[Sources:
Ronald Hanko and Ronald Cammenga, Saved By Grace: A Study of
the Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: RFPA,
2002), Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of
God (Baker Books, 1984), Herman Hoeksema, The Wonder of Grace (RFPA,
2017), Herman Hoeksema, Whosoever Will (RFPA,
2002), Herman Hoeksema, A Power of God
Unto Salvation, Or, Grace Not An Offer, Herman
Hoeksema, Calvin,
Berkhof & H. J. Kuiper: A Comparison
(RFPA), Herman Hanko, Corrupting the
Word of God: A History of the Well-Meant Offer (RFPA,
2016), David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism
and the Call of the Gospel (RFPA, 2014), Andrew Ian Morgan,
Modern Moderate
Calvinism (EPCA), Christopher J. Connors, The Biblical
Offer of the Gospel (EPCA)]
Denial of the Sovereignty of God
Common grace, especially
in its teaching of the gospel as a well-meant offer of salvation on God’s part
to all men, denies the sovereignty of God, particularly with regard to the
salvation of lost sinners, for the “well-meant offer” gospel (as opposed to the
gospel of Holy Scripture) tells everyone that God “sincerely and earnestly
desires to save” every single individual who hears head for head and that it is
“not His will” that any of them perish, but that “all come to repentance and
salvation”; it is a message that conveys to the hearer very clearly, if not
explicitly, that God is unable to actually accomplish the salvation of anyone
He desires, and that salvation is dependent upon the will of the sinner: that although
God wants to save someone, that someone is, of himself, powerful enough to
resist God’s saving “overtures” and is able to frustrate God’s saving intention—for
it follows, as night follows day, that if God desires to save everyone,
and yet not everyone will be saved,
God’s saving desire, purpose and intention are, therefore, for the greatest part,
ineffectual, thwarted and can be frustrated. It is no surprise that in many places
where this error
has been accepted, the affirmation of the absolute sovereignty of God is no
longer heard.
Denial of Total Depravity
The teaching of common grace denies total depravity in that although it admits that man has no power to do what is called “saving” good, that is, the good of choosing for God, for Christ, and for salvation, it says, however, that there is a certain grace of God given to all men, even to the unsaved, that makes it possible for them to do what is called “civil good.” Civil good, supposedly, refers to actions which have no saving value, but are, nevertheless, good in the sight of God in that they promote decency and good order in society and, by virtue of this “grace,” allow men to live in peace and harmony among themselves. Alongside of this, the doctrine of common grace usually teaches that there is a universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all men that makes it possible for them to do this good and that keeps them from being as bad as they might be.
This is really no different from Arminianism in that it says there is still some good in man. It may be very little. It may be only “civil” good, but it is still good. Obviously, if man can do anything good, he is not totally depraved or totally wicked, as Scripture teaches. It should also be pointed out that this teaching fails to take into account the fact that there is more to a good deed than just the outward action. The most important thing is not the action itself but the motivation for it. If it is not done for God’s glory and by faith, it is sin and God hates it (Prov. 21:4; Isa. 66:2, 3; Mal. 2:11-13).
* * * * * *
Common grace’s “well-meant offer” gospel is also a denial of total depravity. According to this teaching, God, for His part, wants the salvation of all men and even offers grace and salvation to all men in the gospel. Apart from the fact that the Scriptures never once speak of the gospel as an “offer” of salvation, and apart from the inconsistency of believing this and at the same time saying that God from eternity does not want the salvation of all who hear the gospel (as the doctrine of reprobation teaches), there is the fact that an “offer,” if it is to be meaningful and sincere, must be made to people who have some power or ability to accept or refuse that offer; and if man has any power to respond to an offer of grace in the gospel on the part of God, he cannot be totally depraved. An offer of assistance to a dead man is meaningless, and an offer to give $1000 to a quadriplegic if only he would first run a mile would be mere mockery. God’s work is neither meaningless nor mockery. And yet this is the condition of man: he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), “totally unable” to do any good and “inclined toward all evil” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 8).
The answer of many to this
dilemma is one of three things: some choose to hold to both total depravity and a
gospel message of salvation by the will of the sinner (aka, the well-meant
offer) claiming it is “all a mystery; no one has answers to these things”; others
attempt to make a distinction between so-called “natural” ability and
“spiritual” ability, claiming that although man may not possess the latter, he possesses
the former: man, they say, has a real ability to accept Christ: he has a
“natural” ability—and that ability, they say, enables us to preach the “well-meant
offer” gospel. Others claim that God gives to all men who hear the
gospel a certain “preparatory” grace (another version of common grace) to make
such a choice. All of these, however, are a denial of not only total depravity
but also a denial of the biblical truth that grace is always irresistible and
saving.
Denial of Predestination
In large measure, the
increasing silence concerning predestination and the denial of it in Reformed and
Presbyterian circles today is due to the acceptance of the teaching of
common grace. A consistent confession of predestination cannot be made if one
also holds to common grace. The teaching
of common grace is that God loves all men with a certain
non-saving love. God demonstrates this love for all men by giving them all of
the good things of this present life. The result is that although God’s saving love is
discriminating (for some only), there is a love of God that embraces all men
without distinction. It is clearly
contradictory, however, to say that “in eternity” God hates and reprobates some men but “in
time and history” He loves all men. At the very least, this is a denial of
God’s unchangeableness. At the worst, it leads in the direction of a denial of predestination—particularly
reprobation. This teaching of common
grace cannot stand in the light of the Scriptures. In Psalm 5:5 we read, “The
foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest [in the present]
all workers of iniquity.” In Psalm 11:5 David declares, “The Lord trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth [in the present].”
And in Proverbs 3:33 we are told, “The curse of the Lord is [right now] in the house of the
wicked.”
* * * * * *
Common grace’s “well-meant offer” gospel is also an implicit denial of sovereign predestination. According to this teaching, God loves and sincerely desires the salvation of all men. Christ has died to make salvation possible for all men; and in the preaching of the gospel, salvation is freely offered to all who hear the gospel. In the end, salvation is dependent on whether or not a man accepts this gospel offer. Certainly, if God has eternally chosen some men unto salvation and has rejected and reprobated the rest, it cannot also be true that God sincerely “desires to save all men” and offers salvation freely to all. Such an offer is not only insincere, but it also leads to the conclusion that God and His gospel are a failure—for many to whom this gospel message comes reject it, are not saved by it, and also perish in their sin and their unbelief. Despite God’s so-called “love” for them and “earnest desire to save” them, they go lost. It ought not surprise us that in churches and denominations where there has been acceptance of the teaching of the well-meant offer, there has been an increasing repudiation of sovereign predestination.
All who come under the
preaching of the gospel are confronted with their duty before God to repent of
their sins and are called (even commanded) to believe in Jesus Christ. To tell
all men that God loves them, desires to save them, and freely offers them salvation
is a misrepresentation of God. How does this conception of the preaching of the
gospel square with God’s commission to the prophet Isaiah? Does God send Isaiah
out to tell all men that He loves them and wants to save them? On the contrary: “Go, and tell
this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but
perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed” (Isa. 6:9, 10). Or
listen to Christ’s
prayer of thanksgiving to God in Matthew 11:25, 26: “I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things [of the
kingdom] from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so,
Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Paul’s words in II
Corinthians 2:14-16 are these, “Thanks be unto God, which always causeth us
to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in
every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are
saved and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto
death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And
who is sufficient for these things?”
Denial of Limited Atonement / Particular Redemption
Common grace with its teaching of a love or favourable inclination of God, outside of Jesus Christ, towards the reprobate is also a denial of limited atonement or particular redemption, for in light of the fact that Jesus died not for all men but only for some, what legal basis or just grounds are there for such a love and favour of God? How is God’s perfect justice upheld in this view? God cannot love or be favourably inclined towards “sinners” (cf. Habakkuk 1:3). This would compromise who He is: that is, His holiness, righteousness, goodness, etc. He would be denying Himself; for as He is holy, He is separate from all sin and all that are opposed to Him. He hates sin, and He hates “sinners” as well (Psalm 5:5–“thou hatest all workers of iniquity”).
The only reason He can have any love or favour towards us who are His people, who by nature are sinners, is because our sins were dealt with on the cross. They were blotted out at Calvary; Christ bore not only the guilt of them but also the punishment due for each and every sin we have committed and will commit. There is nothing lovable, on the other hand, about the reprobate for Him to love. They are guilty sinners in His sight; they are loathsome and abhorrent—for Christ did not bear their iniquity. God can indeed give “good gifts” to them in His providence, but He cannot love or be favourably inclined towards them.
Defenders of common grace respond
to this in one of three different ways: some outrightly deny that God needs a
legal basis to love sinners (or for Him to do anything for that matter), thereby
denying God’s perfect justice; others choose to hold a form of “irreconcilable
paradox,” opting to hold two contradictory views simultaneously (and thereby denying
the logical harmony of Scripture); while others, who recognize and acknowledge
the need for a judicial basis, seek to question the extent of the death of
Christ in an attempt to universalize it.
* * * * * *
The “well-meant offer” gospel also leads to a denial of limited atonement in its claim that God, “in the gospel,” makes a sincere and well-meaning offer of salvation to every person who outwardly hears, expressing His desire that all be saved. If limited atonement is true, then God would be a liar in the preaching of such a gospel, for He says “in the gospel” what is not true according to the doctrine of limited atonement: for His will as revealed “in the cross” is not that He desires the salvation of all men, but rather of some only, that is, of His elect. Nor did He send His Son for all men, but for the elect. How, then, can God sincerely say in the gospel that He wants all men to be saved without contradicting Himself and making Himself a liar?
Moreover, it is
self-evident that if God really does express in the gospel a desire that all
men be saved, the only possible basis for this can be that in some sense of the
word, He also sent Christ to die for all men. But that is not limited atonement;
that is not particular redemption. Such teaching was explicitly rejected in the
Canons of Dordt
as part of the erroneous teaching of the Arminians (cf. Canons
III, IV, Rejection of Errors, 5, where it was the Arminians who are said to
have taught that “God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all
men”; the church responded to this as follows: “the experience of all ages and
the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue”). The gospel message of common grace does
serious damage to the cause of Calvinism, for it is the teaching of men who
claim to believe in limited atonement but who actually contradict
limited atonement at this very point. It is also noteworthy that in churches that hold to the
Denial of Irresistible Grace
The teaching of common grace leads to a denial of irresistible grace. This is not hard to demonstrate. Common grace is, after all, a grace of God that is shown to all men but does not save them. To teach a non-saving grace of God, or a grace of God of which all men are the objects, is the first step towards outright denial of irresistible grace. In fact, in churches in which common grace has become accepted dogma, there has been a weakening and even, on occasion, an open renunciation of the doctrine of irresistible grace.
The common-grace gospel of the “well-meant offer”, inasmuch as it implies the free will of the sinner, is also an implicit denial of the irresistibility of grace, for if the gospel is no longer “the power of God unto salvation,” as Paul says in Romans 1:16, and if it is not the means by which God works grace in the hearts of the elect, but is a mere offer of salvation—in other words, something dependent upon the sinner’s acceptance—then it is surely implied that the sinner may choose to reject the gospel and the offer of grace and salvation in that gospel. Then, although God wants to save that person, although God expresses His love for him in that gospel, the sinner is nevertheless able to frustrate that desire and love of God, as many have done and will do. The doctrine of irresistible grace is thereby overturned.
One of the so-called “Three
Points of Common Grace” that were adopted in 1924 teaches a universal,
irresistible, saving
grace of God in that it teaches that the preaching of the gospel (which, by the
way, has to do with salvation)
is “grace” to all that hear, albeit ineffectual to save the majority who hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment