Murray:

In view of what we have found already there is no reason in the analogy of Scripture why we should not regard this passage as teaching that God in the exercise of his benevolent longsuffering and lovingkindness wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. An a priori assumption that this text cannot teach that God wills the repentance and salvation of all is a gravely unsound assumption, for it is not an assumption derived from the analogy of Scripture. In approaching this text there should be no such prejudice. What this text does actually teach will have to be determined, however, by grammatico-historical exegesis of the text and context.The choice of the verb “is longsuffering” (makrothumei) will be considered first. In Luke 18:7, the only other instance in the New Testament where it refers to the action of God, it probably relates to the elect. But in that case it is employed in the somewhat distinctive sense of “delay” in avenging them.The “longsuffering” (makrothumia) of God is spoken of several times, and its usage is illuminating. Romans 9:22 presents a clear instance where it has in view an attitude of God towards the reprobate; he “endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath.” In Romans 2:4, it is associated with the goodness and forbearance of God, and subsumed under his goodness, as that which is despised by the impenitent who treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath, who does not know that the goodness of God “leadeth him to repentance” (eis metanoian se agei). The choice of the verb agein is to be noted. Since the impenitent are in view, it cannot refer to efficacious grace. Nevertheless, it is a strong verb as its use in Romans 8:14 shows: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God” (cf. Gal. 5:18). It must be understood as a constraining influence flowing from the goodness of God which is calculated to bring men to repentance. The construction in Romans 2:4 is remarkably similar to that in II Peter 3:9.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hodge:

11. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches as to the internal call?

That it is an exercise of the divine power upon the soul, immediate, spiritual, and supernatural, communicating a new spiritual life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity possible. That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and simply the sinner’s own acts; but as such are possible to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of his faculties by the recreative power of God.–See “Conf. of Faith,” Chap. x., Sections 1 and 2.

Common grace preceding regeneration makes a superficial moral impression upon character and action but is generally resisted. The act of grace which regenerates, operating within the spontaneous energies of the soul and changing their character can neither be co-operated with nor resisted. But the instant the soul is regenerated it begins to cooperate with and sometimes, alas1 also to resist subsequent gracious influence prevenient and co-operative. But upon the whole and in the end grace preserves, overcomes, and saves. Regeneration is styled by the Reformed Theologians Conversio habitiualis seu passiva i.e., the change of character in effecting which the soul is the subject and not the agent of action. Conversion they style Conversio actualis seu activa, i.e., the instantly consequent change of action in which the soul still prompted and aided by grace is the only agent.

13. What is meant by “common grace,” and how may it be shown that the Spirit does operate upon the minds of those who are not renewed in the heart?

“Common grace” is the restraining and persuading influences of the Holy Spirit acting only through the truth revealed in the gospel, or through the natural light of reason and of conscience, heightening the natural moral effect of such truth upon the understanding, conscience, and heart. It involves no change of heart, but simply an enhancement of the natural powers of the truth, a restraint of the evil passions, and an increase in the natural emotions in the view of sin, duty, and self-interest.

That God dose so operate upon the hearts of the unregenerate is proved, let, from Scripture, Gen. vi. 3; Acts vii 51; Heb. x. 29; 2d, from universal experience and observation.

14. How does common differ from efficacious grace?

lst. As to its subjects. All men are more or less the subjects of the one; only the elect are subjects of the other.–Rom. viii. 30; xi. 7; 2 Thess. ii 13.

2d. As to its nature. Common grace is only mediate, through the truth, and it is merely moral, heightening the moral influence natural to the truth, and exciting only the natural powers of the soul, both rational and moral. But efficacious grace is immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the mu1 by the immediate energy of the Holy Ghost, and since it implants a new spiritual life, and capacity for a new mode of exercising the natural faculties.

3d As to its effects. The effects of common grace are superficial and transient, modifying the action, but not changing the nature, and its influence is always more or less consciously resisted, as opposed to the prevailing dispositions of the soul But efficacious grace, since it acts not upon but in the will itself, changing the governing desires, and giving a new direction to the active powers of the soul, is neither resistible nor irresistible, but most free, spontaneous, and yet most certainly effectual.

AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 448-450.

Dabney:

God’s design in the common call of the unconverted may be said to be threefold.

To Gather Elect.

First, it is His appointed and proper means for saving from among them, the elect. And He either must have adopted this generality in the outward call, or else He must have adopted one of two expedients. He must have actually saved all, or He must have separated the non-elect wholly from the participation of the common call. Had He adopted the latter plan, surely those who now complain of partiality would then have complained far more loudly. Had He adopted the former, where would have been His manifestation of His sovereignty, and where that evidence of regular customary connection between means and ends, conduct and destiny, on which He has seen fit to found His government?

To Express His Benevolence.

God’s second design in making the common call universal was the exercise of the general holiness, goodness, and compassion of His nature, (which generally regard all His creatures), in dissuading all from sin and self destruction. God’s holiness, which is universally opposed to sin, makes it proper that He shall dissuade from sin, every where, and in all sinners. God’s mercy and goodness, being made possible towards the human race by their being under a gospel dispensation, make it proper that He shall dissuade all from self destruction. And this benevolence not only offers a benefit to sinners generally, but actually confers one–i. e., a temporary enjoyment of a dispensation of mercy, and a suspension of wrath, with all the accompanying mercies, and the offer itself of salvation. This offer is itself a benefit, only man’s perverseness turns it into a curse. Blessed be God, His word assures us that this common call is an expression of sincere benevolence towards all sinners, elect and non-elect, (a compassion whose efficient outgoing is, however, conditioned, as to all, on faith and penitence in them). Ezek. 33:11; Ps. 81:13; 1 Tim. 2:4.

To Clear Himself.

God’s third design in making the common call universal is that when men ruin themselves, as He foresaw they would, His holiness, goodness, compassion and truth may be entirely cleared, in their fate, before heaven and earth. It was a part of His eternal plan, to magnify His own goodness, by offering to human sinners a provision for salvation so complete, as to remove every obstacle arising out of His justice and law; so that in their final damnation all the universe may see how lovely God is; and how desperate an evil sin is. And this is properly God’s highest end.”

R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 555-556.

credit to Tony; and c.f., Robert Dabney on 1 Tim 2:4-6.

In this tract, James Henly Thornwell was clearly influenced by men like Turretin, in that he reads such verses as Eze 18:23, John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9,¹ and 1 John 2:2, in a strict particularist manner.² These two extracts are cited here to demonstrate the historicity of the Reformed Doctrine of General love, and the standard association made by many Reformed between that doctrine and Matthew 5:45.

Thornwell:

1) The doctrine of election is supposed to be inconsistent with the sincerity of God in the general invitations and call of the Gospel, and with His professions of willingness that all should be saved. It is true that this doctrine is wholly irreconcilable with the idea of a fixed determination on the part of God to save, indiscriminately, the whole human race. The plain doctrine of the Presbyterian Church is that God has no purpose of salvation for all, and that He has not decreed that faith, repentance and holiness, and the eternal blessings of the Gospel, should be efficaciously applied to all. The necessary consequence of such a decree would be universal salvation. The Scriptures, which are supposed to prove that God sent His Son into the world with the specific intention of saving all without exception or limitation, it confidently believed, teach, when correctly interpreted, no such doctrine. It is often forgotten that love is ascribed to God under two or three different aspects. Sometimes it expresses the complacency and approbation with which He views the graces which His own Spirit has produced in the hearts of His children; and in this sense it is plain that God can be said to love only the saints. It is probably in this sense that the term love is to be understood in Jude’s exhortation: “Keep yourselves in the love of God.” Sometimes God’s benevolence or general mercy is intended, such as He bestows upon the just and the unjust, the evil and the good, as in Psalms cxlv. 9: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” The common bounties of Providence may be referred to this head. Sometimes it expresses that peculiar and distinguishing favour with which He regarded His elect from all eternity. In this sense, the love of God is always connected with the purpose of salvation. Again, the word sometimes denotes nothing more than God’s willingness to be reconciled to sinners in and through Christ. In regard to the love of complacency or approbation, it is manifest at once that unconverted sinners have no lot nor part in it. God is angry with them every day; ” He hateth all workers of iniquity.” The special love of God is confined exclusively to the elect. The general benevolence of God is common, but it implies no purpose of salvation at all; and therefore, in that sense, God may be said to love the reprobate and disobedient. Even the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction are borne with in much long-suffering and patience. In reference to the last, it is plain that God may be heartily willing to save sinners in and through Christ–may determine to save all, in other words, who receive the Saviour–without positively decreeing to create in all men the necessary faith. In this sense, therefore, God may be said to love sinners, for whom, however, He has no purpose of salvation. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 57-58.

2) In regard to the passages of the first class, it is manifest that where the universal epithets are to be taken in their full latitude–which, however, is not always the case–nothing more can be fairly deduced than God’s benevolence, which leads Him to bestow blessings upon all men. There is nothing specific about the character or nature of the blessings, or whenever anything specific is stated it is found to be only the common bounties of Providence that the sacred writer had immediately in view. How preposterous, therefore, from such texts to deduce a purpose of universal salvation, as though God could not send rain upon the wicked and unjust without designing to save them! It is vain to allege that such general goodness is never referred to God’s love. The Saviour settles the point Matthew v. 44, 45. There He commands His disciples to love their enemies, to bless them that curse them, to do good to them that hate them, etc. Why? “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Here the disciples are commanded to love their enemies, that they might be like God. But how does it appear that God loves His enemies? “He maketh his to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” in other words, in other words, from the common bounties of Providence. With such a plain illustration bf the fact that God can be said to love without intending to save, it is amazing that such passages as the following should ever have been adduced to prove a purpose of universal salvation: “The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.” I would as soon think of appealing to Romans ix. 22, because God is there said to have endured the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction with much long-suffering. James Henly Thornwell, Election and Reprobation (Jackson, Mississippi: Presbyterian Reformation Society, 1961), 62.

¹On 2 Peter 3:9, Thornwell does note and acknowledge Calvin’s unlimited reading of this verse. Further, Thornwell grants that the unlimited reading does not violate the text exegetically, but that he thinks his reading is more congruent to Peter’s intent.
²On the Ezekiel passages, Thornwell overplays Turretin’s stress on the revealed will as a passive delight. And for 1 Timothy 2:4, John 3;16, 1 John 2:2, oddly enough, Thornwell connects these verses with the offer of the gospel as if that satisfies the force of the inherent universality within the terms of these verses.