# John Calvin on the Free Offer-3



## JOwen (Sep 12, 2006)

From KERUGMA

"...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. " 2 Peter 3:9



> "But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent."
> 
> "This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ timea right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way."
> 
> "But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. But as the verb choÌ„reoÌ„ is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance."



Admittedly, this is a most difficult passage to interpret if one does not understand Calvin's disposition of God's to two kinds of love toward man (General, nonsalvific benevolence, and electing, saving love). Rev. Hanko, in his debate with Rev. Silversides says the following, "When we are speaking of common grace, we are also speaking of common mercy, common love, common goodness, common long-suffering. They all go together. They can't be separated. I'm not going to argue against just a common grace this evening, but against a common love, common mercy, common benevolence, common goodness, common long-suffering" (Intro to Lecture #2). I think in doing so, he has argued himself right off the pages of Scripture. Agree or disagree, Hanko has out calvined Calvin. He's not taken Calvin in all his context, and realized the dichotomization of his teaching on this subject.

How then do we reconcile the clear Biblical teaching that God hates the sinner, with a passage such as this? We can do one of two things. We can wrest the passage from its true context, or as Calvin does, we can go back to the two ways in which the Bible speaks of God's love. When the Scriptures tell us that God hates the reprobate with an eternal hatred, it speaks of the reprobate in terns of the "hidden purpose of God", to quote Calvin. In this way, there is an eternal and abiding hatred. And when the Word indicates that God is long-suffering to man in the calls to repentance, it is from the general, non-saving love "made known to us in the gospel" (Calvin) that terminates on the creature. This love is not saving, but creaturely, "œthat the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him" (Calvin). If you disagree with these two loves, argue with Calvin.
KERUGMA

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by JOwen]


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2006)

Jerrold,

The problem is that people are prone to use the word "common" and import a "saving" meaning into it. As soon as you apply the idea of common love to the plan of salvation, whether to the longsuffering of God or the general offer of the gospel, then it is no longer common, but saving. 2 Pet. 3:9 is a classic example. The purpose for which God is long-suffering is because he is not willing that any should perish. To suggest that this long-suffering is towards all men, elect and reprobate alike, leads to the conclusion that God's plan of salvation embraces all men -- which is contrary to plain Scripture teaching.

Granted there are common elements revealed in Scripture. But it is to man as man, not man as elect or reprobate, that is, without reference to "the secret purpose of God," as Calvin states. But to speak of God loving, suffering, etc., the reprobate, is to bring in the eternal purpose of God with reference to them. History manifests who the elect and reprobate are. Scripture nowhere hinders the historical process by revealing it ahead of time. Hence the grammar which the Holy Ghost employs is one of general terminology. If we are going to speak of a common grace, love, etc., we should respect the language of the Spirit and use these without reference to men as elect or reprobate.

Blessings!


----------



## JOwen (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Jerrold,
> 
> The problem is that people are prone to use the word "common" and import a "saving" meaning into it. As soon as you apply the idea of common love to the plan of salvation, whether to the longsuffering of God or the general offer of the gospel, then it is no longer common, but saving. 2 Pet. 3:9 is a classic example. The purpose for which God is long-suffering is because he is not willing that any should perish. To suggest that this long-suffering is towards all men, elect and reprobate alike, leads to the conclusion that God's plan of salvation embraces all men -- which is contrary to plain Scripture teaching.
> ...



Thanks Matthew, I always appreciate your comments whenever I read them. 

You are correct to say that "common" love does not import saving love. The common elements are to man as man (that is, a creature of God bearing His image), and in no way means that there is a desire to save those who were not called according to purpose. This must be stressed at every point. The danger however the other direction, is to look over or (worse yet), rearrange the meaning of plain texts that speak of the condescending benevolence (goodness, long suffering) of God to His creatures as creatures. I was reading Calvin just this evening on Psalm 145:9. Here is what he said.



> Jehovah is good to all, etc. The truth here stated is of _wider_ application than the former, for the declaration of David is to the effect, that not only does God, with fatherly indulgence and clemency, forgive sin, *but is good to all without discrimination*, as he makes his sun to rise upon the good and upon the wicked. Forgiveness of sin is a treasure from which the wicked are excluded, but their sin and depravity _does not prevent God from showering down his goodness upon them_, which they *appropriate* without being at all sensible of it. Meanwhile believers, *and they only*, know what it is to enjoy a reconciled God, as elsewhere it is said "” "œCome ye to him, and be ye enlightened, and your faces shall not be ashamed; taste and see that the Lord is good."(Psalm 34:5, 8.) When it is added that the *mercy of God extends to all his works*, this ought not to be considered as contrary to reason, or obscure. Our sins having involved the whole world in the curse of God, there is everywhere an opportunity for the exercise of God´s mercy, even in helping the brute creation (Calvin's Commentary on the Book of Psalms, p. 810).



In this way, we can say, as Calvin did, that there is a "common" goodness or mercy that *terminates* on the creature. 

Any thoughts?

Kind regards,


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2006)

Well stated, Jerrold. Blessings!


----------

