And God spake
unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my
covenant with you, and with your seed
after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the
fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go
out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant
with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood;
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said,
This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you,
for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token
of a covenant between me and the earth.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow
shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living
creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to
destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it,
that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the
earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which
I have established between me and all
flesh that is upon the earth (Gen. 9:8-17).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
Abraham Kuyper
famously taught that the covenant mentioned in this text was a “common grace covenant,”
that includes the reprobate. In this covenant, according to Kuyper, man stands
to God in the relation of friendship not as the Mediator of redemption, but as
Mediator of creation. God, in this
covenant, implants in man a common grace which restrains his sin and enables
him to do works worthy of reward. The benefits of this covenant are the good
things such as man’s fecundity, dominance over the animal world, and
continuance of the race in perpetual generations. These are said to be bestowed
on the reprobate in love to them. The purpose of this common grace covenant is
the provision of a “common ground” on which both elect and reprobate may stand
and work together to develop the natural resources of the earth for the
betterment of the world.
(I)
Rev. Robert C Harbach
In verse 1, Noah and his sons are blessed; here they are in the covenant!
Dr. [Abraham] Kuyper maintained that this was a common grace covenant, so that
then it would include the reprobate. He conceived of it that in this covenant
man stands to God in the relation of friendship not as the Mediator of
redemption, but as Mediator of creation. So the covenant is established with
man, including the reprobate. God implants in man a common grace which
restrains his sin and enables him to do works worthy of reward. The benefits of
this covenant are the good things such as man’s fecundity, dominance over the
animal world, and continuance of the race in perpetual generations. These are
said to be bestowed on the reprobate in love to them. But this love can only be
upon them in time, so that the covenant endures only for a time, as long as the
earth remaineth. But see verses 12 and 16, where it is called “the everlasting
covenant.”
This common grace covenant has for its purpose the
furnishing of elect and reprobate a common ground on which both may stand and
work together to develop the natural resources of the earth for the betterment
of the world. So runs the Kuyperian view of common grace. Dr. Cornelius Van
Til, professor of Apologetics in Westminster Theological Seminary, disagrees
with Kuyper at this point. He denies that common grace is a common ground
between believers and non-believers. He says,
It should be
clear then that we cannot use what has been called the doctrine of common grace
in order to find in it a common ground or common area of knowledge. Common
grace does not effect (sic) the deadness of the sinner. If it did it would not
be common grace; it would be special grace. If the doctrine of common grace has
any significance for the question of the point of contact between believers and
non-believers it cannot belie the fact that it, to some degree tones down the
absolute antithesis in the ethical sphere between those who are dead in
trespasses and sins and those who have been made alive through the Spirit of
God.
In fact there is
no need for such common ground as men sometimes think they find in common
grace. There is no need for anything but a formal point of contact between
believers and unbelievers … (as viz.) the image of God in man. … which
furnishes a formal point of contact and nothing more is needed for the purpose
of argument. It enables men to have an intellectual understanding of the truth.
Satan has an intellectual understanding of the truth … without really having
the truth …”7
The reason why Van Til will not have common grace
as a common ground between believers and unbelievers is that common grace tones
down the absolute antithesis, so that men dead in sin are not as absolutely
depraved as the Bible says they are. He does not like the implication that
common grace so affects the deadness of the sinner as to make his works worthy
of reward. He denies this. So do we. He does not want any view of common grace
which destroys the antithesis. He wants a view of common grace which does not
do this. He claims to have such a view. But it is infinitely better to have the
entire pure Reformed truth without the adulterations of common grace views of
any sort.
As Reformed believers, we must be very careful
about the matter of a so-called common ground, even though that ground is not “common grace.” We must not see
God’s special grace resting on a foundation of common grace, even though this
common grace, which by the way is a non-saving grace, does not affect the
deadness of the sinner. Kuyperian common grace sees this foundation of
non-saving, common grace as that on which the whole of nature rests and without
which the earth would have become a hell, making it impossible for the covenant
of special grace on that foundation to be perfected. This puts the Cross off
its own base, making it depend on “other ground” for its efficacy. This makes
not only good gifts but also “blessings” to flow to men independently of the
Cross of Christ. This is a denial of Reformed soteriology, and is the very
essence of Modernism.
As pointed out by the Revs. Ophoff and Hoeksema, in
volume 2 of The Standard Bearer,
Kuyper’s support for common grace in the covenant is in his interpretation of
Genesis 9:8, 9, “I will establish My covenant with you (plur.), and with your
seed after you.” The covenant is said to be made with Noah and his sons,
not just with Noah alone. That is, God includes in this covenant all the future generations of Noah, so
not with believing elect alone, but with all Shemites, Hamites, etc., in fact with
the whole human race without exception. Had it been a covenant of special
grace, it would have been established with Noah in the line of Shem, and so
with Noah’s spiritual seed alone.
But when we interpret “with your seed after you” in
the light of other scripture, we learn that “they which are the children of the
flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are
counted for the seed” (Rom. 9:8). Therefore, “your seed” means “the holy seed.”
It also follows that the words “every one of you” (Acts 2:38) do not mean all
the generations in the sphere of the covenant without exception, but are
limited to “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (v. 39). This thought also
is to be kept in mind, as namely that “with your seed after you” includes
infants in the covenant as the infant seed comes forth, as the covenant itself
proceeds, in the line of generations.
Genesis 9:10 is appealed to by Kuyper, and by other
adherents to common grace who greatly differ from Kuyper, in order to prove
that this covenant was no covenant of grace, was no particular covenant,
because it was established “with every living creature that is with you.” Verse
12 speaks of “the covenant which I made between Me and you and every living creature that is with you;”
and verse 13 has, “a covenant between Me and
the earth.” There are three similar additional references in verses 15, 16,
17, so that six times in one chapter it is made plain, so the theory goes, that
this is a general covenant, made with every individual of man. But this is
language that an Arminian would gladly accept. The truth is, there is no more a
general covenant here than there is a general atonement in view in John 3:16.
It used to be that the adherents of common grace, such as Prof. L. Berkhof and
his followers, in the interest of maintaining the Reformed Faith, would
interpret John 3:16 as teaching a particular election and a limited atonement.
They never taught from such a text as teaching a common grace attitude in God
of love to all men. What Berkhof taught is never seen or heard of any more.
But these verses, 10-13, 15-17 are to be viewed as
teaching that the particular covenant of saving grace embraces the whole earth
and all creation, “because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom.
8:21). The earth and the whole created universe cannot be delivered from the
curse except in connection with the final redemption and glorification of God’s
people. That will be in “the regeneration,” in “the restitution of all things.
----------------------------------------------------
(II)
Prof. Ronald L. Cammenga
A number of weighty objections must be lodged
against the view that God’s covenant with Noah was a covenant of common grace,
altogether distinct both in its recipients and promises from God’s covenant of
grace in Jesus Christ.
First, the account in Genesis makes plain that it
is God alone who establishes the covenant. The covenant is no bargain or mutual
agreement entered into by God and Noah. Repeatedly the language that is used is
language that underscores divine sovereignty in the establishment of the
covenant. Consistently the language that is used is “I will
establish my covenant”
(Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 12, 16). This is unilateral and unconditional covenant
language. God alone establishes the covenant. The covenant that He establishes
is His (“my”) covenant. It was not God and Noah who established the covenant,
so that the covenant that was established was “their” covenant. God established
the covenant, and therefore the covenant is His covenant. The very form of the
Hebrew verb that is used throughout the passage, and for that matter is used
throughout the Old Testament, for the establishment of the covenant emphasizes
God’s sovereignty in establishing the covenant. The Hebrew verb is the Hiphil
of קוםּ (qum),
which in the Hiphil (the causative verbal pattern) means “to cause to stand, to
establish.” The very form of the verb underscores the truth that God and God
alone establishes the covenant. The covenant exists because He causes it to
stand.
Second, the fact that the Genesis account speaks
throughout of “my covenant” (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 15) and “the covenant” (Gen.
9:12, 16, 17), along with the fact that “covenant” is throughout singular,
implies that the covenant established with Noah is a manifestation of the one
covenant of God. This is the language used throughout Scripture to refer to the
covenant of grace. That this language is used in regard to God’s covenant with
Noah indicates that the Noahic covenant, unique to be sure in certain features,
was nevertheless as to its essential character of one piece with the covenant
of grace established by God with His people in Christ.
Third, what confirms the view that the Noahic
covenant is only a manifestation of the one covenant of grace is the fact that
the covenant with Noah is referred to as a covenant “for perpetual generations”
(Gen. 9:12) and “the everlasting covenant” (Gen. 9:16). Although the covenant
with Noah does certainly concern this earth and the life of God’s covenant
people in the midst of this earth as they are gathered and as the covenant
comes to manifestation in the history of the world, nevertheless the covenant
with Noah is not essentially a temporal covenant whose benefits are limited to
this earth. It is rather an everlasting covenant. Not only does that emphasize
that God establishes
and realizes the covenant, inasmuch as God alone is eternal, but that also
underscores the truth that the blessings of the Noahic covenant are not just
temporal blessings attached to earthly life. They are in reality blessings that
originate in eternity past and extend to eternity future. They are nothing
less, therefore, than the blessings of salvation, the spiritual salvation of
God in Jesus Christ.
A fourth objection to the common grace view of the
covenant with Noah is that it does not do justice to the original establishment
of that covenant as recorded in Genesis 6:18. The proponents of common grace
focus on the establishment of the covenant as it is recorded in Genesis 9:8-17,
the account of the establishment of the covenant with Noah after the
Flood. But what they fail to take into due consideration is the fact that the
first establishment of God’s covenant with Noah is recorded in Genesis 6:18 before the
Flood. God’s covenant with Noah after the Flood may not be divorced from His
covenant established with Noah before the Flood. These, clearly, are not two
different covenants, but one and the same covenant. The covenant was first
established by God with Noah before the Flood, and then confirmed by God after
the Flood. What Genesis 6:18 makes clear is that the Noahic covenant is not a
merely temporal covenant with purely earthly benefits. Genesis 6:18 is the
explanation as to why Noah and his family will not perish in the Flood. Under
the just judgment of God, the wicked world of Noah’s day perished in the
deluge, a just judgment of God that ended in the everlasting damnation of those
ungodly. In contrast to the wicked world exposed to the awful judgment of God,
stood Noah and his family. What marked the difference between that perishing
world, on the one hand, and Noah and his family, on the other hand? The
difference was the grace of God. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen.
6:8). According to that grace, God established His covenant with Noah. Clearly,
the significance of God’s covenant with Noah, therefore, cannot be reduced to
that which is purely temporal and earthly—not, at least, if full justice is
done to the light that Genesis 6:18 sheds on God’s confirmation of the covenant
in Genesis 9:8-17.
What strengthens the objection against the common
grace understanding of the Noahic covenant, in the fifth place, is the
subsequent reference to this history and covenant in Scripture. In three
passages in the Old Testament, reference is made to God’s covenant with Noah:
Isaiah 54:9-10, Jeremiah 33:20-22 and Hosea 2:18. In all three instances, the
covenant with Noah is compared to God’s covenant with His elect people in
Christ. In the Isaiah 54 passage, the Noahic covenant is compared to “the
covenant of my peace”; in the Jeremiah passage the Noahic covenant is compared
to God’s covenant with David, which covenant is ultimately with Christ, the
great son of David, and all who are in Jesus Christ; in the Hosea passage the
Noahic covenant is compared to God’s covenant with Israel, according to which
He will break the bow and the sword of their enemies and make Israel to lie
down safely. That the Noahic covenant can be compared to God’s covenant of
grace in these passages of the Old Testament is possible, in the final
analysis, only if the Noahic covenant itself is a manifestation of the covenant
of grace.
In the sixth place, it simply is not true that the
Noahic covenant is established by God with all men, elect and reprobate alike.
This is at best to misread Genesis 9 and at worst deliberately to corrupt the
teaching of the passage. Noah does not stand as the head of the whole human
race in Genesis 9, although unquestionably the whole human race derives from
him. But Noah emerges from the ark as the head of the church, the church as it
was manifested in that day, the church that had been saved through the watery
destruction of the Flood. He is the prophet, priest, and king of the people of
God who have been delivered, not merely from, but by the
Flood [I Pet. 3:20]. With the head and representative of the church, who stands
therefore as a type of Christ Himself, God establishes His covenant. The whole
history of Genesis 6-9 proclaims the truth, proclaims it loudly and clearly,
that not all men are included in God’s covenant. The covenant, the grace and
salvation of the covenant, are particular, for some only.
----------------------------------------------------
(III)
More to come! (DV)
QUESTION
BOX:
Q. 1. “If the rainbow is not a sign
of common grace, what is it a sign of?”
[The rainbow is] the sign of the promise of God to
the heirs of the promise that they shall be heirs of the world, a sign of the
breaking through of His all-conquering grace, a sign of the holy gospel. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Gospel, Or, The Most
Recent Attack Upon the Truth of Sovereign Grace,” p. 89)
Q. 2. “What about Genesis 8:22,
where God promises, ‘While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold
and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease’? Isn’t that
common grace?”
Those earthly phenomena mentioned in Genesis 8:22
are merely the ‘seal’ or ‘guarantee’ of the one covenant between God and His
people.
Prof. Herman Hanko comments:
“God promises not only to establish His covenant
with His people, but also with the whole creation. That God will certainly
fulfil His promise is **guaranteed** in the ceaseless cycle of day and night in
our present world. As surely as God causes day to follow night and night to
follow day, so also will God guide the entire creation to its determined end:
redemption through Christ in the new heavens and the new earth.” (Covenant Reformed News, vol. 10, no. 6)
No comments:
Post a Comment