And God blessed Noah and his sons,
and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen. 9:1).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
God blessed not only Noah but also “his
sons” … Since Ham was a reprobate, here we have a reprobate being a recipient
of a blessing of God. This is “common” grace/blessing, isn’t it? Not only that,
but verse 9 also includes their descendants (“seed”) in the blessing too,
right? Descendants of reprobates being blessed by God … A common grace blessing,
in a common grace covenant!”
(I)
Robert C. Harbach (1914-1996)
In verse 1, Noah and his sons are blessed;
here they are in the covenant! Dr. A. 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 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 … (Christian Apologetics, by Prof. C. Van Til, printed by the
Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, Chap. V.,
paragraphs 4-7)
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
(II)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment