I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:1–3)
COMMON GRACE
ARGUMENT:
This passage is sometimes used to support
the “well-meant offer of the gospel” (so-called)—i.e. the notion that the Almighty earnestly and
fervently desires, wills, wishes and wants the salvation of the reprobate; the
notion that entails the ghostly spectre of a failing, foolish and frustrated
God.
The idea of this text
is often thus: Paul showed evangelistic compassion to all his hearers (elect and
non-elect). That evangelistic compassion was wrought in Paul by the Holy
Spirit. Surely the Holy Spirit wouldn’t create in Paul such an evangelistic compassion
for some for whom the Holy Spirit had only hatred?
It has also been
suggested that if Paul showed such evangelistic compassion towards all his
hearers without distinction, and yet God doesn’t do so likewise, then this
would imply Paul (and, by extension, every other minister of the gospel) would
be ‘more loving and compassionate’ than God Himself …
QUESTION BOX:
Q. 1. “In denying the ‘well-meant offer,’
are you saying that we must not desire all of our hearers to be saved? (cf. Acts
26:29; Rom. 9:1-3, 10:1)
The [controversy over] the well-meant
offer … is not whether we desire all to whom we preach or
witness to come to Christ and be saved, but whether God desires this … Fact is, that even the natural desire of the
preacher and church that all in the congregation or on the mission field be
saved by the work of the preacher and church, in the way of repentance and
faith, is consciously subjected to the sovereign will of God in predestination.
Paul conducted his ministry “for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain
the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (II Timothy 2:10). (Prof.
David J. Engelsma—Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 47, no. 2
(April 2014), p. 70.])
##############################
Q. 2. “Christ’s apostle longed and prayed for the
conversion of all his hearers [Acts 26:29; Rom. 9:1-3, 10:1] … This being so,
then of what is that compassion in the preacher a reflection? Are we to be more loving, in scope, than God?” (David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed [2005],
p. 56),
The argument in question proves too
much. It proves that God on His part actually attempts to save all
humans, but fails. For we not only love our enemies, but exert ourselves
on their behalf, that is, try to save them. If what is true of us must
also be true of God, He, therefore, also tries to save all humans, but
fails. This trying includes giving Jesus Christ to the death of the cross
for all humans, for there can be no salvation apart from the cross. Christ
then died for all, but His death is unavailing.
All of this speculative thinking results in an
impotent God, one frustrated by the will of sinners, and in a death of Christ
that not only is a failure but that also was not effectual atonement for
anyone.
Besides, this reasoning conflicts with the express
testimony of the Bible in Romans 8 and 9 that God loves only the elect with His
saving love and that Christ died effectually only for the elect.
The flaw in the reasoning of the argument is,
first, that it is mere speculation, not based on the Bible. The Bible does
not teach that we are to love our enemies or all humans ‘because God
loves all His enemies.’ The Bible clearly teaches that God ‘hates’ some humans—God hated Esau
(Romans 9), even though Jacob was called to love his brother. Theological
conclusions must not be based merely on abstract reasoning, but on definite
biblical grounds. The Bible teaches that we are to love our enemies—our enemies personally, not as God’s enemies (cf. Psalm
139:21-22: “Do not I hate them who hate thee? … I hate them with perfect
hatred …”)—because God loves men and women who are His enemies
by nature, that is, the elect in the race who are by nature enemies on their
part of God. Second, the reasoning is wrong in that it makes the
comparison of our love with God’s a matter of numbers (if we are to love all,
God must also love all). Fact is, the comparison is in the reality of
God’s (particular) love of His enemies. As God loves His enemies,
regardless that they are only some of the human race, so also are we to love
our enemies, regardless that they are more in number than those whom God
loves.
This does not make us more loving than God, for the
greatness of love is not found in the mere number of objects of love. The greatness of love is found in
the grace of love (how the objects of divine love are unworthy of love!) and in what love does
for the beloved (the love of God gave the only begotten Son for the objects of
love).
Truth is that as a Christian, I must love some whom
God hates, and this manifests the love of God, who loves men and women who hate
Him, though not all humans who hate Him. These objects of His love are not
a “few,” but an innumerable multitude. (Prof.
David J. Engelsma)
Paul expressed his desire that all
Israel be saved. Moses did something of the same thing when he prayed to God
that He would spare Israel after their sin of worshipping the golden calf at
Sinai. Moses loved God’s church so much that he was willing to go to hell for
them (Ex. 32:32).
Has the defender of common grace never
pleaded with God to spare someone whom he loved? His wife dying of cancer? His
son who has fled home and lives a godless life? Have not godly parents, while
watching their little child writhe in pain, wished that they could suffer in
the place of their child?
God showed Moses and Paul that His will
was not to save everyone. Moses learned this when God declared, “[I] will be
gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew
mercy” (33:19). Paul wrote that, in spite of his personal desires, God does not
save all Israel; He desires to save (and, therefore, saves) the true Israel of
election (Rom. 9:6-8). God does not desire to save reprobate Jews or Gentiles: “As
it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (13); “Therefore
hath he mercy on whom he will [or wants to] have mercy, and whom
he will [or wants to] he hardeneth” (18); “Hath not the potter power
over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another
unto dishonour? What if God, willing [or wanting or desiring] to shew
his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ...” (21-22).
And so the believer, in his anguish,
prays, “Thy will be done,” and seeks the higher purpose in life’s sorrows: the
glory of Almighty God.
I might add that neither Moses nor Paul
had to go to hell because of their sin or the sin of the church, for Christ
suffered for all His church so that, by the power of His particular and
efficacious atonement, all the elect are saved from the hell we deserve. (Prof. Herman C. Hanko—Covenant Reformed
News, June 2017—volume XVI, issue 14)
##############################
Q. 3. “The Holy Spirit was the author and approver of the
apostle Paul’s evangelistic compassion towards his hearers, elect and reprobate
(Acts 26:29; Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). Did the Holy Spirit create in Paul such an
evangelistic compassion for some for whom the Holy Spirit had only hatred? …
The desire God created and approved of in the apostle must reflect something
analogous in God Himself for the creation and approval of it to be consistent
with his own holy character …” (David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed [2005], pp. 56, 84)
Using
similar argumentation someone could also say, “The Holy Spirit creates in us
repentance and the desire to repent … Surely therefore the Holy Spirit has
desires to repent ...?” Or, “The Holy Spirit works in us faith, and He works in
us the desire to believe more and more (“Lord, increase our faith”—Luke 17:5).
Does not this mean that the Holy Spirit Himself ‘believes’? or desires to
believe ...?”
What
the Holy Spirit works in us are desires that are fitting for a ‘creature’ to
walk in the will of God. Ones appropriate for a ‘creature’ are not appropriate
for God.
For
instance, human beings have souls and different thoughts and emotions. As
creatures, it is appropriate for us to think things from several different
perspectives. Let’s say, for example, that someone known to us sins. You feel
really angry for what that person has done, or done to somebody else, and yet
you also feel ‘pity’ towards that person (“If only that person realised what
they were doing ... they’re going to ruin their lives”).
What
is the will of God in this situation? The will of God, if this person is an
elect, is to save them (“all things work together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”—Rom. 8:28). God’s
desire in this situation is to sanctify this person, or maybe use it to bring
him to repentance later on.
God
has one desire, and yet God, by His
Spirit, makes us human beings who are creatures who don’t know everything to
feel various emotions and sentiments correlating to the various perspectives of
events (i.e. we only see a little bit of what’s going on and react in all the
ways in which limited human beings react—we don’t know the past or the future
and we don’t know what’s going on, etc.). (Rev.
Angus Stewart—public lecture: “God’s Saving Will in the New Testament,” Q&A
session)
No comments:
Post a Comment