O that there
were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my
commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children
for ever! (Deut. 5:29 KJV)
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
This text is used to support the doctrine of a general,
well-meant offer of grace and salvation on the part of God to all men,
including the reprobate, and also the notion that God, in Himself, has an
unfulfilled or ineffectual desire, will, wish and want for something to have
occurred that didn’t—inferred from the first two words, “O that …”
(I)
John Calvin (1509-1564)
[Source: Sermons on Deuteronomy, Facsimile of 1583 edition (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1987), p. 260, emphasis added.]
God
therefore to make the people perceive how hard a matter it is to keepe the
lawe, sayeth here, I would fayne it were so ... True it is that here God speaketh after the maner of men:
for he needeth no more but wish things done, all things are in his hand … And
why then doth he pretend to wish it in this text? It is bicause he speaketh after the maner of men, as he
doeth in many other places. And (as I said afore) it is to the ende that when
there is any mention made of walking in obedience to Godward, we should
understand that it cannot bee done without hardnesse, and that our wits should
be wakened to apply our selves earnestly to that studie.
------------------------------------------------------------
(II)
God’s “Expostulations”
John Owen
(1616-1683)
[Source: The Works of
John Owen (Great
Britain: Banner, 1967), vol. 10, pp. 400-401, emphasis added.]
[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.
------------------------------------------------------------
(III)
Of the
Attribution of “Passions” and “Affections” Unto God
John Owen
(1616-1683)
[Source: The Works of John Owen (Great Britain: Banner, 1967), vol.
12, pp. 108-110, 114-115, emphasis added.]
Question. Are there not, according to the perpetual tenor
of the Scriptures, affections and passions in God, as anger, fury, zeal, wrath,
love, hatred, mercy, grace, jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?
Concerning which he [i.e., Mr. Biddle, the Socinian]
labours to make the Scriptures determine in the affirmative.
1. The main of Mr. Biddle’s design, in his questions about
the nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct persons, its
omnipresence, prescience, and therein all other infinite perfections, he
endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss by ascribing to him in
the foregoing query a human visible shape, and in this, human, turbulent
affections and passions. Commonly, where men will not ascribe to the Lord that
which is his due, he gives them up to assign that unto him which he doth abhor,
Jeremiah 44:15-17. Neither is it easily determinable whether be the greater
abomination. By the first, the dependence of men upon the true God is taken
off; by the latter, their hope is fixed on a false. This, on both sides, at
present is Mr. B.’s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to his charge, but
deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is “taken alive at his
pleasure”! 2 Timothy 2:26.
2. The things here assigned to God are ill associated, if
to be understood after the same manner. Mercy and grace we acknowledge to be
attributes of God; the rest mentioned are by none of Mr. B.’s companions
esteemed any other than acts of his will, and those metaphorically assigned to
him.
3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in the
Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and passions in
him as those in us are which are so termed? or whether they are assigned to him and spoken of him metaphorically only,
in reference to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering
to the actings of men in whom such affections are, and under the power whereof
they are in those actings?
If the latter be affirmed, then as such an attribution of
them unto God is eminently consistent with all his infinite perfections and
blessedness, so there can be no difference about this question and the answers
given thereunto, all men readily acknowledging that in this sense the Scripture
doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God ...
But this, I fear, will not serve Mr. B.’s turn. The very
phrase and manner of expression used in this question, the plain intimation
that is in the forehead thereof of its author’s going off from the common
received interpretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest
that it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten on God, and
that the affections mentioned are really and properly in him as they are in us.
This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we
think his anthropopathism in this query not to come short in folly and madness
of his anthropomorphitism in that foregoing, so I shall proceed to the removal
of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted on.
Mr. B.’s masters tell us “That these affections are vehement commotions of the will of God,
whereby he is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or
earnestly declines and abhors what falls not out gratefully or acceptably to
him.” I shall first speak of them in general, and then to the particulars (some
or all) mentioned by Mr. B.: —
First, In general, that God
is perfect and perfectly blessed, I suppose will not be denied; it
cannot be but by denying that he is God (Deuteronomy 32:4; Job 37:16; Romans
1:25; 9:5; 1 Timothy 1:11, 6:16). He
that is not perfect in himself and perfectly blessed is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind
nothing is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect nothing is
wanting at all. He who is blessed is perfectly satisfied and filled, and hath
no farther desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself is all-sufficient
for himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself, he is neither perfect
nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God properly (such as before
mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection and blessedness. The
consideration of the nature of these and the like affections will make this
evident.
1. Affections, considered in themselves, have always an
incomplete, imperfect act of the will or volition joined with them. They are
something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul and the execution of
that purpose. The proper actings of affections lie between these two; that is,
in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That God is not obnoxious to such
volitions and incomplete actings of the will, besides the general consideration
of his perfections and blessedness premised, is evident from that manner of
procedure which is ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his
actings. As the Lord hath purposed, so hath he done. “He worketh all things
after the counsel of his own will.” “Who hath known his mind? or who hath been
his counsellor? Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things” (Isaiah
14:24; Ephesians 1:11; Romans 11:33-36; Isaiah 40:13-14).
2. They have their dependence on that wherewith he in whom
they are is affected; that is, they owe their rise and continuance to something
without [external or outside
of] him in whom they are. A man’s fear ariseth from that or them of whom he is
afraid; by them it is occasioned, on them it depends. Whatever affects any man
(that is, the stirring of a suitable affection), in all that frame of mind and
soul, in all the volitions and commotions of will which so arise from thence,
he depends on something without
[external or outside of] him. Yea, our being affected with something without [external or outside of]
lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves. Is it thus with God, with him who is I AM? Exodus 3:14. Is he in
dependence upon any thing without [external or outside of] him? Is it not a
most eminent contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other thing?
Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other without [external
to or outside of him] and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our
affections are? “God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his
soul desireth, that he doeth,” Job 23:13.
3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and
mutability; yea, he who is affected
properly is really changed; yea, there is no more unworthy change or
alteration than that which is accompanied with passion, as is the change that
is wrought by the affections ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet, considerate
alteration is far less inglorious and unworthy than that which is done in and
with passion. Hitherto we have taken
God upon his testimony, that he is the “LORD, and he changeth not,” Malachi
3:6; that “with him there is neither change nor shadow of turning;”—it seems,
like the worms of the earth, he varieth every day.
4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God do eminently
denote impotence; which, indeed, on this account, both by Socinians and
Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him affectionately
and with commotion of will to desire many things in their own nature not impossible,
which yet he cannot accomplish or bring about (of which I have elsewhere
spoken); yea, it will appear that the most of the affections ascribed to God by
Mr B., taken in a proper sense, are such as are actually ineffectual, or
commotions through disappointments, upon the account of impotency or defect of
power.
Corol. To ascribe
affections properly to God is to make him weak, imperfect, dependent,
changeable, and impotent ...
(1.) Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions
can have place or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted; for to
what end should we suppose that whereof there can be no use to eternity? If it
be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up or acted, is it not
impossible any such should be in him? The causes stirring up all affections are
the access of some good desired, whence joy, hope, desire, etc, have their
spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear,
sorrow, anger, repentance, and the like. Now, if no good can be added to God, whence should joy and desire be
stirred up in him? if no evil
can befall him, in himself or any of his concernments, whence should he have
fear, sorrow, or repentance? Our goodness extends not to him; he hath
no need of us or our sacrifices, Psalm 16:2, 50:8-10; Job 35:6-8. “Can a man be
profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is it any
pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that
thou makest thy ways perfect?” chap. 22:2, 3.
(2.) The apostle tells us that God is “Blessed for ever,”
Romans 9:5; “He is the blessed and only Potentate,” 1 Timothy 6:15; “God
all-sufficient,” Genesis 17:1. That
which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to
be ascribed to God; to do so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be
blessed, is he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear,
sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like? Doth not fear take off from absolute
blessedness? Grant that God’s fear doth not long abide, yet whilst it doth so,
he is less blessed than he was before and than he is after his fear ceaseth.
When he hopes, is he not short in happiness of that condition which he attains
in the enjoyment of what he hoped for? and is he not lower when he is
disappointed and falls short of his expectation? Did ever the heathens
speak with more contempt of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some
men heightened them to fancy themselves to be like God, without passions or
affections, Psalm 50:21; being not able to abide in their attempt against their
own sense and experience, it is now endeavored to make God like to us, in
having such passions and affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to
speak unto. Those who have written on the attributes of God,—his
self-sufficiency and blessedness, simplicity, immutability, etc.,—are ready to
tender farther satisfaction to them who shall desire it.
------------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
Matthew Poole (1624-1679)
[Source: Commentary
on the Whole Bible. See also his comment on Isaiah 48:18]
This is spoken of God after the manner of men, to show that
such a heart is desirable to him, and required by him; otherwise it is certain
that God can give such a heart, and hath promised to give it, Jeremiah 32:40
Ezekiel 36:27. And if God will work, who can hinder him? Job 11:10.
------------------------------------------------------------
(V)
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711)
[Source: The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout,
vol. 1 [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992], p. 117, emphasis added.]
When God is said to desire
something which does not occur, such as when He states, ‘O that there were such
a heart in them, that they would fear Me ... that it might be well with them,
and with their children for ever!’ (Deu. 5:29), or, ‘O that thou hadst hearkened
to My commandments! then had thy peace been as a river’ (Isa. 48:18), He is speaking in the manner of men.
Strictly speaking, such can never be
said concerning the omniscient, omnipotent, immovable, and most perfect God.
Rather, it indicates God’s displeasure against sin and how He delights in
holiness. It indicates that sin is the reason why those blessings are withheld
from them—blessings which they, according to His promise, would have received
as a reward upon godliness. The promises are made upon condition of obedience
which is granted to the elect according to God’s immutable purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------
(VI)
Confusions
Regarding God
Dr. William Young
(1918-2015)
Objection is
raised against the confusions noted below that have repeatedly led to the
compromising and denial of the sovereign grace of God.
1. The above remark suggests that the ascription of such a desire to God is often not simply a way of expressing the will of command, but is supposed to be something behind the command, a will in-between the command and the decree, a weak though ardent wish that can be frustrated and is frustrated in the case of many. Surely, no Calvinist can desire to ascribe such a desire to the Most High, although the devotees of free will have invented an antecedent will in God distinct from the consequent will of the final decree. If one cares, like John Howe, to speak of a complacential will, and means only that God is pleased whenever His precepts are obeyed, no objection need be raised as long as there is not confusion with the supposed antecedent will under the cover of the word “desire.”
2. A second source of confusion is the failure to recognize the use of anthropopathic language in Scripture passages that represent God’s actions as if they expressed passions like our own. No Christian holding the Bible to be free of contradiction can suppose that the Lord literally repents or regrets His own work of creation (Genesis 6:6-7). The same way of speaking after the manner of men applies to God’s desire as expressed in Psalm 81:14. It is a gross abuse of language when, not as homiletical hyperbole, but as a dogmatic formulation, human passions, often called emotions, are ascribed to God. Such a view is in conflict with the Confession of Faith, which declares God to be “a most pure Spirit ... without body, parts, or passions,” based on Acts 14:11, 15. The error is intensified when a questionable threefold faculty psychology is misapplied further, by representing God in the image of man, with emotions as well as intellect and will, and then arguing as if an emotional desire caused the will which is revealed in the free offer. Such prying into the secret things along with the obscuring of what has been revealed ought to be eschewed by all who reverently tremble at the Word of God.
3. That the desire is not simply meant as an anthropomorphic mode of emphasizing the revealed will becomes evident when the assertion is made that it is an instance of a deep paradox or antinomy not resolvable by logic. In the fact that God has decreed to save only some, but has commanded the gospel to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all, there is no contradiction, but simply the difference between God’s decree and His preceptive will. Why such a command is given may well be beyond our powers to fathom at least in this life, but there need not be an apparent, much less a real contradiction to those who are well instructed by the Word and Spirit of God. But to search behind the revealed will in the gospel offer for a divine inclination to save those who have been foreordained to everlasting wrath, can only appear to be ascribing a real contradiction in the will of God. The common evasion that this is only an apparent contradiction to us but not a real contradiction to God is nothing other than Kierkegaard’s own thesis as to the absolute paradox. It is not the historic position of Reformed theology.
------------------------------------------------------------
(VII)
Rev. Matthew
Winzer
[Source: “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review,” in The Blue Banner, vol. 9, issues 10-12 (October/December 2000).]
The
appeal to these texts really proves too much. For the optative mood, while it
may be restricted to a simple desire or wish, oftentimes carries the
connotation of longing after, and that in a mournful way when it is an
unfulfilled longing, as the comment on Ps. 81:13 indicates. Hence, the texts
beckon the reader to understand the expressions as God speaking after the
manner of men. As David Dickson has qualified, the lamenting of God for His
people’s misery “is not to be taken so, as if there were in God any passion or
perturbation, or miserable lamentation: but this speech is to be conceived, as
other like speeches in Scripture, which are borrowed from the affections of
men, and are framed to move some holy affection in men, suitable to that
affection from which the Lord taketh the similitude.”38 Such
expressions, then, are intended to instruct the hearers as to what their
passion ought to be, not to indicate that God is characterised by such passions
Himself.
When
understood in this way, the covenantal language of the text
comes to the fore, thereby enabling the interpreter to see the true intent of
such passages. That these verses ought to be understood covenantally is clear
from their context and terminology. Deut. 5:29 is Moses’ rehearsal of the
covenant ratified at Mt. Sinai (Horeb in the book of Deuteronomy) for the benefit
of the new generation which is about to enter into the promised land. 32:29 is
the song of Moses which calls upon the heavens and earth to act as witnesses in
the covenantal relationship which the Israelites bear to the Lord. It abounds
in metaphorical language for this very reason. Nobody takes the language
literally with regard to the Lord being a Rock, verse 4, or fearing the wrath
of His enemies, verse 27. Why, then, is a literal import inconsistently
suggested for the optative mood in verse 29? Both Ps. 81:13 and Isa. 48:17
refer to the hearers in the covenantal designation of “Israel;” with the former
of these adding the words, “my people,” and the latter the words, “thy God.”
And both similarly proceed to recount the promises of the covenant which the
hearers have failed to become partakers of through their disobedience; the
former speaking of the subduing of Israel’s enemies (Ps. 81:14), and the latter
of the multiplication and preservation of her people (Isa. 48:18).
It
is the covenantal nature of these speeches which required the adoption (ad
extra) of human thoughts and affections on the part of God in condescension
to His people. In the covenant, God identifies Himself and His
cause with the welfare and cause of His people. The enemies of His people
become His enemies, the successes of His people become His successes, and the
failures of His people become His failures, as the language of Deut. 32:27
signifies. The Almighty power of God becomes conditioned on the people’s
obedience or disobedience. At the building of the tabernacle, and later of the
temple, His omnipresence becomes confined to the place where He puts His Name.
Even His knowledge is sometimes represented as being limited to this special
relationship which He has established with His people, and He is portrayed as
repenting and changing His mind when He discovers that His people have acted in
this or that way.
Such
language does not reflect upon the nature of God, but only indicates the nature
of the covenant relation with which God condescends to act in accord. Given the
unchangeable and unconditional perfection of the Almighty, it is obvious that
these types of Scriptural references are to be understood as His condescension
to the weakness of man’s capacity, as when the apostle spoke after the manner
of men because of the infirmity of his hearers’ flesh, Rom. 6:19. Thus, when
God represents Himself as repenting, or of being unable to do anything more to
procure the people’s obedience, or expresses a desire for that
which is contrary to His purpose, the language is to be understood
anthropopathically, not literally.
Furthermore,
the covenantal context of the speeches should enable us to see the error in the
report’s conclusion that God has not sovereignly willed what He here desires.
The apostle to the Gentiles informs us that to the Israelites belong “the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises”
(Rom. 9:4). His purpose was to assure his readers that the failure of certain
individual Israelites does not mean that “the word of God hath taken none
effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (verse 6). Divine
inspiration here teaches an infallible rule for interpreting both the Old
Testament promises to Israel and the divine expression of desire that those
promises be fulfilled. It is that these promises were made to Israel corporately,
not individually. They were made to Israel as elect, as Paul’s
subsequent teaching on election and reprobation demonstrates. So that the one
in whom these promises are not fulfilled cannot be regarded as belonging to the
true Israel, for “the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (verse
8). Thus, the divine expression of desire for His commandments to be obeyed and
for His promises to come to fruition is not an unfulfilled desire at all. For
God undertakes on behalf of elect Israel to put His laws into their minds and
to write them in their hearts, so that the promise to be their God and to bless
them as His people comes to fruition (Heb. 8:10).
So
the report’s conclusion from these texts is inadmissible on two accounts. 1.
Because the language employed is not to be regarded literally, but
figuratively, in accord with its covenantal context, as God speaking after the
manner of men; and 2. Because the expression of desire is not with reference to
a matter that shall be left unfulfilled, for God’s sovereign grace ensures that
His word of promise is not rendered ineffectual.
---------------
FOOTNOTE:
38.
David Dickson, Commentary on the Psalms
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), p. 51.
------------------------------------------------------------
(VIII)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment