(I)
[Source: “The Common Grace
Myth!” (A discussion between Prof. David J. Engelsma and Rev. Sonny Hernandez) https://youtu.be/xtrcqs9maUM]
My first response would be to point out to someone who is struggling with this
passage, or who has appealed to that passage to teach a general grace of God
for all humans without exception is that Scripture must be interpreted in the
light of Scripture. It is poor exegesis—and poor exegesis with regard to a
fundamental doctrine of the gospel—to isolate one single passage and to draw
out of that passage the theories that you are committed to, to start with.
In
the first place, with regard to the question, “Does God love all human being
without exception?”, there are any number of passages in Scripture (OT and NT)
that plainly teach in so many words that God hates some human beings.
The Psalms are an example of that—God “hates” certain human beings, and in His
hatred of them He destroys them [e.g., Ps. 5:5-6; 7:11; 11:5-6; 92:7]. Among
other passages in the New Testament, Romans 9 explicitly states that God
“hated” Esau [v. 13] and was determined to destroy Esau in distinction from
Jacob his brother, whom God loved and saved.
Now it seems to be that any work with Matthew 5 must reckon with the
plain teaching of the Bible that God does not love all human beings but hates
some human beings; and in the light of the broader and more frequent passages
of Scripture, Matthew 5 must be explained.
In
the second place, with regard to the interpretation of Matthew 5 that is so
popular today, it is an error to identify God’s good gifts of providence with
His grace. Regarding the issue of God’s giving of good gifts—rain and sunshine,
which Matthew 5 is dealing with—the Bible teaches plainly, particularly in
Psalm 73, that although God gives good gifts to the wicked (and in fact gives
good earthly gifts to the wicked in distinction from His dealings often with
His children, in which His providence arranges sadness, sorrow, sickness and
poverty—those good gifts of providence are not to be understood as His love
toward, or His favour for the wicked, but, according to Psalm 73, God gives
these good gifts to the wicked to smooth their way to final destruction [vv.
18-20]. He gives those good gifts to the wicked not in His love for them but in
His hatred toward them and in His wrath upon them. His purpose is
not their salvation, as common grace invariably teaches, but His purpose is a smooth
and easy way into eternal destruction. Psalm 73 goes on to say that
although God withholds often His gifts of food and drink and rain and sunshine
from the godly (His friends), His purpose in withholding these earthly good
things is to bring them safely to heaven.
We
may not explain the earthly lives of human beings without taking into account
the eternity toward which these earthly lives tend. These are truths found in the broader context
of Scripture in the light of which Matthew 5 must be interpreted; and any
interpretation of Matthew 5 that ignores these truths of God’s hatred toward
some human beings and God’s cursing of the wicked with the good things
of this present earthly life is a bad and unacceptable interpretation of
Matthew 5.
With
regard to Matthew 5 itself, it does not state that God loves the wicked in His
dealings with them; it does say that God gives good gifts to all human beings,
but the fact of the matter is also that God gives good gifts to “the just and
the unjust,” when the “unjust” could very well be His children who are not as
yet converted and justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ. Matthew 5 does not
state or necessarily imply God’s favour toward the wicked in His
distribution of His earthly bounties.
---------------------------------------------------
(II)
[Source: “Is the ‘Well
Meant Offer’ Biblical?” (A discussion between Prof. David J. Engelsma and Rev.
Sonny Hernandez) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hW1ZmL-t4, transcripted from
39:16-44:18]
The
proponents of the “well-meant gospel offer” will have to appreciate that we are
treating a text that they commonly appeal to in support of their position. But
let them not overlook that, although they suppose to have some biblical basis
in a stray text here or there, the overwhelming testimony of Scripture is
against them. I am referring now, for one thing, to the entire history of the
Old Testament.
God
saved one small nation out of all the nations of the world. He gave His
prophetic word, by which is salvation, only to the nation of Israel. He didn’t
give it to the Philistines or the Egyptians or the Assyrians or the Chinese. If
God had a sincere desire for the salvation of all humans in the Old Testament,
He had an odd way of showing it. As Psalm 147 says, “He sheweth his word unto
Jacob … He hath not dealt so with any nation” (vv. 19-20). Obviously,
the grace of salvation was particular and restricted, in the Old
Testament. Likewise, in the New Testament, the overwhelming testimony, in
passages beyond numbering (e.g. John 10, Romans 8, Romans 9, and many other
passages besides), is that God makes plain that He has a desire for the
salvation of some only (i.e. election), that Christ died for the sheep,
and for the sheep only (limited atonement), and that His grace is particular
and irresistible. So, why do not the defenders of the well-meant gospel offer
pay attention to the overwhelming teaching of the entire Bible?
But
they do pick out texts here and there, and Matthew 5 is one of their
favourites.
There
may be different interpretations of God’s sending His rain and sunshine on the
evil and on the just, about which good interpreters may debate. But there is
one aspect that is perfectly clear in the Matthew 5 passage that puts an end to
the defenders of the well-meant gospel offer appealing to it in support of
their doctrine. And here’s the aspect that’s important: If Matthew 5 is
referring to a favour of God to the ungodly (it isn’t, but if it is), it is
referring to a favour that He shows in rain and sunshine.
Now
I call attention to the fact that rain and sunshine are not saving
operations of God—there is no will for salvation in rain and sunshine, in
health and riches etc., and what the defenders of the well-meant gospel offer
must prove is that God has a ‘saving’ will, and a ‘saving’ love towards all
human beings.
You
won’t find that in Matthew 5.
At
the very most, you could find in that text proof that God has a certain favour
towards the ungodly in this life, that He shows in rain and sunshine, health,
and other physical welfare.
Now
if rain and sunshine are evidences of God’s favour upon the wicked, then
drought and sickness and disappointment are God’s disfavour upon His
people. That would contradict all of Scripture. Whatever God does to His
children, He does in love and for their good. So that would dismantle the
explanation of the text by defenders of the well-meant gospel offer.
What,
in fact, the text is teaching is this:
You
and I, and all Christians, must do good, as much as possible, to our
enemies—those who hate us and mistreat us—and the Lord Himself appeals to
‘deeds’ of God (not to an ‘attitude’ of God, much less, a saving
attitude of God, but that there are ‘deeds’ of God that are good in
themselves—not good for the spiritual and eternal welfare of the wicked, but
those deeds of God are, nevertheless, ‘good’ deeds). God is good in His
providential government of society, which includes causing crops to grow, which
are enjoyed by the wicked, as well as by the righteous. And so, as God does
deeds that are good in themselves to His enemies, we are to do good deeds to
our enemies.
But
there is nothing in it of a favour of God that wills the salvation of the
wicked.
No comments:
Post a Comment