"Common Grace"
A paper by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia
on the Westminster Standards' position
in relation to Common Grace
Introduction
During both the history of the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Churches of the Continent, Scotland and
England, there has been, and continues to be, a controversy on the question of
God's character as He expresses it through His love. Does God in some way love
all men? Does He desire their salvation? Though there are quite a few
variations of opinion and belief among those who affirm a universal love of God
and/or His desire for all men's salvation, basically there were and still are,
two groups within the professing Reformed Churches.
One group believes that in the basic nature of
God there is a love for all men that shows itself in God's restraint of sin,
and in providing the good things of which men partake of in this life. It is
thought that there is a "non-saving" grace, which is nevertheless the
expression of a favourable, loving attitude of God toward the reprobate. This
universal favourable attitude of God is manifest, it is thought, in such things
as rain, sunshine, health and strength etc., which are bestowed by God upon men
as undeserving creatures. This "common grace" also preserves a vestige
of the good in fallen man thus restraining him from becoming
"absolutely" depraved and even rendering him capable of performing
good in the way of civil righteousness. Prof Louis Berkhof is representative of
those who hold this view of "common" grace.
The other group goes further, and say that not
only is there this general love, but it is a love that desires all men's
salvation. They say, God in Christ so loved all men that He earnestly desires
their salvation. They believe that such a doctrine as this, is basic to the
sincerity of God in the gospel being freely preached to all mankind. Both
groups make it clear that they are talking of a non-saving love—a general or
common grace. It is out of this variety or species of "common grace"
that the Medusa of universalism raises one of its many heads in the form of a
"well-meant" offer. All that needs to happen for this development is
that God's gracious attitude toward the non-elect (in temporal things—rain and
sunshine) be applied to the outward call of the gospel to all men. When this
happens common "non-saving" grace is translated into the sphere of
saving grace in Christ. God no longer offers salvation in Christ to all in the
gospel with the one purpose, desire and intention of saving only the elect in
Christ, as Reformed theology once vigorously maintained. Now "common
grace" determines that God has a favourable attitude toward all men. Now
the preaching of the gospel becomes an expression of God's sincere desire,
earnest wish and revealed will that all men be saved. Thus, "common
grace" becomes the basis for theologians and preachers even in Reformed
churches to speak of a "well- meant" offer that stands in flat
contradiction to God's eternal decree of election and reprobation. To
demonstrate the fairness of this assessment one need only refer to Professors
John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, the esteemed Reformed theologians who once
served at Westminster Theological Seminary, USA. and such ministers as the Rev.
Ken Stebbins, a minister of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia, and
their writings.
Over against what we see as this radically
compromised Calvinism, is the doctrine of sovereign particular grace flowing
from the fountain of grace in God's eternal decree of double predestination.
This we believe, must be held as determinative for the offer of the gospel.
God's eternal decree of election in Christ determines God's attitude toward all
men, elect and non-elect. This means that God's grace is in all things to the
elect, but in nothing to the reprobate. This applies to both the good things
that come from God to all men in His providence and to the preaching of the
gospel. To the elect all is grace in Christ; to the reprobate nothing is grace
for they are never in Christ, not in time nor from all eternity.
We understand that at times the use of the term
"common grace" was used in classical Reformed theology. This,
however, ought to be sharply distinguished from modern usage of the term. It
was used by some to express God's good and perfect dealings with fallen mankind
in providence. God's goodness is indeed clearly set forth before all men in
providence as He executes His eternal decree of election and reprobation in
time. The term "grace" was often used to express the fact that in His
providential dealings with men, the God of pure goodness does good in relation
to the undeserving and rebellious creature. God's good providence of course is
over all creation; minerals, plants, animals, mankind and all spirits. So it
was that the term "common grace," when carefully qualified so as to
distinguish it clearly from saving grace, was thought to be a suitable term to
describe God's dealing with the creature by some Reformed fathers whom we hold
in high regard. They taught, however, that God's good works of providence
(common grace) implied no favourable attitude of God toward the reprobate. We
believe that in the current theological climate, the term "common
grace" becomes confusing and even dangerous, and ought not to be used to
describe God's good dealings with all men in His works of providence.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church, in the
light of Scripture and our Confessional
Standards, most certainly and clearly believes that the gospel is to be
preached to all mankind, and Christ freely offered, by being set forth and held
up as the only remedy that can be found for the consequences of our sin and
rebellion. We confess that the sovereign, triune God has graciously and
wonderfully provided a remedy in Jesus Christ the only Saviour, and that all
who repent and believe may certainly be assured of forgiveness and eternal life
in Christ. We believe that we should ever be about the work of preaching this
news of the gospel as the Lord gives us the means and ability. We hold that we
should earnestly plead with, and encourage all to repent and believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ. Nevertheless the Evangelical Presbyterian Church rejects the
notion of the love of God for all men in all its varieties, including the
notion that the preaching of the gospel to all men shows His love for and
desire of their salvation. We believe that these notions of a universal love in
God for all men—common grace—are contrary to the Word of God, and not found in
our Confessional Standards. We
believe that it compromises not only the character of God, such as His
immutability and simplicity, and the glory of His perfect and finished work of
salvation and grace, but such basic reformed truths as the inability and ruined
state of mankind—his total depravity—and our great need of the salvation of
Jesus Christ. In short, we believe it is a compromise of the reformed faith as
set forth in our Confessional Standards.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church freely
acknowledges that some otherwise good and godly, and in other respects
reformed, men have held and do hold, to different variations and types of
common grace. While we would seek to support and to encourage such brethren as
even hold to these things, in a faith, worship and life we share in common, yet
at the same time, we cannot but, in good conscience, stand apart from them on
the question of the character and nature of God as expressed in His love. We do
so in testimony and witness that we believe the doctrine of the universal love
of God, or God's desire for, or delighting in, the salvation of all men, is an
error that can lead to the most serious compromises of the character of the God
of our salvation. We believe it leads to a departure from the reformed faith—the
most consistent expression of the Word of God. We believe we see the fruit of
this departure today for example, in those who once professed the reformed
faith, now teaching that there is no place of eternal punishment, not to
mention the compromises made with Arminianism, Modern Humanism and a false
ecumenicity.
A Brief
Historical Background to the Controversy on God's Nature
Soon after the wonderful work of God in the
Reformation in Europe, there was a departure from the truths concerning the
nature and works of God, the nature and work of the redemption purchased by
Christ, and the nature and ability of fallen man. All the same issues, we
believe, are involved in the common grace controversy.
One of the first such departures from the
Reformed faith, was that of James Arminius who denied the reformed doctrine of
total depravity—that man was without strength to contribute to his salvation.
He taught in effect that God is not fully sovereign in the affairs of men, and
that man has the ability to either choose or reject God's salvation. He taught
God elects men to eternal life on the basis that He sees in time which man will
choose Him and his salvation, rather than what God freely of Himself decides in
His sovereign unconditional election. Arminius and his followers taught that
Christ died for all men, to make it possible for all to be saved. He denied
particular or limited atonement. If a person is not saved, it is because God
has done all that He can, but man will not do his part—the denial of God's
sovereign irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. We can see
the humanism, and man-centredness of such beliefs. We see the stark denial of
the absolute sovereignty of God and His grace, and the finished nature of
redemption in the atoning work of Christ in such teachings. While these
teachings were condemned by the Reformed Churches of the Continent and in
Scotland and England at the great Synod of Dort in 1618-1619, the basic notions
of man-centredness and of the denial of the sovereignty of God's grace and
character, did not die out.
In Scotland, in the early 1600's, John Cameron,
a minister of the Reformed Church of Scotland, threatened to compromise the
Reformed faith by seeking to retain various elements of Arminianism in his
teaching about the nature of God and man. He was resisted in Scotland, but
became a lecturer in France at Saumur, and influenced such men as Moses
Amyraut, who founded the school of Amyraldianism, and John Davenant, who
founded a school of similar persuasion in England. All these men, and those who
followed them, including some at the Westminster Assembly, such as Edmund Calamy,
Joseph Caryl, Jeremiah Burroughs, and a non-attendant but contemporary of the
Assembly, the influential Richard Baxter, as well as the author (presumed to be
an Edward Fisher), of the book, called, The
Marrow Of Modern Divinity, believed in a universal grace, though they made
their own various refinements of this teaching.
We believe that the present day views of common
grace, in all its various forms, have their roots in the doctrine of the above
men. Further, we hold that Cameron should have been opposed in Scotland as
compromising the reformed faith with his universalism, as he was. We stand with
such men as Francis Turretin, and the Second
Helvetic Confession in their opposition of Amyraut and his teaching on the
Continent. We fully support the fact that Calamy and the other Davenant divines
were opposed by the Scots and others at the Westminster Assembly, in order to
prevent common grace sentiments being inserted in the Confessional Standards. Just as the book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, was opposed in Scotland by the bulk
of the evangelical and godly reformed men in the Assembly both in 1720 and
1722, so we also oppose it. We of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of our
day, oppose the teaching of common grace, and for the same reasons as our reformed
fathers opposed it. It is a most serious compromise of the Reformed faith.
We are aware that some characterise the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia's view on the grace of God, as an
aberrant doctrine to that of the orthodox view of the earlier Reformed Church
of Scotland, and to that of the Westminster Confessional
Standards. We strongly reject this characterisation. Rather, we believe
that it can be shown that it is common grace and its allied doctrines—not
particular grace—that are aberrant from the doctrines of the Confessional Standards, and what the
earlier Reformed Scottish divines believed.
We acknowledge that at the time that the
Westminster Confessional Standards
were drawn up, there were, and had been, English Puritan Presbyterians and
Independents, who held to various tenets and expressions of common grace. We
accept that there were a small number at the Westminster Assembly, whose
actions at the Assembly, if not their writings, show that they, to varying
degrees, believed that there is a non-saving love in the Godhead for all men,
and that He desires their salvation.
We further acknowledge that because of this
division at the Westminster Assembly, the Confessional
Standards do not specifically condemn all the Amyraldian/Davenant
teachings. Yet it is plainly a matter of historical record that while Edmund
Calamy and others sought to have their views of a universal grace
Confessionally expressed, it was strongly opposed by the Scots, among others,
and that the final expression of truths relating to the grace of God, were all
particularistic. There is no place, we believe, where common grace and its
related doctrines can be found in the Confessional
Standards, though it was proposed that it embody such sentiments. The Westminster Confession, chapter 3,
section 6 and 8:8, and the Larger
Catechisms Nos. 57 to 59, are relevant to this controversy. They are
positive statements of the Scriptural doctrine concerning the application of
the redemption purchased by Christ.
Of God's Eternal Decree: Wherefore they who are elected being
fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in
Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are adopted, sanctified, and kept
by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by
Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the
elect only.
Of Christ The Mediator: To all those for whom Christ hath
purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate
the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the
Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to
believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit; overcoming
all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways,
as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.
Larger Catechism, Q. & A. No 57: What benefits hath
Christ procured by His mediation?
Christ by His
mediation, hath procured redemption, with all other benefits of the covenant of
grace.
Larger Catechism, Q. & A. No. 58: How do we come to be
made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath procured?
We are made partakers
of the benefits which Christ hath procured, by the application of them unto us,
which is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost.
Larger Catechism, Q. & A. No 59: Who are made partakers
of redemption through Christ?
Redemption is certainly
applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath
purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ
according to the gospel.
What we should once again note very clearly, is
that the whole idea of common benefits or grace is specifically rejected in the
above statements, even though Calamy at the Westminster Assembly sought to have
them included.
A controversy over the doctrine of God's grace
in Christ, and other doctrinal matters arose in Scotland in the early 1700's.
Certain ministers of the Church of Scotland, Hogg, Boston, Erskine and others,
promoted a species of common grace via a book called, The Marrow of Modern Divinity. The Church of Scotland, including
the great bulk of the Evangelical Divines, soundly condemned various
"common grace" sentiments of the book. The book contained statements
such as the following.1 It taught of Christ and His work that,
"the Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind" ...
"Christ hath taken upon Him the sins of all men" ... "Whatsoever
Christ did for the redemption of mankind, He did it for you" ... "Go
and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is
dead for him." It is true that an attempt was made by several otherwise
orthodox Evangelical Scots, to explain these "common grace"
statements in such a way that they would be more orthodox, but the fact remains
that this book and its teachings had a doctrinal background at variance with
the historic reformed view, and was judged to be at variance with the reformed
faith by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1720 and in 1722.
It is important to note that in 1831 these Acts
against "the Marrow" were used by the then generally Evangelical
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to judge John Macleod Campbell for
teaching Amyraldian type doctrines. This man at his trial, sought to invalidate
the Acts of 1720 & 1722 against the Marrow teaching, by saying that the
Church had brought in a new doctrine and yet had not proceeded according to its
constitution via the so called "Barrier Act," to ratify it. The
Assembly in answer stated that their position in the Acts, and their rejection
of the teachings of the schools of Davenant and Amyraut, was no new doctrine,
but simply the declaration of what was already the teaching of the Church on
such matters as the love and grace of God and the question of who benefited
from Christ's atoning work. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church likewise
believes that it adds no new doctrine to the historic reformed faith as it has
come down to us via the Reformed Church of Scotland and the Westminster
Confessional Standards, when it today rejects common grace.
We believe that while today a large number of
professing reformed Churches would side with the teaching of the "Marrow,"
and its common grace, we of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church side with the
earlier reformed divines of Scotland. We hold with their rejection of common
benefits or grace for all men from the death of Christ, or from the character
of God, as reference to their writings, and to reputable historians will show.
For example, James Walker, the highly respected historian of the Reformed
Church of Scotland, in his work The
Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 1560-1750, Knox Press, pages 79-86,
discusses this matter. We quote in part:
It was a part of [a]
scheme that Christ had purchased "common benefits," the ordinary
temporal blessings of life, and that it is through His grace that the world is
sustained as it is, and that all its bounties are enjoyed by mankind... 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. It is argued further, that it is very doubtful whether, ... it
can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God,
that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more
or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be
said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought
Rutherford. ... That the wrath of God did not straightway overtake sinners;
that the sun shone, and the showers fell, and the harvests still came round to
supply the wants of men,—was this not, in its measure, a revelation of grace?
... the idea was decisively rejected by the evangelical divines.
Halyburton handles the
question in his own way in a famous excursus of his Natural Religion,—on God's government of the heathen world.
"Is that government," he asks, "in any sense one of grace?"
He answers in the negative. Not any law of grace, but the law of creation, the
law of works, unretracted, unmitigated, reigns everywhere outside the gospel
realms; and even by that law, although its penalties are meanwhile suspended, a
certain outward order can be still preserved, and a certain system of external
rewards and punishments comes in.
A fair representation
of the Scottish doctrines may be given in the words... 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... 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, in the channel of its curse; and so,
whatever material goodness be in these things to them... yet there is no
spiritual goodness attending the same, - no divine love, but wrath.
The
Historical Witness of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia against
Common Grace
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church from its
beginning has stood for sovereign, particular grace as opposed to common grace
in its various forms. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church did this, before it
even knew of the existence of other contemporary Reformed Churches or men who
likewise rejected common grace, when it, through its courts, came to the
position of rejecting common grace, and asserting particular grace.
In April 1963, when several students of the
Church were attending the John Knox Theological College at the Presbyterian
Church of Eastern Australia (Free Church), in St. Kilda, Victoria, a booklet
called The Free Offer of the Gospel,
by Profs. John Murray and Ned Stonehouse of the Westminster Theological
Seminary in the United States of America, was set for study. The leading
proposition of this treatise is, "that God in the free offer of the
Gospel, earnestly longs for and desires the salvation of all men." The
rationale for this teaching was a double will in God. There is a desire of His
will for all men to be saved, but there is the will of His decrees that not all
will be saved. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church stood against these teachings,
both of an unfulfilled desire in God for the salvation of all men, and of two
conflicting wills in the Godhead. At a Presbytery meeting on the 13th February
1965 it condemned this doctrine. A publication2 was issued that gave
some reasons for the rejection of the teachings of Professors Murray and
Stonehouse on the matter of God's love or grace.
Though the Evangelical Presbyterian Church
differs strongly with Professor John Murray on his doctrine of God's grace and
the grounds of the offer of the gospel, yet it continued to hold him in esteem
as a godly and otherwise orthodox divine in many ways. The Evangelical
Presbyterian Church is not sectarian in its view of the Church.
The controversy also involved the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
("Free Church") in a difference of understanding on the doctrine. The
Free Church accused the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of introducing a new
doctrine contrary to the reformed faith. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church in
turn has maintained, that it cannot be established from the Confessional Standards that there is a
love in God for the reprobate, and a desire for the salvation of all men; on
the contrary, they are particularistic in their statements concerning the love
of God, and that therefore we cannot be accused of adding to the Confessional Standards by denying common
grace, or excluding it from our pulpits. We rather assert that the Free Church,
while allowing the position of Murray and Stonehouse and akin positions to be
held by the majority of its office-bearers, has made an addition to the Confessional Standards.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church maintained
as its belief that:
1. The Scriptures clearly define the
disposition of God toward the non-elect, as one of a just and perfect hatred
and wrath.
2. That since these same Scriptures are applied
in the Confession as proof of its
doctrine, the Confessional Standards
in our judgement must also be interpreted after the same manner. That is, the
non-elect, who are predestined to everlasting death according to the statements
of the Confession, are under God's
disposition of just hatred and wrath, there being no other statement to the
contrary in them.
For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, Of God's Eternal
Decree, Section 3 & 4 states:
By the decree of God,
for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto
everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
These angels and men,
thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably
designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either
increased or diminished.
Proof texts are used to support the above
statements which leave no doubt as to the disposition of God to the non-elect.
Consider for example:
Matthew 25:41: Then shall He say also unto them on the left
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
and his angels.
Romans 9:22,23: What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to
make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction; And that He might make known the riches of His glory on
the vessels of mercy which He had afore prepared unto glory.
Proverbs 16:4: The Lord hath made all things for Himself;
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Since that time, the Evangelical Presbyterian
Church has continued to maintain its adherence to particular grace, and its
rejection of common grace. This is what it believes to be the truth of God's
Word; this is what it believes the Confessional
Standards embody, and what was the belief of the early Scottish Reformed
Church. It believes that the glory of God's grace and character and the health
and soundness of the Church doctrinally, is tied up in holding to its
profession on this matter. In the preaching, teaching and writings of its
ministers, it has continued to adhere to particular grace, and to reject the
different variations of the teachings of common grace. Further arguments from
the exegesis of Scripture, the Confessional
Standards and the history of the Reformed Churches can be found in such
writings.
Conclusion
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of
Australia rejects the following statement and like teaching as not taught in
the Word of God and the Westminster
Confessional Standards, and is in conflict with them: "That there is
in God a love and compassion for all men, including the reprobate, and that God
desires the salvation of all men in the free offer of the Gospel."
The Presbytery of the Church believes that it
has not added to, or taken away from, either the Word of God or the Westminster Confessional Standards, when
it condemns the above proposition.
The Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian
Church, enacted on the 4th July, 1970 not only the condemnation of the above
and like propositions, but it further stated:
That in passing such an
act, this Presbytery believes that it has not imposed a doctrinal position not
laid down in the Confession, but has
rejected the imposition of an innovation in doctrine, which teaches that there
is a duplicity of will and purpose in God, which is not taught in the Confession and is contrary to it.
The Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian
Church of Australia, meeting on the 22nd. July 1995, issues this paper to make
it clear once again what its testimony is and witness in the matter of God's
grace, and of our hope and salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord.
May the Lord grant us more and more to know and
understand His grace and how exalted and glorious He is as the Triune Covenant
God of sovereign particular grace. May His grace be in our hearts and minds.
May we grow in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in our daily
lives. May we live to the glory of His great Name, and the advancement of His
kingdom of grace and truth in the hearts and lives of men, women, boys and
girls in the day and age in which we are called upon to live and serve Him.
22nd. July, 1995.
-----------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
1. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, (Still Water Revival Books:
Edmonton, 1991), see pages 118, 126, 127.
2. The Desire of God for the Salvation of the
Reprobate. An Ambiguous Doctrine Refuted and the Reformed Evangelical Church
Vindicated. At the time the Evangelical Presbyterian Church was known as the
Reformed Evangelical Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment