O my
people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify
against me (Micah 6:3 KJV).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
This text is used to support the
idea of a weak though ardent wish in God that can
be frustrated and is frustrated in the case of many. God is said here to express
real disappointment, surprise, regret, longings and sorrow.
(I)
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
(II)
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
(III)
Confusions Regarding God
Dr. William Young
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment