Berkhof:

1. THE GOODNESS OF GOD. This is generally treated as a generic conception, including several varieties, which are distinguished according to their objects. The goodness of God should not be confused with His kindness, which is a more restricted concept. We speak of something as good, when it answers in all parts to the ideal. Hence in our ascription of goodness to God the fundamental idea is that He is in every way all that He as God should be, and therefore answers perfectly to the ideal expressed in the word "God." He is good in the metaphysical sense of the word, absolute perfection and perfect bliss in Himself. It is in this sense that Jesus said to the young ruler: "None is good save one, even God," Mark 10:18. But since God is good in Himself, He is also good for His creatures, and may therefore be called the fons omnium bonorum. He is the fountain of all good, and is so represented in a variety of ways throughout the Bible. The poet sings: "For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light shall we see light," Ps. 36:9. All the good’ things which the creatures enjoy in the present and expect in the future, flow to them out of this inexhaustible fountain. And not only that, but God is also the summum bonum, the highest good, for all His creatures, though in different degrees and according to the measure in which they answer to the purpose of their existence. In the present connection we naturally stress the ethical goodness of God and the different aspects’ of it, as these are determined by the nature of its objects.

a. The goodness of God toivards His creatures in general. This may be defined as that perfection of God which prompts Him to deal bountifully and kindly with all His creatures. It is the affection which the Creator feels towards His sentient creatures as such. The Psalmist sings of it in the well known words’: "Jehovah is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works.

. . . The eyes of all wait for thee; and thou gives them their food in due season. Thou opens thy hand, and satisfies the desire of every living thing," Ps. 145:9,15,16. This benevolent interest of God is revealed in His care for the creature’s welfare, and is suited to the nature and the circumstances of the creature. It naturally varies in degree according to the capacity of the objects to receive it. And while it is not restricted to believers, they only manifest a proper appreciation of its blessings, desire to use them in the service of their God, and thus enjoy them in a richer and fuller measure. The Bible refers to this goodness of God in many passages’, such as Ps. 36:6 ; 104:21; Matt. 5:45 ; 6:26; Luke 6:35 ; Acts 14:17.

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 70-71. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

1) Joseph Truman (1631-1671):

The only colorable objection (that is not virtually answered in what I have said), that I can call to mind, is only from John 17.

[v]9. “I pray for them, I pray not for the world.” Therefore surely (say some), he would not shed his blood for the world, for whom he would not pray. But would any be at pains to read that chapter, he may see that Christ speaks of himself, what he did in that particular prayer at that time, and that particular prayer to verse 20, was only for the Apostles; or at the most for them that were then actually believers. And verse 20, he prays for them that should afterward believe through their word; and so all that he prayed for there were actually believers, or looked on as such; and the substance of the petitions there can agree to none else, as keeping them in truth and unity &c.; and there is not one word in that prayer for God to cause any to believe: so that we may as well argue he never prayed for the conversion of any, because he did not in that prayer, and so never shed his blood for the conversion of any. But can any think that Christ wept over Jerusalem, never prayed for it; or that there were none but the elect that crucified him, when he prayed for his crucifiers. May we not with greater reason argue contrary thus. Surely he did at other times, though not in this particular prayer, pray for the world since he shed his blood for it. All other other objections are reducible to this common one, “That it would be no kindness to die so as to purchase any, but the elect that actually would believe, “That if they believe, and turn they shall live,” because none else have the natural power to turn, to perform the condition, but they that have he actually causes to turn, and so it would be to mock them. Ans. I grant if this was true, it would be but to mock, as to say to a lame man, “If thou will turn, I will give,” (let this lameness come which way i will), but you see men have the natural power to perform the condition, and though they will fall short of the benefit through their wickedness, it does not follow it was no kindness: and cannot any one see, it would as much follow according to your way, that, it would be no justice in God to punish men for not performing the gospel-condition. Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675), 185-186. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) William Weeks (1783-1848):

P[aulinus]. I cordially agree with you in this, and beg you will bear it in mind when we come, by and by, to see ” What God hath spoken,” as to the extent of the atonement. For the present I wish merely to consider your arguments. What is your fourth argument to prove that Christ died for the elect only?

A[spasio]. It is this: “Christ offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice in the office of a priest.” Now, “His priestly office is not performed for any by the halves.” Therefore “for whom Christ offered himself a sacrifice, for the same does he intercede. But he intercedes, it is agreed, for none but his own people ; therefore, he died for none but his own people.”

P. I grant that Christ is the priest of his people, and that he does not perform his priestly office for any “by the halves.” But to conclude from this that he will intercede for the salvation of all those for whom he died, is to take it for granted that he could not possibly die for any but his own people. It is to take it for granted, that he could not have any object in dying for any, unless he intended to save them. To assume this is to assume the very point in dispute. To assume the point in dispute, is what logicians call begging the question. It is usually considered an indication of a weak cause, and that the supporter of it feels it to be so.

A. Do you grant, then, that Christ intercedes for none but his own people?

P. No. I grant that he does not intercede for the salvation of any but his own people, for he did not intend to save any others. But he intended to secure the enjoyment of “many blessings and privileges “to the non-elect, as you grant. Now, if he intended by his death to obtain for the non-elect these blessings, I see not why it should be thought incredible that he should ask the Father to bestow them. He intended by his death to procure for the non-elect a period of probation and the offer of mercy: and I see not why it should be thought incredible, that, after having died to procure for them these blessings, he should ask the Father to bestow them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ursinus:

1) Obj. 2. All those ought to be received into favor for whose offences a sufficient satisfaction has been made. Christ has made a sufficient satisfaction for the offences of all men. Therefore all ought to be received into favor; and if this is not done, God is either unjust to men, or else there is something detracted from the merit of Christ. Ans. The major is true, unless some condition is added to the satisfaction; as, that only those are saved through it, who apply it unto themselves by faith. But this condition is expressly added, where it is said, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” ( John 3 : 16.)  Ursinus, Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G.W.Willard, (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 107. [Italics and underlining mine.]

2) Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore, he did not make a perfect satisfaction. Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us. Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G.W.Willard, (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 215. [Underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) Ursinus’ objector was most probably a Socinian. The Socinians were arguing for true universalism. The objector is attempting a reductio argument against Ursinus, saying if Ursinus does not grant his universalism, then he must say that Christ’s sacrifice and satisfaction was imperfect, i.e., defective or that God is unjust for not receiving all men into favor. 2) The Socinian’s argument is tabled on the assumption that Ursinus held that a proper sufficient and penal satisfaction was made for all men. However, the application of this sacrifice is not applied to all. 3) The Objector, in essence, has inverted Owen’s trilemma argument, arguing that given that Christ has died for all, all must be saved, else God is unjust.  For his part, Ursinus rejects the premise that though a satisfaction may be made for a man, this does not mean that God would be unjust were he to not receive that man into favor (entailing that the man can be punished in his own person for his own sin). 4) For Ursinus, the application of the satisfaction of Christ is conditioned by faith. 5) In the final analysis, then, we can see that Ursinus rejected the assumption that if Christ died for a man, any man, it is impossible for that man to be rejected and not saved. This is a repudiation of the critical premise in Owen’s famous, but fallacious, trilemma.]

[The reader should be sure to peruse the relevant footnotes for explicit comments]

Brown:

Sins of the World:

1) The last of these analogies is more strongly expressed in the original than in our translation–”So Christ, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear the second time, without sin, to them who look for Him for salvation.” Christ was offered as a sacrificial victim for the purpose of “bearing the sins of many.” The “many” here are the same as the “many sons”–His “brethren”–those who should be “heirs of salvation,” for every one of whom, “by the grace of God, He tasted death.”¹ To bear their sins, is just to be charged with their guilt or obligation to punishment, and to undergo the consequence of being thus charged with their guilt. God “made to meet on His head,” as the great sacrificial victim, “the iniquity of them all.” The consequence was, “exaction was made, and He became answerable. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He put Him to grief; and His soul was made an offering for sin.” Now, having offered Himself a sacrifice, and having thus presented an offering of infinite value, “He has entered into the holiest of all, into heaven itself”–as men, having once died, go into the separate state; and there He will abide till the mystery of God be finished. He will no more return to our world to suffer and die. He will indeed appear again, as men who have once died will live again; but as they will live again, not again to die, but to be judged, so He will appear again, not to expiate the sins, but to complete the salvation, of His people. “Christ will appear a second time” in our world. This is very plainly stated in Scripture. “This same Jesus,” said the angels to the disciples while “they stood gazing up into heaven,” after their Lord had disappeared in the clouds, “who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” This coming is very often spoken of in the New Testament, represented as one of the grand objects of the Christian’s hope; and the time of its arrival is represented as the period of their complete deliverance.

When He is a second time manifested in our world. He shall be “without sin.” In one sense lie was ”without sin” when he appeared the first time. “Without sin” has often been interpreted, ‘without a sin–offering’–’not as a sin–offering, not for the purpose of again presenting Himself in sacrifice.’ That is substantially the meaning; but I rather think “sin” is here used as it is in the preceding clause of the verse: to “bear the sins of many,” is to bear their guilt. When He came the first time, the sins of all his people, the sins of the whole world, were laid on Him; but now He will come without sin. He has borne, and borne away these sins by His one sacrifice–”He has put away sin.” There is no more remaining to be borne by Him–He appears not for expiation, but for salvation. John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1862), 1:429-431. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified to run consecutively; italics original; and underlining mine.]

2) Let us now, secondly, consider his statement with regard to efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ offered by Himself, and applied to all who believe. “The blood of Christ purges your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.” The blood of Christ is the blood which He shed, when by His death on the cross He finished the great sacrifice which He came to offer for the sins of mankind. This blood is in the text represented as “sprinkled” on the conscience. The conscience is the soul, the spiritual part of our nature, the inner man. It is obvious, then, that the language must be figurative. The soul can neither be sprinkled with blood nor washed with water. It is not, however, difficult to perceive at once the meaning and the fitness of the metaphorical representation. It was by sprinkling the blood of the animal sacrifices under the law on the individual for whom they were offered, that that individual became personally possessed of the advantage to obtain which they were offered,–that is, deliverance from the ceremonial guilt and defilement which prevented him from drawing near to God in the temple along with His people. Now the question is, What is it under the new covenant which answers to this’ How is a man interested in the expiatory, justifying, sanctifying efficacy of the sacrifice which Christ Jesus finished on the cross by pouring out His blood, His life, His soul unto death? An answer to that question will explain what the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the conscience, so as to cleanse it from dead works, is. The priest who offered the sacrifice, sprinkled the blood on those for whom it was offered; and it is the work of the great High Priest of our profession to sprinkle His own blood on the conscience. Let us translate these figures into literal language. By the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit, Christ leads the individual so to apprehend the meaning and evidence of the truth respecting His sacrifice, exhibited in the Gospel revelation, as that, according to the arrangements of the new covenant, he becomes personally interested in the blessings obtained by that sacrifice. The expiatory, justifying, sanctifying influences of the atonement are thus shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost given us; the man is pardoned, and accepted, and sanctified; the conscience is thus “purged from dead works.” John Brown, An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1862), 2:341-342. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified to run consecutively; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »