The Warrant of Faith is the Free Offer of the Gospel in the Westminster Standards

Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BY DAVID SILVERSIDES

(b) The warrant of faith is the free offer of the Gospel addressed to sinners as such

....wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (WCF VII/III). The term ‘offer’ or ‘free offer’ also appears in the Catechisms (Larger An. 32, 63 and 68, Shorter An. 31 and 86). The usage in An. 68 of the Larger is of special interest in that it puts beyond all doubt that the offer is addressed to non-elect sinners; “...who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Christ.” The term ‘offer’ also appears in the Three Forms of Unity. 20

(c) The Meaning of ‘offer’

Professor Hanko maintains that the term ‘offer’ can mean no more than ‘to exhibit’ or ‘to present’. He suggests that this was the intended meaning not only in the Three Forms of Unity but also in the Westminster Standards. 21 It is more customary to regard the term as implying a gracious overture of mercy, an invitation to sinners in general which reflects God’s favour and kindness to all who hear the Gospel, a favour and kindness which is one part of what became known later as ‘common grace’. Hoeksema’s and Hanko’s denial of the doctrine of common grace in general and the concept of a gracious overture in particular raises serious questions.

(i) The Person of Christ

If the anti-common grace position were correct, then Christ as God in no sense loved the reprobate even while they were in this world. As a man ‘made under the law’ the command, “thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” applied to Christ. Only two options are open. The first is an heretical division of the person of Christ, by maintaining that Christ loved only the elect in His divine nature but loved all men in His human nature. Clearly this must be rejected. The alternative is to say that Christ, in both natures, loved the elect only and that our obligation to love all men is due to our ignorance of who the elect are. This means that we are required to love those whom God does not. Moreover, Scripture bases our obligation to love all men not on our ignorance of God’s mind, but the knowledge of it that we should have our duty to be patterned after Him (Matt. 5:43–48).

(ii) The Preaching of the Gospel

Are we to have compassion on all those to whom we preach reflecting our concern for their spiritual welfare (Rom. 9:1–3 and 10:1)? If so, do we express this compassion as ministers of Christ, acting “in Christ’s stead” (2 Cor. 5:20), or do we cease to act in that capacity at this point?

We submit that the tears of Christ over Jerusalem were the human tears of a Divine person and reflected divine compassion and that the Scriptures warrant the preaching of a gracious overture of mercy to all who hear the Gospel. We also submit that this was the overall position of the Westminster Divines. In support of this we offer the following five lines of evidence.

Firstly, the Minutes of the Assembly.

Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ?
A. Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation but only such as are members of the Church invisible.

"Q. What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind?
A. Besides much forbearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ as Lord of all, they by Him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the Gospel, and are under such dispensations of providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance.” 22

Q. Are all they saved by Christ who live within the Visible Church and hear the Gospel?
A. Although the Visible Church (which is a society made up of such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children) do enjoy many special favours and privileges whereby it is distinguished from other societies in the world and the Gospel where it cometh doth tender salvation by Christ to all, testifying that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, and excludeth none that come unto Him; yet none do or can truly come unto Christ, or are saved by Him, but only the members of the Invisible Church, which is the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one unto Christ their head.” 23

Q. What is it to believe in Christ?
A. To believe in Christ is to receive Christ according to God’s offer, resting on Him alone for pardon and all grace and salvation.’

Q. What ground or warrant have you, being a sinner, to believe in Christ?
A. The ground of my believing in Christ is God’s offer of Him in His word to me as well as to any other man, and His commanding me to believe in Him, as well as to believe or obey any other thing in His word.” 24

Secondly, the Directory for Public Worship.

In the prayer before sermon in this Directory which the Westminster Assembly produced, we read, “Yea, not only despising the riches of God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, but standing out against many invitations and offers of grace in the Gospel...

Thirdly, the use of the term ‘goodness’ in the Shorter Catechism. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth (S/C Ans. 4).That God shows goodness to all men can scarcely be denied (e.g. Rom. 2:4, Ps. 145:9). The question is whether “goodness” or “doing good” implies Divine favour or lovingkindness. Hoeksema, having acknowledged that goodness sometimes indicates mercy, grace and compassion, goes on to say, “Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten that this benevolence of God is not common, and that it may not and cannot be separated from His goodness as perfection. Only as the ethically perfect One is God the benevolent One. And because this is true, His goodness reveals itself as wrath and anger, as a consuming fire, to those that love iniquity.25

By applying this sense of “goodness” to God’s dealings with His creatures, the way is open to evacuate all reference to God’s goodness towards men in general of the idea of benevolence, mercy, grace and kindness, except in the case of the elect who, because of their supposed justification from eternity past are at no point among “those that love iniquity” in the sight of God, even though they do love iniquity prior to their effectual call. John Murray on Romans 2:4 comments, "It needs to be noted that the apostle does not think of this restraint as exercised in abstraction from the riches of God’s goodness, the riches of his benignity and lovingkindness...It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies." 26 When we turn to the Westminster Standards, we find the term ‘goodness’ in An. 4 of the Shorter Catechism replaces the terms “most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness...” in the Westminster Confession (II/I) and the Larger Catechism (An. 7). The Shorter Catechism has sometimes been criticized for not mentioning God’s grace or love in An. 4, but we must realize that whatever differences there may be in these various terms, the Westminster Divines saw God’s goodness as a basic umbrella term for them. This being so, since God is undoubtedly good to all, we submit that the Westminster Divines as a whole held to what became known as the doctrine of common grace in the sense that the Lord, in a variety of ways, displays His favour and lovingkindness even to the non-elect in this present life, without being pleased to regenerate them. The preaching of the Gospel and the overture of mercy which it includes is one part of that display of lovingkindness.

Fourthly, individual Assembly members.

Rutherford says, “He offereth in the Gospel, life to all...” He then calls this God’s moral complacency of grace, revealing an obligation that all are to believe if they would be saved; and upon their own peril be it, if they refuse Christ...Christ cometh once with good tidings to all, elect and reprobate. 27 Thomas Goodwin states, “God now in this life offers to deal with thee upon terms of friendship...28 and speaks of “an invitation to come into the Ark, like to Christ’s inviting sinners to come unto him.29

In 1657, a series of free offer sermons by Obadiah Sedgwick was published. 30 Jeremiah Burroughs wrote a recommendation to Edward Fisher’s “Marrow of Modern Divinity” which featured so much in the defense of the free offer in Later Scottish Church history. 31

If time permitted, so far as the members of the Assembly have left their views on record, we believe it could be shown that the free offer position was the norm among them.

Fifthly, the Puritan period in general.

The free offer or gracious overture position seems to have been held generally among the 17th century Puritans with little dissent. John Flavel preached a series of free offer sermons. 32 John Owen has a relevant sermon on “a vision of unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners.33 Erroll Hulse in his useful booklet on the subject gives appropriate quotations from Brooks, Charnock, Sibbes, etc. 34

In Scotland, William Guthrie in his “Christian’s Great Interest,” published in 1658, makes references throughout to “gracious invitations,” etc. 35 David Dickson and James Durham, around 1650, wrote their “Sum of Saving Knowledge” which if often printed with the Westminster Standards in Scottish editions. It has a whole section on “warrants to believe” and includes a treatment of Isaiah 55:1–5, saying that the Lord “maketh open offer of Christ and His grace by proclamation of a free and gracious market of righteousness....He inviteth all sinners...” On 2 Corinthians 5:19–21; “The earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to Him in Christ...” 36 That whole section is worthy of study.

Taking all this into account, we feel justified in concluding that the Westminster divines and the Puritans went further than merely issuing the command. They besought men and did so as an expression of divine lovingkindness.

(d) John Calvin

From time to time the charge has been made that the Westminster Standards represent a significant departure from the position of Calvin. Usually, the charge is in the form that the Westminster position is more rigorously Calvinistic then Calvin. However, occasionally, the accusation is in the other direction. Were the Westminster divines at odds with Calvin in their view of the free offer of the Gospel? We suggest not. The following are samples from Calvin’s commentaries.

On Acts 13:46He accuseth them (the Jews) of unthankfulness, because, whereas they were chosen by God out of all people, that Christ might offer himself unto them, they refused so great a benefit maliciously....because they do so willingly cast from them so grace a grace. 37

On Heb. 2:12Hence we conclude that the Gospel is offered to us for this end, that it may lead us to the knowledge of God by which His goodness is made known among us....This is what Paul says (2 Cor. 5:20) that he and others act as the ambassadors of Christ and exhort us in the name of Christ. 38

On Heb. 3:13The particle ‘so long as’ implies that the opportunity will not always be there if we have been slow to follow when God was calling us. God is now knocking at our door. If we do not open to Him, it will come about that in turn He will close the door of His kingdom to us. Then those who despised the grace offered today will find their groans are too late. Therefore, since we do not know whether it is God’s will to continue His call into tomorrow, let us not put off. He calls today; let us answer as soon as possible. 39

On 2 Pet. 3:9, Calvin does not restrict the phrase “not willing that any should perish” to the elect. Rather he says This is His wondrous love toward the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety. We must notice the order, that God is prepared to receive all men into repentance, so that none may perish. These words indicate the means of obtaining salvation, and whoever of us seeks salvation must learn to follow in this way. It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His lovingkindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world. 40

Practical points:

1. We are to treat non-Christians as recipients of divine favours, including material blessings and gifts as well as the preaching of the Gospel. It is because they are real blessings (Gen. 17:20) that their ingratitude renders them so guilty. Unthankfulness relates to blessings not curses (Rom. 1:21). The fact that, in the case of the reprobate, these blessings become the occasion of greater guilt in accordance with the decree of God, does not mean they are not in themselves expressions of the free favour and mercy of God. We can therefore point out to the unbeliever that God has been merciful to him and the danger of abusing His mercies and “treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5).

2. We must do more than issue the Gospel command. We must exhort men to come to Christ, not in a “take it or leave it” fashion, but conveying to them that it is a matter of intense concern to us that they heed God’s sovereign and gracious overture of mercy and embrace in faith the Saviour whom they so much need. (There should be no confusion that it is they who need Christ and not vice versa as is sometimes the case in the Arminian presentation today).
_______________
20. Canons of Dort, Heads 3 and 4, Article 9.
21. H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal, op. cit. Nov. 1986, op. cit. 16–17.
22. Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (William Blackwood and Son, 1874), p. 369.
23. Op. cit. 393.
24. Op. cit. 309.
25. H. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 92.
26. John Murray, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 59.
27. S. Rutherford, op. cit. p. 129ff.
28. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 6, Banner of Truth, 1979, p. 150.
29. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 8, James Nichol, Edinburgh, 1864, p. 166.
30. Obadiah Sedgewick, The Fountains of Life Opened (1657).
31. See Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1722 edition, p. 14.
32. John Flavel, Works, Vol. 4, Banner of Truth, pp. 3–306.
33. John Owen, Works, Vol. 8, Banner of Truth, pp. 2–41.
34. Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer (Carey Publishing Ltd., 1973).
35. William Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), pp. 122–127, etc.
36. The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, published in the Westminster Confession of Faith etc., Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1967, pp. 326–329.
37. John Calvin, Commentaries, Vol. 10, A.P. + A., p. 1152.
38. John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews and I & II Peter, Oliver & Boyd, p. 27.
39. Op. cit., p. 41.
40. Op. cit., p. 364.
David Silversides, “The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards,” The Reformed Journal 9 (November 1993): 74–81.

In his conclusion, Silversides noted:
Herman Hoeksema was undoubtedly a great theologian, nevertheless, his distinctive views are significantly at variance with the Westminster Standards. The root of the problem seems to be a misapplication of the doctrine of the immutability of God. Hence, the elect can never be really under condemnation prior to effectual calling. Similarly, God cannot show grace or favour to the reprobate in this life since He does not in the next. (This view, though held to defend the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, actually sets limits upon that sovereignty by saying that God’s grace or favour must be unto eternity or nothing, whereas if He is free to show mercy as and when and how He pleases, He may indeed show favour to the non-elect for a time in this life and withdraw that favour in the eternal world). Finally, the concept of condition is seen as casting doubt upon the immutability of God’s decrees." SOURCE
 

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Nah, no offer to the reprobate is made. Silversides is very weak on the subject.

Audio of him dropping the ball here: The Free Offer of the Gospel

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 reads;

ch.14
The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,”

“By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself”

“and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed”

ch.15
“This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin”

The idea that all men everywhere must repent is biblical, BUT, the repentance required of the reprobate is legal. All men are guilty of breaking God’s law and therefore must repent of their deeds and they never do. Sure, unsaved people feel guilt or regret over their sins but they still rage against the holy and living God. Only the elect are given the “evangelical grace” of repentance and faith that leads to eternal life.

John Gill’s comments on Acts 20.21 are useful in understanding this subject and so, I post them below.

Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,…. To the Jews first in their synagogue, and then to both Jews and Greeks, or Gentiles, in the school of Tyrannus; opening and explaining to both the nature and use, urging and insisting upon, and proving by undeniable testimonies the necessity,

of repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ: the former of these is not a legal repentance, but an evangelical one; which flows from a sense of the love of God, and an application of pardoning grace and mercy, and is always attended with hope, at least of interest in it, and as here with faith in Christ Jesus: it lies in a true sight and sense of sin, as exceeding sinful, being contrary to the nature and law of God, and a deformation of the image of God in man, as well as followed with dreadful and pernicious consequences; and in a godly sorrow for it, as it is committed against a God of infinite purity and holiness, and of love, grace, and mercy; and it shows itself in shame for sin, and blushing at it, and in an ingenious confession of it, and forsaking it: and the latter of these is not an historical faith, or an assent of the mind to whatsoever is true concerning the person, office, and grace of Christ; but is a spiritual act of the soul upon him; it is a looking and going out to him, a laying hold and leaning on him, and trusting in him, for grace, righteousness, peace, pardon, life, and salvation. Now these two were the sum of the apostle’s ministry; this is a breviary or compendium of it; a form of sound words held fast and published by him: and as these two go together as doctrines in the ministry of the word, they go together as graces in the experience of the saints; where the one is, there the other is; they are wrought in the soul at one and the same time, by one and the same hand; the one is not before the other in order of time, however it may be in order of working, or as to visible observation; repentance is mentioned before faith, not that it precedes it, though it may be discerned in its outward acts before it; yet faith as to its inward exercise on Christ is full as early, if not earlier; souls first look to Christ by faith, and then they mourn in tears of evangelical repentance, Zec 12:10 though the order of the Gospel ministry is very fitly here expressed, which is first to lay before sinners the evil of sin, and their danger by it, in order to convince of it, and bring to repentance for it; and then to direct and encourage them to faith in Christ Jesus, as in the case of the jailer, Ac 16:29 and this is, generally speaking, the order and method in which the Holy Spirit proceeds; he is first a spirit of conviction and illumination, he shows to souls the exceeding sinfulness of sin, causes them to loath it and themselves for it, and humbles them under a sense of it; and then he is a spirit of faith, he reveals Christ unto them as God’s way or salvation, and works faith in them to believe in him. Moreover, these two, repentance and faith, were the two parts of Christ’s ministry, Mr 1:15 and are what, he would have published and insisted on, in the preaching of the word, Lu 24:47 so that the ministry of the apostle was very conformable to the mind and will of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nah, no offer to the reprobate is made. Silversides is very weak on the subject. Audio of him dropping the ball here: The Free Offer of the Gospel

The Westminster Standards are far from weak, neither are the Puritans weak, nor Calvin, so whether Silversides is weak is completely irrelevant because he points to them.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is no general calling...when God calls...people answer...

(Rom 1:1 [NKJV])
PAUL, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

(Rom 1:6 [NKJV])
among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

(Rom 1:7 [NKJV])
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Rom 8:28 [NKJV])
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

(Rom 8:30 [NKJV])
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

(Rom 9:7 [NKJV])
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

(Rom 9:24 [NKJV])
even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


General offer I can dig, but not a general calling.
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟181,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Nah, no offer to the reprobate is made. Silversides is very weak on the subject.

Audio of him dropping the ball here: The Free Offer of the Gospel

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 reads;

ch.14
The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,”

“By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself”

“and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed”

ch.15
“This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin”

The idea that all men everywhere must repent is biblical, BUT, the repentance required of the reprobate is legal. All men are guilty of breaking God’s law and therefore must repent of their deeds and they never do. Sure, unsaved people feel guilt or regret over their sins but they still rage against the holy and living God. Only the elect are given the “evangelical grace” of repentance and faith that leads to eternal life.
An interesting case study are those who, at first, exhibit a very convincing and credible testimony of new life, but fall away years later. It seems there must be some genuine witness of the Holy Spirit in order to stir up such holy reverence and zeal. The seed, though rooted in shallow ground, must have been under some positive influence (though not a saving one) of God to have produced tangible fruits of faith and repentance.
They are described as those who have tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and the powers of the age to come. I suppose that fact they were being fattened for the slaughter is argument enough to prove that the Gospel solicitations extended to them were not sincere, but it makes one wonder: as Paul gives the imperatives of his Gospel indicatives in Ephesians, he warns against grieving the Spirit by Whom we are sealed. What is the true intention of the Spirit as He dwells in us? Is there a point at which a man may say with unshakable confidence, 'see the Spirit's sincere work within me for I bear all the fruits of His redeeming presence."?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
There is no general calling...when God calls...people answer...

(Rom 1:1 [NKJV])
PAUL, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

(Rom 1:6 [NKJV])
among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

(Rom 1:7 [NKJV])
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Rom 8:28 [NKJV])
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

(Rom 8:30 [NKJV])
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

(Rom 9:7 [NKJV])
nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

(Rom 9:24 [NKJV])
even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


General offer I can dig, but not a general calling.

Brother, you have isolated the specific calling of Christians, after they have been chosen.

"For many are called, but few are chosen."
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Brother, you have isolated the specific calling of Christians, after they have been chosen. "For many are called, but few are chosen."

But it is also written:

(Rom 8:30 [NKJV])
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

How do you propose we reconcile the words of our Lord with the words of Paul?
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Evidently the term "called" can be used in more than one way (kind of like unmerited blessings from who but God).

Quoting JFB
" for many be called, but few chosen—This is another of our Lord's terse and pregnant sayings, more than once uttered in different connections. (See Matt 19:30; Matt 22:14). The "calling" of which the New Testament almost invariably speaks is what divines call effectual calling, carrying with it a supernatural operation on the will to secure its consent. But that cannot be the meaning of it here; the "called" being emphatically distinguished from the "chosen." It can only mean here the "invited." And so the sense is, Many receive the invitations of the Gospel whom God has never "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2Th 2:13). But what, it may be asked, has this to do with the subject of our parable? Probably this—to teach us that men who have wrought in Christ's service all their days may, by the spirit which they manifest at the last, make it too evident that, as between God and their own souls, they never were chosen workmen at all."

Matthew Poole is an interesting read on the verse btw.

So, there is no substantial difference between a general call and a well meant offer after all, essentially they are one and the same. Maybe we should just use the terminology "well meant invitation" noting it is a generous invitation.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
First of all the idea of common grace is not found in the Scriptures unless it is read into them by means of "necessary consequence". Was God gracious to the Moabites, Hittites, Jebusites, Egyptians etc.? No He was not. Just as He does today He uses them for the glory of His name and the good of His people. Because of my iPad I can't quote the passages so I will use Romans 9 where Paul speaks of raising up Pharoah for this very purpose.

More than that is the fact that there is nothing common about grace. Just as all other blessings from God to sinners it is found only in Christ. Eph. 1:3 grace is only in and through union with Him by faith.

God makes it to rain on the just and unjust simply to do His elect good. He uses the reprobate to help feed and care for His chosen and nothing else. They are vessels prepared for destruction. He tells His elect that He has loved them with an everlasting love and gives nations and men for their sakes. Is a.43:3-4. He tells us in Rom. 8:28 that He works all things for good to those who love Him and are the called according to His purpose.

I will write on the well meant offer in the next post.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Saving faith, which comes by the hearing of the Gospel, is never once presented in the Scriptures as an offer of salvation except, again, Through deducing by means of necessary consequence. It is always presented as a gift.

There is an important difference between the two that needs to be understood.

I have used this illustration often but it is still the best that I know. Suppose that I owned all of the riches of the universe. I decide that I am going to give it away to whomever I choose. It is mine and I can do whatever I desire with it. So I give it as a gift to you. I didn't offer it to you I gave it to you. That means that when I gifted it to you I made it your possession. It became yours because I gave it to you unconditionally.

Now if I had offered it to you there would be a condition attached, you accepting it. Whigh means that you made it yours when you accepted it. You become the one in control of if it becomes yours or not.

The usual response is that you can refuse a gift. But that is never the question. The question is would you if you understand the value and nature of the gift ?

A well meant offer must mean that God offers that which He never intends to give. A well meant offer puts man in control of his destiny not God. A well meant offer means that there must be a reasonable expectation of it being accepted. Moreover a well meant offer obliges God to do that which He offers. God is under no obligation whatsoever.

Now to the idea that God has some sort of love for the reprobate. I challenge anyone to show me in the Scriptures where God says that He loves any who are not His elect. It can't be done. Once more it is a conclusion drawn from necessary consequence.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
But it is also written:

(Rom 8:30 [NKJV])
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

How do you propose we reconcile the words of our Lord with the words of Paul?

I put a lot of work into the videos I've posted which answer your question. The idea of common grace is based in the idea that God loves everyone, this is not true.

Prof. Herman Hanko on Matthew 5 and God’s Love:

In general, there is no question about it that this is a key passage in the defense of God’s attitude of grace and love towards all men. Every defender of common grace that I have read or listened to has quoted this text as decisive in the debate. And all defenders of common grace assure us that this passage ought to mark the end of all debate.

The text itself reads: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust.”

The argument as I understand it goes like this. God sends rain on the just and on the unjust. The common rain that God sends is proof of His favor, love, kindness, etc. towards the unregenerate. Rain is God’s common grace.

Sometimes the argument is turned around, in the interests of showing that all who receive rain actually do receive favor. The argument goes like this: We are called to do good to the just and to the unjust. For us that doing good to the just and unjust includes all men without any distinction, or, at least, includes elect and reprobate alike, for we are unable to distinguish between them. Because we are imitating God as His children, in doing good to all, God also does good to all.

We may not, however, argue from our calling to love our neighbor as ourselves to God’s attitude of favor towards all men. We are creatures, living here in the world, in the world though not of the world. God is God, sovereign over all who does all His good pleasure. Known unto God are all His works from the beginning. We do not know who are God’s elect and who are reprobate. But God does know, for He determines it all. We ought to keep this in mind.

An important question that arises from the text is: Whom does Jesus mean by “the just and unjust” upon whom God sends rain? Does Jesus mean: good men in this world and bad men in this world? That is, men who deserve rain and sunshine and men who do not? The answer, very obviously, is: The text cannot mean that, for there are no just people in the world, for “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10).

Does it then mean to distinguish between those who are righteous because the perfect satisfaction for sin earned on the cross has been imputed to them, and those who are still in their sins and not righteous in Christ? That is, is the distinction between just and unjust a distinction between elect and reprobate? It would seem that the latter would have to be the meaning. But then the text means only, as we have repeatedly observed, that God manifests that He is a good God by giving good things to men, something no one denies. The question still remains: What is God’s attitude and purpose behind these good gifts? And then Psalm 73 and Proverbs 3:33 give us the answer.

But the whole idea that God loves the reprobate is an imposition on the text of man’s own devising.

A positive explanation of the text would, I think, be helpful.

Actually, I dealt with some of the issues in this verse in my last letters and I ask the reader to consult what I wrote there. There is some repetition here, therefore, but perhaps the points are worth repeating.

Before I take our journey through this text, it is necessary to put the text into its context. In the broader context Scripture gives us Jesus’ words in His Sermon on the Mount. This sermon is spoken to the disciples and, more broadly, to all citizens of the kingdom of heaven. The Sermon on the Mount has frequently and rightly been called, “The Constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven.” After describing the characteristics of the citizens of the kingdom in the Beatitudes, the Lord lays down fundamental principles that govern the lives of these citizens while they are still in this world. Note this: Jesus is laying down principles of conduct to be observed by those who are citizens of the kingdom.

In the section of which verses 44, 45 are a part, beginning with verse 21, Jesus is explaining how He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. And in connection with His calling and work to fulfill the law, He condemns the keeping of the law as it was explained by the scribes and Pharisees. They saw the law only as an external code of conduct and paid no attention to the spiritual demands of the law: Love God, and love thy neighbor. Even to the command, Love thy neighbor, the Pharisees had added the command, Hate thy enemy (verse 43). This interpretation was indeed what the Pharisees taught, for in verses 46 and 47 the Lord adds, “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans the same?”

The evil interpretation of the law by the Pharisees was basically a self-centered conceit: I will be nice only to those who are nice to me . . . .

In other words, the command of God to love our neighbors as ourselves had been corrupted and abused by the self-righteous Pharisees and scribes. They had interpreted “neighbor” as referring to their brethren, and, even more narrowly, to those who loved them. The Lord warns the citizens of the kingdom not to do as the Pharisees, for that is not the law of God.

But the Pharisees forgot that the command to love our neighbor is rooted in and flows from the command to love God. We cannot love our neighbor without loving God. And, indeed, our love for our neighbor is a manifestation of our love for God. Furthermore, the love the citizens of the kingdom who love God must show to others is a manifestation of the fact that they are loved by God (I John 4:19). The Pharisees, when they interpreted the command, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and interpreted it to mean that we are to love those who love us, immediately had to face the question: Does God love those who love Him? What a foolish question to ask. The answer obviously is, He does not! Jesus’ answer demonstrates that God loves those who hate Him, though they be elect.

The term “neighbor” in the law of God is broader by far than our brethren and those who love us. That it has a broader connotation is evident from the parable of “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37). In this parable Jesus explains that we are neighbors to anyone whom we meet or walk with on our life’s pathway, who is in need of our help. That means that our neighbors are not only those who unexpectedly cross our pathway and need our help, but also those with whom we walk on life’s pathway every moment of our lives, but who need our help: our wives or husbands, our children, out fellow saints . . . . Quite frankly, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the hypocritically pious prating of the ministers who are continuously telling us to love our neighbor, but who divorce their own wives and marry others. Let them first love their neighbor nearest to them, their wives and their children.

For all that, we are also called to love the neighbor who is quite obviously an unbeliever. That is, we are called to love our neighbor without discriminating between those who love us and those who persecute us. We are not to love those only who love us. God does not love those who love Him. God does not love those who make themselves worthy of His love. He loves us, the worst of sinners. If we are children of our Father, therefore, we love those who do not love us. But those whom God loves are those wicked and undeserving people who are nevertheless those for whom Christ died.

The point of comparison between God’s love and our love is: God loves unworthy sinners (though they are the elect whom God knows) and we are to love unworthy sinners (though we do not know elect from reprobate.) In doing so we imitate our Father in heaven.

We may very well ask the question: Why does God want us to love our neighbor and not only our brethren? The very obvious answer to that question is: We do not know who are our brethren (or will become our brethren), and who are not. That is why the Pharisees interpreted the command to love our neighbor as referring to those who love them. If, said the Pharisees, a person loves us, he must be one of our brethren and we ought to love him.

This was very perverse and wicked. We do not even know with absolute certainty who among our brethren are truly people of God; much less do we know of those outside the circle of our brethren who are true people of God. Luther was right when he said that there would be many in heaven who surprised him by their presence, and there would be many he thought to meet in heaven who were not there. Hypocrites are to be found in the church and God’s people are to be found outside the circle of “brethren”, though they may as yet be unconverted. God knows who are His own; we do not know with absolute certainty. Nor need we know. It is enough for us to live in fellowship with those who manifest themselves as faithful servants of Christ, with whom we live in our homes and in the communion of the saints. Going back all the way to Calvin and our Reformed fathers after him and following them, we must exercise towards those who profess to be believers “the judgment of charity,” or “the judgment of love.”

But God is pleased to save His church from the world of unbelief. He is pleased to save His church by the preaching of the gospel. The effect of the preaching of the gospel is that God’s people are His witnesses in the world of sin; and the witness of God’s people is itself the power of the preaching within them. God uses the witness of Christians to bring His people outside the church into the fellowship of the saints and under the preaching. This is God’s reason for the command to love our neighbor.

As Jesus makes clear, our neighbor is anyone who comes in our pathway: our wives or husbands, our children, our fellow saints, the man next to us in the shop, the man who knocks on our door to ask for food, the man who threatens us with harm, the man who persecutes us – these and all the rest who, if only fleetingly, enter our lives. God brings them there. God has His purpose in bringing them there. That purpose is to hear our witness of what God has done for us. We do good to those on our pathway whom God has put there.

We who are husbands surely seek the salvation of our wives. We do all we can to help them fulfill their own calling in the home and in the church. We surely seek the salvation of our children, for we teach them the ways of God’s covenant and insist that they walk in those ways. We surely seek the salvation of our fellow saints, for we earnestly desire to go to heaven with them.

The command to love our neighbor is broader than showing love to our acquaintances. We are to love those whose pathway crosses our pathway and who, like the wounded Samaritan, block our path so that we have to go around them if we are to ignore them. God put him on our pathway and did so for a good purpose.

(end quote)

A. W. Pink concurs:

Thou hatest all workers of iniquity not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, Thou hatest all workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)!

God is angry with the wicked every day. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God not shall abide, but even now abideth on him (Ps. 5:5; 8:11; John 3:36).

Can God love the one on whom His wrath abides?

Again; is it not evident that the words The love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love?

Again; is it not plain from the words Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody?

Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change He is without variableness or shadow of turning! (A. W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God)

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
William Perkins on Common Grace

“First, that we may put a difference between Christian and heathen virtues. For, howbeit the same virtues in kind and name are and may be found both in those that profess Christ and those also that are ignorant of the true God. Yet they are in them after a divers manner. For in heathen men they are the gifts of God, but not parts of regeneration and new birth. But in those that be true Christians they are indeed not only the gifts of God’s Spirit but also essential parts of regeneration.

That we may better yet conceive this difference we must understand that the grace of God in man is twofold: restraining and renewing.

Restraining [grace] is that which bridles and restrains the corruption of men’s hearts from breaking forth into outward actions, for the common good, that societies may be preserved and one man may live orderly with another. Renewing grace is that which not only restrains corruption but also mortifies sin and renews the heart daily more and more. The former of these is incident to heathen men and the virtues which they have. It serves only to repress the act of sin in their outward actions. But in Christians, they are graces of God, not only bridling and restraining the affection, but renewing the heart, and mortifying all corruption. And though those virtues of the heathen be graces of God, yet they are but general and common to all. Whereas the virtues of Christians, are special graces of the Spirit, sanctifying and renewing the mind, will, and affections. For example, chastity in Joseph was a grace of God’s Spirit, renewing his heart. But chastity in Xenocrates was a common grace serving only to curb and restrain the corruption of his heart. And the like may be said of the justice of Abraham, a Christian, and of Aristides, a heathen.”

WILLIAM PERKINS, Cases of Conscience, 1st edn, 1606; repr. 1617, 113. [modernized]
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Jonathan Edwards on Common Grace

The following is from Jonathan Edwards sermon,
"True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils"


“There are many in this world who are wholly destitute of saving grace, who yet have common grace. They have no true holiness, but nevertheless have something of that which is called moral virtue. And they are the subjects of some degree of the common influences of the Spirit of God.

But when any are damned, or cast into hell, as the devils are, God wholly withdraws his restraining grace and all merciful influences of his Spirit. They then have neither saving grace nor common grace; neither the grace
of the Spirit, nor any of the common gifts of the Spirit; neither true holiness, nor moral virtue of any kind.

Hence arises the vast increase of the exercise of wickedness in the hearts of men when they are damned. And herein is the chief difference between the damned in hell and unregenerate and graceless men in this world.

Not that wicked men in this world have any more holiness or true virtue than the damned; or have wicked men, when they leave this world, any new principles of wickedness infused into them.

But when men are cast into hell, God wholly takes away his Spirit from them, as to all his merciful common influences, and entirely withdraws from them all restraints of his Spirit and good providence.

Damned men are like the devils, conformed to them in both nature and state. They have nothing better in them than the devils, have no higher principles in their hearts, experience nothing and do nothing of a more excellent kind, as they are the children and servants of the devil; and as such, shall dwell with him, and be partakers with him of the same misery. Ungodly men in their future state shall be as the fallen wicked angels in hell.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
John Owen (1616-1683) on Common Grace: Select Comments

Owen:

vol 3:

1) And this is farther to prove that this habit or gracious principle of holiness is specifically distinct from all other habits of the mind whatever, whether intellectual or moral, connate or acquired, as also from all that common grace and the effects of it whereof any persons not really sanctified may be made partakers.

2) All that we have taught before concerning the purification of our minds and consciences by the blood of Christ is peculiar unto gospel holiness, and distinguisheth it essentially from all common grace or moral virtues. And they do but deceive themselves who rest in a multitude of duties, it may be animated much with zeal, and set off with a profession of the most rigid mortification, whose hearts and consciences are not thus purged by the blood of Christ.

3) All gracious actings of our minds and souls, whether internal only, in faith, love, or delight, or whether they go out unto external duties required in the gospel, being wrought in us by the immediate efficacy of the Spirit of grace, differ in their kind, in their essence and substance of the acts themselves, from whatever is not so wrought or effected in us; for whatever may be done by anyone, in any acting of common grace or performance of any duty of obedience, being educed out of the power of the natural faculties of men, excited by convictions, as directed and enforced by reasons and exhortations, or assisted by common aids, of what nature soever, they are natural as to their kind, and they have no other substance or being but what is so.

vol 6

1) Rule 11: Rule 11. — [Consider where lies the hinderance to peace] Second general head of the application of the truth insisted on — Grounds of spiritual disquietments considered — The first, afflictions — Ways and means of the aggravation of afflictions — Rules about them — Objections against believing from things internal — The person knows not whether he be regenerate or no — State of regeneration asserted — Difference of saving and common grace — This difference discernible

2) OBJECTIONS AGAINST BELIEVING FROM THINGS INTERNAL – THE PERSON KNOWS NOT WHETHER HE BE REGENERATE OR NO – STATE OF REGENERATION ASSERTED – DIFFERENCE OF SAVING AND COMMON GRACE – THIS DIFFERENCE DISCERNIBLE – MEN MAY KNOW THEMSELVES TO HE REGENERATE – THE OBJECTION ANSWERED.

3) God having designed us unto salvation as the end, hath also appointed the sanctification of the Spirit to be the means to bring us orderly unto the attainment of that end. But the best of common grace or gifts that may be in men unregenerate are but products of the providence of God, ordering all things in general unto his own glory and the good of them that shall be heirs of salvation. They are not fruits of electing eternal love, nor designed means for the infallible attaining of eternal salvation.

4) The graces of those that are regenerate have a manifold respect or relation to the Lord Christ, that the common graces of others have not.

5) Moreover, it hath an especial relation unto his intercession, and that in a distinguishing manner from any other gifts or common graces that other men may receive.

6) Now, the common grace of unregenerate persons, whereby they are distinguished from other men, whatever it be, it hath not this especial relation to the oblation and intercession of Christ.

7) And thus it is with the saving grace that is in a regenerate, and those common graces that are in others which are not so.

8) They may sometimes, with Peter, think Simon Magus to be a true believer, or, with Eli, an Hannah to be a daughter of Belial. Many hypocrites are set forth with gifts, common graces, light, and profession, so that they pass amongst all believers for such as are born of God; and many poor saints may be so disguised, under darkness, temptation, sin, as to be looked on as strangers from that family whereunto indeed they do belong. The judgment of man may fail, but the judgment of God is according unto righteousness.

vol 10:

1) So that though Almighty God, according to the unsearchableness of his wisdom, worketh divers ways and in sundry manners, for the translating of his chosen ones from the power of darkness into his marvelous light,—calling some powerfully in the midst of their march in the way of ungodliness, as he did Paul,—preparing others by outward means and helps of common restraining grace, moralizing nature before it be begotten anew by the immortal seed of the word,—yet this is certain, that all good in this kind is from his free grace; there is nothing in ourselves, as of ourselves, but sin. Yea, and all those previous dispositions wherewith our hearts are prepared, by virtue of common grace, do not at all enable us to concur, by any vital operation, with that powerful, blessed, renewing grace of regeneration whereby we become the sons of God.

2) Fourthly, Concerning grace itself, it is either common or special. Common or general graceconsisteth in the external revelation of the will of God by his word, with some illumination of the mind to perceive it, and correction of the affections not too much to contemn it; and this, in some degree or other, to some more, to some less, is common to all that are called. Special grace is the grace of regeneration, comprehending the former, adding more spiritual acts, but especially presupposing the purpose of God, on which its efficacy doth chiefly depend.

3) Yea, and all those previous dispositions wherewith our hearts are prepared, by virtue of common grace, do not at all enable us to concur, by any vital operation, with that powerful,
blessed, renewing grace of regeneration whereby we become the sons of God. Neither is there any disposition unto grace so remote as that possibly it can proceed from a mere faculty of nature, for every such disposition must be of the same order with the form that is to be introduced; but nature, in respect of grace, is a thing of an inferior alloy, between which there is no proportion. A good use of gifts may have a promise of an addition of more, provided it be in the same kind. There is no rule, law, or promise that should make grace due upon the good use of natural endowments.

vol 11:

1) Now, the truth is, it is properly no part of the controversy under consideration, whether, or how far, and in what sense, men, by reason of the profession and participation of ordinances, with the work and effect of common grace upon them, may be said to be true believers; but the whole, upon the matter of what we plead for, is comprised in the assertions now ascribed to them: which that it is done upon sufficient grounds will be manifest by calling in some few of the most eminent of them, to speak in their own words what their thoughts were in this matter.

2) So that, notwithstanding any thing said to the contrary, the comminations under consideration may principally belong to some kind of professors, who, notwithstanding all the gifts and common graces which they have received, yet in a large sense may be termed hypocrites, as they are opposed to them who have received the Spirit with true and saving grace.

3) The next privilege insisted on which to these persons is ascribed is, that they are “made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” In men’s participation of the Holy Ghost, either the gifts or graces of the Holy Ghost are intended. The graces of the Holy Ghost are either more common and inchoative, or special and completing of the work of conversion. That it is the peculiar, regenerating grace of God that is intended in this expression, of being “made partakers of the Holy Ghost,” and not the gifts of the Spirit, or those common graces of illumination, unto which persons not truly converted, but only wrought upon by an effectual conviction in the preaching of the word, may attain, Mr. Goodwin is no way able to prove.

4) How far men may proceed in the ways of God; what progress they may make in amendment of life; what gifts and common graces they may receive; what light and knowledge they may be endued withal; what kind of faith, joy, repentance, sorrow, delight, love, they may have in and about spiritual things; what desires of mercy and heaven; what useful gifts for the church’s edification they may receive; how far they may persuade their own souls, and upon what grounds, that their condition God-ward is good and saving, and beget an opinion in others that they are true believers, — and yet come short of union with Christ, building their houses on the sand, etc., is the daily task of the preachers of the gospel to manifest, in their pressing that exhortation of the apostle unto their hearers, to “examine and try themselves,” in the midst of their profession, “whether Christ be in them of a truth” or no.

vol 13:

1) That it may be credible, or appear of a truth that God had sent them for this purpose, they were always furnished with such gifts and abilities as the utmost reach of human endeavors, with the assistance of common grace, cannot possibly attain. The general opinion is, that God always supplies such with the gift of miracles.

vol 21:

1) For in common grace, one single grace may appear very evident, and win great honor to the profession of them in whom it is, whilst there is a total want of all or many others: but in saving grace it is not so; for though different graces may exceedingly differ in their exercise, yet all of them are equal in their root and principle.

2) There are spiritual things which differ in their whole kind and nature from other things, and are better than they as to their essence and being. Such is all saving grace, with all the fruits of it. I shall not now stay to prove that true saving grace differs specifically from all common grace, however advanced in its exercise by the company and help of spiritual gifts, much less to wrangle about what doth formally constitute a specifical difference between things.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dordt and Common Grace

"The expression "common grace" has an historical connection to the Remonstrants. That has led some Calvinists to reject entirely the term "common grace," and to make this a shibboleth of "true Calvinism" or "classical Calvinism." Such a shibboleth is foolish and mistaken, both because folks like Matthew Henry, Thomas Manton, and Jonathan Edwards used the term approvingly, but also because the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession use the term approvingly.

The term gets mentioned in the Canons of Dordt. The mention is in the context of the rejection of a Remonstrant error. The specific mention is this (at 3/4:V):

"Who teach that corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace-- evangelical or saving grace--as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance."​

For Scripture, not to mention the experience of all ages, testifies that this is false: He makes known his words to Jacob, his statutes and his laws to Israel; he has done this for no other nation, and they do not know his laws (Ps. 147:19-20); In the past God let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16); They (Paul and his companions) were kept by the Holy Spirit from speaking God's word in Asia; and When they had come to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit would not allow them to (Acts 16:6-7).

Notice that the Canon does not say "Those who say 'common grace' are anathema." Instead, it is a particular view of the sufficiency of common grace that is at stake. This is significant, because it means that it is not the phrase itself that is rejected.

Note that "common grace" is defined to mean "the light of nature." The same synod, however, positively expressed the view of the synod on "common grace" or "the light of nature" in this way:

Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature

"There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God."​

Notice that the synod positively affirms that man has the light of nature, it just rejects the sufficiency of that light of nature for salvation.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that the synod says of this common grace, that "man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society." That is a serious blow to those who today are departing radically from the teachings of the Reformers and asserting the sufficiency of the light of nature for matters of society.

There is not a symmetry between Scripture and the light of nature, such that the light of nature is sufficient for nature and society whereas the Bible is sufficient for faith. Instead, the light of nature is utterly insufficient. So taught the Reformers, so teach the Scriptures, and so ought we to believe." SOURCE
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums