Here
is a list of quotes from the writings of John Owen (1616 – 1683) that either do
not fit with, or out-rightly contradict central tenets of the theory of “common
grace” and the “well-meant gospel offer.”
[N.B.
These quotes are not intended to imply, however, that Owen never made erroneous
statements on this subject or that all his writings were always entirely consistent
on these points.
1. Against
the Theology behind the Well-Meant Offer/The Free Offer
(a) John Owen points out that the idea
of unfulfilled desires, wishings and longings in God (and the “well-meant
offer” is exactly that—an unfulfilled desire of God for the salvation of the
reprobate—is contrary to His eternal happiness and blessedness: On page 210 of
his famous treatise, The Death of Death
(Banner of Truth edition), he writes:
First, Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to Almighty
God: he is God all-sufficient; he is
our rock, and his work is perfect. But a natural affection in God to the good
and salvation of all, being never completed nor perfected, carrieth along with
it a great deal of imperfection and weakness; and not only so, but it must also
needs be exceedingly prejudicial to the absolute blessedness and happiness of
Almighty God. Look, how much any thing wants of the fulfilling of that
whereunto it is carried out with any desire, natural or voluntary, so much it wanteth
of blessedness and happiness. So that, without impairing of the infinite
blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no natural affection unto any thing never
to be accomplished can be ascribed unto him, such as this general love to all
is supposed to be.
Secondly, If the Lord hath such a natural affection to all, as to love them so
far as to send his Son to die for them, whence is it that this affection of his
doth not receive accomplishment? whence is it that it is hindered, and doth not
produce its affects? why doth not the Lord engage his power for the fulfilling
of his desire? “It doth not seem good to his infinite wisdom,” say they, “so to
do.” Then is there an affection in God to that which in his wisdom, he cannot
prosecute. This among the sons of men, the worms of the earth, would be called
a brutish affection.
===================================
(b) John Owen, in the following, is responding to
some Arminian arguments for the idea of an ineffectual desire in God for the
salvation of all men—something which is right at the heart of the theology of
the free/well-meant offer of the gospel. Notice in the list of texts he is
examining, that many of these passages are actually listed in the
Murray-Stonehouse pamphlet “The Free Offer of the Gospel” as their proof texts!
Clearly, John Owen would not be a proponent of their position. He repudiates
the idea of “desires and wishings” being ascribed to God, asserting that such
are “exceedingly opposite to his all-sufficiency and the perfection of his
nature; they are no more in him than he hath eyes, ears, and hands”!
[The Arminians
argue thus] God’s earnest expostulations, contendings, charges, and
protestations, even to such as whereof many perished, Romans 9:27; Isaiah
10:22. As, to instance:—‘O that there were such an heart in them, that they
would fear me,’ etc., ‘that it might be well with them!’ Deuteronomy 5:29.
‘What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?’
etc., Isaiah 5:4, 5. ‘What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they
are gone far from me?’ Jeremiah 2:5. ‘Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a
land of darkness? wherefore say my people, We are lords; we will come no more
unto thee?’ verse 31. ‘O my people, what have I done unto thee? wherein have I
wearied thee? testify against me,’ Micah 6:3. ‘How often would I have gathered,’
etc., ‘and ye would not!’ Matthew 23:37. ‘O that my people had hearkened unto
me!’ etc., ‘I should soon have subdued their enemies,’ etc., Psalm 81:13, 14.
‘Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no
man regarded,’ etc., Proverbs 1:24-31. ‘Because, when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God,’ etc., Romans 1:21, 28. ‘Therefore thou art
inexcusable, O man,’ etc., ‘Thou, after thy hardness and impenitent heart,
treasurest up unto thyself wrath,’ etc., Romans 2:1, 5. The Christian, I hope,
will reply against God, and say, Thou never meantest us good; there was no
ransom given for us, no atonement made for us, no good done us, no mercy shown
us,—nothing, in truth, whereby we might have been saved, nothing but an empty
show, a bare pretense.’ But if any should reason so evilly, yet shall not such
answers stand.
Ans. To this
collection of expostulations I shall very briefly answer with some few
observations, manifesting of how little use it is to the business in hand ...
Not that I deny that there is
sufficient matter of expostulation with sinners about the blood of
Christ and the ransom paid thereby, that
so the elect may be drawn and wrought upon to faith and repentance, and
believers more and more endeared to forsake all ungodliness and worldly lusts,
to live unto him who died for them, and that others may be left more
inexcusable; only for the present there
are no such expostulations here expressed, nor can any be found holding out the
purpose and intention of God in Christ towards them that perish ...
Fourthly, It is confessed, I hope by all, that there are none of those things
for the want whereof God expostulateth with the sons of men, but that he could,
if it so seemed good before him, effectually work them in their hearts, at
least, by the exceeding greatness of his power: so that these things cannot be declarative of his purpose, which he might,
if he pleased, fulfill; “for who hath resisted his will,” Romans 9:19.
Fifthly, That desires and wishings
should properly be ascribed unto God is exceedingly opposite to his
all-sufficiency and the perfection of his nature; they are no more in him than
he hath eyes, ears, and hands. These things are to be understood [in a
way befitting to God]. Sixthly, It is evident that all these are nothing but pathetical declarations of our duty
in the enjoyment of the means of grace, strong convictions of the stubborn and
disobedient, with a full justification of the excellency of God’s ways to draw
us to the performance of our duties.
(Source: The Works of John Owen [Great Britain: Banner, 1967], vol.
10, pp. 400-401, emphasis added.)
===================================
(c)
Owen, in the following, describes it as “extreme madness” to assign a will or
desire unto God of doing that which himself knows and orders that it shall
never be done—something which is a central tenet of the
“well-meant gospel offer”: the notion that God wills or desires the salvation
of all men, while at the same time He knows and has ordered that only some (the
elect) will be saved.
Now, if this be not extreme madness, to assign a will unto God of doing that which
himself knows and orders that it shall never be done, of granting a thing upon
a condition which without his help cannot be fulfilled, and which help he
purposed not to grant, let all judge. Is this anything but to delude
poor creatures? ... Were not this the assigning such a will and purpose to
Jesus Christ:—‘... That is, I do will that that shall be done which I do not
only know shall never be done, but that it cannot be done, because I will not
do that without which it can never be accomplished’? No, whether such a will and purpose as this beseem the wisdom and
goodness of our Saviour, let the reader judge. In brief; an intention
of doing good unto any one upon the performance of such a condition as the
intender knows is absolutely above the strength of him of whom it is requires,—especially
if he know that it can no way be done but by his concurrence, and he is
resolved not to yield that assistance which is necessary to the actual
accomplishment of it,—is a
vain fruitless flourish.
(Source:
The Death of Death [Great Britain:
Banner, 1989], pp. 129, 130)
===================================
(d)
Owen, in the following, says that to desire what one is sure will never come to
pass is “not an act regulated by wisdom or counsel.” He attributes the notion
of “unfulfilled desires” in God to the Remonstrants/Arminians, and judges that
this idea (which is also the very heart of the well-meant offer) implies either
“imperfection” in God, or overthrows His divine foreknowledge:
They [the Remonstrants or Arminians] affirm
that God is said properly to expect
and desire divers things which yet never come to pass. ‘We grant,’
saith Corvinus, ‘that there are desires in God that never are fulfilled.’ Now,
surely, to desire what one is sure
will never come to pass is not an act regulated by wisdom or counsel;
and, therefore, they must grant that before he did not know but perhaps so it
might be. ‘God wisheth and desireth some good things, which yet come not to
pass,’ say they, in their Confession; whence one of these two things must need
follow,—either,
first, that there is a great deal of imperfection in his nature, to desire and
expect what he knows shall never come to pass; or else he did not know but it
might, which overthrows his prescience.
(Source:
Works, vol. 10, pp. 25-26, emphasis
added.)
===================================
(e)
Owen writes the following:
So that, without impairing of the infinite
blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no
natural affection unto anything never to be accomplished can be ascribed unto
Him, such as this general love to all is supposed to be.
(Source: The Death of Death [Banner of Truth],
pp. 209-210, emphasis added.)
Note: This is the very
heart of the “Free Offer of the Gospel” (Murray/Stonehouse, 1948) or
“well-meant offer” obliterated right here. For the “Free-Offer/well-meant
offer” teaching is precisely that God does indeed have a natural affection
towards something that will never be accomplished, namely, the repentance and
salvation of the reprobate. This idea has been propounded especially by K. W.
Stebbins, in his book Christ Freely
Offered (Covenanter Press, 1978).
===================================
(f)
Proponents of the “Free Offer/Well-Meant Offer” often teach that God’s
‘preceptive’ will (commands) and ‘decretive’ will (eternal decrees) are both
manifestations of God’s “desire” (see, for instance, The Free Offer of the Gospel, by John Murray, and Christ Freely Offered, by K. W. Stebbins
for proof of this), a “desire” of God being a sort of ‘common-ground’ between
them both. Owen, however, says there is “no connection” between God’s decrees
and His commands, and states that the commands are expressive of only man’s
“duty”—what man merely “ought” to do—and nothing more than this:
We must exactly distinguish between man’s duty and God’s purpose, there being no connection between them. The
purpose and decree of God is not the rule of our duty; neither is the
performance of our duty in doing what we are commanded any declaration of what
is God’s purpose to do, or His decree that it should be done. Especially is
this to be seen and considered in the duty of the ministers of the gospel, in
the dispensing of the word, in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and
threatenings, committed unto them; all which are perpetual declarative’s of our
duty, and do manifest the approbation of the thing exhorted and invited to,
with the truth of the connection between one thing and another, but not of the
counsel and purpose of God, in respect of individual persons, in the ministry
of the word ... They command and invite all to repent and believe; but they do
not know in particular on whom God will bestow repentance unto salvation, nor
in whom He will effect the work of faith with power. And when they make
proffers and tenders in the name of God to all, they do not say to all, “It is
the purpose and intention of God that ye should believe” (who gave them any
such power?) but, that it is His command, which makes it their duty to do what
is required of them; and they do not declare His mind, what Himself in
particular will do. The external offer is such as from which every man may
conclude his own duty; none, God’s purpose, which yet may be known upon the
performance of his duty. Their objection, then, is vain, who affirm that God
hath given Christ for all to whom He offers Christ in the preaching of the
Gospel; for His offer in the preaching of the Gospel is not declarative to any
in particular, neither of what God hath done nor of what He will do in
reference to him, but of what he ought
to do, if he would be approved of God and obtain the good things promised.
(Source:
The Death of Death, Book 4, Chapt. 1,
para 3; emphasis added.)
===================================
(g)
Some have suggested that the objection that “it is absurd for God to desire to
save those for whom He didn’t even provide the very means necessary to be saved”
is nothing more than rationalism and hyper-Calvinism. Actually, the puritan
divine, John Owen, himself, argued this very thing:
Doth it beseem the wisdom of God, to
purpose [i.e., desire] that which he knows shall never be fulfilled? If a man
should promise to give a thousand pounds to a blind man upon condition that he
will open his eyes and see,—which he knows well enough he cannot do,—were that
promise to be supposed to come from a heart-pitying of his poverty, and not
rather from a mind to illude and mock at his misery? If the king should promise
to pay a ransom for the captives at Algiers, upon condition that they would
conquer their tyrants and come away,—which he knows full well they cannot do,—were
this a kingly act? Or, as if a man should pay a price to redeem captives, but
not that their chains may be taken away, without which they cannot come out of
prison; or promise dead men great rewards upon condition they live again of themselves;—are
not these to as much end as the obtaining of salvation for men upon condition
that they do believe, without obtaining that condition for them? Were not this
the assigning such a will and purpose as this to Jesus Christ:—“I will obtain
eternal life to be bestowed on men, and become theirs, by the application of
the benefits of my death; but upon this condition, that they do believe. But as
I will not reveal my mind and will in this business, nor this condition itself,
to innumerable of them, so concerning the rest I know they are no ways able of
themselves,—no more than Lazarus was to rise, or a blind man is to see,—to
perform the condition that I do require, and without which none of the good
things intended for them can ever become theirs; neither will I procure that
condition ever to be fulfilled in them. That is, I do will that that shall be
done which I do not only know shall never be done, but that it cannot be done,
because I will not do that without which it can never be accomplished”? Now,
whether such a will and purpose as this beseem the wisdom and goodness of our
Saviour, let the reader judge. In brief; an intention [i.e., desire] of
doing good unto any one upon the performance of such a condition as the
intender knows is absolutely above the strength of him of whom it is
required,—especially if he know that it can no way be done but by his
concurrence, and he is resolved not to yield that assistance which is necessary
to the actual accomplishment of it,—is a vain fruitless flourish. That
Christ, then, should obtain of his Father eternal redemption, and the Lord should
through his Son intend [i.e., desire] it for them who shall never be made
partakers of it, because they cannot perform, and God and Christ have purposed
not to bestow, the condition on which alone it is to be made actually theirs,
is unworthy of Christ, and unprofitable to them for whom it is
attained …
(Source:
Works, vol. 10, p. 242)
2. Against
the idea of “General Grace/Mercy/Love”
(a)
In the following, Owen denies that there is any “mercy” displayed in the
general work of God in providence (something which is central to the theory of
common grace) ...
All
mercy is special and purposive,
and is the true source of the remission of sins–a thing about which no word
occurs in the whole Bible and any passage dealing with those who do not have
the benefits of the Word of God. Salvation is only in Christ. Even our
opponents admit that Christ is not revealed in God’s works of providence!
Considering that true mercy–published and revealed from the bosom of the Father
by Christ–is the fount of all saving faith and repentance, we can distinguish
this from all loose and mistaken concepts of ‘mercy’ displayed by the general
work of God in providence; and, having done so, we gladly let the point drop,
since we here have nothing to prove but the one great truth of mercy only in and through Christ.
(Source:
Biblical Theology [Morgan, PA: Soli
Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], p. 74; emphasis added.)
===================================
(b)
In the following, Owen
(i) denies that the good things of
providence can be judged to be given in either love or hatred, and that they
cannot reveal any facet of God’s character. (something which CG actually holds dearly:
that the good things of providence are in fact tokens of God’s love towards all
men.)
(ii) Owen explicitly states that God, in
giving good things to the reprobate (those destined for eternal destruction),
is “fattening them for the coming day of slaughter!”
We know that time and again God allows
worldly good things to pass to the very people that He hates, whom He has a
fixed determination to punish, and whom He has declared to be reserved for
eternal punishment and destruction. (Psalm 73:4-12, 18-20). Note
carefully—things which are good in themselves, but bestowed in such a way as to make it impossible to determine whether
they are given in love or in hatred, cannot reveal any facet of God’s character.
(‘The righteous and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man
knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them. All things come alike
to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked: to the good and
the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that
sacrificeth not: as to the good, so to the sinner,’ Eccles. 9:1-2.) God gives
good temporal things to the wicked. Why conclude that He is attempting to
beguile them into realizing that He can be appeased? Far rather, as sovereign, He is fattening them for the coming day
of slaughter!
(Source:
Biblical Theology [Morgan, PA: Soli
Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], p. 78)
===================================
(c)
Owen confesses, in the following, that he is “unable to understand” how some
would attribute to God a concern for and a will for the security and well-being
of the reprobate:
In just what sense they would have us
believe that God truly wills the
security of those whom He voluntarily allows to walk in the darkness of their
own paths, who are never actually saved, who are never called to
new-birth, nor are given the revelation of the only name on which men might
call for salvation, is something which
I confess myself unable to understand.
(Source:
Biblical Theology [Morgan, PA: Soli
Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], pp. 50-51; emphasis added.)
===================================
(d)
Owen states in the following that “there is no grace that is not in Christ.”
“Common grace,” however, is, according to some, a grace of God outside of Jesus Christ.
There
is no grace that is not in Christ,
and every grace is in Him in the highest degree: so that whatsoever the
perfection of grace, either for the several kinds or respective advancements
thereof, requireth, is in him habitually, by the collation of his Father for
this very purpose, and for the accomplishment of the work designed; which,
though (as before) it cannot properly be said to be infinite, yet it is
boundless and endless. It is in him as the light in the beams of the sun, and
as water in a living fountain which can never fail.
(Source:
The Death of Death [Banner of Truth,
2013], p. 55; emphasis added.)
===================================
(e)
Owen comments on the idea of good gifts of providence (temporal earthly benefits)
being called “mercies.” Are they really to be called “mercies”? …
Now, this
kindness and mercy of God is generally
and loosely called mercy; but, in fact, quite wrongly so when it is
coupled with an assumed intention behind the act which is good in itself.
Goodness is a quality of God, but to be “merciful” indicates a specific purpose
of mercy in a specific situation. It is therefore, incorrect to translate, as
in Psalm 145:9, 15-16, that God is “merciful” not only to men but to His whole
creation; yea, to sheep and oxen and beasts of the field. These all feel the benefits
of God’s general goodness in His providential upholding of His creation, but it
is quite incorrect to argue from the fact of God’s kindness, manifesting and
displaying itself in a vast number of earthly and temporal blessings, that the
recipients of these benefits might improve them to arrive as a real and true,
and saving repentance … Considering that true
mercy—published and revealed from the bosom of the Father by Christ—is the
fount of all saving faith and repentance, we can distinguish this from all loose and mistaken concepts of
“mercy” displayed by the general work of God in providence; and, having done
so, we gladly let the point drop, since we here have nothing to prove but the
one great truth of mercy only in and
through Christ.”
(Source: Biblical Theology
[Pittsburgh: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994], p. 74; emphasis added.)
No comments:
Post a Comment