Q. 1. “Why must we define our terms?”
In
communication—and especially in theological debate—it is vital to define one’s
terms. If this is not done, two people can find themselves talking at cross
purposes, assuming erroneously that they are in agreement, or alternatively
believing wrongly that they disagree with one another. (Rev. Martyn
McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 55)
############################
Q. 2. “What is ‘grace’?”
“Grace,” in Scripture, means first and foremost
“beauty” or “a favourable attitude or disposition”: for instance, “Noah found grace
[that is, favour/beauty] in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8); “Let your
speech be always with grace [that is, let your speech be attractive
or appealing]” (Colossians 4:6). “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain
[notice the parallelism?] …” (Proverbs 31:30). Grace is “beauty” or “divine
favour” ... not “getting something you don’t deserve.”
Christ earned or merited the grace of
God for us. Grace is therefore a merited favour of God (not an
“unmerited” favour). True, we did not merit it, but Jesus did, for He was the
obedient divine Son of God. When this
grace comes upon God’s people through the Holy Spirit, that grace saves them!
It transforms them! For it is the grace, the beauty, the favour OF GOD!
(Hence, God’s grace can never be “common”—that is, it can never work within or
upon a lost person but never save them; such a notion is blasphemous.)
############################
Q. 3. “Doesn’t grace mean ‘getting something you
don’t deserve’?”
No, for the following reasons:
1. In Luke 2:40, Christ is said to receive God’s
“grace” (“… and the grace of God was upon him”). If “grace” is defined
as “getting something you don’t deserve,” would that not imply that Christ, the
Holy One of God, was “undeserving”? Yes it would! It would mean He “received
something [He] didn’t deserve.” That is blasphemy. Christ was never
“undeserving” of anything. In fact, Christ earned or merited the
grace of God for us who are His people. To define grace as “something
undeserving” implies that Christ is no Saviour.
2. If “grace” means “getting something you don’t
deserve”, then what about this: Christ suffered not only persecution and harassment
at the hands of the Jews, but He was also nailed to the cross and, effectively,
murdered. Did He “deserve” that? No. Christ was undeserving of those
things; He received something He did not deserve. If “grace” means “getting
something you don’t deserve,” it means that all of the affliction and suffering
and persecution the world heaped upon Him was “grace”! How blasphemous!
3. “Grace” is an attribute or perfection of God.
God is, in Himself, the “God of all grace” (I Peter 5:10); Grace is who He
is. He doesn’t “become” grace or gracious “in time”, nor does He need the
creation in order to be a God of grace. He is eternally grace or
gracious towards Himself, in the Holy Trinity. The Father is grace or
gracious towards the Son (through the Holy Spirit); and the Son is grace or
gracious towards the Father (through the Holy Spirit). There is nothing
“undeserving” about either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Hence, “grace”
cannot be defined as “getting something undeserved.”
4. Defining grace as “getting something you don’t
deserve” also leads to absurdity: “I'm going to give you a gift.” “Great. What
is the gift?” “All I can tell you it is something that you don't deserve.” “Ok
but what is it that I don't deserve?”
############################
Q. 4. “What is ‘common grace’?”
Common grace is, according to its theorists, a
grace of God that is common: a grace
of God for everybody, head for head, bar none, including the reprobate—those
not elected nor redeemed nor effectually called in Jesus Christ. The advocates
of common grace claim that God has grace, love and mercy for the reprobate,
those whom God has eternally decreed not to save but to punish in the way of
their sins.
There are many different doctrines of common grace,
but all forms of common grace hold to two basic points.
1. First, God has a favourable attitude towards the reprobate wicked,
viewing them with grace and pity as objects of His lovingkindness and mercy.
2. Second, all the good things which the reprobate
wicked receive from God in this life come to them out of a love of God for
them, as proofs of His grace and favour for them and instances of His blessing
upon them.
3. Other advocates of common grace would go
further, stating, third, that God inwardly and
graciously restrains
sin in the reprobate (contrary to the Bible’s teaching on total depravity).
4. Fourth, God inwardly and graciously enables them
to do works which are partly good in His eyes (contra Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:12).
5. Yet others would take common grace further,
claiming, fifth, that believers are to be friends with unbelievers (contrary to
the truth of the antithesis—Gen. 3:15; II Cor. 6:14-18).
6. Sixth, Christians should cooperate with
non-Christians in building the kingdom of God on earth (contra II Chron. 19:2;
John 3:3).
7. Others add, seventh, that God empathises with
the ungodly, entering into (so as to share) their feelings (contra Josh. 11:20;
Lam. 2:2).
8. Eighth, most advocates of common grace link it
with the free offer: a purported earnest and passionate, yet always resisted,
desire of God to save the reprobate (contra Matt. 11:25-27; Rom. 9:17-18,
21-23). (Rev. Angus Stewart, Covenant
Reformed News, vol. 12, no. 21.)
Most
of the proponents of common grace agree that it includes the following
elements: the natural blessings which come to all such as rain and sunshine;
the maintenance of order in society in general; the postponement of judgment on
the wicked; the preservation of truth, morality, and religion among men; the
enrichment and development of natural life; the experience of the power and
glory of the gospel to those who come under the preaching of the gospel but are
not saved; and the restraint of sin in the lives of men, with the result that
the unregenerate are capable of doing good in an outward or relative sense of
the word. (Herman
C. Hanko, PRTJ, vol. 26, no. 1, [Nov. 1992] p. 60.)
The
theory of “common grace” posits an attitude of favour and blessing on the part
of God toward all men in the things of this present time—for example, in rain and
sunshine, health and happiness, etc. “Common grace” allegedly has nothing to do
with eternity. According to it, a man may very well be the recipient of
temporal favours of God all his lifetime, but be damned in hell forever. In
fact, it is exactly characteristic of the theory of “common grace” that it
separates between time and eternity. (Homer
C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue 7, [Jan. 1974].)
############################
Q. 5. “What is meant by the two words common and grace in ‘common grace’?”
[According to common grace adherents,] by “common”
is meant “universal.” That is, grace which is common is grace which is shown
universally; not only to all humans, but also to all God’s creation, to what the
first point of 1924 called “God’s creatures in general.” Some even speak of a
common grace within the covenant which is shared by the elect and non-elect who
are born within the sphere of the covenant.
And, secondly, “grace” is indeed defined as grace
in the full sense of that word—even if common grace is carefully distinguished
from saving grace. Common grace is a grace which is a revelation of God’s own
attribute of grace. It is a grace that is unmerited favour. It is a grace that
is synonymous with, or includes in it, love, favour, kindness, mercy,
longsuffering, forbearance, and benevolence. In fact, common grace is also said
by some to be rooted in the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Some
emphasize in this connection that this common favour of God can indeed be
called “grace” because it is unmerited; and that which is unmerited is always
grace (Herman C. Hanko, PRTJ, vol. 26,
no. 1, [Nov. 1992] p. 60.)
############################
Q. 6. “Can you summarize some of the history of how the
doctrine of ‘common grace’ came about to where it is today?”
The
first thing I would say about the history of the theory of common grace is that
the theory of common grace has been condemned explicitly in the Reformed creed,
the Canons of Dordt, going back to 1618 and 1619. Basic to the Arminianism against which the Canons
of Dordt were drafted, was the notion of the well-meant gospel offer—a
love of God, in Christ, for all humans without exception, and in that love of
God for all humans without exception, the preaching of the gospel is a
well-meant offer of salvation to all humans without exception. That very
doctrine, which is fundamental to the theory of common grace, the Synod of
Dordt condemned. So the history of the
doctrine of common grace must start with that, if it doesn’t start with
Augustine, long before the Canons of Dordt were adopted in 1618 and
1619.
And
this is of extreme importance because many forget today, in the debate and
controversy over common grace, that the Reformed churches have had synods which
have officially condemned the well-meant gospel offer and a universal saving
grace of God. It is therefore illegitimate for Reformed churches and Reformed
theologians to espouse this doctrine; they have been prohibited from doing that
by this creed. And if it is understood correctly, the same is true of the Westminster
Standards.
It
is intriguing and it ought to be important to Reformed men and women and
theologians and ministers today, that this theory of common grace, which,
according to them is so important that they defend it at every hand, and they’re
espousing it as if it were one of the fundamentals of the truth of the
Christian religion, has never been proposed and adopted by the Reformed
creeds. There is not a word of it, except to condemn it in the Canons of
Dordt; and the Westminster Confession does not espouse it; there is
no article or chapter in the Westminster Confession proposing,
explaining, and defending this apparently fundamental doctrine of the Reformed
religion, namely, common grace. That ought to speak to Reformed people; it
isn’t confessional; and in fact, the creeds condemn it.
But
then, after the Canons of Dordt were adopted, that aspect of the theory
of common grace that involves a confusion of grace with providence, did creep
up in the Reformed tradition; that is, ministers and theologians would speak of
a grace of God toward everybody in the gifts of providence. That was careless language; that was language
that contradicted Scripture and the Reformed creeds; but that was there, and I
acknowledge that. But this theory of common grace—a favour of God toward
everybody in the things of providence—gave traction to the teaching of a
powerful and influential Reformed theologian named Abraham Kuyper, and also to
the teaching of his sidekick, Herman Bavinck.
They were influential not only in the Reformed churches, but they were
also influential in Presbyterianism. And
Abraham Kuyper deliberately and explicitly advocated a common grace of God in
the things of providence—the things of creation—and also appealed to this
common grace as a reason why he should gain the approval of the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands, and of the cooperation of Roman Catholics in the
Netherlands with himself and his Reformed party, when he was running for the
office of the Prime Ministership in the Netherlands. He appealed to common grace as the basis for
the cooperation in solving the problems of the Netherlands and creating a good
culture of Rome and the Reformed theology.
Abraham
Kuyper and Herman Bavinck have had great influence in the churches of the Dutch
Reformed tradition with regard to that aspect of common grace. But at the same
time—and this is something that is ignored by disciples of Abraham Kuyper—he
clearly, explicitly denied that his notion of common grace involved or was at
all the teaching of the well-meant gospel offer; that is, his common grace did
not at all involve a saving attitude of God toward all human beings, and a
saving desire of God for the salvation of all in the preaching of the gospel.
No one may appeal to Kuyper and no one may appeal to Bavinck as teaching the
well-meant gospel offer or the desire of God for the salvation of all human
beings. Besides that, even though this
teaching of a certain kind of common grace was advocated by Abraham Kuyper, his
teachings were not creedal and not confessional, or not binding upon the
Reformed tradition.
But
in 1924, an influential denomination of Reformed churches in North America, the
Christian Reformed Church, officially at their synod adopted the theory of
common grace as church doctrine and as the truth. And they adopted the doctrine
of common grace in both its aspects—not only in its aspect of having to do with
earthly goods that really are providence, but also in its more dangerous
form—a saving grace of God toward all humans without exception expressed in the
well-meant gospel offer, implying that salvation in the end is the decision of
the sinner’s will rather than the particular and sovereign grace of God. And in
implementing that heretical doctrine of common grace, and adopting it
synodically, the Christian Reformed Church deposed from the offices of the
ministry one of their ministers named Herman Hoeksema—and, in fact, deposed
another minister named George Ophoff—who then started or founded the Protestant
Reformed Churches in America. The issue of common grace is not an academic
issue. It has very much to do with the existence of the Protestant Reformed
Churches. And still today, the Protestant Reformed Churches maintain that there
is a providential government of God over all humans without exception in which
He gives to all good gifts of providence; but the Protestant Reformed Churches
also deny that the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant offer to all humans
without exception in a desire of God to save all, and rather explain the
preaching of the gospel as a means of God sovereignly to save His elect, in
particular grace, out of all nations, tongues and tribes, and that the
preaching of the gospel is also, at the same time, a means by which God hardens
the hearts and renders inexcusable the reprobate wicked who are coming under
the influence of the preaching of the gospel.
I
might add, in connection with the recent history of the doctrine of common
grace, that in 1945, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, if it did not officially
adopt the doctrine of common grace, as written up by John Murray for the most
part, then it approved at its General Assembly the theory of common grace and
did so at such an emphatic way as to drive out of its fellowship a very
important theologian named Gordon H. Clark, who also denied the theory of
common grace. And the influence of that doctrine of common grace has been
dramatic, both in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and in the Christian
Reformed Church.
That,
in brief, is a summary of the history of the doctrine of common grace in the
Reformed and Presbyterian tradition.
(David
J. Engelsma, “The Common Grace Myth!”—a podcast discussion
with Sonny Hernandez)
############################
Q. 7. “What is meant by the ‘well-meant offer’?”
“By the ‘well-meant offer’ is meant the
conception, or doctrine, of the preaching of the blessed gospel in Calvinistic
circles that holds that God sends the gospel to all who hear out of an attitude
of grace to them all and with the desire to save them all. The ‘well-meant
offer’ insists, at the very least, on these two notions: God is gracious in the
preaching to all hearers; and God has a will, or sincere desire, for the
salvation of every man who hears the gospel.” (David J. Engelsma, “Is
Denial of the ‘Well-Meant Offer’ Hyper-Calvinism?”)
“[In
short, the “well-meant offer” is] a divine invitation to salvation that
expresses a saving love of God for all to whom the ineffectual invitation
comes, with the sincere, gracious purpose and desire of God that everyone who
hears the invitation be saved. In the “free offer,” God extends His saving
grace in Jesus Christ to all to whom the offer comes—extends it with the desire
of love that the sinner be saved by the offer, that is, by the offering God.” (David
J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 53, no. 1 [Nov. 2019], p. 100)
Click here for a further outline by Prof. Engelsma:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-serious-call-of-gospel.html
############################
Q. 8. “Can you provide citations where proponents
of the free offer of the gospel state that God ‘comes to all alike with the
same saving intention (and the well-meant offer has God coming to all who hear
the gospel with a saving intention)...’?”
Yes. See the following page containing quotes to confirm this:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2022/05/what-well-meant-offer-is.html
One prominent source that many
“free-offer/well-meant offer” advocates go to is the following webpage. The
interpretation of the texts put forward here clearly argues for God coming to
all alike with the same saving purpose/intention, albeit a failed
purpose/intention:
The arguments on that page, however, have been
addressed and responded to in the following page on Common Grace
Deliberations:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/11/responses-to-travis-fentiman.html
############################
Q. 9. “What is the relation between this
‘well-meant offer’ and what’s called ‘the free offer’?”
“[M]any
advocates of the well-meant offer like to disguise the heresy, which they hold,
as much as possible by carefully referring to it only as the ‘free offer.’
Thus, they hide behind the use of the phrase in the Westminster Confession of
Faith (WCF, 7.3) and leave the impression that they are only confessing the
indiscriminate preaching of the gospel to all and sundry; the serious call to
all hearers to repent and believe; and the generally announced particular
promise that everyone who believes will surely be saved. This meaning of the
‘offer,’ of course, is orthodox, and heartily subscribed to by the PRC. (David
J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 53, no. 1 [Nov. 2019], p. 101)
############################
Q. 10. “What is an ‘offer’?”
“An offer is a presentation of something to someone with the desire that the
presentation will be accepted, or an offer is an expression of readiness
to do or give something to someone. If I offer someone a drink, for example, I
expect and desire that my offer will be accepted. God does not offer
Christ or the benefits of salvation in that way. In addition, an offer implies
some kind of receptivity and ability in the one to whom the offer is made—one
does not offer a cup of coffee to a corpse! One does not offer salvation to a
sinner! We preach to dead sinners not because we believe that they can respond,
although they are obligated to respond, but because we believe that God can
raise the spiritually dead and cause them to believe in Christ. It makes sense
to preach to the spiritually dead, therefore, only if one believes in sovereign
regeneration, that is, if one is a Calvinist.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown,
PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 60-61)
############################
Q.
11. “What is an ‘invitation’?”
“An
invitation is a polite, formal or friendly request to go somewhere or to do
something. When we make invitations to one another, we do so with the desire
that the invitee comes, but to refuse our invitation rarely, if ever, has
serious consequences. The Bible does not present the gospel as a friendly
invitation from God to sinners to do something. In the gospel, God calls
(He does not invite). A call is an authoritative address to a person summoning
him to come, which has consequences for the person if he does not come.
A judge, for example, calls a witness to appear in court—if he refuses to come,
the judge will compel him to come and penalize him for not coming.” (Rev.
Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 61)
############################
Q. 12. “What is a ‘call’?”
“A
call is an authoritative address to a person summoning him to come, which has
consequences for the person if he does not come. A judge, for example,
calls a witness to appear in court—if he refuses to come, the judge will compel
him to come and penalize him for not coming … The word ‘call appears, for
example, in Christ’s parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14 … In that text, Matthew uses the Greek verb kaleo
(call), translated variously as ‘bid’ or ‘call’ (vv. 3, 4, 8, 9, 14). The king’s
call is not a friendly request, nor merely an entreaty, but a serious,
authoritative command with a threat to the one who does not obey the call:
refuse this ‘wedding invitation’ and God will cast you into hell, for by
refusing the call you dishonour both the Father and the Son!” (Rev.
Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 61)
############################
Q. 13. “What is a ‘promise’?”
“[T]he
promise of God is His sure and certain word to give salvation and all the
blessings of Christ to His people. Or to state it differently, the promise of
God is His sure and certain word to give salvation and all the blessings of
Christ to believers or to whomsoever believeth. Or to express it even more
clearly, it is His sure and certain word to give salvation and all the
blessings of salvation to the elect. God does not promise—even conditionally—to
give salvation to the reprobate. If He did, His promise would prove to be
false. Men’s promises might prove to be false. Men might even make sincere
promises without foreseeing the difficulty that might arise so that they fail
to keep their sincere promises. The promise of Almighty God cannot fail, for He
is wise, holy, righteous, and good—nothing can annul His word or overturn His
promise, not even the unbelief or unfaithfulness of His people, for by the
power of His promise He works faith in their hearts.” (Rev. Martyn
McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 64)
############################
Q. 14. “Is this really such an important issue?”
“The
controversy over the ‘well-meant offer,’ is not a tilting at windmills, but a
life-or-death jousting between Reformed orthodoxy and the Arminian heresy.” (David
J. Engelsma, 21/12/2022)
One
proponent of the free/well-meant offer writes, “These
are important questions. They concern God. They concern the manner in
which we will present the gospel, and the nature of the gospel itself.” (Sean
Humby, “The Disposition of God in the Gospel Offer to the Reprobate”) Important issues? Definitely!
############################
Q. 15. “When I speak of ‘common grace’ I am not referring
to any so-called general attitude of favour, kindness, or love of God for the
reprobate wicked, but rather to His general upholding, sustaining and
maintenance of His creation via sunshine and rainfall, and also His general promoting
of law and order in civil society. My version of a ‘common grace’ is totally
separate from that which you speak of.”
[Since some mean] by common grace merely the good gifts that
God bestows upon the reprobate wicked and a work of the law written in the hearts
of the ungodly that causes them outwardly to conform to the law for selfish
reasons, [they] should give up the terminology, “common grace.” [Their] usage
is not the common usage.
The Bible does not use
the term. Nor do the Reformed creeds (the only time that the Three Forms of Unity speak of “common
grace” they attribute the belief to the Arminians in the Canons of Dordt, III/IV, Rejection of Errors 5). [The insistence of
some] on employing the term to refer to the gifts that God gives the wicked,
while rejecting any attitude of favour on God’s part toward the wicked, results
in paradoxical, confusing statements … Instead of speaking of “common grace,”
[we] should speak of the bounties, or
gifts, of God’s providence. (David J. Engelsma, “Common Bounty or Common Grace?” – A
review of Gary North’s “Dominion and Common Grace.”)
############################
Q. 16. “But do we not find many Reformed preachers
intending by ‘common grace’ merely the general
providence that God has over all His creatures, by which He gives them good
things they do not deserve. And by the phrase “free-offer,” they mean simply
that the gospel should be preached to all sinners promiscuously alike and that
all should be called to repent and believe with the promise that there is
salvation for those who do?”
With this idea I have no dispute, although whether
the idea ought to be called “common grace” is another question. To call it such is at least confusing when
the term is universally used for different ideas. (Herman C. Hanko, “Common Grace Considered” [2019 edition], p. 94)
Yes. However, those who defend these two theories
in lectures and in books tend to mean far more by them than this. And it is in
this extendevd and sophisticated sense that they are rejected by us and others.
(British Reformed Journal, Issue 9
[Jan – Mar 1995], pp. 21-22)
[Some
take] the term free offer, of course,
[to mean] that the Gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all men … Now
if this were the meaning of the term, we would have no quarrel with it. In
fact, there would be no controversy about the whole matter. Nor would the term
be necessary. As we have said again and again throughout our history, and as
our Reformed confessions plainly teach, the gospel must indeed be preached
promiscuously and to all those to whom God in His good pleasure sends it. This
is, however, by no means the
doctrine of the free offer in the history of dogma; nor is this by any means
the same as saying that God wills the salvation of all to whom the gospel is
preached or that God is gracious to all in the preaching. (Homer C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue 9, [Feb.
1974])
############################
Q. 17. “You state that the controversy over the
Free/Well-Meant Offer is not about the indiscriminate
preaching of the gospel, but rather over the question of whether or not God
has a real and earnest ‘desire’ for all
men to be saved. Can you prove that?”
For
proof of this, consider the following quotes from John Murray, “The Free Offer
of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of
John Murray, vol. 4 (Great Britain: Banner, 1982):
… the real point in dispute in
connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God *desires* the salvation of
all men. (p. 113, emphasis added).
… the expression ‘God desires,’
in the formula that crystallizes the
crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’
attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition … (p. 114, emphasis
added).
If it is proper to say that God
desires the salvation of the reprobate, then he desires such by their
repentance. And so it a mounts to the same thing to say ‘God desires their
salvation’ as to say ‘He desires their repentance.’ This is the same as saying
that he desires them to comply with the indispensable conditions of salvation.
It would be impossible to say the one without implying the other (p. 114,
emphasis added).
… God himself expresses an ardent
desire for the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed in his
inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to
the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that
which he has not been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious … (p. 131, emphasis
added).
############################
Q. 18. “You state that the ‘free offer of the
gospel,’ as taught by contemporary theologians, teaches that the preaching of
the gospel is a ‘grace’ to all. Can you prove that?”
“… there is in God a benevolent loving kindness
towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not decreed to
save. This pleasure, will, desire is
expressed in the universal call to repentance…. The full and free offer of the
gospel is a grace bestowed upon all … The love or lovingkindness
that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that
salvation” (Murray & Stonehouse, “The Free Offer of the Gospel”
[Banner of Truth, 2001], p. 30, emphasis added.)
The report of the Fifteenth General Assembly of the
OPC in 1948, states that “the full and free offer of the gospel is a grace
bestowed upon all.” (“Minutes of
the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948,”
Appendix, pp. 51-63)
############################
Q. 19. “What is said to be ‘offered’ in the ‘free
offer’ or ‘well-meant offer’?”
“What is freely offered in the gospel? The words of
Jesus already quoted (Matt. 11:28) gives the answer. It is Christ who is
offered. More strictly, he offers himself. The whole gamut of redemptive
grace is included. Salvation in all of its aspects and in the furthest reaches
of glory consummated is the overture. For Christ is the embodiment of all.
Those who are his are complete in him and he is made unto them wisdom from God,
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. When Christ invites us to
himself it is to the possession of himself and therefore of all that defines
his identity as Lord and Saviour.” (John Murray, “Collected Writings of
John Murray” [Banner of Truth, 2001], vol. 1, p. 82)
############################
Q. 20. “If the ‘well-meant offer’ is wrong, what is
the alternative? How are we to preach the gospel?”
“[True
gospel preaching] consists of exposing the misery of all because of sin against
the just and holy God; of proclaiming Jesus Christ as God’s way out of this
misery; of calling all to come to Jesus; and of announcing the sure promise of
God that whosoever believes shall be saved, as well as the warning that every
one who rejects Jesus abides under the wrath of God … [The] church does not
proclaim a love of God for all, a death of Christ for all, a grace of God to
all, a will of God for the salvation of all, or the promise of God to all.” (David
J. Engelsma, “Is Denial of the ‘Well-Meant Offer’ Hyper-Calvinism?”)
See also the article below, where Prof. Engelsma
outlines what is termed, “The Serious Call of the Gospel”:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-serious-call-of-gospel.html
############################
Q. 21. “You state that common grace teaches that
God ‘loves’ the reprobate? Can you prove that?”
John Murray, in an article on common grace, writes:
[There] is a love in
God that goes forth to lost men and is manifested in the manifold blessings
which all men without distinction enjoy, a love in which non-elect persons are
embraced … (“Collected Writings,” vol.
I, p. 68)
############################
Q. 22. “If the good gifts given to the reprobate
are not ‘common grace’ … then what do we call them?”
“Common
aliments” (Calvin, “Institutes,” 3.25.9)
“good gifts which show God’s goodness and leave man
inexcusable” (Rev. Angus Stewart)
Cf. https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/uncommongracequotes/
############################
Q. 23. “But ‘common grace’ is not ‘saving grace’ …”
“Determined
as one may be to distinguish common grace from saving grace, grace is grace,
and grace is divine delight in Christ, in those who are washed in his blood,
and in the works that are done to glorify God. Cultural common grace cannot
avoid taking form as universal saving grace.” (David J. Engelsma, “Review
of Richard J. Mouw: ‘All That God Cares About’”)
Richard
J. Mouw, one of the leading proponents of the doctrine of common grace in the
Reformed and evangelical world today, writes the following: “... For all I know
— and for all any of us can know — much of what we now think of as common grace
may in the end time be revealed to be saving grace” (Richard J. Mouw, “He
Shines In All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace” [Grand Rapids, MI: W. B.
Eerdmans, 2001], p. 100).
############################
Q. 24. “Surely its hyper-Calvinism to deny that
good gifts are tokens of a favourable attitude of God toward everyone?”
“[Whatever]
God grants and bestows on the ungodly, cannot, properly speaking, be deemed as
an evidence of his favor and grace; but he thus renders them more unexcusable,
while he treats them so indulgently” (Calvin, comm. on Jer. 33:8)
No comments:
Post a Comment