And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and
sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,
according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in
the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in
times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and
of the mind; and were by nature the
children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for
his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (Eph. 2:1-5).
COMMON GRACE
ARGUMENT:
Appeal is made
to this text with an attempt to refute the notion that God cannot both hate and love (or love and hate) the same
person at the same time—something, which, if true, demolishes the theory of
common grace altogether, since common grace postulates that God both hates and loves the reprobate wicked—He hates
them with regard to their sins, while, on the other hand, He loves them, and
demonstrates His love toward them in the giving of earthly bounties, and more—all
of which are said to be “tokens of His attitude of grace and lovingkindness
toward them.” (e.g. John Murray teaches this).
“See?,” it is
asked, “You hold that hatred and love are incompatible, and that God cannot
both love and hate the same person at the same time. Well here is a verse that
says God hated His elect before they
were converted, and yet, at the same time, He loved them with His everlasting
love. Surely, therefore, there is no problem with saying that God can both hate
the reprobate from all eternity, but at
the same time love them (during their lifetime) in showering good gifts
upon them, restraining their sin, preserving their existence, giving them
plenty of opportunities to be saved, even offering Jesus Christ to them in the
gospel, and desiring their salvation!”
The assumption
here, of course, is that “wrath” is the same as “hatred.”
Appeal is also
made to this passage in order to attack the orthodox doctrine of God’s absolute
Immutability (unchangeableness). They argue that God cannot be absolutely
immutable, since, according to Scripture, it appears that He is wrathful
towards an individual one moment (prior to the conversion), but no longer
wrathful towards them the next (after conversion). Therefore (they argue), God
can love the reprobate in time, but then change to an attitude of only wrath
and hatred afterwards, when they die.
Others try to
disprove the notion that God cannot have unfulfilled purposes or desires, by
appealing to this text and saying “God’s wrath is REAL (not imaginary,
figurative, or an illusion). It is REAL. His wrath is His purpose to destroy
someone for their sins forever. We were under that same REAL and eternal wrath,
prior to our conversion. We would have ended up in hell, had that purpose been
fulfilled or carried out. Surely, therefore, there is no problem with saying
God can have a REAL desire, purpose, intention to save the reprobate, though
that purpose or desire be unfulfilled—and that we simply hold these things in
tension … as a paradox … as a mystery. Do you not accept that there are
mysteries in the Bible?” (Cornelius Van Til and R. B. Kuiper held this
position, as well as certain ministers today in Westminster Theological
Seminary.)
(I)
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
[Source: Another Look at Common Grace (2019 edition), pp. 61-62]
Sometimes
there is some confusion [with regard to God’s hatred]. The confusion lies in
the failure to distinguish properly between wrath and hatred. God is indeed
filled with wrath against the wicked; but He is also angry with His people.
David complains: “O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy
hot displeasure” (Ps. 38:1). Yet, in His wrath towards His people, God still loves them. This is evident from the
following considerations. 1) Wrath is not incompatible with love. A father may
be very angry with his son who walks in sin and may, as a result of that anger,
chasten his son. But this anger and
chastisement, if it is godly, is a manifestation of love. In fact, the opposite is also true. If an earthly father did
not chasten his son for wrongdoing, but allowed his son to continue in a way of
sin, this would not be a manifestation of love at all, but of hatred. His
hatred would be evident in his utter unconcern for the spiritual welfare of his
son. It is love which makes him angry. 2) The text itself speaks exactly of
such chastisement. As is so often true in the Psalms, Psalm 38:1 is also an
incident of Hebrew parallelism. The last clause of the text is an explanation
of the first. God’s wrath is His hot displeasure, and God’s rebuke is His
chastisement. When His people walk in sin, God does not, in love, allow them to
continue in their sins, but He turns them again to Himself through the rod of
His chastisement. Chastisement hurts; it hurts very much; it hurts so much that
David fears it, as is evident in his anguished plea. But this does not alter
the fact that chastisement is visited upon sons,
for “whom the Lord loveth be chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth” (Heb. 12:6).
But
hatred is different from wrath. Hatred includes wrath—of course, God’s wrath is upon the wicked
reprobate, but the wrath of God upon the wicked is hatred, not love. Only sons
are chastened in love. “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom
the father chasteneth not?” (Heb. 12:7).
--------------------------------------------
(II)
Rev. Angus Stewart
The
question addressed in the last Covenant Reformed News brought
up Ephesians 2:3, which describes believers prior to their conversion: “Among
whom [i.e., the ungodly] also we all had our conversation in times past in the
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were
by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
Some
wrongly understand “wrath” as the equivalent of hatred. Thus they teach that
God hates the elect before He regenerates them. Since Scripture clearly
declares that Jehovah loves His chosen ones before their spiritual birth (4-5),
before their physical birth (Rom. 9:10-13), before the cross (I John 4:9-10)
and even before the foundation of the world (Jer. 31:3), their doctrine is that
God both loves and hates those chosen in Christ prior to their conversion.
If the
Most High is able both to love and hate His elect before their effectual call,
then, they claim, He can both love and hate the reprobate, those from whom He
sovereignly wills to hide spiritually the gospel so that they do not believe
and are not saved (Matt. 11:25-27). The Westminster Confession summarizes
the Bible’s teaching on reprobation:
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to
the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth
mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures,
to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice (WCF 3:7).
The
intent of their appeal to Ephesians 2:3 is to support the well-meant offer: an
earnest (though completely useless) divine desire or wish to save all men head
for head. This position needs, first, a general or universal love or grace of
God which passionately wills to save the reprobate, that is, to elect, redeem,
regenerate, effectually call, give faith and repentance to, justify,
illuminate, indwell, sanctify, seal, preserve, comfort and glorify those whom
He has eternally appointed “to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise
of his glorious justice.” What a glaring contradiction!
Second,
this view requires an explanation or justification of a divine attitude—or,
rather, attitudes!—of hatred and love towards the reprobate. Hence the appeal
to Ephesians 2:3. If God can both love and hate the elect (prior to their
regeneration), then He can both hate and love the reprobate (in time)!
The first
insuperable problem with this scheme is that Holy Scripture nowhere teaches
that Jehovah loves the reprobate. Instead, it repeatedly states that He
eternally and justly hates them for their sins (e.g., Ps. 5:5-6; 11:5-6; Prov.
16:4-5). Whereas the dogma of the well-meant offer is “Jacob have I loved and
hated, but Esau have I hated and loved,” what the Bible
actually says is this: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
hated” (Rom. 9:13; Mal. 1:2-3).
Second,
if the Most High really hates all the objects of His wrath, then He even hates
the Lord Jesus! Scripture reveals that Christ is our propitiation (Rom. 3:25; I
John 2:2; 4:10), that is, the One who, under the terrible burden of God’s
wrath, bore the punishment due to the elect for all their sins (Heidelberg
Catechism, A. 17).
Third,
and similarly, if Jehovah hates all the objects of His wrath, then He also
hates believers! Thus holy David speaks of his experience of Jehovah’s “wrath”
and “hot displeasure” (Ps. 38:1), and “anger” and “hot displeasure” (6:1).
Every saint knows this divine chastening (v. 1), “For whom the Lord loveth he
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Heb. 12:6; cf. 7-8).
What a
wretched, comfortless message for the child of God that necessarily follows
from the erroneous interpretation of Ephesians 2:3 by those who twist it in
support of their well-meant offer: not only did Jehovah hate each and every
saint before their regeneration, but He also hates us now, after our
conversion! What a terrifying thought for the distressed Christian: “God loves
and hates me, and He also loves and hates those who will perish everlastingly!”
So what,
positively, does the phrase in Ephesians 2:3 mean? By itself, “the children of
wrath” could refer to people who indulge in sinful anger. The
other option is that the text refers to God’s wrath. I am not
aware of anyone who holds the first position.
While the
elect were unregenerate, we were under “the wrath of God,” for we walked in
“ungodliness and unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). In this, we were just like the
reprobate, as Ephesians 2:3 says, “even as others.” Moreover, we “were by
nature the children of wrath” (v. 3). That is, we did not become such by,
for example, picking up vicious habits but we were born totally depraved. We
were the children of wrath innately and inherently, as those conceived and born
in sin (Ps. 51:5).
The elect
before their new birth were under God’s wrath and, especially at certain times,
we deeply felt it! We experienced guilt, shame, the fear of death and the apprehension
of hell awaiting us, as those who were not right with God and under His wrath.
Jehovah
never has hated and never will hate His elect in Jesus Christ; we are the
objects of His love alone—eternally and unchangeably (Eph. 1:4; 2:4). It would
have been unjust for God to lavish the experience of this love upon us while we
walked in unbelief. Instead, He manifested His righteous wrath upon us in our
sins. Through faith in Christ, we are now reconciled to God and know His love
towards us. If we walk impenitently in iniquity, our loving God shows us His
anger and chastises us, in order to bring us back into the enjoyment of His
fatherly embrace.
--------------------------------------------
(III)
British Reformed Journal
If, as these theologians assert, God’s wrath over the
pre-conversion elect is a sincere threat of ultimate damnation, then two things
follow. First, there is then an evident will or purpose in God, i.e., to damn,
which, in the case of the elect, is never fulfilled, because of course, God
saves His elect from that damnation. Secondly, this indicates that there exists
in God two parallel and incompatible purposes with respect to the elect, one,
an eternal purpose unto the just damnation of the elect for their sins, and the
other an equally eternal purpose to redeem them. This, it is then alleged,
establishes that in God two mutually and simultaneously incompatible decrees
and attitudes can co-exist, and that unfulfilled purpose or intent is also to
be found within the Divine person. [It is asserted that if] this is so with
respect to the elect, then it is perfectly compatible with there being a
similar phenomenon with regard to the reprobate, or non-elect, that is, that
God can and does hold with regard to them two mutually
simultaneous and incompatible purposes—the decree to leave them in their sins
unto damnation, and the sincere desire to save them from
this consequence, this latter purpose being, in the case of the non-elect, a
sincere desire or purpose which remains unfulfilled, or frustrated, even as the
sincere purpose to damn the pre-conversion elect was also unfulfilled.
All this, it is claimed, indicates a salient proof of their notion
of the “free offer” of the gospel as being a sincere expression of God’s desire
to save the non-elect. Leaving aside the deleterious consequences of this kind
of reasoning on the Biblical doctrine of God in His Unity, Simplicity, and
Omnipotence, it is eye-opening to make a close inspection of the logic
contained in this line of argument. At the outset, it is necessary to point out
that it is based on an entirely false and unbiblical view of the matters in
hand. A false scenario has been drawn by proponents of this view, and their
deductions follow, ipso facto and inexorably. But following as they
do from a false scenario, ipso
facto and inexorably their
deductions are wrong. One ought to consider here, the following criticism of
their arguments, given by Hugh Williams, thus:
They leave
out of their picture the most important feature of Biblical revelation and
Christian Theology, that is, the work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His
Three-fold Office whereby He effectuates the Redemption of God’s elect through
His Atonement. It has to be said that, on occasion, some Reformed theologians
in discussing the decretive purposes of God, lose connection with the work of
our Saviour, and tend to hold the doctrines of the decrees and of God’s nature
and purpose in abstract from Christ. The result can be such as exemplified in
the false scenario put forth here. The fact is, that biblically speaking, God’s
wrath against the pre-conversion elect is absolutely and indubitably as sincere
and as damning as the wrath He holds over the non-elect. There is NO difference
whatsoever. To the elect as well as to the non-elect comes the Scriptural
warning “… flee from the wrath to come …” (Matt. 3:7), and St. Paul can write
to the Thessalonians about “... even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath
to come” (I Thess. 1:10). But it is utterly false, and contrary to Scripture,
to assert that this just, sincere, and damning wrath of God is unfulfilled
and/or frustrated with regard to the elect, and that concerning them an
important aspect of God’s purposes is left unfulfilled. Scripture indubitably
teaches that God’s wrath over the elect HAS BEEN FULFILLED, that His righteous
anger over them has been satisfied, and not in any way frustrated. His wrath on
the elect was poured out on Christ, who in His estate of humiliation fully bore
and suffered the just anger and retribution due to the elect for their sins.
And thus the Scriptures teach:
Who
His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that
we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we are
healed. (I Pet. 2:24)
But God
commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)
For Christ
also hath once suffered for sins, the
just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. (Rom. 4:25)
One could
multiply such Scriptures almost endlessly, e.g., I Thess. 5:9 and 10; Col.
1:14–22; Matt. 26:28; Titus 2:14; I Cor. 15:3; Heb. 9:12–27: Christ’s
humiliation consisted in His being born, and that in a low condition, made
under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, THE WRATH OF GOD, and the
cursed death of the cross, in being buried, and in continuing under the power
of death for a time.
Thus it is
indubitably manifest that God’s purpose of wrath over the pre-conversion elect,
far from being unfulfilled, has been fulfilled, and that in a manner that could
not be more excellent. At the same time as He procured this satisfaction for
His justice and wrath, God’s eternal decree to save the elect is effectuated,
whereby they undergo an ontological transition out from the estate of sin and
misery and into an estate of salvation, being metamorphosed into new creatures
in Christ in the process, and this by the sovereign application of the Holy
Spirit’s energies. Thus St. Paul is inspired to speak of how “the righteousness
of God without the law is…” and how God, through the work of Christ declares
“…at this time His righteousness: that HE MIGHT BE JUST, AND THE JUSTIFIER OF
HIM WHICH BELIEVETH ON JESUS.” (Rom. 3: vv. 20 through 26)
Hence there
is also, no question of God holding, with regard to the elect, two mutually
simultaneous contradictory attitudes or purposes. His purpose to damn is
appropriate to the pre-conversion elect, but His purpose to elect unto life is
appropriate to Christ, and all those IN CHRIST, for the Scriptures do not say
“according as He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world,” but
rather, “according as He hath chosen us IN HIM before the foundation of the
world…” (Eph. 1:4). Outside of Christ there is no election, only damnation.
The
corollary of this is that the assertion that there exists in God a temporally
expressed desire to save the non-elect immediately collapses, as it would
require the positing of an unfulfilled purpose or desire in the Divine personality,
now no longer backed by a similar parallel phenomenon registered vis a vis the elect. With it collapses
the notion of God holding two mutually simultaneous contradictory purposes with
regard to the non-elect, i.e., the decree to damn, and the purpose or desire to
save. For this too, is now seen to have no parallel backing from God’s dealings
with His elect. And with this too, the whole charade of “common grace”
disintegrates, collapsing like the pack of cards in “Alice in Wonderland,”
depending, as it does, like the “Free Offer” fantasy, on the blasphemous notion
of there being “double-track” psychology in a God who suffers perpetually the
pangs of frustration from unfulfilled but “sincere” purposes and desires.
One might
desire to do X, and simultaneously to desire to do NOT X. But one cannot
SINCERELY desire to do X, and simultaneously SINCERELY desire to do NOT X. And
to ascribe such logical acrobatics to the Almighty is sheer blasphemy, and
effectively reduces Him to the level of being a crook, a downright fraud.8
One is left therefore, with the conclusion that only those who
[hold] that God does not will the salvation of the reprobate at
all, are in keeping with the teaching of the Westminster
Standards.
---------------------------------
FOOTNOTE:
FOOTNOTE:
8. Personal correspondence from editor of British Reformed Journal.
------------------------------------------------------
(IV)
More to come! (DV)
Question
Box:
Q. 1. “If God hates or loves, it is an eternal hatred or love
for sin or good work in Christ. He continually, in Adam, hates our rebellion.
Yet, He eternally loves us in Jesus Christ. That is why we are not consumed as
Jacob’s sons. Hyper-Calvinism teaches that the elect are not hated in Adam, but
only loved in Christ …”
[The
questioner] speaks of God “in Adam, hat[ing] our rebellion,” and then of God
hating the sins of the elect. But what does that prove? That, therefore, God
hates the elect themselves? Surely it is possible to hate one’s sins and
foolish rebellion without hating the person. Parents do it with their children
all the time, especially if a child in cruelty has hurt someone else—hating the
deed, not the child. So with God. Yes, even His elect children yet living in
unbelief, whom God “foreknows” in love, such as Saul of Tarsus, hating his
pride and cruelty, but not Saul himself, whom in everlasting love God intended
to adopt and save. It was exactly because God so loved Saul (seeing him in
Christ) that He would separate him from the sins that He so hated. God would
not have this young fool destroyed. He was a vessel of mercy, loved in Christ. (Kenneth
Kool, “Reflections on the Free Offer and the Charge of Hyper-Calvinism,” pp.
23-24)
########################
Q. 2. “When Paul says, in Ephesians 2:3, that we were ‘children
of wrath like the others,’ doesn’t that mean that God ‘hated’ us prior to our
conversion?”
No,
it doesn’t.
The
simple fact is that “wrath” and “hatred” are two different concepts, and it is
possible to be filled with wrath towards someone, and to deal with one in just
wrath, without hating that person at all. Wrath towards one whom one yet
loves. A judge in a small community may have to sentence his own daughter to a
lengthy prison term because she drove while drunk and killed a family coming the
other way. That is just wrath. And then that judge visits that daughter in
prison with tears week after week. An elder votes to excommunicate his own son,
who, as a young man, is living in fornication and wasting his living. Anger,
wrath, and what? Hatred? No, rather praying to God to have mercy, and to make
the son a prodigal who comes home in time.
Shall
we mention David, who had Uriah murdered? There came upon David a divine wrath
for all to see. God was grieved, as any father would be; but did God hate
him? If God hates you, He never brings you back, no, not from the fall of Adam
itself. All of us, Cains and Abels, in Adam in common were children of wrath,
forfeiting life and under the sentence of death. The difference is that some
are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (Rom. 9:22), hated by God;
but the others, though under God’s just wrath, are vessels of mercy, to be
fitted to honor. (Kenneth Kool, “Reflections on the Free Offer and the
Charge of Hyper-Calvinism,” p. 24)
########################
Q. 3. “Is wrath a form of love?”
That
is not the question. The question is, is wrath always an expression of hate?
… And to that the answer is “No,” as is plain even from human life. There are
times when, indeed, it proceeds from hatred, when one’s intention is to see
another destroyed (and perhaps forever—read Malachi 1:1-4), but it can also be
visited on one whom one loves, justice demanding it and one’s own righteous
character, though the object of the wrath is one whom you love, is precious to
you, but is to be cut off from that love’s expression, until the wrong doing is
properly addressed and dealt with.
Consider
Christ crucified, the object of God’s wrath for those three dreadful hours, cut
off from every expression of love. Did God then hate His Son? If [wrath is
always an expression hate], He must still hate His Son in some sense even now.
Be careful what you say here, lest you speak with a rashness completely out of
place. (Kenneth Kool, “Reflections on the Free Offer and the Charge of
Hyper-Calvinism,” pp. 24-25)
########################
Q. 4. “But God’s wrath is real wrath intended for damnation.
If it were not for Christ we would not escape this …”
No comments:
Post a Comment