Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on John 17:9

9, 10. It is out of special Love to them, for the Salvation and welfare of these, that I now pray to thee, and not for the mere Worldlings and Enemies of thy Kingdom, (though for them also I have such desires and Prayers as signifie my common Love; and the Elect among them yet unconverted, I have such requests for, as are suited to their state.) But these that thou hast give me peremptorily to save, are the People of thy peculiar Love as well as mine. And all that I so love thou lovest also, and it is in them that I am glorified, and my Person, Office and Grace is honoured, which others do but swinishly despise.

Richard Baxter, “The Gospel According to St. John,” in A Paraphrase on the New Testament (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), F1^v. See also Richard Baxter on Christ's prayer in John 17.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on Christ’s Prayer in John 17

The fourth Crimination.

C. “They make Christ to die for those that he would not pray for, Joh. 17. ‘I pray not for the world, but for those that thou hast given me out of the world’”---

B. He maketh himself to die for them. It is ofter and plainer said that he died for all, than it is, that he prayed not for all. And many plain Texts, yea the scope of the Gospel, must not be reduced to your feigned sense of one obscurer Text.

2. But doth not the Text tell us, that he died not for the world, as it tells us, that he prayed not for them? Or doth it tell us, that he died for no more than he prayed for? Or rather are not these your own Inventions?

3. But where doth the Text say, that Christ never prayed for any but the Elect? yea, or that he prayed not at all for the world, though he put not up that particular prayer for the world? Look on the Text, and you will see that he speaketh there only of the Disciples that followed him on Earth; And that he prayed not in that Petition for all his Elect only; And therefore he after addeth, vers. 20. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word. And what was the prayer?  [That they may be one, and kept from the evil of the world,] which is a blessing peculiar to his Disciples. But it is manifest, that Christ had other prayers for the world, even for many ungodly men; yea, for Reprobates. For, 1. On the Cross he prayeth for his Persecutors, Father, forgive them: And it is mens own invention to say that he meaneth none but the Elect: We must not unnecessarily limit where the Word limiteth not. And Stephen made Christ his Pattern. And it is gross fiction to say that Stephen prayed for none but the Elect.

C. “Doth not Christ say, That his Father heard him always? and can you imagine that he prayed for that which God denied him?”

B. 2. My next Answer should have prevented that Objection, which is, that what God giveth to the World for Christ’s sake, that Christ may well be said to pray for; For it is the fruit of his Mediation. But God giveth much Pardon, and many Mercies to the World, for Christ’s sake. 1. He giveth them much Actual pardon for temporal punishments for Christ’s sake. All the Life, Health, Time, Gospel, Means and Mercies, which ever he giveth them, are such as deserved full punishment would have deprived them of: And therefore they are all acts of executive pardon of that punishment.

3. And this very Chapter containeth a prayer for the World, viz. vers. 21, 23. That the World may believe, and know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them.--- If you say that by the World here is meant only the Elect; I answer, 1. Your word is no Proof. 2. That they are prayed for, to believe and know, &c. is no proof: For many did believe that God sent Christ that yet were not saved. This soundeth but as a common Act of Faith. 3. And note, that here the world is contradistinguished, not only from Apostles, but those (after-mentioned) that should believe by their word; and it is prayed, That the world may know that God loveth those that believe in him: which may extend both to the Conversion of such as then are unconverted, and to the conviction of others, such as are common members of the visible Church (at least): As the Spirit is sent to convince the world of Sin, and Righteousness, and Judgment.

4. And it is not to be granted you without proof, that by the World is meant all Reprobates as such: For Judas is before distinguished from the World (as one given to Christ) when yet he was a Reprobate: But either it may be the World of present Unbelievers, whom Christ prayeth for else-where, though not there: Or the World of final professed Infidels and Enemies of the Church, as distinct from both Elect and Reprobate in the Church. And several expressions of Christ’s before of the Worlds hating and persecuting his Apostles, seem not applicable to every Hypocrite, who prophesieth and casteth out of Devils in his Name, and perhaps suffereth for his Truth, and excellently defendeth it, and hath some love to Believers.

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), Book II, 68–69.

9, 10. It is out of special Love to them, for the Salvation and welfare of these, that I now pray to thee, and not for the mere Worldlings and Enemies of thy Kingdom, (though for them also I have such desires and Prayers as signifie my common Love; and the Elect among them yet unconverted, I have such requests for, as are suited to their state.) But these that thou hast give me peremptorily to save, are the People of thy peculiar Love as well as mine. And all that I so love thou lovest also, and it is in them that I am glorified, and my Person, Office and Grace is honoured, which others do but swinishly despise.

Richard Baxter, “The Gospel According to St. John,” in A Paraphrase on the New Testament (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), F1^v.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Nathanael Homes (1599–1678) on Christ's Universal Satisfaction

CHAP. VII.

Until men come to Christ by faith, they have not actually any saving benefit by Christ's death. Where is stated and discussed the Question about Universal Redemption, of the true intent and extent thereof.

To further clear our in-being in Christ, this Question must be handled. Two extremes of Opinions there are about the extent and intent of Christ's death and satisfaction, that widen the difference. Which we shall now speak to (as God shall assist) for the clearing of the point in hand; and I shall not be wholly singular, but keep company with some late learned. The one extreme of opinion extendeth and violently stretcheth the death and satisfaction of Christ so much too far, as that it thinks that thereby God for his part is actually reconciled to all men, and doth really discharge every man diving [sic] from all his sins, and that before faith comes. Only they confess, that they for their parts perceive not that benefit by it, whilst they have no faith to believe, that God doth so love them. Now from this extreme Opinion it would follow, that God should be actually reconciled to man before he did put on Christ; And that God should forgive a man's sins (which is justification) before he believed. Whereas the very elect themselves before their effectual calling are said to be a people not beloved, Rom. 9.25. And whilest they are without Christ to be without hope; as we heard afore out of Eph. 2.12.

The other extreme opinion contracteth the riches of Christ's satisfaction into too narrow a compass, as if none had any interest any way therein, but such as were elected from the foundation of the world, though by the Gospel every one be charged to receive the same. Now from this extreme it would follow, that a man under the Gospel should be bound in conscience to believe that which is untrue, and charged to take and receive that with which he hath nothing to do, namely, to believe, and take Christ as dying for him, when as Christ did not die for him; nor did he belong to Christ in that respect, according to their Opinion.

Some to take away this difficulty, answer thus. That it follows only from this Argument, that some under the Gospel are bound to believe an impossible thing. Answ. This solves not the knot. For, 1. I ask, will God condemn a soul for not believing that which is impossible to be had? 2. Why, say I, is it impossible for them to have Christ, but because as these men say, Christ never Intended, or extended his death so far?

Others answer to this difficulty thus. That they under the Gospel that shall never have Christ, are not bound by the voice of the Gospel to believe that Christ died for them; nor are they condemned for not believing that Christ died for them.

Answ. The contrary seems to be evident, John 3.16. God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes IN HIM should not perish. Greek, INTO HIM. And v. 18. He that believes on him, Gr. INTO HIM, is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed IN (Gr. INTO) the name of the only begotten Son of God. See how God, 1. propounds his Son more generally, as sent to the WORLD, and as it is in v. 17. He sent not his Son into the WORLD to condemn the world, but that the WORLD might be saved. Then, 2. requires men particularly to believe IN or INTO his Son: as HE that believes in him, &c. Therefore to avoid both these rocks, the word of truth, by which faith is begotten, Eph. 1.13. must be sought into, to find a middle way, wherein to go safely, and not to split against either of the said two rocks of absurdities.

For the better and readier finding out this middle and safer way, we must be careful in the business of our redemption, clearly to distinguish between the satisfaction of Christ, absolutely considered, and the application of the same relatively to men in particular. The differences as, 1. That satisfaction absolutely considered, was once, and at once done for All; but the application of it to man, is still in doing. 2. Satisfaction absolutely considered, bringeth with it sufficiency to discharge all men's whole debt; The application of it adds unto it efficiency to make it effectual. 3. The satisfaction of Christ makes the sins of mankind only pardonable, fit for pardon, else God's Justice could not put up the wrong done to him by sin. The particular application maketh the sins of those to whom it is applied to be pardoned, actually and solemnly to be acquitted by pardon. So that in sum thus. Though all sins of all men are mortal in regard of the stipend due to them by the Law; yet all do not actually bring forth eternal death; because the gracious promise of the Gospel holding forth Christ, inhibits, supercedes, and stays the execution. So that all the sins of mankind are become venial in respect of the price paid by Christ unto his Father; so that in showing mercy to all, if such were his pleasure, his Justice should be no loser. But all do not obtain actual remission of sin, because most offenders do not take out, nor plead their pardon, as they ought to do, Ezek. 36. For all this will I be sought unto. And Isa. 55. Call upon the Lord while he is near: and then it follows, He will abundantly pardon. If Christ had not assumed our nature, and therein made satisfaction for the injury offered by us to God, God would not have come to a Treaty of peace with us, (as it is said, Isa. 1. Come now let us reason together,) no more then with the fallen Angels, whose nature his Son Christ did not assume, Heb. 2. and so were finally rejected. But this way being made through the flesh of Christ (as the Apostle speaks, Heb. 10.20.) God holdeth out unto men the golden Scepter of his Gospel; and thereby not only signifieth his pleasure of admitting them tin to his presence; and accepting their submission (which is a wonderful grace, and favour) but also sendeth an embassage unto them, entreating them that they would be reconciled unto him, 2 Cor. 5:20.

Hence is inferred against the first extremity of opinion (of which see before) that by virtue of Christ's satisfaction in our nature, God is made appeasable unto our nature; but is not actually appeased towards any man's person, until he hath received his Son, and put on him the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hence also is inferred against the second extremity of opinion (of which afore) that all may be said to have a common interest in the merits of Christ: howsoever all do not enjoy the benefit thereof, because they do not take it. The well-spring of life is set open to all, freely, Rev. 22.17. Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. But many fetch not, having nothing to draw with, and the Well is deep. Faith is the only vessel whereby we are to draw all virtue from Christ; and that is to be fetched from the hearing of the word of truth, the Gospel of our salvation, Eph. 1.13. Rom. 10. which holdeth forth this bottom for every one to build his faith upon, thus.

What Christ hath provided for me, and the Gospel offers me, that I ought with all thankfulness to accept, and apply to my comfort. But Christ by his death, and obedience, hath provided a sufficient remedy for the taking away of sin, and the Gospel offereth it. Therefore I ought to accept it, and apply it to the comfort of mine own soul.

Now many hearing this Gospel of salvation, do either not regard it, or not believe it; or if in a sort believe it, that is the truth of it, yet embrace it not; but are so wedded to their sins, that they have no desire to be divorced from them: and therefore neglect the taking to themselves, and applying to their own souls this gracious offer made unto them.

Notwithstanding which neglect of their parts, we may truly say, [That good things were provided for them on Christ's part,] and that a rich price was put into the hand of a fool, howsoever he had no heart to use it, Prov. 17.16. Our Saviour by that which he performed on his part hath procured a Jubilee for all the sons of Adam, Luke 4. 18, 19. And the Gospel is the trumpet whereby he doth proclaim liberty to the Captives, and preacheth the acceptable year of the Lord. If (as Lev. 25.24. Exod. 21.5. Deut. 15.16.) for all this some are so well pleased with their captivity, that they desire no deliverance; this derogateth nothing from the generality of the freedom annexed unto that YEAR. If one say to his sin, or love of the world, his old Master, I love thee, I will not depart from thee, I will not go out free, then he shall be (as the servants so saying in the aforesaid texts) bored in the ear for a slave; and serve for ever. But that slavish disposition of his, maketh the extent of the priviledge of that year not a whit the straighter; because he was included within the general grant as well as others, howsoever he was not disposed to take the benefit of it. The King of heaven (saith our Saviour, Mat. 22.2.) is like unto a certain King that made a marriage, that is, a marriage-feast, as the Syriac משתותא signifies) for his Son, and sent forth his Servants to those that were bidden to that marriage feast with this message, [Behold I have prepared my dinner, my oxen, and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come to the wedding, v. 4.] But if we look to the event, They which were bidden made light of the invitation, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise, v. 5. yet this neglect of theirs doth nothing [to] falsify the word of the King, which we have in v. 4. namely, That the dinner was prepared, and those unworthy guests were bidden thereunto. For (saith the Apostle, Rom 3.4.) What if some did not believe? shall their unbelief disanul the faith and truth of God? God forbid. Yea let God be true, and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou judgest. Just as the Lord speaketh by the Prophet, (Ezek. 18. 29, 30.) Let not the house of Israel say, the way of the Lord is not equal. For when he cometh to judge them every one according to his ways, Ezek. 33. 20. the inequality of the way will be found on their sides, not on his, Oh house of Israel, are not my ways equal; or are not your ways unequal, saith the Lord. So in that Ezek. 18. The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. Psal. 145.17. All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth. Psal. 25.10. When we were in our sins, it was his infinite mercy, that any remedy should be provided, for our recovery. And when the medicine is prepared, we are never the nigher to actual salvation, unless he be pleased out of his free mercy to apply the same unto us; that for the whole praise of our redemption from the beginning to the end, may be entirely attributed to the riches of his mercy, and nothing may be left to sinful flesh wherein to glory. The freeing of the people of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon, (Isa. 45.1, &c.) was a type of Christ's great[?] deliverance of us wrought by him. Cyrus King of Persia (who was Christus Domini, the Christ, or the annointed of God, and herein but a type or shadow of him that is Christus Dominus, Christ the Lord, the author of our redemption), publishes his general proclamation in this manner, [Who is there among you of all the people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. 1 Chron. 25.33] Now it is true that they alone did follow this calling, whose spirit God had moved to go up, Ezra 1.5. But could they therefore, that remained still behind in Babylon (1 Chron. 4.23.) justly plead that the Kings Grant was not large enough? or that they were excluded from going up, by any clause contained therein? Just so the matter of our redemption purchased by our Saviour Christ, lieth open to all, all are invited to it, none that hath mind to accept it, is excluded from it. The beautiful feet of them that bring glad tidings of the Gospel of peace, do bring good news of great joy into every house wherein they tread, (Luke 1.79. Luke 10.5. Rom. 10.15.) The first part of their message being this, Peace be to this house. But unless God be pleased out of the abundance of his mercy to guide our feet into the way of peace, the rebellion of our nature is such, and so great, we run headlong into the ways of destruction and misery, and the ways of peace we do not know, Rom. 3. 16, 17. They have not all obeyed the Gospel, said the Apostle, Rom. 10.16. All are not apt to entertain the message of peace. And therefore though God's Embassadors make a true tender thereof to all to whom they are sent, yet the peace rested only upon the sons of peace. But if they meet with such as will not listen to this motion, their peace doth return again unto themselves, Luke 10.6. The proclamation of the Gospel, Rev. 22.17. runs thus: Let him that is athirst come. For him this peace especially is provided, because none but he will take the pains to come. But lest we should think this did any way abridge the largeness of that offer, a Quicunque vult is added in these words, And whosoever will, let him come and take of the waters of life freely. Yet withal, we must hold this, That it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure, Phil. 2.13. And though the call be never so loud, and so large, yet no man can come effectually, except God the Father draw him: as it is, John 6.44. For the universality of the satisfaction, nothing derogateth from the necessity of God's special grace in the application of it. Neither doth this specialty of grace in the application any whit abbrogate the generality of the satisfaction.

And therefore when men urge that argument out of John 17.9. Christ PRAYED not for the world, therefore he PAID not for the world; there are many considerable things may be replied unto.

For the consequence may be excepted against upon many good reasons. For though Christ did not pray for the world, yet he might pay for the world. Because this paying is a more general or common act, of satisfaction; his praying a more special and choice act of intercession: so that though both acts agree in this, that they be acts of Christ's Priesthood, yet in other respects are widely distinguishable. 1. Paying, that is, giving satisfaction, doth properly give content to God's Justice (as hath been shewed;) Praying, that is, intercession, doth solicite God's mercy. 2. This paying satisfaction containeth a preparation of the plaister of potion necessary for man's salvation; But praying by way of intercession, is the means of application of that remedy to the malady. 3. The paying satisfaction belongs to the common nature of mankind which Christ assumeth: when as praying intercession is a special priviledge vouchsafed to such particular persons only as the Father hath given to his Son Christ.

And therefore I think we may safely conclude from all these premises, That the Lamb of God offering up himself (cloathed with human nature) a sacrifice for the sins of the world, intended by giving satisfaction sufficiently to God's Justice, to make the nature of man (which he assumed) saveable, a fit subject for mercy, and to prepare a sovereign medicine for the sins of the whole world, which should be denied to none that mind to take the benefit thereof; howsoever he intended not, by applying this all-sufficient sacrifice, or satisfaction to every one in particular, to make it effectual unto the salvation of all, or to procure thereby, at the hands of the Father, actual pardon for the sins of the whole world. He applies this only effectually to them who making claim to the satisfaction, by promise, suing for the spirit and faith upon other promises, in prayer waiting for a gracious return until they have it. So that in one respect Christ may be said to die for all; and in another respect, not to die for all. Yet so as in respect of his merit, he may be accounted a kind of universal cause of the restoring of our nature, as Adam was the depraving of it. So that, to conclude, as far as I can discern, one did curiously hit the nail on the head, when he determined this matter on this wise.[See note below] The death of Christ is as it were a certain universal cause of salvation; as the sin of the first man was as it were a universal cause of damnation. But an universal cause must be applied to every one in special, that he may partake of the effect of the universal cause. The effect of the sin of the first man came upon every man by the original of corrupt flesh; and the effect of Christ's death reacheth to every one (whom it reacheth) by spiritual regeneration, by which, man is after a sort conjoined and incorporated to Christ. So he. We will only add this. That as the sin of Adam was an universal cause of eternal death unto mankind in general; but not to every particular man, unless original corruption were derived to him, as Christ's human nature in the very conception was exempted. So the satisfaction of Christ's death is for all mankind, but is not effectual to any particular man but to him to whom Christ's grace is derived.

Upon all it follows, That though the fallen Angels have no encouragement at all to hearken to the Gospel, there being nothing at all for them: yet all men to whom the Gospel shall come, have much encouragement to hearken to it, in this, That Christ took upon him the common nature of mankind, made it saveable, brought it nearer to salvation then the nature of lapsed Angels. And more particularly that it is said indefinitely, Christ died for sinners, for ungodly, for enemies. And yet more particularly in the Text; that him that cometh to him, he will in no wise cast out. I say they have encouragement to attend to the Gospel, there to find an effectual testimony of Christ's dying for them, by drawing them to believe it; and not to stand off, or fall on, upon notions of their own (of Christ dying FOR ALL, or if not for ALL, then NOT FOR ME) before we consult with the effectual voice of the word of the Gospel. It is not left with, or to, or in our wit and endeavors to dispute our selves into Christ by Syllogisms, yea groundless Syllogisms, but we waiting on the Gospel; Christ effectually draws us, and takes us into himself. Sure enough Christ died for that soul that hangs upon this breast of the Gospel without separation, that Christ died for sinners.

Nathanael Homes, "Christ's offering himself to all Sinners, and Answering all their Objection," in The Works of Dr. Nathanael Homes (London: Printed for the Author, 1651), 12–16. [Some spelling changes and corrections have been made]

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Note: It appears that Homes is quoting Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.55.29.) here, and he includes the Latin citation in the margin. Several Internet sources have this as the Latin:

Mors enim Christi est quasi quaedam universalis causa salutis: sicut peccatum primi hominis fuit quasi universalis causa damnationis. Oportet autem universalem causam applicari ad unumquemque specialiter, ut effectum universalis causae percipiat. Effectus igitur peccati primi parentis pervenit ad unumquemque per carnis originem: effectus autem mortis Christi pertingit ad unumquemque per spiritualem regenerationem, per quam homo Christo quodammodo coniungitur et incorporatur.

One source translates it as follows:

"For the death of Christ is, so to say, a kind of universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man was a kind of universal cause of damnation. But a universal cause must be applied specially to each one, that he may receive the effect of the universal cause. The effect, then, of the sin of the first parent comes to each one in the origin of the flesh, but the effect of the death of Christ comes to each one in a spiritual regeneration in which the man is somehow conjoined with Christ and incorporated into Him."

See also the post at Calvin and Calvinism, which includes Homes' [or Holmes'] section on "the proportion between Election and Redemption."

Harold Dekker (1918–2006) on Divine Love

God So Loved—ALL Men!
by Harold Dekker Associate Professor of Missions, Calvin Theological Seminary

The most basic and comprehensive of all missionary principles is the love of God. In divine love missions finds both its conception and its initiation. "God so loved . . . that he gave. . . ." From God's love missions draws its motivation and its methodology. As Paul puts it, "The love of Christ constraineth us." Moreover, the message of missions is a message of the love of God. It proclaims that God is love, that He has acted in love for man's salvation and that this love demands decisive response.

How much did God love? So much that He gave His only begotten Son. So much that He emptied Himself; He gave Himself. The amount of the love is indicated by the amount of the gift. That means no less than an infinite love.

Love without limit! Can an unlimited love be limited in its scope? Can an unrestricted love be restricted in those whom it loves? Can the infinite love of the incarnation have as its object only a part of mankind? Hardly. Neither does the Bible teach this. Rather we are told, "God so loved the world that he gave." Whether taken as the cosmos or as the human race, "world" in this passage clearly covers all men. By no strain of exegesis can God's redemptive love be confined to any special group. Neither the language of this verse nor the broadest context of the Scripture will allow any other interpretation but that God loves all men.

The universal love of God is taught in the Old Testament as well as the New. God's very love of Israel was a way of expressing His love for all men. In her would all the nations of the earth be blessed. She was called to be a priest-nation for all the nations, as Levi was a priest-tribe for all her tribes. In many ways Israel was reminded that though God dealt temporarily in a special way with her, His love was really for all men. Her feasts and her temple were open to all without discrimination. Her passover was restricted, but open to anyone who by way of circumcision would meet the full conditions of the covenant. Furthermore, Israel was admonished to love all men precisely because God loved all men indiscriminately. "Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute justice for the fatherless and widow, and loveth the sojourner, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the sojourner" (Deut. 10:17-19).

When Jesus taught His followers to love their enemies, the clear premise of His precept was the fact that God loves His enemies (Matt. 5:43-45 and Luke 6:35). Already in Proverbs came the lofty injunction: "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink" (Prov. 25:21). Is then the servant greater than his Lord? Is the creature nobler than the Creator? God loves His enemies; God loves all men.

The universal love of God is also revealed in His invitation of the gospel, sincerely extended to all without reservation or limitation. Scripture gives numerous examples of God's universal and well-meant offer of the gospel (e.g., Isa. 45:22 and Matt. 11:28). The Canons of Dort also speak clearly: "The promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel" (II-5). In that connection the following may also be noted: "As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe (III, IV-8).

Moreover, God's sincere invitation of the gospel to all involves His desire that it be accepted by all. In a purely theoretical way it is possible to conceive of someone offering something to another without the desire that it be accepted. But the Scriptures allow no such casuistry in conceiving of God's offer of the gospel to all men. The question of Ezekiel 18:23 is answered by Ezekiel 33:11—"Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way and live? . . . Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." On the former verse Calvin comments: "God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return to the way of safety." Concerning II Peter 3:9—"not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance"—Calvin says, "So wonderful is his love to all men that he would have them all to be saved." One more Scripture passage will suffice: "I exhort therefore . . . that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men. . . . This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:1-4).

The universal love of God stands out in Scripture in bold beauty and unimpaired power. It is regrettable that some theologians, for the sake of a limited election, place limitation on the love of God. The most extreme and destructive form that this takes is the arbitrary interpretation of words such as "world" as "elect world," and "all men" as "all elect men." This kind of limitation has neither hermeneutical nor dogmatical justification. However, a basically similar compromise of the Biblical paradox is made by those who distinguish between two kinds of love in God, positing a qualitative difference between God's love for all men and His love for the elect. Their view is not altogether unlike the view of those who say that God loves elect men and hates all other men. Essentially these two views are different forms of a double-track theology which drives a wedge into the very nature of God and which sacrifices Biblical realism to logical structure. God's love is love. It cannot be something else. Where in Biblical language or concept is there a qualitative difference within love as agape? Where in man's experience with God is there something which is at one and the same time both love and other-than-love? A qualitative disjunction between different kinds of divine love is a sheer contradiction in terms. It safeguards neither the love of God nor the decree of election.

This leads us to a consideration of the relationship between universal divine live and the atonement of Christ. If God's love in giving Christ is universal, is the atonement universal? Or is it limited? Before answering this question we must carefully understand the terms which it uses and the alternative which is poses.

Just what is the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement? As far as the average reader of this journal is concerned, the definition of Louis Berkhof may be considered representative. We quote from his Systematic Theology: "The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men . . . (b) whether the saving benefits are actually applied to all men . . . (c) whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel . . . nor (d) whether an of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non-elect. . . . On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world to make atonement for sin, do with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question. . . . If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man" (pp. 393-395).

In order to evaluate Berkhof's position, let us first consider the Biblical evidence which he cites. We quote his own statement: "Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35" (p. 395). These passages do not adequately support Berkhof's argument. In none of them is the predication regarding those for whom Christ died stated exhaustively or exclusively. They do affirm that Christ died for His sheep, His Church, His people or the elect, but about the possibility that He may also have died for others these passages say nothing. Moreover, if the predications made are to be taken as limitations, consistent interpretation of similar passages results in absurdity. Then, for instance, Isaiah 58:8 teaches that Christ died only for Israel and Galatians 2:20 that He died only for Paul. It would appear that the passages used by Berkhof as proof of his position really beg the question. They are relevant to his argument only when they are first interpreted in the light of the doctrine which they are used to prove.

Scriptural evidence used by Berkhof is further brought into question by the fact that Scripture speaks also of the death of Christ as being "for every man" (Heb. 2:9), "for the whole world" (1 John 2:2), for "many" (Matt. 20:28) and "for all" (1 Tim. 2:6). To say the least, the proof texts used by Berkhof must be interpreted in connection with the foregoing. It may also be suggested that the Bible speak of the design or purpose of the atonement in differing senses, which we elucidate further below.

In addition to Biblical data we should note what the Canons of Dort have to say. The question for Berkhof is the design of the atonement as such. To this detached question the Canons do not speak. They speak of the design of the atonement as far as its "saving efficacy" is concerned. The relevant statement (from II-8) is as follows: "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross . . . should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation and language . . . all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death.

"Limited atonement" as taught by the Canons is not precisely the same, it seems, as that taught by Berkhof. Dort did not deal with the design of the atonement in general, as Berkhof does. It dealt rather with the design of the atonement in specific connection with the efficacious application of saving grace. Contrary to the Arminians who taught that the atonement was intended to apply enabling grace to all men, Dort insisted that the atonement in no sense was intended to effectuate saving grace for all men. The key phrases in the above excerpt from the Canons are "saving efficacy," "justifying faith" and "effectually redeem." But Berkhof deals with the design of the atonement in a broader sense and it seems clear that the Canons of Dort do not demand adherence to the doctrine of limited atonement in exactly the way he sets forth.

Limited atonement as construed by Berkhof is apparently more a logical inference from the doctrine of election than a Biblically demonstrable doctrine. If any doctrine of limited atonement is allowed to stand as mere logical inference, without compelling Biblical evidence, it must be recognized that by equally logical inference from the doctrine of election one may hold that God loves not all men but only some, and that God's sincere offer of the gospel is not for all but for a limited number. We must accept the paradoxes of Scripture wherever we find them, not merely where they suit our dogmatical predilections.

Now let us return to our original question. Is the atonement limited or universal in its design? The answer depends on what we mean by design. As far as the atonement is concerned, four factors may be distinguished when we speak of design: sufficiency, availability, desire, and efficacy.

First, can those who recognize the sufficiency of the atonement for all men, as Berkhof certainly does, deny that this was part of its design? If universal sufficiency is not part of the divine design of the atonement it is an accident, an unintended by-product. Any such conception is of course theologically impossible and amply discredited by the Bible.

Second, is the salvation which the atonement provides available to all men? Indeed it is. Otherwise the well-meant offer of the gospel is a farce, for it then offers sincerely to all men what cannot be sincerely said to be available to all. Moreover, Scripture such as Titus 2:11 is very precise at this point: "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men."

Third, does God desire the salvation of all? This we have already shown. Can God's desire for the salvation of all men be dissociated from His design in the atonement? Not according to logic or, more decisively, Biblical teaching. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 says about the design of God's desire: "Who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."

There are, therefore, three senses in which we may legitimately speak of the atonement as being universal in design, i.e., the sufficiency and availability of salvation for all men and the divine desire that all will receive it. The only point at which Scripture and the Reformed confessions point to a limited design in the atonement is at the point of efficacy. Only there can a doctrine of limited atonement be formulated which does not do clear violence to Biblical teaching concerning the universal love of God.

Seemingly, Berkhof did not recognize adequately the complexities of the concept of design with respect to the atonement. But he has faithfully and cogently set forth the essence of the historic Calvinistic view that as far as the actual salvation of men is concerned there is a limitation of numbers which is embraced in the eternal purpose of God and in the design of the atonement. When it comes to the efficacy of the atonement there can be no doubt that its existential limitation is to be explained ultimately in terms of the sovereign disposition of divine grace. On this score the Scriptures, explicated by the Canons of Dort, are decisive and convincing.

The doctrine of limited atonement as taught by Berkhof and others has commonly been used to place a taboo on the proposition that Christ died for all men and on any statement by a missionary to unbelievers such as, "Christ died for you." Supposedly such language is Arminian. Actually it is not necessarily so. There is no warrant in Scripture or the Reformed confessions for disallowing such expressions when they are used in any one of the first three meanings explained above. If the Church is unwilling to say in any sense that Christ died for all men and refuses to say to unbelievers, in addition to "God loves you," "Christ died for you," it places the infinite love of God under an illegitimate restriction.

The doctrine of limited atonement as commonly understood and observed in the Christian Reformed Church impairs the principle of the universal love of God and tends to inhibit missionary spirit and activity. God so loved all men that He gave His only begotten Son! May this great truth permeate the life and witness of the Church in full power.

Harold Dekker, "God So Loved—ALL Men!," in The Reformed Journal 12.11 (December 1962): 5–7.

God's Love to Sinners — One or Two?
by Harold Dekker Associate Professor of Missions, Calvin Theological Seminary

In this article I wish to continue the discussion of universal divine love and missions which has been carried on in the two previous issues of this journal and which arose out of the response by readers to my article "God So Loved—All Men!" (December, 1962). Remaining in the current discussion are one major theological issue and certain practical questions. The former is the subject for this article and the latter will be dealt with in a subsequent article.[1]

The practical questions referred to are of real importance. Perhaps some readers are becoming a bit impatient with the present theoretical discussion and are inclined to ask, "So what?" That's a good question, and I can only hope that you will stay with the discussion a bit longer. The theological issues under consideration do have practical implications—very important ones—for the life and work of the church, and I hope to explore these at some length.[2]

The major theological issue remaining is ably stated by Rev. Peter DeJong in his letter which appears in this issue under the question "Does God Love All Men Alike?" Essentially the same question was raised in some of the letters which appeared in the February issue of this journal.[3] My answer depends on the exact meaning of what is strictly speaking an ambiguous question. God does love all men alike in the sense that He loves them all without exclusion—and He does so with a redemptive love. On the contrary, God does not love all men alike in the sense that the love relationship which actually exists between God and man is the same for all men alike. The analogy of human love relations will clarify this. God requires us to love all our fellow men as ourselves, that is, according to the same standard and with the same love. In that sense we must love all men alike. All these love relationships, however, are not alike. They differ, for instance, in that some love is close and personal, other is casual and impersonal, and some is even extended but spurned.

There are differences within God's love as exercised in relation to man. These differences, however, must be understood precisely. First of all, they are not to be understood as qualitative or essential. This point I have made before. Some writers and preachers distinguish between divine benevolence and love, between common and special grace, or between non-redemptive and redemptive love in such a way as to distinguish between two dispositions in God which are intrinsically different from one another. What they seem to mean is that God has two loves or two graces (I use the terms love and grace as synonymous in this discussion) which differ from one another so radically that the one is directed to all men while the other is directed only to the elect.

On this point I have stated my position in the previous issue of the Reformed Journal (Feb. 1963): "The difference between common and special grace, between common love and special love, is not in the respective quality or essence of these, but in the effect produced. As Berkhof has said, 'There are no two kinds of grace in God, only but one' (Systematic Theology, p. 435). Some of the effects of the one grace of God are common, while other effects are special. Some of the effects of the one love of God reach all men alike, while other effects get through only to the elect."

Where does the idea of two loves in God come from? From the Bible? The evidence is lacking. The single word agape and its cognates are used of love mutually between the Father and the Son, between God and man, between blood relatives, between believers, between neighbors, and of love for the world and for enemies. Even the word philia (brotherly love ordinarily) is used for the love of the Father to the Son, of the Father to believers, of Christ to His disciples, of believers to Christ, and of believers to believers. It is difficult to see any line of distinction in Biblical usage or teaching which will support the idea of two essentially different loves in God's relationship to man. Neither has there been any such idea expressed in the traditional delineation of the divine attributes in Reformed dogmatics. This idea, it seems to me, drives a wedge into the very nature of God and sacrifices Biblical realism to logical structure.

Where does the idea of two loves in God come from? DeJong himself suggests the answer when he bases his argument squarely on the doctrine of election. He asks, "Doesn't the term 'elect,' in whatever way it is used, always mean that those do distinguished are 'called out,' 'separated,' brought into a special relationship of friendship with God different from the rest?" Most certainly, I would say. But does this imply a qualitative or essential difference in love? Hardly. A difference in relationship does not imply a difference in essence.

DeJong goes on to say, referring to Malachi 1:2-3, "If . . . we must interpret this passage to mean 'I loved Esau just as much and in the same way as I loved Jacob,' are we not flatly contradicting it?" I would agree. this does not, however, prove the point of two loves. Because I say that there is no essential distinction within the love of God to man, I am not compelled also to say that God loves all men "just as much and in the same way." In regard to the latter -- "in the same way" -- this article should make it amply clear that I hold no such view. And in regard to the former—"just as much"—there is a sense in which we may indeed say that God loves some men more and others less. Such a quantitative distinction, however, is one which I have not used so far and do not find it necessary to use now. Moreover, before such a quantitative distinction can be used in the present discussion it requires careful analysis. "Just as much and in the same way" is not a legitimate interpretation of my position regarding God's love to all men.

Those who have disputed my view that God's love for sinners is one have not offered convincing Biblical evidence that it is two. The notion of two loves in God, as clearly intimated by DeJong, is really an inference from the doctrine of election. Election of course stands; the inference of two loves, Scripturally neither explicit nor verifiable, cannot stand.

The three points on common grace enunciated by the Christian Reformed Church (Synod of 1924) have left us a heritage of ambiguity regarding the nature of divine grace. Although the three points do not teach it, they permit the view that the general offer of the gospel belongs to common grace, for they use the general offer of the gospel as an evidence for "a certain favour or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general." If one holds that the general offer of the gospel is an expression of common grace, and if one also holds that common grace is generically different from special grace, then the general offer of the gospel is rooted in and expressive of non-redemptive divine love. Can non-redemptive love offer redemption? Is this not a sheer anomaly? Is it not, moreover, destructive of the very character of the gospel offer as sincere and well-meant to all men?[4]

It is instructive, I think, to cite at this point Rev. Herman Hoeksema's criticism of my views as "rank Arminianism." His criticism is understandable, and I do not take it ill of him, for he is only being consistent and frank. His definition of what is Reformed involves a similar judgment regarding any view which affirms a love or grace of God which is universal. Perhaps what accounts for the word "rank" in his estimate of my view is that I unambiguously consider the universal love of God in regard to man to be redemptive in character. But both of us agree that God's love is not two but one, although he limits this one love of God to the elect while I ascribe it to all men. Hoeksema and I also agree that the proclamation of the gospel is rooted in this one love of God, although he would not agree that this proclamation brings an offer of salvation, either to the elect or to all men. Then, too, Hoeksema and I agree that those who ground the proclamation of the gospel to all men in a non-redemptive common grace are in a position which is Biblically and logically untenable.

It appears that Hoeksema and I also hold equally unambiguously views regarding John 3:16. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for everyone who has commented on this crucial passage in the present discussion. Hoeksema holds that John 3:16 means "God so loved the elect." I hold that it means "God so loved all men." It is only right that those who differ from my view (or Hoeksema's) should declare unequivocally whether they understand "world" in John 3:16 to embrace all men or only some men. Once this basic question is cleared, discussion can proceed. As long as it is evaded, discussion will be confused and inconclusive.

Recently I received a letter from a brother in Iowa who said, "I agree with you on John 3:16. You will know that it is only rarely that we hear sermons on that verse." What he says is only too true. "We preach with great confidence on texts which speak of election, preservation, God's love for His people, and similar themes. Why don't we preach more frequently and more positively on texts such as John 1:29 and 3:16, II Corinthians 5:19, I Timothy 2:4-6, Titus 2:11, Hebrews 2:9, II Peter 2:1 and 3:9, and I John 2:2 and 4:14? Such texts are rarely used in Christian Reformed pulpits. Is it because they raise too many sticky theological problems for ministers who are caught in the dilemma of two loves in God?

Let each one then who wishes to take a clear-cut position on the love of God and missions answer unequivocally whether he understands the love of God as taught in John 3:16 to embrace all men or not. If he answers yes, I believe that he is essentially in agreement with the position I have taken. If he answers no, I believe that he is essentially identified either with the position of Rev. H. Hoeksema, or with the position of those who hold to two loves in God (redemptive and non-redemptive). Once this basic question concerning John 3:16 is resolved, all other factors in the present discussion fall into place, even though much work remains to be done in the explication of these factors and their application to missions.

It is with this criterion that I analyze the letter of Rev. P. DeJong and the letters of others who cite texts such as he cites. The decisive question is, What one is one's over-all understanding of Biblical teaching on the love of God to men? If one finds that the Bible here teaches two loves in God, he will interpret one set of passages in line with the one love and an other set of passages in line with the other "love." Apparently this is what DeJong does. On the other hand, if he finds that the Bible here teaches one love in God, he will be guided accordingly in dealing with various individual passages.

Let us now consider in a general way the teaching of the texts cited by DeJong. True enough, the Old Testament speaks often of God's love for Israel as a special relationship not shared by other nations. Likewise the New Testament speaks of God's love for the church in terms of shepherd and sheep, husband and wife, etc. In using these passages, however, DeJong has not proved his point. A special relationship is quite different than an essentially different love. As I have said before, "God's love is love . . . . Where in Biblical language or concept is there a qualitative difference within love as agape?"

Let us look for a moment at analogies in human love. Not only may we do this—we must do it. Such analogies are what the Bible uses to teach us about God's love. Consider a Christian who loves his blood brother dearly. He loves a close friend even more intimately. He also loves his next-door neighbor and is helpful to him in little ways. And he loves an insolent unbeliever at the factory and through witness and prayer seeks his salvation. Are these four loves different? Of course. But do they differ in their intrinsic quality as love? It would seem not.

Consider a father who loves his own children and provides for them. He also loves unknown children abroad and sends them food packages. The two relationships are quite different, but is the one love of a different essence than the other? A man loves a woman, but she does not respond to his love. He loves and wins another woman, and they are married. Does love in the first instance differ from love in the second? Indeed it does in relation and result, but it does not differ in that inner quality which makes love, love. To think in such ways about the love of God is Biblically correct and theologically helpful.

It seems that the burden of proof should rest on those who claim that there are two loves in God. The common-sense reading of Scripture discovers only one love for sinners. The exegesis of key passages reveals, again, one love. The life of God's Son on earth exhibits still but one love. And Christian love, in which the love of God is at work whether it be to husband or wife, to father or mother, to son or daughter, to brother or sister, to friend or enemy, to brother or neighbor—Christian love is a love which does not seem to permit differentiation into loves of different essence. Those who maintain that the grace of God is inherently double rather than single should produce Biblical evidence rather than offer logical deductions from a priori ideas about election or about common and special grace.

I trust that the reader will see in the foregoing my answer to what DeJong and others have said pertaining to Biblical passages which teach God's love to His own. DeJong's attempt to recast sections from Romans 8 as a reductio ad absurdum is really beside the point. My position quite obviously does not make necessary any such substitution of all men for believers in these verses.

A word should be said about Jesus' prayer in John 17. Some correspondents[5] have cited verse 9, where Jesus says, "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me; for they are thine," to prove that Christ loved only the elect and not the world. But does it? Whom did Jesus designate by the words "those whom thou hast given me"? The elect? This is forced exegesis. The entire context, beginning with verse 4, makes it clear that those to whom Jesus referred in verse 9 are those who had come to believe in Him at that time, the actual persons whom the Father had given to Jesus in His earthly ministry up to that point, the ones of whom He said in verse 9. that they had received and believed His words. This interpretation is also supported by verse 20, where Jesus says, "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word." Evidently right within the same prayer Jesus prayed not only for the limited number who were in view in verse 8, but also for the many who later would come through their word to share their faith.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He said, "I pray not for the world?" In the light of the foregoing, the explanation seems obvious. Surely Jesus did not mean that He did not love the world and under no circumstances would pray for it. We must observe that it was a certain prayer, with specific petitions, which He offered for those whom the Father had given Him, and which He declared He did not offer for the world. What were these specific petitions which He prayed? Chiefly that those who had come to believe in Him would be faithful, joyful, kept from the evil one, sanctified in the truth, and unified with those who would later come to believe through them. Would there have been any point in Jesus praying these things for the unconverted world? Certainly not. That He did not do so proves nothing about His disposition to the world, not even at that moment. He was simply praying in terms of the unique relationship which existed between Himself and His disciples, a relationship which the world did not share. Neither, therefore, could the world share in Jesus' prayer for the development and fruition of this particular relationship. However, in verses 21 and 23, part of the same prayer, Jesus did indeed pray for the world, He prayed the very thing which was alone appropriate to the world. He prayed that the world might believe—the same world about which John 3:16 teaches us that God loved it with a redemptive love, nothing less than the world of all men. To use the high-priestly prayer of Christ in John 17 as an argument for limitation in divine redemptive love is, it seems to me, clearly to misuse it.

One more aspect of God's redemptive love for all men should be noted, namely, its sovereignty. An obvious question arises: If God loves all men with a redemptive love, how is it that not all men are saved? In the conclusion of my last article I touched on this, saying, "Let us carry out Our mission to all men according to the plain Biblical givens, leaving the unexplainable where it belongs—in the infinite mystery of the heart of Him who is Him self love." On the side of divine sovereignty, then, there is mystery. On the side of human responsibility, however, there is no mystery at all. The answer is plainly a matter of unbelief. Significantly, in Paul's celebrated discourse on grace and election in Romans 9-11, he comes to two conclusions regarding the fact that so many in Israel were not saved: God's redeeming love is mysterious (e.g., 11:25, 33-35) and the unsaved are guilty of unbelief (e.g., 11:20-23, 30-32).

Biblical analogies in human love will help us here too. On the one hand, human love is accepted or rejected by the one to whom it is offered. This represents the side of man's responsibility, his acceptance or rejection of the gospel. On the other hand, there is a sense in which human love is overwhelming and irresistible, transcending decision by the one on whom it is lavished. The love of a father for his child and of a husband for his wife, primary Biblical symbols of the love of God, are expressive of this. They represent the side of divine sovereignty—a love which sweeps away all resistance and claims reciprocal response.

John Calvin, pre-eminently a Biblical theologian, consistently assigns the sovereignty of divine love to the inner mystery of the being of God. Clear and concise, for instance, is the following from his treatise A Defense of the Secret Providence of God (in Calvin's Calvinism, edited and translated by Henry Cole, p. 275): "But why is it that God doth not turn or convert all men to himself, equally and alike, is a question the reply to which lies hidden in himself."

It should also be noted that Calvin does not distinguish between two essentially different loves in God. Rather, he speaks Biblically, merely using the one generic concept of love. In the same treatise just cited he says, "Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist innumerable, all of which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish. This fact, however, forms no reason whatsoever 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" (p . 268). Does Calvin here speak of two loves? No, neither here nor anywhere else in his writings on divine love, as far as I have been able to determine.

Another strong evidence for this may be found in what Calvin says in his commentary on Mark 10:21 and Matthew 19:22 regarding the rich young ruler. Concerning the fact that this young man "went away sorrowful" Calvin says, "Whether or not . . . the young man afterwards repented, we know not, but it may he conjectured with probability that his covetousness kept him back from making any proficiency." In other words, here was one whom Calvin conjectured to be an unbeliever. But commenting on the fact that "Jesus looking upon him loved him," Calvin says, "As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms. But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify . . . . Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and their works on account of corruption."[6]

Over the years I have often inquired into the writings of John Calvin pertaining to the love of God. In pursuing the present discussion I have intensified this investigation. My considered conviction is that the views which I have presented are in general agreement with his.

Perhaps it should be noted that the major contention of this article is by no means unusual or untried in the history of the Christian Reformed Church. In the wake of the Synod of 1924, the late Rev. H. J. Kuiper preached three sermons to his congregation in the Broadway Church of Grand Rapids, each of them in connection with one of Synod's "Three Points." These sermons, with the addition of footnotes by the author, were published early in 1925 in a booklet entitled The Three Points of Common Grace. From a footnote on page 14 of this publication I quote the following statement of Rev. H. J. Kuiper: "Remember also that the distinction between saving grace and common grace does not imply that there is a twofold grace in God. God is one; all His attributes are one; His grace is one. But there are fruits of this grace which are bestowed only upon the elect, while others are not confined to the elect alone. Hence the distinction between 'saving grace' and 'common grace.' The one grace of God is shown to the elect in an essentially different manner and in a far greater measure than to the reprobate.
_______________
1. The entire April issue has already been committed to a series of articles on literature and therefore Prof. Dekker's next article will not appear until the May-June issue, at the earliest. —C.P.B.

2. In this future article I hope to bring into consideration the valuable study of Dr. A. C. DeJong entitled The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K. Schilder. Here Dr. DeJong deals helpfully with the question of attitude and disposition in the preaching of the gospel to all men.

3. For instance Rev. C. Holtrop there asks about my statement that "Israel was admonished to love all men precisely because God loved all men indiscriminately." His question is how my word "indiscriminately" can be reconciled with certain Biblical passages (Romans 9:13, II Timothy 2:19, and Matthew 7:23) which reveal differing attitudes of God to different persons. I recognize that my use of the word "indiscriminately" needs qualification. In what I wrote I mean to say that God's love as revealed in the Old Testament was for all men without discrimination, rather than only for Israel. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that there is a sense in which we must discriminate between the different ways in which people experience this one love of God. This point, I trust, the present article will make clear.

4. Incidentally, the Editor of The Banner, Rev. J. Vander Ploeg, has suggested that my view is not in harmony with the following statement of the Christian Reformed Church (Synod of 1959) to certain Protestant Reformed Churches: "The doctrine of irresistible grace would indeed be jeopardized if we held that the grace shown to the elect is the same as that shown to creatures in general. We would then be guilty of the error of the Arminians who teach that all men enjoy the same grace." What this statement means by "the same grace" is not clear. The same in essence or the same in relationship and result? The reference to the Arminians suggests that it is the latter, for the Arminian position is that grace gets through to all men in the same way and thus enables all men to be saved if only they will be saved. In that sense I do not hold at all "that the grace shown to the elect is the same as that shown to creatures in general."

5. See Mr. Jack Arens's letter in the January Reformed Journal and Rev. P. DeJong's in this issue.

6. Allow me to insert here merely a word regarding the contention of Mr. Kart's letter (January, 1963) that I have used the argument regarding the availability of salvation which Pighius used against Calvin. I trust that it has become amply clear in this article that I have not used the argument of Pighius in any sense but rather have identified myself with the argument used by Calvin in his defense against Pighius.

Harold Dekker, "God's Love to Sinners—One or Two?," in The Reformed Journal 13 (March 1963): 12–16.

Bio:
The Banner

Harold Dekker (1918–2006) on John 17:9

This is part of a long couple of journal articles by Dekker that I am about to post, but I thought I would include this portion by itself, since it is a text that so frequently arises (and is misused) in discussions about Calvinism. Dekker gets it right, I think. He wrote:

A word should be said about Jesus' prayer in John 17. Some correspondents have cited verse 9, where Jesus says, "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me; for they are thine," to prove that Christ loved only the elect and not the world. But does it? Whom did Jesus designate by the words "those whom thou hast given me"? The elect? This is forced exegesis. The entire context, beginning with verse 4, makes it clear that those to whom Jesus referred in verse 9 are those who had come to believe in Him at that time, the actual persons whom the Father had given to Jesus in His earthly ministry up to that point, the ones of whom He said in verse 9. that they had received and believed His words. This interpretation is also supported by verse 20, where Jesus says, "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word." Evidently right within the same prayer Jesus prayed not only for the limited number who were in view in verse 8, but also for the many who later would come through their word to share their faith.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He said, "I pray not for the world?" In the light of the foregoing, the explanation seems obvious. Surely Jesus did not mean that He did not love the world and under no circumstances would pray for it. We must observe that it was a certain prayer, with specific petitions, which He offered for those whom the Father had given Him, and which He declared He did not offer for the world. What were these specific petitions which He prayed? Chiefly that those who had come to believe in Him would be faithful, joyful, kept from the evil one, sanctified in the truth, and unified with those who would later come to believe through them. Would there have been any point in Jesus praying these things for the unconverted world? Certainly not. That He did not do so proves nothing about His disposition to the world, not even at that moment. He was simply praying in terms of the unique relationship which existed between Himself and His disciples, a relationship which the world did not share. Neither, therefore, could the world share in Jesus' prayer for the development and fruition of this particular relationship. However, in verses 21 and 23, part of the same prayer, Jesus did indeed pray for the world, He prayed the very thing which was alone appropriate to the world. He prayed that the world might believe -- the same world about which John 3:16 teaches us that God loved it with a redemptive love, nothing less than the world of all men. To use the high-priestly prayer of Christ in John 17 as an argument for limitation in divine redemptive love is, it seems to me, clearly to misuse it.

Harold Dekker, "God's Love to Sinners—One or Two?," in The Reformed Journal 13 (March 1963): 14–15.

Bio:
The Banner

John 17:9 and Decretalism

I was in a discussion in another forum with a person who is bordering on Hyper-Calvinism. He continually brought up the John 17:9 passage, so I decided to address it. Here's what I posted:

Theological Presuppositions Addressed

Your assumption is that "world" in John 17:9 means non-elect. You would have the passage read, "I am praying for my elect, but I am not praying for the non-elect." Why must it mean this? Well, for one thing, it might be said by some that Jesus is now praying according to his divine nature, and cannot pray for what does not come to pass. Decretalism is read into this entire passage so that Jesus can't pray anything that is ineffectual. This is an unbiblical assumption. For, consider the following:

1) Jesus could pray for the forgiveness of the guilty people below him at the cross. "Father, forgive them...," etc. If you do not accept this as textually reliable, we can still know that it was the Spirit of Christ moving Stephen to pray for his persecutors (Acts 7:60), and Paul to pray for Israel's salvation (Rom. 10:1).

2) Jesus could pray in Gethsemene for the cup to pass from him.

3) Jesus could pray that part of the "Lord's prayer" that says, "Thy [revealed] will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

4) All the members of the Godhead could wish for and pray for the following:

NKJ Deuteronomy 5:29 'Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!

5) Jesus does pray that the world may believe and know in John 17:21, 23. More on this later.

All of this accords with God's revealed or preceptive will, which you so easily overlook. The special prayers for believers in John 17:9 are effectual as they correspond to God's decree, but it does not follow that he could not pray for things that are ineffectual with reference things that accord with God's revealed will. To use this one passage to argue that Jesus could not pray for the salvation of the non-elect undermines the biblical teaching regarding God's preceptive will.

Another faulty assumption is that Jesus' prayers must be consistent with the Father's will (in the sense that it can be only decretive), therefore "world" must either mean elect or non-elect, depending on your reading of the various contexts, since what he prays is always effectual and decretive. This is the old "contradiction within the Trinity" objection.

What you forget is that each person of the Trinity possesses all the properties of the Godhead (except those properties that properly distinguish them from one another), therefore each person has a decretive and preceptive distinction in their volitions. Jesus' prayers were always holy and righteous, and therefore were consistent with the Father's preceptive will. But we see him also submitting to the Father's ultimate decree as well (the secret will). Jesus and the Father could both pray for and wish for certain things that do not come to pass (according to the preceptive will), but what the Godhead has determined to come to pass will in fact come to pass (according to the decretive will). Each person of the Godhead desires our obedience, but they have not purposed that we shall always obey.

Exegetical and Theological Observations

NKJ John 17:9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

The idea of being "given" to Christ here (but not necessarily in all contexts) has to do with history and not eternity. Although it is true that the elect were decreed to be given to Christ from eternity, that is not the point of this passage. The disciples here were manifestly given or actually given to Christ when they believed. They were really, actually, or vitally united to him through faith. This is unity the passage is referring to. The preoccupation with eternal, pre-temporal decrees over what happens in time is typical of both High and Hyper-Calvinism. The focus of this passage is on what actually happens in time, with His disciples.

The proper distinction in John 17:9 with regard to the "world" and those "given" is not between non-elect and elect, as abstract classes, but between believers ("elect" in that sense) and non-believers (the "world"). Jesus could pray for things for believers that he could not pray for non-believers. The "world" in this context refers to that mass of lost humanity (made up of both elect and non-elect) who are in systematic opposition to God. They are hostile to God, abide under his wrath, and are under the sway of the wicked one. Even the elect, when they are in an unbelieving state, are in this category.

NKJ Ephesians 2:3: among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Further, as Norman Douty (in For Whom Did Christ Die?) observes, Jesus did pray for the world indirectly. Douty says, "As a matter of fact, Christ indirectly prayed for the world in this same chapter: “that the world may believe that Thou didst send me” (v. 21); and “that the world may know that Thou didst send Me” (v. 23)." Douty also rightly remarks on this passage: "Christ’s actual intercession is not to be correlated with His provisional atonement, but only with His atonement as applied through faith. He prays, not for all for whom He provided atonement, but only for those who have received it."

The strange thing is that you will switch the meaning of "world" in these later verses (verses 21 and 23) to mean the elect, but in verse 9 you think it must mean the non-elect, because your system says so, not the text. I find it curious that the High's and Hyper's will have to change either the meaning of "world" (John Gill's move) or of "believe" (John Owen's move) in the surrounding verses. I think this exposes some of system-driven hermeneutics. For example, "world" in verse 9 they take to be functionally equivalent to the non-elect, but will then possibly (if they follow Gill) change it to mean elect in verse 21. If they do not follow that maneuver, they have to change the idea of "believe" in verse 21 to mean mere mental assent (or demon-like faith, so to speak, James 2:19) that brings judgement (Owen). This is also very awkward since they will take "believe" in verse 20 to mean an evangelical, or saving faith! There is either an equivocation on "world" (Gill) or "believe" (Owen) in the context in order to preserve a system.

My interpretation of "world" in this context is consistent. I take it to reference that mass of lost humanity still in sin and under the wrath of God, which is inclusive of both the unbelieving elect and the non-elect. They are all equally lost or "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). These lost humans are excluded from the special intercessions of Christ that pertain to believers alone since they are in unbelief.

C. K. Barrett, in his commentary on John's Gospel, observes:

It must be emphasized once more that John, having stated (3.16) the love of God for the κόσμος, does not withdraw from that position in favour of a narrow affection for the pious. It is clear (see especially v. 18) that in this chapter also there is in mind a mission of the apostolic church to the world in which men will be converted and attached to the community of Jesus. But to pray for the κόσμος would be almost an absurdity, since the only hope for the κόσμος is precisely that it should cease to be the κόσμος (see on 1.10)...

The world cannot be prayed for because, as the κόσμος, it has set itself outside the purpose of God. The disciples on the other hand belong to God as they do to Christ.

C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd edition (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1978), 506.

Leon Morris describes the situation in the same way:

He makes a distinction between the little band of disciples and the world. His prayer is not for "the world". This does not mean that "the world" is beyond God's love. Elsewhere we are specifically told that He loves it (3:16). And throughout this chapter it is plain that Jesus came with a mission to the world, and that the disciples were now to carry it on. A little later Jesus prays that the disciples may do certain things "that the world may believe..." (v. 21), and "that the world may know... (v. 23). The world is to be reached through the disciples and it is for His agents that Jesus prays. But He could scarcely pray for "the world" as such. As "the world" it was ranged in opposition to God. Its salvation lay precisely in its ceasing to be "the world". Prayer for the world could only be that it be converted and no longer be the world. But that would be a different prayer. We see it for example in His prayer for those who crucified Him (Luke 23:34). Now He prays rather for the little group of His friends. Notice that they are again described in terms of their relationship to the Father. They have been "given" to Christ. They belong to the Father.

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 725.

For more comments by some predestinarians, read the following:

• Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563) on John 17:9
• Joseph Truman (1631-1671) on John 17:9
• Gryffith Williams (1589?-1672) on John 17:9
• Nathaniel Holmes (1599-1678) on John 17:9
• William Weeks (1783-1848) on John 17:9
• Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) on John 17:9
• Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) on the World of John 17:21 in Relation to the World of John 17:9
• John Brown of Broughton (1784–1858) on John 17:9
• William G.T. Shedd (1820-1894) on John 17:9
• Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) on John 17:9
• Harold Dekker (1918-2006) on John 17:9