Durham:

1) Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at. James Durham, Christ Crucified: The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53 (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 2001), 343-344. [Underlining mine.]

2)

Concerning the nature and difference of saving and common Grace

In this Epistle, there is a large commendation of this Angel’s practice: which is not only given to him in respect of the matter of his actions; but in respect of the qualifications of them: as, first, that he did not only suffer for, and have patience in, that which was materially right; but that he suffered for Christ’s Name sake: and that he did not

only hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans; but did it with a respect to Christ: which is here added, to difference the sincerity of these actions from others that are materially good also: for, no question, there may be much suffering, which is not commendable before Christ. And certainly many others, even among heathens, did hate these Nicolaitans, who yet cannot be thought to be alike comprehended under this commendation. This therefore that is added, for my Name’s sake, must be to show the sincerity and graciousness thereof, as that which did put a difference between their sufferings and patience, and the sufferings of others. And it doth imply, that this qualification, was that mainly, which made the Lord take notice thereof. It is therefore, the same on the matter with that, Matth. 5.11, of being persecuted for Christ’s sake, to which the promise is made, vers. 12. and the same, with that 1 Pet. 4.13. of being made partakers of Christ’s sufferings, and of being reproached for his Name: which being an evidence, and part of blessedness in these places, cannot be conceived but to imply sincerity; without which, suffering itself, even where the cause is good, would be of no weight as to that end. We do therefore conceive these words undoubtedly to be added, to point out that wherein their sincerity consisted, and wherewith the Lord was especially well pleased: from which we may gather these Doctrines.

First, That there is a great difference between an action morally or materially good, and that which is gracious, and as such acceptable to God. I t is not simply suffering and hatred, which the Lord commends here; but suffering and hatred so and so qualified. Hence we will find frequently in the Scripture, difference made between these, to do that which is good upon the matter, and to do it with a perfect heart. In actions therefore, there are these three to be distinctly considered, 1. The act itself, as it is natural, suppose an act of hatred, love, grief, etc. 2. As the act is moral, and is directed toward an object that is agreeable to the Law, that is, to love that which is good, and to hate that which is evil, and so forth: both which, in many respects, may be in hypocrites, who may do that which is materially good. 3. We are to consider an act as gracious, that is, when not only the thing for the matter is agreeable to the will of God, as suppose, one were acting, or suffering for a truth; but also when that is done in the manner that the Law requires, and with a suitableness thereunto: and so one suffers not only for a truth; but as a Christian he carries himself in his suffering for the same: it is this last which makes the difference, and which the Lord doth especially take notice of, and commend by this qualification, that it is done for his Name’s sake.

Secondly, We gather, that this difference, wherein the graciousness of the act doth consist, is not to be inquired for in any intense degree of the act itself, whether positive or comparative (at least only) but it is to be inquired for in the nature and kind thereof, to wit, in respect of positive qualifications concurring therewith, and having influence thereon: For, this commendation, is not given upon the degree; but from the nature of these acts: it is not commendable hatred, because it is in such an intense degree positively: nor comparatively, because it hates these errors more than it doth hate truth; but because in their hatred of these errors, they conform themselves to Christ’s hatred of them. And likewise by that commendation for Christ’s Name sake, is not holden forth any degree either of their labor, or patience simply, nor yet comparatively, that they labored more, or did suffer more for that which is materially good, than they did for any other thing; or, because their patience was for degree more than their impatience; but, that there was a peculiar respect to the Lord’s Name both in their labor and patience.

If it be asked, What this is, which beside the moral rectitude of the act, must concur for the making of it to be accounted gracious?

Read the rest of this entry »

Introductory note:

There is a popular claim regarding 2 Peter 3:9 which often surfaces here and there on the internet. Gordon Clark echoed this assertion:

Peter is telling us that Christ’s return awaits the repentance of certain people. Now, if Christ’s return awaited the repentance of every individual without exception, Christ would never return.

Gordon H. Clark. I & II Peter (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 2:71.

The argument thus asserts that if the will of God in view respects all mankind, then accordingly, Jesus will never return. Thus a neat little reductio is set up: Ergo, the will under consideration cannot respect all mankind, but the elect exclusively.

Against this, Duke’s following comments well apply:

3:9(b): “Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

If His longsuffering is the reason for the delay, His will or desire in regard to all men is the motivation behind the reason. There are, it seems, two related but separable aspects to God’s “willing,” one negative and one positive: He is “not willing that any should perish”; He is willing, however, “that all should come to repentance.” The word “willing” translates a present participial form of the Greek verb boulomai, which bears a close resemblance in meaning and usage to another Greek verb, thelo. Generally speaking, present participles denote action taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, in this case “longsuffering.” Since this verb (makrothumia) appears in its present, active, indicative form, the implication is that God’s “willing” continues for as long as His “longsuffering” continues. Therefore, Peter may be conveying that when God’s longsuffering has been exhausted, so too will His willing in this matter likewise end.

…Nevertheless, this much is clear: Peter’s primary intent in verse 9 is to refute the scoffers’ argument that the delay in Christ’s Parousia renders it either highly suspect or simply untrue. This he accomplishes by offering both the reason for His delay (His longsuffering) and the motivation underlying the reason (His “willing”). Verse 9 contributes this insight to Peter’s four-pronged attack: God’s love for all men, rather than His incompetence, indifference, or inability (as the scoffers would have it) explains the delay in His return. Peter’s reply thus grounds the delay in the loving, gracious, and merciful character of God. At the same time, it appears that Peter ties the length of the delay to the Lord’s longsuffering, not to His willing, so that the delay in his Second Coming depends upon the duration of His longsuffering, not upon the coming to repentance of every person. Other verses in the epistle decisively reinforce the exclusion of a “universal conversion” interpretation. For example, verse 7 of chapter 3 speaks of the heavens and the earth being reserved “for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding God’s patience in waiting for and wanting everyone to come to repentance, not all will repent and be saved in the end…

Thomas H. Duke, “An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Peter 3:9,” Faith & Mission 16 (1999) : 8 and 10.

[For those interested, email me for a pdf copy of the complete article.]

Calvin:

And wept over it. As there was nothing which Christ more ardently desired than to execute the office which the Father had committed to him, and as he knew that the end of his calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, (Matthew 15:24,) he wished that his coming might bring salvation to all. This was the reason why he was moved with compassion, and wept over the approaching destruction of the city of Jerusalem. For while he reflected that this was the sacred abode which God had chosen, in which the covenant of eternal salvation should dwell–the sanctuary from which salvation would go forth to the whole world, it was impossible that he should not deeply deplore its ruin. And when he saw the people, who had been adopted to the hope of eternal life, perish miserably through their ingratitude and wickedness, we need not wonder if he could not refrain from tears.

John Calvin, Luke 19:41

Read the rest of this entry »

Titus 2:11-12:

For the grace of God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

Here we have the grounds or considerations upon which all the foregoing directions are urged, taken from the nature and design of the gospel, and the end of Christ’s death.

I. From the nature and design of the gospel. Let young and old, men and women, masters and servants, and Titus himself, let all sorts do their respective duties, for this is the very aim and business of Christianity, to instruct, and help, and form persons, under all distinctions and relations, to a right frame and conduct. For this,

1. They are put under the dispensation of the grace of God, so the gospel is called, Eph. iii. 2. It is grace in respect of the spring of it—the free favor and good-will of God, not any merit or desert in the creature; as manifesting and declaring this good-will in an eminent and signal manner; and as it is the means of conveying and working grace in the hearts of believers. Now grace is obliging and constraining to goodness: Let not sin reign, but yield yourselves unto God; for you are not under the law, but under grace, Rom. vi. 12-14. The love of Christ constrains us not to live to self, but to him (2 Cor. v. 14, 15); without this effect, grace is received in vain.

2. This gospel grace brings salvation (reveals and offers it to sinners and ensures it to believers)—salvation from sin and wrath, from death and hell. Hence it is called the word of life; it brings to faith, and so to life, the life of holiness now and of happiness hereafter. The law is the ministration of death, but the gospel the ministration of life and peace. This therefore must be received as salvation (its rules minded, its commands obeyed), that the end of it may be obtained, the salvation of the soul. And more inexcusable will the neglecters of this grace of God bringing salvation now be, since,

Read the rest of this entry »