the prophecy of Ezekiel, God’s desire for human repentance is also a desire that the repentant one will have life. “Life” is often a biblical summary of God’s salvation that brings us out of death (as Eph. 2:1–7). Through Ezekiel, God says:

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezek. 18:23; cf. vv. 31–32; 33:11)

In Isaiah 45:22, God again cries out:

Turn to me and be saved,

all the ends of the earth!

For I am God, and there is no other.

Murray argues that the range of this plea is not universal in a merely ethnic sense (all nations, but not all individuals), but embraces all individuals. Part of his argument is based on the fact that the verse (and the context) emphasizes the uniqueness of the true God and his prerogatives over his entire creation. His plea must be as broad as his own lordship authority.

Second Peter 3:9 teaches the same desire on the part of God:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Those wanting to limit the reference of this passage to the elect sometimes focus on the “you,” suggesting that this limits the reference to believers. Like other NT letters, this one is written to the church, and it presumes faith on the part of its readers. Yet, also like other letters, this one recognizes that professing believers are subject to many temptations in this life and that some do fall away. When they fall away permanently, they thereby show that they never had real faith. So in addressing believers, Peter is not assuming that all his readers are among the elect. And “patient” (makrothumei) here is an attitude that, according to other passages, God shows to the reprobate (Rom. 2:4; 9:22). The passage itself makes no distinction between elect and reprobate.

So in 2 Peter 9b, Peter may be expressing God’s desire that everyone in the church will come to repentance; but if his focus is thus on the church, he is not distinguishing between elect and reprobate within the church. My own view, however, is that his thought in this verse goes beyond the church: The “any” and “all” of verse 9b are not necessarily included among the “you.” So after describing God’s patience with his people in the church, Peter looks beyond them, asserting God’s desire for universal human repentance.

Murray does not deal with 1 Timothy 2:4, but it is much discussed in this connection. That verse speaks of God, “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” It is certainly plausible to take the “all” here to refer to ethnic universalism (see above in the discussion of Isaiah 45:22), especially since verses 1 and 2 urge prayer “for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” Reformed commentators typically insist that verses 1-2 cannot be universal except in the sense “all sorts.” They then draw the conclusion that God desires the salvation of “all men without distinction of rank, race, or nationality,” but not the salvation of every individual.

But the parallel between the language here and that of passages such as Isaiah 45:22 might lead us to question this interpretation. And in my view, verses 1-2 do not have to be taken only as a universalism of classes of people. To pray for a king is at the same time to pray for his people as individuals. William Hendriksen thinks it impossible that in verses 1-2 Paul could be asking prayer for “every person on earth.” There is no time, he thinks, to do this in more than a “very vague and global way.” But it would also be impossible to pray specifically for every king and magistrate on the face of the earth. In any case, Paul’s desire is simply that we pray for the nations in the spirit of God’s blessing to Abraham, that God’s grace will be applied to all people throughout the world and produce peace.

The real barrier to taking 1 Timothy 2:4 in a way similar to the other passages we have discussed is not verses 1-2, but verses 5-6:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

If we see 2:4 as indicating God’s desire for the salvation of every individual, must we not then take Jesus’ “ransom” also in a universalistic sense, contrary to the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement? But the point of verses 5-6 in my view is very similar to the point made in Isaiah 45:22 and its context. Notice how in both Isaiah 45:22 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6, the thought moves from God’s desire that all be saved to the exclusiveness of God’s prerogatives and saving power. My own inclination is to take verses 5-6 not as enumerating those for whom atonement is made, but as describing the exclusiveness of the atonement, of God’s saving work in Christ. His is a ransom for all men in the sense that there is no other.

If we read the passage this way, there is no reason, dogmatic or exegetical, why we should not take verse 4 (which is so like the other verses we have explored) to indicate God’s desire for the salvation of everyone. I am inclined to take this position, though I don’t regard the question as fully closed. My main point, however, is that we should not allow our exegesis of this passage to be prejudiced by the dogmatic view that God cannot desire the salvation of all. If this passage does not teach such a desire, many other passages do.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 16: God’s Attributes: Power, Will.)

Note: See further: God’s Will for the Salvation of all Men.

Robert L. Dabney:

…I assert that it is entirely natural and reasonable for the benevolent man to say to the destitute person: “I am sorry for you, though I give you no alms.” The ready objection will be: “that my parallel does not hold, because the kind man is not omnipotent, while God is. God could not consistently speak thus, while withholding alms, because he could create the additional money at will.” This is more ready than solid. It assumes that God’s omniscence cannot see any ground, save the lack of physical ability or power, why it may not be best to refrain from creating the additional money. Let the student search and see; he will find that this preposterous and presumptuous assumption is the implied premise of the objection. In fact, my parallel is a fair one in the main point. This benevolent man is not prevented from giving the alms, by any physical compulsion. If he diverts a part of the money in hand from the creditor, to the destitute man, the creditor will visit no penalty on him. He simply feels bound by his conscience. That is, the superior principles of reason and morality are regulative of his action, counterpoising the amiable but less imperative principle of sympathy, in this case. Yet the verbal expression of sympathy in this case may be natural, sincere, and proper. God is not restrained by lack of physical omnipotence from creating on the spot the additional money for the alms; but He may be actually restrained by some consideration known to His omniscience, which shows that it is not on the whole best to resort to the expedient of creating the money for the alms, and that rational consideration may be just as decisive in an all-wise mind, and properly as decisive, as a conscious impotency to create money in a man’s.

This view is so important here, and will be found so valuable in another place, that I beg leave to give it farther illustration. It is related that the great Washington, when he signed the death-warrant of the amiable but misguided Andre, declared his profound grief and sympathy. Let us suppose a captious invader present, and criticising Washington’s declaration thus: “You are by law of the rebel congress, commander-in-chief. You have absolute power here. If you felt any of the generous sorrow you pretend, you would have thrown that pen into the fire, instead of using it to write the fatal words. The fact you do the latter proves that you have not a shade of sympathy, and those declarations are sheer hypocrisy.” It is easy to see how impudent and absurd this charge would be. Physically, Washington had full license, and muscular power, to throw the pen into the fire. But he was rationally restrained from doing so, by motives of righteousness and patriotism, which were properly as decisive as any physical cause. Now, will the objector still urge, that with God it would have been different, in this case; because His omnipotence might have enabled Him to overrule, in all souls, British and Americans, all inconvenient results that could flow from the impunity of a spy caught in flagrante delicto; and that so, God could not give any expression to the infinite benevolence of His nature, and yet sign the death-warrant, without hypocrisy? The audacity of this sophism is little less than the other. How obvious is the reply: That as in the one case, though Washington was in possession of the muscular ability, and also of an absolute license, to burn the death-warrant, if he chose; and yet his wisdom and virtue showed him decisive motives which rationally restrained him from it; so God may have full sovereignty and omnipotence to change the heart of the sinner whose ruin He compassionates, and yet be rationally restrained from doing it, by some decisive motives seen in His omniscience. What is it, but logical arrogance run mad, for a puny creature to assume to say, that the infinite intelligence of God may not see, amidst the innumerable affairs and relations of a universal government stretching from creation to eternity, such decisive considerations?

The great advantage of this view is, that it enables us to receive, in their obvious sense, those precious declarations of Scripture, which declare the pity of God towards even lost sinners. The glory of these representations is, that they show us God’s benevolence as an infinite attribute, like all His other perfections. Even where it is rationally restrained, it exists. The fact that there is a lost order of angels, and that there are persons in our guilty race, who are objects of God’s decree of preterition, does not arise from any stint or failure of this infinite benevolence. It is as infinite, viewed as it qualifies God’s nature only, as though He had given expression to it in the salvation of all the devils and lost men. We can now receive, without any abatement, such blessed declarations as Ps. lxxxi: 13; Ezek. xviii: 32; Luke xix: 41, 42. We have no occasion for such questionable, and even perilous exegesis, as even Calvin and Turrettin feel themselves constrained to apply to the last. Afraid lest God’s principle of compassion (not purpose of rescue), towards sinners non-elect, should find any expression, and thus mar the symmetry of their logic, they say that it was not Messiah the God-man and Mediator, who wept over reprobate Jerusalem; but only the humanity of Jesus, our pattern. I ask: Is it competent to a mere humanity to say: “How often would I have gathered your children?” And to pronounce a final doom, “Your house is left unto you desolate?” The Calvinist should have paused, when he found himself wresting these Scriptures from the same point of view adopted by the ultra-Arminian. But this is not the first time we have seen “extremes meet.” Thus argues the Arminian: “Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has a propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. Therefore, as He declares He had a propension of pity towards contumacious Israel, I conclude that He also had a volition to redeem them, and that He did whatever omnipotence could do, against the obstinate contingency of their wills. Here then, I find the bulwark of my doctrine, that even omnipotence cannot certainly determine a free will.” And thus argues the ultra-Calvinist: “Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has any propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. But if He had willed to convert reprobate Israel, He would infallibly have succeeded. Therefore He never had any propension of pity at all towards them.” And so this reasoner sets himself to explain away, by unscrupulous exegesis, the most precious revelations of God’s nature! Should not this fact, that two opposite conclusions are thus drawn from the same premises, have suggested error in the premises? And the error of both extremists is just here. It is not true that if God has an active principle looking towards a given object, He will always express it in volition and action. This, as I have shown, is no more true of God, than of a righteous and wise man. And as the good man, who was touched with a case of destitution, and yet determined that it was his duty not to use the money he had in giving alms, might consistently express what he truly felt of pity, by a kind word; so God consistently reveals the principle of compassion as to those whom, for wise reasons, He is determined not to save. We know that God’s omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace. Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin—expiation of infinite value and universal fitness—should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non-elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision, which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner’s return to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by, their Mediator. As to the non-elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way; the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ.

But it will be objected: If God foreknew that non-elect men would do this; and also knew that their neglect of gospel-mercy would infallibly aggravate their doom in the end, (all of which I admit), then that gospel was no expression of benevolence to them at all. I reply, first; the offer was a blessing in itself; these sinners felt it so in their serious moments; and surely its nature as a kindness is not reversed by the circumstance that they pervert it; though that be foreseen. Second; God accompanies the offer with hearty entreaties to them not thus to abuse it. Third; His benevolence is cleared in the view of all other beings, though the perverse objects do rob themselves of the permanent benefit. And this introduces the other cavil: That such a dispensation towards non-elect sinners is utterly futile, and so, unworthy of God’s wisdom. I reply: It is not futile; because it secures actual results both to non-elect men, to God and to the saved. To the first, it secures many temporal restraints and blessings in this life, the secular ones of which, at least, the sinner esteems as very solid benefits; and also a sincere offer of eternal life, which he, and not God, disappoints. To God, this dispensation secures great revenue of glory, both for His kindness towards contumacious enemies, and His clear justice in the final punishment. To other holy creatures it brings not only this new revelation of God’s glory, but a new apprehension of the obstinacy and malignity of sin as a spiritual evil.

Some seem to recoil from the natural view which presents God, like other wise Agents, as planning to gain several ends, one primary and others subordinate, by the same set of actions. They fear that if they admit this, they will be entrapped into an ascription of uncertainty, vacillation and change to God’s purpose. This consequence does not at all follow, as to Him. It might follow as to a finite man pursuing alternative purposes. For instance, a general might order his subordinate to make a seeming attack in force on a given point of his enemy’s position. The general might say to himself: “I will make this attack either a feint, (while I make my real attack elsewhere), or, if the enemy seem weak there, my real, main attack.” This, of course, implies some uncertainty in his foreknowledge; and if the feint is turned into his main attack, the last purpose must date in his mind from some moment after the feint began. Such doubt and mutation must not be imputed to God. Hence I do not employ the phrase “alternative objects” of His planning; as it might be misunderstood. We “cannot find out the Almighty unto perfection.” But it is certain, that He, when acting on finite creatures, and for the instruction of finite minds, may and does pursue, in one train of His dealings, a plurality of ends, of which one is subordinated to another. Thus God consistently makes the same dispensation first a manifestation of the glory of His goodness, and then, when the sinner has perverted it, of the glory of His justice. He is not disappointed, nor does He change His secret purpose. The mutation is in the relation of the creature to His providence. His glory is, that seeing the end from the beginning, He brings good even out of the perverse sinner’s evil.

There is, perhaps, no Scripture which gives so thorough and comprehensive an explanation of the design and results of Christ’s sacrifice, as Jno. iii: 16-19. It may receive important illustration from Matt. xxii 4. In this last parable, the king sends this message to invited guests who, he foresees, would reject and never partake the feast. “My oxen and my fatlings are killed: come, for all things are now ready.” They alone were unready. I have already stated one ground for rejecting that interpretation of Jno. iii 16, which makes “the world” which God so loved, the elect world, I would now, in conclusion, simply indicate, in the form of a free paraphrase, the line of thought developed by our Redeemer, trusting that the ideas already expounded will suffice, with the coherency and consistency of the exposition, to prove its correctness.

Verse 16: Christ’s mission to make expiation for sin is a manifestation of unspeakable benevolence to the whole world, to man as man and a sinner, yet designed specifically to result in the actual salvation of believers. Does not this imply that this very mission, rejected by others, will become the occasion (not cause) of perishing even more surely to them? It does. Yet, (verse 17,) it is denied that this vindicatory result was the primary design of Christ’s mission and the initial assertion is again repeated, that this primary design was to manifest God, in Christ’s sacrifice, as compassionate to all. How then is the seeming paradox to be reconciled? Not by retracting either statement. The solution, (verse 18,) is in the fact, that men, in the exercise of their free agency, give opposite receptions to this mission. To those who accept it as it is offered, it brings life. To those who choose to reject it, it is the occasion (not cause) of condemnation. For, (verse 19,) the true cause of this perverted result is the evil choice of the unbelievers, who reject the provision offered in the divine benevolence, from a wicked motive; unwillingness to confess and forsake their sins. The sum of the matter is then: That Christ’s mission is, to the whole race, a manifestation of God’s mercy. To believers it is means of salvation, by reason of that effectual calling which Christ had expounded in the previous verses. To unbelievers it becomes a subsequent and secondary occasion of aggravated doom. This melancholy perversion, while embraced in God’s permissive decree, is caused by their own contumacy. The efficient in the happy result is effectual calling: the efficient in the unhappy result is man’s own evil will. Yet God’s benevolence is cleared, in both results. Both were, of course, foreseen by Him, and included in His purpose.

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology: Second Edition, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], pp. 531-535.)

Robert L. Dabney:

In this historical instance we have these facts: Washington had plenary power to kill or to save alive. His compassion for the criminal was real and profound. Yet he signed his death-warrant with spontaneous decision. The solution is not the least difficult either for philosophy or common sense. Every deliberate rational volition is regulated by the agent’s dominant subjective disposition, and prompted by his own subjective motive. But that motive is a complex, not a simple modification of spirit. The simplest motive of man’s rational volition is a complex of two elements: a desire or propension of some subjective optative power, and a judgment of the intelligence as to the true and preferable. The motive of a single decision may be far more complex than this, involving many intellectual considerations of prudence, or righteous policy, and several distinct and even competing propensions of the optative powers. The resultant volition arises out of a deliberation, in which the prevalent judgment and appetency counterpoise the inferior ones. To return to our instance Washington’s volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned; but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments and propensions of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation. Let us suppose that one of André’s intercessors (and he had them, even among the Americans) standing by, and hearing the commanding general say, as he took up the pen to sign the fatal paper, “I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity,” should have retorted, “Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical.” The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real; but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal; but he had not the sanction of his own wisdom and justice. Thus his pity was genuine, and yet his volition not to indulge it free and sovereign.

(Robert L. Dabney, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy as Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity;” In: Robert L. Dabney, Discussions: Vol I. Theological and Evangelical, [Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890], pp. 285-286.)

6. Matthew 5:43-45. Return to Outline.

Matthew 5:43-45:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love [ἀγαπᾶτε] your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Cornelius Van Til:

Another passage to which we briefly refer is Matthew 5:44, 45. “But I say unto you, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.” In this passage, the disciples of Jesus are told to deny themselves the selfish joy of expressing enmity against those that hate them. They are not to express their attitude of hostility. But this is not all they are to do. They are to replace the attitude of hatred with an attitude of love. He does not know but that this one who now hates him may one day become a believer. This is one factor in the total situation. Yet this is not to be made the only factor. It is not even the expressed reason for his loving his enemy. The one guide for the believer’s action with respect to the enemy is God’s attitude toward that enemy. And the believer is told definitely to love his enemy in imitation of God’s attitude toward that enemy. God’s attitude toward that enemy must therefore in some sense be one of love. It is no doubt the love of an enemy, and, therefore, in God’s case, never the same sort of love as the love toward his children. And to the extent that we know men to be enemies of the Lord, we too cannot love them in the same sense in which we are told to love fellow-believers. God no doubt lets the wheat and the tares grow together till the day of judgment, but even so, though God’s ultimate purpose with unbelievers is their destruction and the promotion of his glory through their destruction, he loves them, in a sense, while they are still kept by himself, through his own free gifts, from fully expressing the wicked principle that is in them.

(Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith: Volume V: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], pp. 242-243.)

John MacArthur:

As we have seen throughout this study, Scripture clearly says that God is love. “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Ps. 145:9). Christ even commands us to love our enemies, and the reason He gives is this: “In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). The clear implication is that in some sense God loves His enemies. He loves both “the evil and the good,” both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in precisely the same sense we are commanded to love our enemies.

In fact, the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31; cf. Lev. 19:18) is a commandment for us to love everyone. We can be certain the scope of this commandment is universal, because Luke 10 records that a lawyer, “wishing to justify himself . . . said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Lk. 10:29)—and Jesus answered with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The point? Even Samaritans, a semi-pagan race who had utterly corrupted Jewish worship and whom the Jews generally detested as enemies of God, were neighbors whom they were commanded to love. In other words, the command to love one’s “neighbor” applies to everyone. This love commanded here is clearly a universal, indiscriminate love.

Consider this: Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law in every respect (Matt. 5:17-18), including this command for universal love. His love for others was surely as far-reaching as His own application of the commandment in Luke 10. Therefore, we can be certain that He loved everyone. He must have loved everyone in order to fulfill the Law. After all, the apostle Paul wrote, “The whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal. 5:14). He reiterates this theme in Romans 13:8: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Therefore, Jesus must have loved His “neighbor.” And since He Himself defined “neighbor” in universal terms, we know that His love while on earth was universal.

Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love? Would God command us to love in a way that He does not? Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than His own? And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Heb 13:8).

(John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God, [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996], pp. 102-104.)

Samuel Rutherford:

…he loves all that he has made; so farre as to give them a being, to conserve them in being as long as he pleaseth…

2. There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all Men and Angels; yea, even his enemies, makes the Sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and raine to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitfull man, whom the Lord abbors; as Chrift teacheth us, Matth. 5.43,44,45,46,47,48, nor doth God miscarry in this love, he desires the eternall being of damned Angels and Men; he sends the Gospel to many Reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forebearance, suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lords generall love fall short of what he willeth to them.

(Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himselfe, [London: Printed by J. D. for Andrew Crooke, 1647], p. 441.)

John Murray:

We must conclude, therefore, that our provisional inference on the basis of Matthew 5:44-48 is borne out by the other passages. The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume 4: Studies In Theology, [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982], p. 132.) Preview.

Matthew Poole:

As your heavenly Father hath a common love, which he extendeth to all mankind, in supplying their necessities, with the light and warmth of the sun, and with the rain; as well as a special love and favour, which he exerciseth only toward those that are good, and members of Christ; so ought you to have: though you are not obliged to take your enemies into your bosom, yet you ought to love them in their order. And as your heavenly Father, though he will one day have a satisfaction from sinners, for the wrong done to his majesty, unless they repent; yet, to heap coals of fire on their heads, gives them good things of common providence, that he might not leave them without witness, yea, and affords then the outward means of grace for their souls: so, although you are bound to seek some satisfaction for God’s honour and glory from flagitious sinners, and though you may in an orderly course seek a moderate satisfaction for the wrong done to yourselves, yet you ought to love them with a love consistent with these things; that so you may imitate your heavenly Father, and approve yourselves to be his children.

(Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], p. 26.)

John Owen:

…the example of his own love and goodness, which are extended unto all, for our imitation, Matt. v. 44, 45. His philanthropy and communicative love, from his own infinite self-fulness, wherewith all creatures, in all places, times, and seasons, are filled and satisfied, as from an immeasurable ocean of goodness, are proposed unto us to direct the exercise of that drop from the divine nature wherewith we are intrusted. “Love your enemies,” saith our Saviour, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

(John Owen, “A Discourse Concerning Christian Love and Peace,” Chapter 2; In: The Works of John Owen: Vol. XV, ed. William H. Goold, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851], pp. 71-72.)

7. Luke 6:35-36. Return to Outline.

Luke 6:35-36:

But love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Murray:

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” pp. 105-106.)

Cornelius Van Til:

When, therefore, we are exhorted to follow God’s example in doing good to our enemies, that is, in giving gifts to them and helping them (Luke 6:35), we are asked to have the same attitude toward them that God has toward them. …if God tells us that, in spite of the wickedness of men, and in spite of the fact that they misuse his gifts for their own greater condemnation, he is longsuffering with them, we need not conclude that there is no sense in which God has a favor to the unbeliever. There is a sense in which God has a disfavor to the believer because, in spite of the new life in him, he sins in the sight of God. So God may have favor to the unbeliever because of the “relative good” that God himself gives him in spite of the principle of sin within him.

(Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith: Volume V: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], pp. 240, 241.)

8. Acts 14:16-17. Return to Outline.

Acts 14:16-17:

In past generations He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Murray:

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” pp. 104-105.)

Millard J. Erickson:

By benevolence we mean God’s concern for the welfare of those whom he loves. He unselfishly seeks our ultimate welfare.

…God’s benevolence, the actual caring and providing for those he loves, is seen in numerous ways. God even cares for and provides for the subhuman creation. The psalmist wrote, “You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing” (Ps. 145:16). Jesus taught that the Father feeds the birds of the air and clothes the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:26, 28). Not a sparrow can fall to the earth without the Father’s will (Matt. 10:29). The principle that God is benevolent in his provision and protection is extended in the latter two passages to his human children as well (Matt. 6:25, 30-33; 10:30-31). While we may tend to take these promises somewhat exclusively to ourselves as believers, the Bible indicates that God is benevolent to the whole human race. He “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). Paul told the Lystrans that God “has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17). God inherently not only feels in a particular positive way toward the objects of his love, but acts for their welfare. Love is an active matter.

(Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology: Third Edition, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013], pp. 262, 264.)

9. Psalm 145:9, 15-16. Return to Outline.

Psalm 145:9:

The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Psalm 145:15-16:

The eyes of all look to You, And You give them their food in due time. You open Your hand And satisfy the desire of every living thing.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Cornelius Van Til:

With respect to the question, then as to whether Scripture actually teaches an attitude of favor, up to a point, on the part of God toward the nonbeliever, we can only intimate that we believe it does. Even when we take full cognizance of the fact that the unbeliever abuses every gift of God and uses it for the greater manifestation of his wickedness, there seems to be evidence in Scripture that God, for this life, has a certain attitude of favor to unbelievers. We may point to such passages as the following: In Psalm 145:9, we are told: “The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works.”

(Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith: Volume V: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], p. 241.)

Cf. Cornelius Van Til:

…the primary meaning of Psalm 145 is again that God’s great favor is toward his people. Even when God gives great gifts to non-believers, they are, in a more basic sense, gifts to believers. Gifts of God to unbelievers help to make the life of believers possible, and in measure, pleasant. But this does not detract from the fact that the unbeliever himself is, in a measure, the recipient of God’s favor. There is a certain joy in the gift of life and its natural blessings for the unbeliever. And we may well think that Psalm 145 has this in mind. Such joy as there is in the life of the unbeliever cannot be found in him after this life is over. Even in the hereafter, the lost will belong to the works of God’s hands. And God no doubt has joy that through the works of evil men and angels, he is establishing his glory. Yet that is not what the psalmist seems to mean. There seems to be certain satisfaction on the part of God even in the temporary joy of the unbeliever as a creature of himself, a joy which will in the end turn to bitterness, but which none the less, is joy while it lasts.

(Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith: Volume V: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], p. 242.)

Thomas Watson:

[6] Even the worst taste God’s mercy; such as fight against God’s mercy, taste of it; the wicked have some crumbs from mercy’s table. ‘The Lord is good to all.’ Psa cxlv 9. Sweet dewdrops are on the thistle, as well as on the rose. The diocese where mercy visits is very large. Pharaoh’s head was crowned though his heart was hardened.

(Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity: Contained in Sermons Upon the Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003], p. 94.)

Andrew Fuller:

…Psal. cxlv. 9, “His tender mercies are over all his works.” …fallen angels were a part of God’s works as well as fallen men. Mr. T. replies by observing that fallen angels were not here intended . . . it may be sufficient to observe, that whether the phrase all his works intends all fallen angels or not, it intends more than that part of God’s works for which Christ died. Is it not evident from the context that it denotes God’s providential goodness towards the whole animate creation? Is it not said of them, in verse 16, that “their eyes wait on him; he openeth his hand and satisfieth the desire of every living thing?”

(Andrew Fuller, “The Reality and Efficacy of Divine Grace, With the Certain Success of Christ’s Kingdom,” Letter XII; In: The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: In Three Volumes: Vol. II, [Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1848], p. 551.)

Cf. Psalm 76:10:

For the wrath of mankind shall praise You; You will encircle Yourself with a remnant of wrath.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Calvin:

Moreover, if it be asked what cause induced him to create all things at first, and now inclines him to preserve them, we shall find that there could be no other cause than his own goodness. …every creature, as the Psalmist reminds us, participating in his mercy. “His tender mercies are over all his works” (Ps. cxlv. 9).

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.5.6; trans. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], p. 72.)

10. Luke 16:25. Return to Outline.

Luke 16:25:

But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Murray:

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 106.)

11. John 3:16. Return to Outline.

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

(New American Standard Bible.)

D. A. Carson:

…it is clear that it is atypical for John to speak of God’s love for the world, but this truth is therefore made to stand out as all the more wonderful. Jews were familiar with the truth that God loved the children of Israel; here God’s love is not restricted by race. Even so, God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big and includes so many people, but because the world is so bad: that is the customary connotation of kosmos (‘world’; cf. notes on 1:9). The world is so wicked that John elsewhere forbids Christians to love it or anything in it (1 Jn. 2:15-17). There is no contradiction between this prohibition and the fact that God does love it. Christians are not to love the world with the selfish love of participation; God loves the world with the self-less, costly love of redemption.

…This dual stance of God is a commonplace of biblical theology. The holy God finds wicked actions to be detestable things (Ezk. 18:10-13), but that does not prevent him from crying out, ‘Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?’ (Ezk. 18:23). The same dual track is found in God’s stance to other nations. Moab, for instance, is so wicked that God’s decree has gone forth: ‘Make her drunk, for she has defied the LORD. Let Moab wallow in her vomit; let her be an object of ridicule. . . . In Moab I will put an end to those who make offerings on the high places and burn incense to their gods. I have broken Moab like a jar that no-one wants. . . . Moab will be destroyed as a nation because she defied the LORD’ (Jer. 48:26, 35, 38, 42). At the same time, the God who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked declares, ‘Therefore I wail over Moab, for all Moab I cry out. . . . So my heart laments for Moab like a flute; it laments like a flute for the men of Kir Hareseth’ (Je. 48:31, 36).

(D. A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, [Nottingham: Apollos, 2006], pp. 205, 205-206.)

Robert L. Dabney:

…if “the world” in verse 16 means “the body of the elect,” then, 1, We have a clear implication, that some of that body may fail to believe and perish; 2, We are required to carry the same sense throughout the passage, for the phrase, “the world”—which is correct; but in verse 19, “the world,” into which the light has come, working with some the alternative result of deeper condemnation, must be taken in the wider sense; 3, A fair logical connection between verse 17 and verse 18 shows that “the world” of verse 17 is inclusive of “him that believeth,” and “him that believeth not,” of verse 18; 4, It is hard to see how, if the tender of Christ’s sacrifice is in no sense a true manifestation of divine benevolence to that part of “the world” which “believeth not,” their choosing to slight it is the just ground of a deeper condemnation, as is expressly stated in verse 19.

John Calvin:

Both points are distinctly stated to us namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

…And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.

(John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Volume First, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847], pp. 123, 125.)

Matthew Poole:

For God the Father, who is the Lord of all, debtor to none, sufficient to himself, so loved the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. There is a great contest about the signification of the term, betwixt those who contend for or against the point of universal redemption; but certain it is, that from this term no more can be solidly concluded, than from the terms all and every, which in multitudes of places are taken in a restrained sense for many, or all of such a nation or kind. As this term sometimes signifies all persons, so, in 1 John ii. 21, the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews. Nor, admitting that the world should signify here every living soul in the place called the world, will any thing follow from it. It is proper enough to say, A man loved such a family to such a degree that he gave his estate to it, though he never intended such a thing to every child or branch of it. So as what is truth in that so vexed a question cannot be determined from any of these universal terms; which must, when all is said that can be said, be expounded by what follows them, and by their reconcilableness to other doctrines of faith. God so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for a sacrifice for their sins, to die in their stead, and give a satisfaction for them to his justice. And this Son was not any of his sons by adoption, but his only begotten Son; not so called (as Socinians would have it) because of his singular generation of the virgin without help of man, but from his eternal generation, in whom the Gentiles should trust, Psal. ii. 12, which none ought to do, but in God alone, Deut. vi. 13; Jer. xvii. 5. That whosoever, &c.: the term all is spoken to above; these words restrain the universal term world, and all, to let us know that Christ only died for some in the world, viz. such as should believe in him. Some judge, not improbably, that Christ useth the term world in this verse in the same sense as in 1 John ii. 2. Our evangelist useth to take down the pride of the Jews, who dreamed that the Messiah came only for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, not for the nations of the world, he only came to destroy them; which notion also very well fitteth what we have in the next verse.

(Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], p. 292.)

John MacArthur:

Look once again at the context of John 3:16. Those who approach this passage determined to suggest that it limits God’s love miss the entire point. There is no delimiting language anywhere in the context. It has nothing to do with how God’s love is distributed between the elect and the rest of the world. It is a statement about God’s demeanor toward mankind in general. It is a declaration of good news, and its point is to say that Christ came into the world on a mission of salvation, not a mission of condemnation: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (v. 17). To turn it around and make it an expression of divine hatred against those whom God does not intervene to save is to turn the passage on its head.

…Some have supposed that the word “world” here, is descriptive, not of mankind generally, but of the whole of a particular class, that portion of mankind who, according to the Divine purpose of mercy, shall ultimately become partakers of the salvation of Christ. But this is to give the term a meaning altogether unwarranted by the usage of Scripture.

…if the word “world” holds the same meaning throughout the immediate context, we see in verse 19 that it cannot refer to the “world of the elect” alone: “this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

(John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God, [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996], pp. 104, 105-106.)

John Brown:

There is another idea to which I wish for a little to turn your attention on this part of the subject. The love in which the economy of salvation originates, is love to the world. “God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son.” The term “world,” is here just equivalent to mankind. It seems to be used by our Lord with a reference to the very limited and exclusive views of the Jews. They thought God loved them, and hated all the other nations of mankind. These were their own feelings, and they foolishly thought that God was altogether such an one as themselves. They accordingly expected that the Messiah was to come to deliver Israel, and to punish and destroy the other nations of the earth. But “God’s ways were not their ways, nor his thoughts their thoughts. As the heavens are high above the earth, so were his ways above their ways, and his thoughts above their thoughts.”

Some have supposed that the word “world” here, is descriptive, not of mankind generally, but of the whole of a particular class, that portion of mankind who, according to the Divine purpose of mercy, shall ultimately become partakers of the salvation of Christ. But this is to give to the term a meaning altogether unwarranted by the usage of Scripture. There can be no doubt in the mind of a person who understands the doctrine of personal election, that those who are actually saved are the objects of a special love on the part of God; and that the oblation of the Saviour had a special design in reference to them. But there can be as little doubt, that the atonement of Christ has a general reference to mankind at large; and that it was intended as a display of love on the part of God to our guilty race. Not merely was the atonement offered by Christ Jesus sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, but it was intended and fitted to remove out of the way of the salvation of sinners generally, every bar which the perfections of the Divine moral character, and the principles of the Divine moral government, presented. Without that atonement, no sinner could have been pardoned in consistency with justice. In consequence of that atonement, every sinner may be, and if he believe in Jesus certainly shall be, pardoned and saved. Through the medium of this atonement, the Divine Being is revealed to sinners, indiscriminately, as gracious and ready to forgive; and the invitations and promises warranting men to confide in Christ for salvation, are addressed to all, and are true and applicable to all without exception or restriction.

The revelation of mercy made in the Gospel, refers to men as sinners, not as elect sinners. Their election, or their non-election, is something of which, when called on to believe the Gospel, they are necessarily entirely ignorant, and with which they have nothing to do. “The kindness and love of God toward man,” the Divine philanthropy, is revealed. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” He appears in the revelation of merey as the God who “has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; who willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” “The grace of God” revealed in the Gospel “brings salvation to all,” without exception, who in the faith of the truth will receive it.

I am persuaded that the doctrine of personal election is very plainly taught in Scripture; but I am equally persuaded that the minister misunderstands that doctrine who finds it, in the least degree, hampering him in presenting a full and a free salvation as the gift of God to every one who hears the Gospel; and that the man abuses the doctrine who finds in it anything which operates as a barrier in the way of his receiving, as a sinner, all the blessings of the christian salvation, in the belief of the truth. Indeed, when rightly understood, it can have no such effect. For what is that doctrine, but just this, in other words,—‘It is absolutely certain that a vast multitude of the race of man shall be saved through Christ?’ And it is as certain, that if any one of those to whom that salvation is offered, remains destitute of it, and perishes eternally, it is entirely owing to his own obstinate refusal of what is freely, honestly, presented to him. The kindness of God, as manifested in the gift of his Son, is kindness to the race of man; and when, as an individual, I credit the kindness of God to man, so strangely displayed, so abundantly proved, I cannot find any reason why I should not depend on this kindness, and expect to be saved even as others.

Whenever a man hesitates about placing his dependence on the mercy of God, because he is not sure whether he be elected or not, he gives clear evidence that he does not yet understand the Gospel. He does not apprehend “the manifestation of the love of God to man.” When he sees God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, “he does not need to ask, Is the plan of .mercy such as I am warranted to embrace? may I not somehow be excluded from availing myself of it? These, and similar suggestions, which draw away his mind from the voice of God to the speculations of his own mind, are no more regarded.” He sees God rich in mercy, ready to forgive; just, and the justifier of the ungodly. He cannot but place his confidence in him. “Jehovah,” as it has been happily said, “by the manifestation of what he has done, especially in sending Christ, and delivering him up, the just in the room of the unjust, pleads his own cause with such subduing pathos, that there is no more power of resistance; but the person, who is the object of the demonstration, yields himself up to the authority and glory of the truth.” The sinner, thus cordially believing the Gospel, gladly and gratefully receives “the Saviour of the world” as his Saviour, and trusts that by the grace of God he shall partake of “the common salvation.”

(John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord Jesus Christ: Complete in Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1864], pp. 49-51.)

B. B. Warfield:

In identifying “the world” with believers, do they not neglect, if we may not quite say the contrast of the two things, yet at least the distinction between the two notions which the text seems to institute? “God so loved the world,” we read, “that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever belie vet h on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Certainly here “the world” and “believers” do not seem to be quite equipollent terms: there seems, surely, something conveyed by the one which is not wholly taken up in the other. How, then, shall we say that “the world” means just “the world of believers,” just those scattered through the world, who, being the elect of God, shall believe in His Son and so have eternal life? There is obviously much truth in this idea: and the main difficulty which it faces may, no doubt, be avoided by saying that what is taught is that God’s love of the world is shown by His saving so great a multitude as He does save out of the world. The wicked world deserved at His hands only total destruction. But He saves out of it a multitude which no man can number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues. How much must, then, God love the world! This interpretation, beyond question, reproduces the fundamental meaning of the text.

…The key to the passage lies, therefore, you see, in the significance of the term “world.” It is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when He gave His Son for it.

(Benjamin B. Warfield, The Saviour of the World: Sermons Preached in the Chapel of Princeton Theological Seminary, [New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913], “God’s Immeasurable Love,” pp. 113-114, 120-121.)

12. Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11. Return to Outline.

Ezekiel 18:23:

Do I take any pleasure [חָפֵץ, ḥāp̄ēṣ] in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?

(New American Standard Bible.)

Ezekiel 18:32:

For I take no pleasure [חָפֵץ, ḥāp̄ēṣ] in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live!”

(New American Standard Bible.)

Ezekiel 33:11:

Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure [חָפֵץ, ḥāp̄ēṣ] at all in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then should you die, house of Israel?’

(New American Standard Bible.)

1 Samuel 2:25:

If one person sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a person sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired [חָפֵץ, ḥāp̄ēṣ] to put them to death.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Norton:

Lastly: God delighteth not in the death of a sinner.

So he testifieth of himself once and again, and to this testimony subscribeth his Name. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, Ezek. 18.23.32. yea to put it out of all controversy, and to clear himself fully in the hearts of all Elect and Reprobate, both men and Angels; he confirmeth this testimony with an Oath, and giveth charge that it be made known to the House of Israel: Say unto them, As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die O House of Israel? Ezek. 33.11.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter IV, p. 73.)

Louis Berkhof:

In the prophecy of Ezekiel we may listen to the voice of the Lord in words that bear testimony to His mercy: ‘Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live?’ And again: ‘For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth (that is, of him that perisheth in his sins), saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves and live ye.’ These passages tell us as clearly as words can tell, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; note, that He does not say: ‘of the elect sinner’ but ‘of the sinner’ entirely in general; and the tender calling we hear therein witnesses of His great love for sinners and of His pleasure in the salvation of the ungodly.

(Louis Berkhof, De Drie Punten in Alle Deelen Gereformeerd (The Three Points in All Parts Reformed), [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1925], p. 21; trans. Herman Hoeksema, A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth, [Hoeksema, 1925], pp. 31-32.) Preview.

J. Gresham Machen:

In the second place, the doctrine of predestination does not mean that God rejoices in the death of a sinner The Bible distinctly says the contrary. Hear that great verse in the thirty-third chapter of Ezekiel: ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’[Ezek. 33:11.]

It may be the same thing that is taught in the First Epistle to Timothy, where it is said: God ‘will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’[1 Tim. 2:4.]

This latter verse cannot possibly mean that God has determined by an act of His will that all men should be saved. As a matter of fact not all men are saved. The Bible makes that abundantly clear; without that all its solemn warnings become a mockery. But if, when as a matter of fact not all men are saved, God had determined that all men should be saved, then that would mean that God’s decree has been defeated and His will overthrown. In that case God would simply cease to be God.

The verse must mean something quite different from that blasphemous thing. That is clear. But what does it mean? I am inclined to think it means very much what that great Ezekiel passage means; I am inclined to think it means simply that God takes pleasure in the salvation of sinners and that He does not take pleasure in the punishment of the unsaved.

Another view has, indeed, been held by some. It has been suggested that the phrase ‘all men’ in this verse in I Timothy means ‘all sorts of men,’ and that the verse is directed against those who limited salvation to the Jews as distinguished from the Gentiles or to the wise as distinguished from the unwise. There is perhaps something to be said for such a view because of the context in which the verse occurs. But I am rather inclined to think that the phrase ‘all men’ is to be taken more strictly, and that the verse means that God takes pleasure in the salvation of the saved, and does not take pleasure in the punishment of those who are lost, so that so far as His pleasure in the thing directly accomplished is concerned He wishes that all men shall be saved.

At any rate, that is clearly the meaning of the Ezekiel passage, whatever may be true of the I Timothy passage; and a very precious truth it is indeed. The punishment of sinners — their just punishment for their sins — does, as we have seen, have a place in the plan of God. But the Bible makes perfectly plain that God does not take pleasure in it for its own sake. It is necessary for high and worthy ends, mysterious though those ends are to us; it has its place in God’s plan. But in itself it is not a thing in which He delights. He is good. He delights not in the death of the wicked but in the salvation of those who are saved by His grace.

(J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man, [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965], pp. 71-73.)

John Piper:

Why would the sons of Eli not heed their father’s good counsel? The answer of the text is “for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.” This makes sense only if the Lord had the right and the power to restrain their disobedience—a right and power that he willed not to use. Thus, we must say that in one sense God willed that the sons of Eli go on doing what he commanded them not to do: dishonoring their father and committing sexual immorality.

Moreover, the word translated as “will” in the clause “it was the will of the Lord to put them to death” is the same Hebrew word (haphez) used in Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11, where God asserts that he does not have pleasure in the death of the wicked. The word signifies desire or pleasure. God (in one sense) desired to put the sons of Eli to death, but (in another sense) he does not desire the death of the wicked. This is a strong warning to us not to take one assertion, such as Ezekiel 18:23, and assume we know the precise meaning without letting other passages, such as 1 Samuel 2:25, have a say. The upshot of putting the two together is that in one sense God may desire the death of the wicked and in another sense he may not.

(John Piper, Does God Desire all to be Saved? [Wheaton: Crossway, 2013], pp. 28-29.)

John Piper:

This way of viewing God’s desire for all to be saved is similarly helpful in understanding texts such as Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11:

I do not have pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. . . . As I live, declares the Lord God, I do not have pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (my translation)

God does not delight in the death of the wicked. Yet we read in Deuteronomy 28:63, as God foresees his coming judgment on his sinful people, “As the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you” (Deut. 28:63).

Rather than impugn the Scriptures with contradiction, I think we should humbly impute to God complexity. These texts say that in some sense, or at some level, God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but in their salvation; and in another sense, or at another level, he does delight in their destruction. God does not disapprove of the wisdom and justice of his judgments on the wicked. In fact, the day will come when he will summon all of heaven to rejoice that judgment upon the wicked has come (Rev. 18:20; cf. Ps. 48:11; 58:10; 96:11–13; Rev. 19:1–3).

What I learn, therefore, from these texts is that there is a genuine inclination in God’s heart to spare those who have committed treason against his kingdom. But his motivation is complex. Not every true element in it rises to the level of effective choice. In his great and mysterious heart, there are kinds of real longings and desires—they tell us something true about his character. Yet not all of his desires govern God’s actions. He is governed by the depth of his wisdom through a plan that no ordinary human deliberation would ever conceive (Rom. 11:33–36; 1 Cor. 2:9). There are holy and just reasons for why the affections of God’s heart have the nature and intensity and proportion that they do.

These texts (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4) show us that God loves the world with an authentic compassion that desires their salvation. But this does not contradict or nullify what we see in this chapter—that saving faith is a free gift of grace, and God decided before the foundation of the world which traitors would be spared.

(John Piper, Providence, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 548-549.)

Robert Letham:

Sometimes the will of God is expressed as a desire that this or that take place, even though the desired outcome does not occur. Two examples will suffice. Ezekiel 18:30-32 says:

Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; SO turn, and live.

Despite Yahweh’s deep desire that the house of Israel should repent and live, they remained obstinate in their unbelief, and Jerusalem was soon overthrown.

Again, 2 Peter 3:9 declares, “The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness, but he is patient toward you, not willing that anyone perish but that all reach repentance” (my trans.). This expresses the overall desire of God that all people be saved. Evidently not all will be saved. According to Paul’s argument in Ephesians 1:11, this outcome has been planned by God. Yet he derives no pleasure in anyone perishing. Indeed, the statement here in 2 Peter is held out as an example of what we are to do on our part (2 Pet. 3:11-12).

(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 5.6.3, p. 171.)

Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley:

The free offer of the gospel expresses God’s sincere desire for sinners to repent and be saved. Another relevant meaning of the word offer is “to declare one’s readiness or willingness.” The Word reveals the goodness of God to all people. God “is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” because of his “merciful” character (Luke 6:35-36; cf. Matt. 5:44-48). When the gospel comes to people, he expresses his good desires for them in saying, “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” (Deut. 5:29).

In Ezekiel 18:23, we read, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” The words “have I any pleasure at all” render a grammatical construction that repeats the same Hebrew root for emphasis. Calvin said, “God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. . . . And this is the knowledge of salvation, to embrace his mercy which he offers us in Christ.” This is a revelation of the heart of God. Johannes Polyander said, “The impelling cause [of the gospel call], whereby God is moved internally by himself, is God’s grace, his good pleasure and favorably-inclined will to offer, in Christ, his salvation to wretched sinners.”

Does this teaching overthrow the Reformed doctrine of election? Herman Hoeksema said that to teach a “general love of God and desire to save sinners” is “Arminianism and Pelagianism.” There is some tension in the Bible at this point, but no surrender of the doctrines of sovereign grace. In one sense, God desires all men to repent. In another sense, he desires to punish the wicked, and he sometimes gives them up to a hard and unrepentant heart. When Eli corrected his wicked sons, the Scriptures say that they did not listen and repent “because the Lord would slay them” (1 Sam. 2:25). Literally the verse says the Lord “was pleased to cause them to die,” using the same verb translated as “please” (khapets) as is used in Ezekiel 18:23.

Therefore, one text says that God is not pleased that sinners do not repent and so die; another text says that some sinners did not repent because God was pleased that they should die. How can we understand both of these texts together?

The answer lies in the manifold and complex display of God’s goodness to fallen sinners. God’s gracious character shows itself in his goodness and compassion to all his creation (Ps. 145:8-9). Therefore, he calls all who hear the gospel to repent and live, and desires that they do so. As John Murray said, “The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God.” However, God is also the sovereign and righteous King (vv. 13, 17). He is free to work as he sees fit (115:3) and always works consistently with his righteousness (33:4-5). The same goodness by which he delights in mercy (Mic. 7:18) is that by which he delights in justice (Jer. 9:24). In his sovereign freedom, he has chosen to be good to all people in temporal blessings, to graciously call many people to eternal joy, and to actually save only some (Matt. 22:14). He is patient and good to many in this life whom he has destined for destruction for their sins (Rom. 2:4-5; 9:22). This is the doctrine of reprobation.

(Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Volume 3: Spirit and Salvation, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2021], pp. 301-303.)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

13. Luke 19:41-42, Matthew 23:37. Return to Outline.

Luke 19:41-42:

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Matthew 23:37:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Cornelius Van Til:

So also ought we to think of what is often called the universal well-meant offer of salvation. We know that there are those whom God, in his secret counsel does not intend to save. Of those round about us, we do not always know who are saved and who are not. In a sense, therefore, our ignorance accounts for the necessity of using a general formula in preaching the gospel. Yet this is not the only reason why Christ wept over Jerusalem, over Jerusalem which he knew would, for the most part, reject him. So God calls those whom he knows will harden their hearts. He labored with Pharaoh to let his people go before the final time of destruction should come. Yet he had raised up Pharaoh for that final destruction. It is the duty of men to repent, as it was originally their duty not to sin. It is always the duty of man to obey the voice of God. The call to repentance that unbelievers receive will add to their judgment because they do not heed it. But to be able to add to their judgment, it must have had a real meaning in their case. To say this is not to fall into individualistic Arminianism. Those who have not heard the call of redemption will be judged because they are sinners in Adam and with Adam. Yet those who have heard the call and have not accepted it will receive the greater damnation. Thus, there must be a genuine meaning in the call that comes to them. It is only if we really think analogically or concretely of the attributes of God that we can thus do justice to all the aspects of Scripture truth.

(Cornelius Van Til, In Defense of the Faith: Volume V: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974], p. 243.)

Joel Beeke, Paul M. Smalley:

The combination of human responsibility, divine sovereignty, and the free offer of the gospel appears most beautifully in Jesus Christ, the perfect Image of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said of the Jews in Jerusalem who would soon kill him, “How often would I have gathered [you] together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Matt. 23:37). Both occurrences of “would” translate the same Greek verb (thelō), which means to desire, to will, or to decide. Christ was willing, but they were not willing.

Again, Christ said to a group of Jews, “These things I say, that ye might be saved” (John 5:34). The grammatical syntax (hina plus a subjunctive verb) indicates purpose. Hence, the Son of God made known his desire and the intention behind the message he communicated: that those who heard him would come to him by faith and have eternal life (v. 24)—though they were not willing to do so (v. 40). Christ’s words clarify matters for everyone who hears the gospel. Jesus wants them to be saved by faith in him; if they are unsaved, it is because of their unwillingness to come to him.

Similarly, in Matthew 11 we hear that Christ condemned the cities of Galilee for their rejection of the gospel and called everyone who was burdened to come to him and find rest (Matt. 11:20–24, 28–30). Yet sandwiched between these declarations of human responsibility and the free offer, we read that God has hidden the truth from some people according to his good pleasure, and that no one can know the Father except those to whom Christ chooses to reveal him (vv. 25–27). The Lord Jesus shows us that man’s responsibility for his sins, God’s sovereignty in saving whom he chooses, and the free offer of the gospel belong together.

(Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Volume 3: Spirit and Salvation, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2021], p. 304..)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

14. 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Return to Outline.

1 Timothy 2:3-4:

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Matthew Poole:

…we must understand it, not with respect to his decretive will, but his complacential will, that is, the repentance and life of a sinner is very pleasing to his holiness and mercy.

(Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], p. 777.)

William B. Barcley:

The phrase ‘all people’ in verse 4 picks up the same phrase in verse 1 and frames the current discussion for us.

(William B. Barcley, A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, [Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2005], p. 80.)

Cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-2:

First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made in behalf of all people, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

(New American Standard Bible.)

St. John Chrysostom:

But some one perhaps will say, he meant not for all men, but for all the faithful. How then does he speak of kings? for kings were not then worshipers of God, for there was a long succession of ungodly princes. And that he might not seem to flatter them, he says first, “for all men,” then “for kings”; for if he had only mentioned kings, that might have been suspected.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 6; trans. NPNF1, 13:426.) See also: ccel.org.

Matthew Poole:

The apostle produces a clear, convincing reason, that the duty of charity in praying for all men is pleasing to God, from his love extended to all, in his willing their salvation, and their knowledge and belief of the gospel, which is the only way of salvation. From hence our Saviour’s commission and command to the apostles was universal: Go and teach all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19; Preach the gospel to every creature, that is, to every man, Mark xvi. 15; he excludes no people, no person. And accordingly the apostles discharged their office to their utmost capacity, Col. i. 24. But a question arises, how it can be said that God would have all men saved, when that the most of men perish? For the resolving this difficulty, we must observe, that in the style of Scripture the will of God sometimes signifies his eternal counsel and decree; that things should be done either by his immediate efficiency, or by the intervention of means: or, secondly, his commands and invitations to men to do such things as are pleasing to him. The will of God in the first sense always infallibly obtains its effect, Psal. cxv. 3; thus he declares: My counsel shall stand, I will do all my pleasure, Isa. xlvi. 10; for otherwise there must be a change of God’s will and counsel, or a defect of power, both which assertions are impious blasphemy. But those things which he commands and are pleasing to him, are often not performed without any reflection upon him, either as mutable or impotent. Thus he declares, that he wills things that are pleasing to him; as, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn and live, Eze. xxxiii. 11; and sometimes that he will not those things that are displeasing to him, as contrary to holiness, though he did not decree the hindering of them: thus he complains in Isa. lxv. 12; Ye did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. This distinction of the Divine will being clearly set down in Scripture, answers the objection; for when it is said in the text, that God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and in the same sense by St. Peter, that God will have none perish, but come to repentance, 2 Pet. iii. 9; we must understand it, not with respect to his decretive will, but his complacential will, that is, the repentance and life of a sinner is very pleasing to his holiness and mercy. And this love of God to men has been declared in opening the way of salvation to them by the Mediator, and by all the instructions, invitations, commands, and promises of the gospel, assuring them that whoever comes to Christ upon the terms of the gospel shall in no wise be cast off; that no repenting believer shall be excluded from saving mercy.

(Matthew Poole, Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], p. 777.)

David Platt:

… God has both a decreed will and a declared will. His decreed will involves what He ordains to take place in the world, while His declared will includes what He commands and makes known in His Word. An illustration may be helpful at this point.

Let’s assume, for the sake of illustration, that I am going to lie to someone tomorrow. Question: Is my lying to this person in the will of God? Well, no, not in the sense of God’s declared will. He has said clearly, “Do not lie” (Lev 19:11 NIV; Col 3:9), so I would be disobeying God’s will. At the same time my lie does not catch God by surprise (Ps 139:4). He’s not going to say, “Whoa, I didn’t see that coming.” Everything I do is ultimately under the sovereignty of His decreed will so in that sense my lying is actually in His will. God is sovereign, even over the worst things in this world, though He Himself never sins or does evil.

Putting together our responsibility and God’s sovereignty is not easy to understand, but we have to affirm the things Scripture makes clear. God said, “Do not murder” (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17). That’s His declared will. Yet He was sovereign over the murder of His Son on a cross (Isa 53:10; Acts 2:23). God knew it was going to happen, and He ordained it to happen. There’s certainly mystery here, but know this: God’s decreed will cannot be thwarted (Dan 4:35).

So we’ve seen that God’s desire for all to be saved does not lead to universalism, and it does not mean He’s not in control of all things; however, this does mean God loves all people. It is clear from 1 Timothy 2:3-4 that God loves all people and He desires their salvation. We find this in other passages as well. Second Peter 3:9 says that the Lord “is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.” Or listen to God’s Word to the prophet Ezekiel:

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways! Why will you die, house of Israel? (Ezek 33:11)

(David Platt, Exalting Jesus in 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, [Nashville: Holman Reference, 2013], p. 28.)

Walter L. Liefeld:

This passage is not dealing with questions of election or universalism, but it does bring such matters to mind. What God wants is that all people be saved. This is not the same as willing them into salvation regardless of whether they respond positively or not to Jesus, which would be contrary to the whole direction of Scripture on the need for personal response.

(Walter L. Liefeld, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, [Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1999], p. 86.)

John Frame:

The real barrier to taking 1 Timothy 2:4 in a way similar to the other passages we have discussed is not verses 1-2, but verses 5-6:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 16: God’s Attributes: Power, Will.)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

14.1. 1 Timothy 4:10. Return to Outline.

1 Timothy 4:10:

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior [σωτὴρ] of all mankind, especially of believers.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Calvin:

Who is the Saviour. This is the second consolation, though it depends on the former; for the deliverance of which he speaks may be viewed as the fruit of hope. To make this more clear, it ought to be understood that this is an argument drawn from the less to the greater; for the word σωτὴρ is here a general term, and denotes one who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him? Will he not take peculiar care in them? Will he not more freely pour out his bounty on them? In a word, will he not, in every respect, keep them safe to the end?

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1856], on 1 Timothy 4:10, pp. 111-112.)

John Calvin:

“The word Saviour is not here taken in what we call its proper and strict meaning, in regard to the eternal salvation which God promises to his elect, but it is taken for one who delivers and protects. Thus we see that even unbelievers are protected by God, as it is said (Matt. v. 45) that “he maketh his sun to shine on the good and the bad;” and we see that all are fed by his goodness, that all are delivered from many dangers. In this sense he is called “the Saviour of all men;” not in regard to the spiritual salvation of their souls, but because he supports all his creatures. In this way, therefore, our Lord is the Saviour of all men; that is, his goodness extends to the most wicked, who are estranged from him, and who do not deserve to have any intercourse with him, who ought to have been struck off from the number of the creatures of God and destroyed; and yet we see how God hitherto extends his grace to them; for the life which he gives to them is a testimony of his goodness. Since, therefore, God shows such favour towards those who are strangers to him, how shall it be with us who are members of his household? Not that we are better or more excellent than those whom we see to be cast off by him, but the whole proceeds from his mercy and free grace, that he is reconciled to us through our Lord Jesus Christ, since he hath called us to the knowledge of the gospel, and then confirms us, and seals his bounty toward us, so that we ought to be convinced that he reckons us to be his children. Since, therefore, we see that he nourishes those who are estranged from him, let us go and hide ourselves under his wings; for, having taken us under his protection, he has declared that he will show himself to be a Father toward us.”—Fr. Ser.

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1856], on 1 Timothy 4:10, fn. 2, pp. 111-112.)

Matthew Henry:

…he is the Saviour of all men.

(1.) By his providences he protects the persons, and prolongs the lives, of the children of men.

(2.) He has a general good-will to the eternal salvation of all men thus far, that he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He desires not the death of sinners; he is thus far the Saviour of all men, that none are left in the same desperate condition that fallen angels are in. Now if he be thus the Saviour of all men, we may hence infer, that much more he will be the Rewarder of those who seek and serve him; if he has such a good-will for all his creatures, much more will he provide well for those who are new creatures, who are born again. He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe; and the salvation he has in store for those that believe, is sufficient to recompense them for all their services and sufferings.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. V, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856], on 1 Timothy 4:10, p. 556.)

15. 2 Peter 3:9. Return to Outline.

2 Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Calvin:

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen, [Edinburgh Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1855], on 2 Peter 3:9, pp. 419-420.)

John Frame:

(John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief, [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2013], Chapter 16: God’s Attributes: Power, Will.)

Note: See further: The Will(s) of God.

16. Romans 2:4-5. Return to Outline.

Romans 2:4-5:

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

(New American Standard Bible.)

John MacArthur:

The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners. According to Paul, for example, the knowledge of divine goodness and forbearance and patience ought to lead sinners to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Yet the apostle acknowledged that many who are the recipients of these expressions of divine love spurn them and thereby store up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath (v. 5). The hardness of the sinful human heart is the only reason people persist in their sin, despite God’s goodness to them. Is God therefore insincere when He pours forth mercies calling them to repentance? And how can anyone conclude that God’s real attitude toward those who reject His mercies is nothing but sheer hatred?

(John MacArthur, Jr., The Love of God, [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996], p. 14.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Monday, May 31, 2021

Love of God (Extends Over All Creation, Including the Reprobate)

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)