(I)
Prof.
Herman C. Hanko
[Source: Another Look at Common Grace (2019
edition), pp. 62-68]
The
problem of the relation between common grace and the atonement of Christ has
always been a perplexing one. Those especially who have stood in the Reformed
tradition have hesitated to say that common grace is merited for the wicked in
the cross of Jesus Christ. Their hesitancy has reflected their fear of
universalizing the atoning work of the Savior.
There
is good reason for this hesitancy. It strikes at the very nature of the
atonement. The Reformed churches, both on the continent and in the British Isles,
who have stood in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation, have understood
the Scriptures properly that the death of Christ was a substitutionary work of Christ so that He stood in the place of
those for whom He died, bearing the wrath of God for them and paying the full
penalty for sin. The atonement of Christ is so complete and perfect that for
those for whom Christ died, sin and guilt exist no longer and righteousness and
everlasting blessedness is merited for them.
Thus
the work of Christ accomplished two things: Christ bore away all the wrath of
God against those for whom Christ died; and Christ, by His perfect obedience,
secured all the fullness of salvation.
Those
who taught (and teach) that the atonement of Christ is for every man head for
head are, of necessity, compelled to alter this essential characteristic of
Christ’s atoning work. They stand confronted with the obvious fact that not all
men are actually forgiven and not all men are saved. But if not all men are
forgiven and if not all men are saved, then Christ did not secure for them who
are not saved forgiveness of sins and everlasting blessedness. Hence, those who
promote universal salvation must fall back on a different conception of the
atonement.
Various
theories of the atonement have been suggested over the years (as, e.g., the
“moral” theory of the atonement, or the “governmental” theory of the atonement)
and it is not our intention to discuss this question in detail. The works
written on the subject are many. But, whatever the particular theory may be,
the heart of it all is that Christ accomplished only one thing on the cross: He
only made salvation available for
all. He did not actually secure
forgiveness and salvation; He only made these gifts available. They actually become the possession of those who,
hearkening to the overtures of the gospel, accept Christ as their Savior by an
act of their own will.
This
conception is sheer Arminianism, and Reformed people have always, with good
reason, shied away from it and condemned it as useless for their salvation. It
has been well said: “A Christ for all is a Christ for no one.”
This
is the dilemma which the proponents of common grace necessarily face. God is a
holy God who hates sin and must, to preserve His essential holiness, punish the
sinner with death both temporal and eternal. If God would do anything to the
sinner but punish him, His holiness would be besmirched and He would no longer
be God. The only possibility for God’s favor to rest upon man is if someone
would come to bear himself the punishment which is justly due the sinner. This
is the work Christ accomplished.
But
now, so common grace teaches, God loves all men, is kind and merciful to them,
bestows upon them many good gifts in this life, and blesses them with many
temporal blessings which flow from the fountain of His grace and mercy. He
loves and blesses those who are not saved and bestows good gifts on those who
go to hell. How can this love and favor of God come upon those for whom Christ
did not die and for whom Christ did not earn blessing?
It
is obvious that such favor and blessing cannot come apart from the cross. And
so, sensing the force of the problem, many have concluded that the death of
Christ is, after all, for all men in some sense of the word.
This
is the position which John Murray takes:
Many benefits accrue to the non-elect from
the redemptive work of Christ ... Thus all the good showered on this world,
dispensed by Christ in the exercise of his exalted lordship, is related to the
death of Christ and accrues to man in one way or another from the death of
Christ. If so, it was designed to accrue from the death of Christ ... This is
to say that even the non-elect are embraced in the design of the atonement in
respect of those blessings falling short of salvation which they enjoy in this
life ... [It] would not be improper to say that, in respect of what is entailed
for the non-elect, Christ died for them ... [It] is incontrovertible that even
those who perish are partakers of numberless benefits that are the fruits of
Christ's death ... (Murray, Collected
Writings, I, pp. 63-65).
The
idea is, therefore, that while Christ actually accomplished salvation full and
complete only for the elect, the suffering and death of Christ was so
stupendous in its efficacy that additional
blessings were also merited for the non-elect. It is (the figure is mine) as if
Christ filled to overflowing the cup of salvation, but the overflowing
blessings fall upon the reprobate as well.
But
there are serious objections to such a conception of the cross.
On
the one hand, it seems impossible for these blessings of common grace to come
to the reprobate apart from the cross. If these blessings are rooted in God’s
love and mercy and are expressions of His favor, such love, mercy, and favor can come only through the cross.
On
the other hand, it is impossible to see how these blessings, which are in their
very nature of a temporal kind, can be merited by Christ when He died for sin.
The
very first objection is that this view has no
scriptural basis. It is a logical deduction without biblical foundation.
(Note: It is ironic that those who hold to common grace often accuse the
Protestant Reformed Churches of “rationalism,” while they themselves often
argue rationalistically). It is striking that Murray offers not one shred of
evidence from Scripture for such a universalizing of the atonement. He argues
for it in this way: 1) The reprobate receive many blessings; 2) These blessings
flow from the love and mercy of God; 3) There can be no love and mercy for
anyone apart from the cross; 4) Therefore, in some sense, Christ died for every
man. This is, in itself, sound argumentation; the problem is with the first
premise: “The reprobate receive many blessings.”
This is simply not true. And, if the first premise is not true, the need for a
universal atonement is not true. We may safely conclude that Scripture gives
not the slightest hint that Christ’s meritorious work on the cross accomplished
the meriting of temporal blessings for all mankind.
Secondly,
the question is one of merit. The
Scriptures teach that the work of Christ is meritorious. He earned and merited
for the elect that which they could not merit for themselves. He did this great
work in obedience to the Father. The elect were given Him from all eternity as
His own possession. When He died on the cross, the names of all His elect were
in His heart and thought. He consciously and willingly died for each one of
them. “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the
end” (John 13:1). “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep ... As the Father
knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep”
(John 10:14-15).
This
is a great blessedness for God’s people. They, when by faith they flee to the
cross for their salvation, know and understand that their names were on the
lips of Christ when He entered into the depths of hell to die for them. He
loves them more than any other person can possibly love them. When, therefore,
Christ cried out: “It is finished,” the believer understands that 2000 years
ago on Calvary all his sins were completely taken away so that they exist no
longer. At that point all his sins are gone, completely gone, forevermore.
Salvation full and free was earned for him so that he can look forward in
certainty to everlasting blessedness in heaven. Christ merited this for him.
If
then, the cross of Christ was also for the reprobate, did Christ have also all
the names of the reprobate in His heart and mind? When He said to God: “I offer
the perfect sacrifice for the sins of My people by enduring the fury of Thy
wrath,” did He also say, “Father, I offer myself as the sacrifice for those who
are not Thy people in order that I may earn for them temporal blessings, even
though their end is hell?” This is manifestly absurd.
Thirdly,
one may carry this whole idea back to God Himself and His love, mercy, and
grace, for that is our starting point when we discuss this question of common
grace: common grace flows from a universal love, mercy, and grace.
Did
God out of His own eternal and sovereign love for the elect give them to Christ
so that Christ might accomplish salvation for them? That is the heart of
salvation, and, indeed, this is the blessed truth to which every child of God
clings. But, in addition to that, did God give also the reprobate to Christ
from all eternity, out of eternal love, in order that Christ might also die for
them—even though the death of God’s own Son is
for temporal blessings for the reprobate and their end at last the suffering of
hell?
Put
in this form, it becomes obvious that such cannot be the case. We may, rather
abstractly, discuss the extent and the design of the atonement; but put in the
concrete form of the believer’s relation to Christ, the whole question strikes
at the heart of his faith.
Finally,
although the proponents of this universalizing of Christ’s atonement are
careful to limit it in such a way that only certain temporal blessings are
earned for the reprobate, the fact remains that once having universalized the
atonement, even in a limited way, the outcome is bound to be a complete
universalizing of the atonement so that the Arminian position is once again
brought into the church and a Christ for all is preached from every pulpit.
Then salvation is not accomplished;
it is only available, and salvation
depends upon the will of man.
Various
distinctions have been made to try to justify a line of argumentation which
makes temporal blessings flow from the cross. Such distinctions have been
applied to the love of God. Murray, e.g., distinguishes between a love of
benevolence which saves and a love of complacency which is conditional. (Murray,
Collected Writings, II, pp. 70-72.)
Similar
distinctions have been made in the atonement of Christ, distinctions between
such ideas as the extent of the atonement, the design or intent of the
atonement, the efficacy of the atonement, etc. Very clearly, Murray speaks of
the design of the atonement as being inclusive of the reprobate, although he
uses also the term “extent” when he speaks of the blessings which God sends to
the reprobate. He writes:
The topic is sometimes spoken of as the
design of the atonement. In the discussion the term ‘design’ is frequently the
appropriate and convenient term. But there is also an advantage in the term ‘extent’;
it has a denotative quality and serves to point up the crux of the question:
who are embraced in that which the atonement actually accomplished? For whom
were obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption
designed? (Ibid., I, p. 63.)
Another
distinction is made between temporal blessings and eternal blessings, the
former for all men, the latter for the elect only. But whether the blessings
are temporal or eternal, they remain blessings
for all that.
Yet
another distinction has been made between the sinner and his sin. God loves the
sinner, but hates his sin. God loves the sinner as creature, and, therefore, this love for the sinner as creature
is the same as His love for all His creatures, including rocks and elm trees.
But the sin of the creature God hates. (Cf. Kuiper, The Three Points of Common Grace, p. 11: “God hates the wicked as wicked, but he loves them as His creatures.” Although Kuiper does not
make the distinction between sin and the sinner, his idea seems to be the same.)
Yet
these distinctions, too, are made in an effort to give some support to common
grace without any scriptural basis. It is impossible to find in Scripture any
distinction in the love of God. It is impossible, as we have noted, to find any
references in Scripture to the effect that the atonement has a broader referent than the elect. It is
impossible to find in Scripture any distinction between sin and the sinner. In
fact, to state that Scripture teaches that God “loves the sinner, but hates his
sin” is in flat contradiction to Psalm 5:5: “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”
These
distinctions, therefore, can only confuse. They are impossible to maintain. And
the result is that the people in the pew come to believe that God loves everyone
(Note H. J. Kuiper’s comment referred to earlier: “There is no one here in this
audience who can say, ‘God hates me.’ Suppose you knew that you will ultimately
be lost; even then you could not say, ‘God does not care for me’” (Kuiper, The Three Points, pp. 15-16), that
Christ died for every man head for head, and that blessings come to all. The
argumentation ends in blatant universalism.
The
lines of Scripture are sharp and clear. God eternally loves His people in
Christ. He gives them to Christ as Christ’s possession. For them Christ sheds
His blood and earns for them forgiveness of sin and life everlasting. Through
Christ and His cross the blessings of God come upon those for whom Christ died.
They are the blest, while “the curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked”
(Proverbs 3:33).
-------------------------------------------------------
(II)
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia
[James] Durham considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the
reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of or
purchase of, Christ’s death. And he answers in the negative. The ... fruits of
Christ’s death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for
whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so
in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ's death
of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident.
Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is
edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant
redemption, as promised blessings to God's people.
-------------------------------------------------------
(III)
Adam Gib (1714–1788)
[Source: The Present Truth: A Display of the Secession
Testimony (Edinburgh, 1774) vol. 2, Appendix 2, Section 4, pp. 299-302]
There can be no proper enjoyment of any benefits from Christ, as
benefits of his mediatory kingdom, but in a way of communion and fellowship
with Him, by faith. Thus, no common material benefits, as enjoyed by wicked men
or unbelievers, can be looked upon as benefits of his mediatory kingdom, or as
the fruits of his purchase. These material benefits, in the most general
consideration thereof, do proceed from God as the great Creator and Preserver
of the world, in which respect they are common to men and beasts. But more
particularly, they always come to men in some Covenant-channel. They come to
wicked men, or unbelievers, through the broken Covenant [of Works], in the
channel of its curse. And so, whatever material goodness be in these things to
them as suited to their fleshly nature, like the goodness thereof unto beasts,
yet there is no spiritual goodness attending the same; no divine love, but
wrath.
-------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment