And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived,
and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after
the name of his son, Enoch. And unto
Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and
Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took
unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other
Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and
of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of
all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every
artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
(Gen. 4:17-22)
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
“This passage describes a common grace
shown to men in the gifts of science, invention, labor, industry, the arts,
agriculture, and what is produced from them in modern conveniences and the
general advance of civilization.”
(I)
Robert C. Harbach (1914-1996)
[Source: Studies in the Book of Genesis (RFPA, 2001), pp. 125–127]
[This] “common grace” [however] does not get much chance to develop and do men much good, because sin develops faster, and because men prostitute the use of all these good gifts in the service of sin and their own lusts. Men, therefore, neglect, refuse, resist this “common grace.” Further, their sin has a tendency to ruin everything, that is, sin causes men to drift in the direction of absolute depravity, and may proceed to his utter destruction in the sink of iniquity. In this way, sin has a power to gradually corrupt the good of “common grace,” thus rendering it of none effect, and making man the number one candidate for final judgment. The implication is that “common grace” would succeed in its purpose to make men and the world better with that pinch of the salt of humankindness that is in him, if men would only let it. But men fail in this regard; they pinch out that pinch of humankindness. Then God in judgment sovereignly guides their sin to corrupt even their best works, so that there can no longer be found even a spark, or a pinch, of “common good” anywhere. Also it is presumed that the facts of scripture bear out this “common grace” interpretation!
[The common grace view of this passage, however, contains] a contradiction. They speak of a “common grace” in the gifts of invention, etc., and imply a “common grace” in men’s use of those inventions and gifts, in his works of culture, business, sociology, education, [and] all the marvels and comforts of civilization. Nevertheless, all the sin of men corrupts and debases whatever good they might do. This means that their most glittering accomplishments are only glittering sins! Even the so-called common grace acts of men are polluted by their sin, and are therefore evil and condemnable. In one breath we have the assertion, not proof, of “common grace” and then it is overthrown! The conclusion, then, is that there is and can be no such thing as a grace that is common, no more than there can be works of men that are good. “Common grace” adherents usually contradict themselves and upset their own theory. [One adherent of this theory] says, “Even the good kept alive was not enabled to force back the evil. Nothing is said about any influence proceeding from the Sethites upon the Cainites. While the power of redemption remained stationary, the power of sin waxed strong, and became ready to attack the good that still existed” ([G. Vos,] Old. and New Testament Biblical Theology, chap. V, paragraphs 2, 4). We most heartily agree with this last statement, pointing out that it being true, there can be no “common grace” nor any such thing as a restraint of sin that makes man better than he would otherwise be if left unrestrained. In the light of the context, there is no restraint of sin, as verse 5 makes so clear. If there was a universal grace restraining sin, how could it be said “that the wickedness of man was (then so) great in the earth”?
So, according to the theory under consideration, God’s Spirit restrains sin by a general non-saving operation in the heart of all men. This restraining influence of the Spirit temporarily improves men, it keeps men from becoming as bad as they otherwise would be from their naturally (totally?) depraved nature. This restraint of the Spirit of Jehovah suggests a resistance on the part of man against it. There is a back-and-forth struggle between the Spirit and men, not that men ever overcome God, but after a time, in which God finally becomes exasperated because men do not benefit by the restraining operation, judgment is the only course open to God. So He withdraws the restraining influence of His Spirit and destroys man. This is the “common grace” view of this passage, and, as the careful reader can see, dualism is involved in this view.
------------------------------------------------
(II)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment