Chapter Four. Does God Love all Men?
There can be no question that God loves
and is gracious to the elect in Christ. The question is this:
Does God love the non-elect?
Rev. Stebbins, as we saw, answers this
question in the affirmative. Yes, he says, God loves all, and
God is gracious to all men including the reprobate. He teaches
that God's love and grace for the reprobate, however, is of a
non-saving variety that lasts only until they are thrust
away into damnation for their sins.
Rev. Stebbins then shows how God graciously
pursues the well-being and salvation of all by means "intrinsically
useful." By intrinsically useful, he means that the good
things God bestows as grace upon the reprobate are in themselves
designed both to preserve life and ultimately to lead sinners
to salvation in Christ. Rev. Stebbins calls the offer of the
gospel "common grace" because it, like the rain and
sunshine comes to all men without distinction. "Common grace"
is in all God's good gifts to men but comes to its highest expression
in the preaching of the gospel whereby he pursues the reprobate's
ultimate spiritual blessedness in Christ.
It must be clearly noted that Rev.
Stebbins' "common grace" has God aiming at
the salvation in Christ of the reprobate. Rev. Stebbins'
"Common grace" is not concerned only with temporal gifts,
as it would be if it were a species of non-saving grace distinct
from saving grace. The great Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper championed
a view of what he called, common, non-saving grace; but he so
vigorously repudiated any idea that this species of grace was
concerned with man's salvation that he gave it a completely different
name. He called it gemeene gratie,
and saving grace he called genade.
His reason for making such a clear distinction was that he insisted
the two must never be confused. Rev. Stebbins on the other hand,
willingly, even wilfully confuses the two in order to produce
a basis for his well-meant offer.
Rev. Stebbins' "common" grace
sets God actively pursuing the reprobate with salvation through
the gospel. In reality, Rev. Stebbins' "common" grace
is saving grace with its power and purpose removed so as
to be resistible and non-efficacious. Rev. Stebbins, quite distinct
from Kuyper and many of the better Puritans, is not maintaining
a "common" grace of God as Creator in His providence
over all His creatures; rather he has embraced and teaches the
"general grace" of the Arminians. Admittedly, he has
put general grace through what could be called a "Calvinizing"
process. The problem is, however, that even though the corrupt
metal now has the appearance of the genuine article; when you
scratch the surface, you find that its nature remains unchanged.
Grace: Un-common.
Rev. Stebbins defines grace in this
way: "Grace is a principle of God's attribute of goodness
whereby He delights to deal with man with a favour he does not
deserve." Further, grace is "the undeserved favour
of God ... referring to God's nature and the gift that proceeds
from that nature." "The nature of the act is to be
reckoned from the attitude of the doer."
This means, for Rev. Stebbins, that because God has a "necessarily"
gracious attitude toward all men, everything God does, gives or
brings to men is grace. Therefore, grace is necessarily common
to the reprobate and the elect alike.
There are serious problems with Rev.
Stebbins' definition of grace.
Firstly, Rev. Stebbins has written
a book with the stated purpose of proving that Christ is (in our
words) "well-meaningly" offered to all men by God and
is defining God's grace in the context of the preaching of the
gospel and salvation, yet he does so apart from any mention of
either the fountain of grace in God's eternal decree of election,
or the saving purpose of God in Christ. He again works out of
his erroneous "necessary principle of God's nature."
Rev. Stebbins has dual wills of God in operation in regard to
grace.
Secondly, though it is true that, as
Rev. Stebbins says, God's grace is "undeserved favour"
it does not follow that because God makes His grace known to sinners
through the preaching of the gospel, God is gracious, or has a
gracious purpose in that preaching to the reprobate.
A biblical conception of grace must
reckon with sin, the curse, and God's saving purpose toward
the elect in Christ. Biblical grace comes from God the
Father, through Christ, by the Holy Spirit as that irresistible
power of God unto the salvation of totally depraved, undeserving
sinners. Nothing less than God's irresistible saving grace
is revealed by, and proclaimed in, the preaching of the gospel.
Thirdly, any biblical definition of
grace must be grounded in Jesus Christ Himself as the beginning
and end of God's grace. This is the reason our Larger Catechism
is careful not to say, as Rev. Stebbins does, that the covenant
was made with the elect, but rather: "The covenant of grace
was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the
elect as His seed." Christ was from all eternity God's gift
of grace for the elect. There
is no grace for sinners outside of Christ; nor does God show favour
to guilty sinners except it be through the person and work of
Christ the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace. This point, in our
judgement, is crucial. Christ's love, life, obedience, prayers,
shed blood, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, glorification,
mediatorial rule, continual intercession, sending the Spirit,
effectual calling, and all the benefits
of the Covenant of Grace are the gift of grace to those that the
Father has given to Christ before the foundation of the world.
God's grace is for none but the elect body of Christ.
Time should be taken carefully to read
the first two chapters of Ephesians. In these chapters the nature
of biblical grace is described. The apostle Paul, magnifying the
glory of God's grace in Christ, says: we are "chosen in
Him," (1: 4). We are predestinated to the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure
of His will" (v.5). Here is the fountain of grace revealed.
Why does God predestinate some to adoption in Christ? It is
"to the praise of the glory of His grace," (v:6).
Grace "makes us accepted in the beloved,"
(v:6). It is "according to the riches of grace" that
sinners have "redemption through Christ's blood and forgiveness
of sins," (v:7). God by revealing the mystery of His will
in Christ causes the riches of His grace to abound toward the
elect, (v:8). Grace brings God's love and mercy in Christ to
quicken dead sinners, (2:5). Grace saves! (2:5).
Grace is pure undeserved favour, but irresistable power: "For
by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God, (2:8). Grace raises the elect up, through
faith, and makes them to sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, (2:6).
Grace originates in eternal
predestination to the adoption of children in Christ. In time
grace quickens, effectually calls and unites the
elect regenerated sinner to Christ in the spiritual bond of faith.
Grace applies redemption and bestows forgiveness. Grace
raises the elect to heavenly glory as the adopted sons and daughters
of God. Grace saves to the uttermost. Why? "That in
ages to come he might show forth the exceeding riches
of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus,"
(2:7). Grace, therefore, is the favour of God - through the
mediation of Christ to elect sinners - contrary to all deserving
- as that irresistible power through which God realises His purpose
to glorify His name in the full and free salvation of the whole
body of the elect.
Further Issues Concerning Grace.
Rev. Stebbins' argument requires that
we consider two further questions regarding grace. First, does
God have a non-saving attitude of favour (common grace) toward
the reprobate as Rev. Stebbins defines it? Second, is there "grace"
in things? That is, are things - as things - grace? We have
before concluded that in the context of the gospel of salvation
God's grace is in Christ and is saving grace. Nevertheless,
these two questions ought to be considered in more detail.
God's Attitude Toward The Non-elect.
Is God favourably disposed (gracious)
to all men in the preaching of the gospel? Oh yes! says Rev.
Stebbins otherwise God couldn't be sincere in offering Christ
and salvation in Him to all men! No, we reply, such a conclusion
does not follow at all.
There can be no doubt that God is gracious
toward His elect in the offer of the gospel. The question, however,
for this discussion is: What is God's attitude toward the reprobate
in the preaching of the gospel? Is His attitude one of love and
favour, or is it one of disfavour?
The Reformed believer does well to
remember that God's decree has something to do with God's attitude
toward the one who hears the preaching of the gospel. Indeed,
God's eternal decree of double predestination is absolutely determinative
as to whether God is pleased to bestow or withhold His grace from
any particular sinner.
The Westminster Confession has something
to say on this vital point:
Those of mankind that are predestinated
unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according
to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and
good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting
glory, out of mere grace and love . . . and all
to the praise of his glorious grace," (W.C.F. IIl, 5).
In predestining the elect unto life
God made the elect the particular objects of His love and grace.
Through and in the elect, God's grace will be glorified.
Where does the offer of the gospel
fit into the Confessional conception of grace for the elect chosen
in Christ? "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory,
so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will,
foreordained all the means thereunto."
(W.C.F. III, 6).
The elect, according to the Confession,
are predestined unto life, but this life is to become theirs through
the means God has foreordained. As far as life and salvation
are concerned, all the means of grace, especially the preaching
of the gospel as the chief means, are for the sake of the elect
in Christ. To the elect these means are God's grace and
mercy, in and through Christ, for their salvation. God desires
their salvation. God pursues their salvation through the means
of grace. God achieves this salvation, without fail,
through the means He provides as these are effectually applied
by the Spirit.
What then of God's attitude toward
the reprobate? The Westminster Confession in the same chapter
declares:
The rest of mankind, God was pleased,
according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby
he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory
of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by,
and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice, (W.C.F. III, 7).
From the non-elect, or reprobate (all
who are not chosen to life in Christ) God, our Confession teaches,
withheld mercy and passed by with His mercy and grace
in Christ. The righteous and sovereign God withheld mercy, grace
and love in Christ from "the rest." He has passed many
by with the benefits of the Covenant of Grace which are found
only in Christ.
Rev. Stebbins, however, twists and,
in principle, denies the truth of Scripture declared in the
W.C.F., when he says: "This preterition (reprobation) says
nothing about God's attitude towards those passed over, (except
that they are not going to be loved with God's electing love),
nor about their destiny." This statement shows that Rev.
Stebbins has diluted the Reformed teaching concerning reprobation
until it has become nothing more than God's reaction to man's
sin. Almighty God, however, is not a reacting God; God
acts. Rev. Stebbins seems to have lost sight of the fact
that God is God!
Resistance to the mighty truth of God's
absolute sovereignty over the destiny of men is not new. The
apostle Paul anticipated this very objection; and his response
must be heeded:
Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another
unto dishonour?
Rev. Stebbins argues this way because
he must first deny the decisive nature of reprobation before he
can teach a well-meant offer of God to the reprobate.
Nevertheless, God, says the Confession, "withholdeth mercy."
The proof text for this Confessional statement is Romans 9:18,
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
whom he will he hardeneth." Reprobation is active,
"whom He will He hardeneth." Furthermore, the Confession
declares that God hardens the reprobate by "withholding
grace", (W.C.F. V, 6). Reprobation means also,
that God hardens the non-elect even through the good things showered
upon them so liberally in this life, and through the hearing of
the gospel. This too is an important confessional truth overlooked
by Rev. Stebbins.
As for the wicked and ungodly men whom
God as a righteous judge, for former sins, (that is, the reprobate
viewed from the moral ethical view point, CJC) doth blind and
harden, from them he not only with-holdeth his grace, whereby
they might have been enlightened .... whereby it comes to pass
that they harden themselves, even under those means which God
useth for the softening of others. (W.C.F. V, 6).
If we ask: Why? God replies: "Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Whatever else the
proponents of the well-meant offer might say of this verse
it certainly is not teaching that God is graciously disposed toward
the reprobate. It certainly is not teaching that God "loves
some less." Rev. Stebbins, however, argues that God's goodness
manifest toward the reprobate is a form of love, grace and mercy.
With John Knox we can but say: "You make the love of God
common to all men, and that we constantly do deny."
Is Rev. Stebbins' "common"
grace Biblical? If it is indeed the case that there is a "common
grace" that pursues all men's salvation, as he so insists,
where, we ask, is the proof from Holy Scripture?
The "proof" texts Rev. Stebbins
presents for "common grace" which is grace to all men
in the giver and in the gift militate against his own position
and support our contention that God's grace is always particular
in Christ to the elect. He cites Galatians 1:15: "But when
it pleased God and separated me from my mother's womb, and called
me by his grace. "Ephesians 2:8, " For by grace
are ye saved." Titus 3:4, "But after the kindness and
love of God our Saviour toward man appeared." All
these texts manifestly refer to God's sovereign, particular love
and saving grace to His elect. This grace saves! Full
and free salvation is the certain result of God "pursuing"
the sinner with this grace. These passages say nothing of a love
of God toward the reprobate. Rev. Stebbins is required by these
texts to say, either, that in "common grace" God has
elected all conditionally and given Christ as Saviour for all,
or he must acknowledge that he has given absolutely no Biblical
support for his definition of grace.
Is there another lesser species of
nonsaving grace and mercy apart from that which God decreed to
bestow and withhold according to His sovereign good pleasure in
Christ? To this question we must now turn.
God's Goodness and Grace.
The several passages Rev. Stebbins
points to in support of a "common non-saving" grace
refer specifically to God's goodness, not to God's grace.
Rev. Stebbins makes a fundamental mistake when he confuses good
"things" with grace. He fails to distinguish between
God's general goodness in all His works of providence as Creator
and Sustainer (from which nothing can be determined as to the
attitude or purpose of the giver, other than that God is good),
and God's grace to the elect as Saviour (which has to do with
the favourable attitude of God in giving those good things and
His purpose to bless His elect in Christ through them).
We understand God's goodness in
Scripture to denote the infinite perfection of the being and attributes
of God. God is essential goodness in Himself, and in every attribute
of His nature He is pure goodness in the fullest sense of the
term. God is the only Good, (Mark 10:18). As pure goodness God
does only good: "Thou art good, and doest good,"
(Psalm 119:68). The nature of God, then, is the fountain
head of pure goodness from whom flow streams of most pure goodness.
God is essential goodness in all His holy will that proceeds from
His nature, and all the actions which proceed from that holy will
toward the creature.
Holy Scripture clearly teaches us that
God's decree of double predestination is also pure goodness. Jehovah
declares:
I will make all my goodness pass before
thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee, and
will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy
on whom I will show mercy, (Exodus 33:19).
This passage demonstrates that the
revelation of those particular perfections of God's goodness called
grace and mercy are inextricably united to predestination.
The revelation of God's goodness as grace and mercy is not, as
Rev. Stebbins teaches, a necessary act of God's nature toward
all men. It is according to God's sovereign will. The pure goodness
of God revealed as grace and mercy is particular, for those
whom "I will." This truth is taken up and further
explained and applied in Romans 9:18-24.
Rev. Stebbins, however, is content
to define goodness as that "attribute of God by which He
delights to deal bountifully and kindly with all His creatures."
Rev. Stebbins again draws his whole argument (that God doing
good to men means He is gracious) out of his faulty premise of
the "necessary principle of God's nature" showing favour
and mercy apart from His will.
Rev. Stebbins' mistaken view, as we
have already seen, can not stand before the truth that all God's
works ad extra (outside the being of God toward the creature)
are free acts of God's will. No revelation of God's goodness
to the creature is a necessary act. Rev. Stebbins has
his answer ready: "God is free," he declares, "to
manifest His goodness however and whenever He will." But
what nonsense is this? Of course God is free. God is God! But,
we must ask, in what does God's freedom consist? His freedom consists
in His perfect freedom and ability to do all His holy will. Rev.
Stebbins' "principle of active delight", however, denies
that God is free to bestow, or withhold grace and mercy as He
pleases.
There are several considerations that
when taken together show Rev. Stebbins' teaching regarding God's
goodness (common grace and mercy) to be erroneous.
In the first place, God is free only
to act in the expression of His goodness according to His good
pleasure - His decree, never in flat contradiction to it. Rev.
Stebbins, however, has God's nature actively being gracious and
merciful apart from, and in flat contradiction to, His own will
of good pleasure established in the decree. Action apart from
will is not freedom; it is chaos.
In the second place Rev. Stebbins'
teaching actually refuses to allow God to act freely. He insists
that God acts from a "necessary principle" of His nature.
This is to say, that God when He reveals His goodness must
be gracious to sinners. This we deny. In this context we do
well to reminded ourselves again that John Owen, arguing against
the universalists, demolished Rev. Stebbins' argument, when he
declared:
That God hath any natural or necessary
inclination, by His goodness, or any other property, to do good
to us, or any of His creatures, we do deny. Everything that concerns
us is an act of His free will and good pleasure, and not a natural,
necessary act of His Deity.
Owen has drawn the lines here according
to biblical truth and Reformed orthodoxy. Nothing that God does
outside of His own being and essence is "necessary"
to Him, not even love and grace. Grace and mercy are the active
expressions of God's essential goodness outside Himself, not
necessarily or universally, but freely as willed to be made known
through Jesus Christ to the miserable creature fallen in sin.
Grace and mercy as free acts of God ad-extra proceed from
His will as established immutably in the decree. God's immutable
will of decree is to bestow grace and mercy on the elect alone,
and by withholding grace and mercy to pass by the rest of mankind.
This is the only will of God that Scripture knows. Therefore,
there is no attitude or active outgoing of grace and mercy
from God's essential goodness toward the reprobate.
In the third place, God's essential
goodness determines that all He wills to do outside Himself is
necessarily good. However, whilst grace and mercy are themselves
the free manifestations of goodness toward the elect, it does
not follow that God's goodness is also grace and mercy to the
reprobate. Grace and mercy have to do with the attitude and purpose
of God, neither of which are favourable to the reprobate. God's
essential goodness is also manifest in holiness, righteousness,
justice, judgement and damnation. These manifestations of goodness
over against sinners from whom God freely chooses to withhold
mercy belong to the reprobate and reveal God's attitude.
In the fourth place, we ask, does not
Rev. Stebbins teach that God must (according to this "necessary
principle" of nature) love the reprobate for a time and then
change to hating him eternally? He answers, it is not
inconsistent for God to love the reprobate and hate the elect.
In other words God loves and hates all men at one time or other,
indeed God hates and loves every sinner at some time or other!
The "well meant offer" necessitates this confusion
and changeability. God must love and desire to save the reprobate
or the well-meant offer has no basis. But, we ask, are
not love and hate opposite, mutually exclusive motions of the
affections of the will of the one immutable God? Equally startling,
is the assertion that God "hates" one whom He loved
with an eternal love in Christ. Unbelievably, God, for a time
prior to conversion, hates the one whom He so loved
from all eternity that He sent His only begotten Son to die on
the cross and shed His precious blood for his sins! What could
be more contrary to the Scripture. God has "loved with an
everlasting love" so wondrous that even "while we were
yet in our sins, Christ died for us." Away with such confusion.
The error of Rev. Stebbins' teaching
that God loves and hates the same man, at the same time, for a
time is, firstly, that he confuses "judicial wrath"
with "sovereign hatred." Because Rev. Stebbins refuses
to acknowledge that a real difference exists between God's
attitude toward the elect and the reprobate from all eternity
and not only after conversion, he confuses liability
to condemnation with condemnation itself. He fails
to distinguish between what the elect sinner is and deserves in
Himself and God's attitude toward that sinner as elect in Christ.
Secondly, God never "hates" the elect and God
never "loves" the reprobate. Romans 9:13 is decisive:
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,"
and this while "being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might
stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth," (Romans 9:11).
This passage speaks of the sovereign, eternal and unchanging attitude
of God toward the elect and the reprobate. As Francis Turretin
rightly says:
Love necessarily includes the purpose
of having mercy upon and saving Jacob; the hatred denies it and
marks the purpose of reprobation by which he was freely passed
over and excluded from salvation."
God's eternal and unchanging love for
His elect in Christ is revealed in that:
God did, from all eternity, decree
to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of
time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:
nevertheless they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth
in due time actually apply Christ unto them.
The application of Christ unto the
elect sinner in time is itself the manifestation of God's eternal
love. Justifying faith is not a condition which man must first
fulfil before God can love, but a gift of God's love in Christ
to guilty, damn-worthy sinners. "We love Him because He first
loved us," (I John 4: 19). According to Rev. Stebbins, the
elect sinner is the object of hatred prior to conversion. This
is impossible, for then none would ever be converted.
It is in this light that God's forbearance
and long-suffering are to be considered. Both are aspects
of God's perfection of patience. God's attribute of patience is,
as it were, the life of providence whereby God stretches out time
and unfolds His will in the history of creation. But God's goodness
as manifest in patience and unfolded in providence is directed
toward the realising of two great ends, according to double predestination
(election and reprobation). Long-suffering is the positive
aspect of God's providence. It is His power to hold back the immediate
and ultimate blessing of His elect in Christ. Forbearance
on the other hand is God's perfection of patience whereby He holds
back or forebears immediately to punish the ungodly reprobate
for their sins.
God is long-suffering toward His elect
because he earnestly desires their repentance and salvation, "not
willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
He therefore leads them by His Word outwardly and by His Spirit
inwardly and irresistibly to repentance.
When God forebears to punish the reprobate
wicked He delays their final judgement and certain destruction,
for the sake of His elect. In this stretching out of providence,
as God sees fit, many are confronted by Christ and
salvation through the gospel and called
to faith and repentance. But this confrontation with the truth,
except God's saving grace intervene, is itself the cause of further
rebellion and hatred of the God who exposes their sin. This is
God's will and serves His purpose to the praise of His glorious
justice. Though the reprobate lives in the sphere of God's goodness,
and may have an outward acquaintance with God's grace, this can
not be construed to mean that God has an attitude of favour toward
them.
Good Things: Not Necessarily Grace
Two misunderstandings must be cleared
out of the way before we proceed. Firstly, the fact that God's
love, grace and mercy are for the elect alone is in perfect harmony
with the truth that God's goodness is over all His works and creatures.
God's overflowing goodness in all His works receives great emphasis
in Holy Scripture right along with sovereign particular grace.
Both must, therefore, receive proper emphasis in the proclamation
of the truth by the church. Second, an emphatic denial of "common"
grace is in no wise a minimising of the infinite goodness of Jehovah
God. Rather, it is the error of "common" grace that
degrades the glory of Divine goodness by presenting God's amazing
grace as "common" and so making it something less than
what it is - sovereign - irresistible - saving - grace in Jesus
Christ.
There is no disagreement that God's
good gifts are given to the elect as blessings and grace. The
question that must be addressed is this: Are God's good gifts
grace to the reprobate? Rev. Stebbins affirms this. We deny it.
We point out in the first place, that
by making God's grace common, Rev. Stebbins has confused God's
goodness with God's grace. As was pointed out previously, God's
grace as an attribute, or infinite perfection of God's nature
flows from His goodness, but it does not follow that God must,
therefore, be gracious to all to whom His goodness is shown. God's
goodness is also holiness, righteousness, wrath, hatred and just
judgement upon sin. God is good and does good even while He inflicts
the most grievous torments upon the sinner in the fires of hell.
Obviously, therefore, God can be perfectly good without maintaining
any attitude of favour to the creature to whom He is good.
In the second place, Rev. Stebbins
is guilty of confusing God's good providence toward the non-elect
with participation in the blessings of the Covenant of
Grace.
All that is contained in the administration
and dispensation of the Covenant of Grace is a purchase of the
death of Christ, and God's providence within that Covenant is
both temporal, concerning all men, and spiritual in respect to
the separation of the elect from the reprobate. We acknowledge
that God in His providence, in which He governs all His creatures
and all their actions, bestows temporal blessings (good gifts
CJC) on all men, restrains evil in the world and promotes good.
This statement highlights the important
Biblical distinction between God's rule of providence and power
as Creator on the one hand, and God's rule of grace as Saviour
on the other. This distinction gives the framework within which
we must sharply distinguish universal goodness from particular
grace. The rule of God as Creator, on the one hand, reveals His
goodness in all things temporal; the rule of God as Saviour, on
the other hand, reveals His love and grace toward
the elect by ordering and disposing
all things to their ultimate and eternal blessedness. As sovereign
Creator, God's rule of power knows no limits and embraces all
created reality, good and evil,
as one organic whole from the lowest form of life, to the highest,
men, and angels. As Saviour, on the other hand, God's rule of
grace encompasses all that, and only that, which is redeemed in
the blood of Christ. These two may be distinguished but not separated,
for both are the act of God and are governed by God's one decree
and purpose in Christ. Thus, "God hath put all things under
His feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
which is His body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all."
The Westminster Confession makes this distinction, when it says:
"As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all
creatures; so after a most special manner, it taketh care of His
own church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof."
God takes the all things in which the reprobate share
and disposes them to the good of His elect - the church. Goodness
is shown to all, but grace through that goodness belongs to the
elect alone.
God's grace must be viewed covenantally.
God's providence as Creator and Judge is administered according
to the covenant of works. Under this first covenant there is
and can be no grace for the sinful creature, only the curse of
the law: "There is none righteous, no not one" ... "The
wages of sin is death," (Romans 3:10, 6:23a). God's reign
of grace as Saviour however, is administered under the terms of
the Covenant of Grace. This covenant, made with Christ and His
elect in Him, declares: "...but the gift of God is eternal
life, through Jesus Christ our Lord," (Romans 6:23b). Under
the terms of this covenant there is nothing but free, sovereign
and saving grace for the elect in the blood of Christ. Christ,
you see, has fulfilled all righteousness that His people might
not perish but have everlasting life.
This means that the non-elect can and
do know of the rule of God as Saviour in His grace, as
God sends the gospel throughout this world in His providence,
but they never know it in its transforming power. As Paul describes
in Hebrews 6:4-5, they can know of it outwardly as they come into
contact with God's goodness in the means of grace, experiencing
even a form of enlightenment as they taste of the good Word of
God and the powers of the world to come. Furthermore they see
and understand God's grace at work through His Word and Spirit
in effectually calling and transforming the elect into the image
of Christ. However, they never know that rule of grace inwardly
and savingly in the heart.
The fact that God determines to withhold
love, grace and mercy from the reprobate in no way minimises the
reality of God's goodness to all creatures. God as Creator,
in His rule of providence, loves and is good to His own creation
as the good work of His own hands. Adam's sin and the subsequent
curse did not alter God's one purpose with His own creation.
Rather, sin serves God's purpose, for it is through the way of
sin and redemption that God wills to raise His earthly creation
to heavenly splendour. The
creation, be it ever so marred by sin, is to be renewed and ushered
in as the new heavens and the new earth. It is this creation
upon which God showers His goodness. It is with this creation
that all men, elect and reprobate are federally and organically
connected. As Creator, God deals in pure goodness with each creature
according to its form, action and quality. God's goodness is,
therefore, revealed variously toward men as rational, moral creatures,
the animal world and the inanimate creation. In every case God
works in the way best suited to display His goodness and glorify
His great name by bestowing those gifts that, as coming from God
the fountain of all good, and being good in themselves give existence,
and preserve life. God's goodness over-arches and warms His
creation as the sun at noon day.
God's grace as Saviour in and
through these good things is another matter. It is when the good
things God bestows in His providence as Creator and Sustainer
are taken up and applied by Him as Saviour that they become grace
and bear the favour of God in their wings. The good thing was
not in itself grace, nor was it a spiritual blessing. That blessing
has to do with God's purpose as Saviour with that thing. As
Saviour, God's goodness goes forth powerfully and efficaciously
in love, grace and mercy to His elect who are scattered throughout
the earth and organically connected to creation and mankind.
The same things (that are good in themselves yet stumble the reprobate)
are sent as true blessings upon the elect. The rain and the sunshine,
the seed time and harvest, civil government and all creation support
their physical existence, so that God's saving purpose might be
realised. In short, the providential dealings of God in His power
so govern all things that His church is born, sustained in life
and brought to glory.
This distinction between goodness and
grace under-girds such passages as Matthew 5: 44-48 and Luke 6:35-36.
In these passages God's redeemed and regenerated elect are commanded
to "do good" and show mercy and kindness to all men
in order that we may be perfect as is God our Father. The verses
direct attention to God's ultimate perfection, His overflowing
goodness. The point is, that God according to His perfection
of goodness always does good, never evil; so must we. The striking
nature of God's goodness is that God is good to all without exception
and regardless of their nature or attitude toward Himself. This
is the pattern for our love. This universal goodness of God showered
upon all men is the pattern for our conduct toward our fellow
man. We must love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good
to them that hate us etc., (Matthew
5:44). Only in this way do we, as children, reflect the image
of our Father in heaven. God loved us as His elect even while
we hated Him. How could we then do any less toward our fellow
man, any one of whom could be God's elect? Thus, the command
is, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is
in heaven is perfect."
We may not assume, however, that the
rule for God's goodness and the rule for man's love
are identical. God as the sovereign Lord of all, necessarily does
good to all, but always in harmony with His own perfection, and
freely according to His own good pleasure. We however, as creatures
redeemed into the service of Christ, are given God's law (the
preceptive will) as the rule for our perfection. This law requires
that we love our fellow man. God's revealed will must govern
all our actions toward our fellow man. Obedience to the
second table of the law, as summarised in loving our neighbour
as ourselves, is the God-ordained way believers must fulfil their
calling as children of God. This calling is universal, is to
be shown in a love that is without respect of persons and has
God's universal goodness as its pattern.
We remind ourselves, however, that
the fact that God commands us to love all men, does not
mean, nor may we legitimately conclude that God must
love all men. As we have seen, we may not argue back from man's
duty revealed in the precept to God's purpose and attitude of
grace. What we can conclude from these verses, however, is that
God's perfection of goodness according to which He does nothing
but good, even to the unthankful sinner, must be the pattern for
all our dealings with our neighbour, if we are to reflect the
perfection of our heavenly Father.
The Testimony Of History.
The particularity of God's goodness
as manifest in grace and mercy is the teaching of historic Presbyterianism.
John Owen writes:
Now, this kindness and mercy of God
is generally and loosely called mercy; but, in fact, quite wrongly
so when it is coupled with an assumed intention behind the act
which is good in itself. Goodness is a quality of God, but to
be "merciful" indicates a specific purpose of mercy
in a specific situation. It is therefore, incorrect to translate,
as in Psalm 145:9, 15-16, that God is "merciful" not
only to men but to His whole creation; yea, to sheep and oxen
and beasts of the field. These all feel the benefits of God's
general goodness in His providential upholding of His creation,
but it is quite incorrect to argue from the fact of God's kindness,
manifesting and displaying itself in a vast number of earthly
and temporal blessings, that the recipients of these benefits
might improve them to arrive as a real and true, and saving repentance.
. . Considering that true mercy - published and revealed from
the bosom of the Father by Christ - is the fount of all saving
faith and repentance, we can distinguish this from all loose and
mistaken concepts of "mercy" displayed by the general
work of God in providence; and, having done so, we gladly let
the point drop, since we here have nothing to prove but the one
great truth of mercy only in and through Christ.
William Symington, explaining how Christ
rules universally in power but is in no way gracious to all, rightly
says:
It is not irrelevant to advert to the
distinction betwixt things viewed simply in themselves, and viewed
as blessed by God. The things themselves may be enjoyed when the
blessing of heaven is withheld.
Symington applying the distinction
between God's goodness in the rule of power and His blessing known
only in His rule of grace has a Reformed eye on the one purpose
of God in Christ. He goes on to explain:
The things viewed in themselves, flow,
we admit, from the natural goodness of God, and so may be participated
in by more than the saints; yet, viewed as blessed by God, that
is, as real blessings, they are to be regarded as flowing from
the blood of Christ, by which they are secured, redeemed, and
sanctified for the use of His own people.
Symington makes no uncertain sound
here. There is no blurring of the lines between providence and
grace. David Dixon agrees with Symington and says:
God giveth the wicked and violent persecutor
to have seeming prosperity, while the godly are in trouble, yet
that is no act of love to them: for the wicked and him that loveth
violence, His soul hateth. All the seeming advantages which the
wicked have in their own prosperity, are but means of hardening
them in their ill course, and holding them fast in the bonds of
their own iniquities, till God execute judgement on them.
Dixon is not confusing the "wicked"
and the reprobate here. He is simply stating the clear teaching
of Scripture. He sees clearly that not all the wicked are reprobate
but all reprobate are wicked, therefore, he describes them according
to their character. He is dealing with God's attitude and purpose
in the giving of "good" gifts. God has no gracious purpose
in good gifts to the wicked reprobate. Again he says:
Whence learn, to the wicked - God for
His own holy ends useth to give health of body, long life, little
sickness, and a quiet death, . . . yet God doth not love them,
nor approve any whit more of them for this.
These statements echo the clear and
unequivocal teaching of Scripture. God's love and gracious attitude
are not manifest toward the reprobate in the giving of good things.
James Durham, Dixon's co-author of
The Sum of Saving Knowledge, was in full agreement and
excluded the idea that "common grace" was purchased
by Christ by arguing that "it can not be said that Christ
intended any of the things purchased by His death as advantageous
to the reprobate."
Samuel Rutherford, the great Scottish
divine and commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, also denied
an attitude of grace and love of God toward the reprobate. He
was not ashamed to speak of "God's hatred of the reprobate
and love and peace on the elect," and referred to God's love
as "simple not contradictory," God, in Rutherford's
opinion cannot love and hate the one person and does not have
an attitude of love and grace toward the reprobate. These men
represent Presbyterian and Calvinistic truth prior to compromising
principles.
With the judgement of these eminent
divines we are in full agreement. There is no grace in things
apart from the blessing of God in Christ. And the reprobate are
strangers to that blessing. Things, be they ever so good and "intrinsically
useful" as indeed they must be as flowing from the God of
all goodness, are not indicative of any favourable attitude or
grace of God.
This leads to the next step in Rev.
Stebbins' argument. Namely, that God is actively pursuing the
salvation of the reprobate through the means of common grace and
the well meant offer of the gospel.
Chapter Five. Does God "Well-meaningly"
Offer Christ To All Men?
Again it must be pointed out that we
do not question God's gracious intent in the preaching of the
gospel. God certainly intends it to be the means unto the salvation
of sinners. The question is, however: "What is God's intent
in the well-meant offer to the reprobate?
According to Rev. Stebbins, God offers
Christ to all because He is pursuing their salvation. Rev. Stebbins
joins God's "delight that all should be saved" to a
"pursuing with salvation" by the "common"
grace of the gospel. God delights to save the reprobate, God
pursues him with grace by offering him Christ and salvation. This
is the well worn road of universal grace that leads right into
the error of Arminianism.
God Pursuing the Non-elect With Grace.
We should notice the tradition in
which Rev. Stebbins' position stands. He stands in the line of
the Marrow men and of modern-modified Calvinism of Murray and
Stonehouse.
There is, in our judgement, no actual
difference between the views of Rev. Stebbins and those of Professors
Murray and Stonehouse. Rev. Stebbins does, however, attempt to
distance himself from the obvious weakness of their view by substituting
the word "delight" in place of "desire." In
so doing he wants to escape the charge of positing two contradictory
wills within God's nature. He fails to extricate himself from
the Professors' error by this sleight of hand. The words might
differ but the meaning is the same.
Professors Murray and Stonehouse, were
well aware of the words "desire" and "delight"
but they saw no difference in meaning when applied to the concept
of the well-meant offer. They understood God's delight
to have volitional force and quality and therefore wrote:
. . . this (preceptive) will of God
to repentance and salvation, is universalised and reveals to us,
therefore, that there is in God a benevolent loving-kindness towards
the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not decreed
to save.
Notice that the Professors, like Rev.
Stebbins are concerned with God's attitude and will toward the
reprobate. Thus far they have outlined Rev. Stebbins' exact position.
But the professors continue: "This pleasure, will, desire
is expressed in the universal call to repentance." Here they
indicate that they believe that the concepts "pleasure"
and "desire" express the one thought. They are correct;
a conditional will to the salvation of the reprobate is the basis
of a well-meant offer.
An Active Pursuit.
Try as he may, by weakening the force
of the verb "to will," Rev. Stebbins' own system of
theology determines that "pleasure or delight" can not
be separated from "desire or will." What is so clearly
implied is made explicit when Rev. Stebbins actually links God's
"delight that all be saved" to God pursuing the communication
of His nature with them and pursuing their salvation. Let it
be clearly understood that in Rev. Stebbins' theology delight
and pursuit are related as willing and acting.
God delights to save the reprobate, therefore He pursues him
with salvation in the well-meant offer.
What exactly does it mean for God to
"pursue man's salvation?" Rev. Stebbins uses "the
term pursue in preference to seek
because the latter," he thinks, "implies a determination
to see an end accomplished ... God pursues by providing...
means that are intrinsically useful for accomplishing that end."
There are at least two things that
are involved in this pursuit as described by Rev. Stebbins. First,
there is an active will of God whereby He determines to pursue
the salvation of all. Volition can not be removed from pursuit
which is an action directed toward the creature ad extra.
This means that God's pursuit has to do with the living will of
God, not the precept. The precept is merely the intrinsically
useful means used by God as He pursues. Obviously God can
not pursue through means unless it is His living will to do so.
Second, unavoidably, the purpose of
God in this "pursuit" must be reckoned with.
The End Pursued.
If God pursues but does not seek,
what then is "the end" which God pursues? Rev. Stebbins,
remember, is describing a pursuit which evidently is designed
not to succeed, for he does not wish to imply that God's
pursuing has a saving end in view. Rev. Stebbins insists, however,
that God pursues the salvation of the reprobate.
Yet, he also insists that God does not will this
end to be realised. What we are really talking about here, is
an hypothetical pursuit. It is as if
God is pursuing salvation, but when you look closely,
it turns out to have been an illusion.
Seeing Rev. Stebbins is unable to decide
if God's pursuit of universal salvation really aims at anything
concrete, we suggest that there can be only four possibilities.
First, it could be that God determines to pursue an end without
attaining it, in which case it is a purposeless action performed
by God in which
God aimlessly pursues ... nothing!
Such "pursuit" can not be attributed to the all wise
and sovereign God. Nor can it be argued that God is free to act
without purpose if He so pleases. God's will is His eternal
purpose. If God wills to pursue the salvation of all He does so
for a purpose. Purposeless action can not be attributed to Jehovah
God. Second, it could be a pursuit flowing from a conditional
decree whereby God wills to pursue the salvation of all and save
those who fulfil certain conditions. But in that case it is an
Arminian error in flat contradiction of the Reformed creeds.
Thirdly, it could be a determination to pursue and achieve the
salvation of all, in which case it is a Pelagian notion condemned
by the Reformed creeds. Rev. Stebbins, however, wants to be
neither Pelagian nor Arminian. He prefers to meld the first two
possibilities into a third thing. Rev. Stebbins has God pursuing
the salvation of the reprobate conditionally, determining beforehand
to stop short and never achieve that salvation. There was, however,
a fourth possibility that was overlooked by Rev. Stebbins. That
is, that God through the means of grace actually pursues and realises
His saving purpose toward His elect, and through the same means
He pursues and realises His purpose in respect to the reprobate;
namely, their hardening and just condemnation. After all is
said and done, what God aims at He achieves, in spite of the
confusion created by Rev. Stebbins' well-meant offer.
God's sovereign purpose in the preaching
of the gospel to the reprobate is revealed clearly enough in Scripture.
Consider Isaiah's solemn commission:
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
...
But yet in it shall be a tenth, and
it shall return ... to the holy seed shall be the substance thereof,
(Isaiah 6:10, 13).
Or, the words of the apostle Paul;
Now 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? (II Corinthians 2:14-16).
What could be clearer than the testimony
of the Spirit in II Corinthians 2: 14-16. The faithful, full and
free "offer" of the gospel is designed by God Himself
to be: "a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved,
and in them that perish: To the one it is the savour
of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto
life." This passage is not designed to describe the reaction
to the truth of the gospel by the sinful heart, but to explain
how the sovereign purpose of God is realised through the means
of the preaching. This text is cited as the Biblical basis
for the following statement of the Westminster Confession concerning
divine Providence:
As for those wicked and ungodly men,
whom God as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and
harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace, whereby
they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and
wrought upon in their hearts . . . whereby it comes to pass, that
they harden themselves even under those means which God useth
for the softening of others.
We confess on the basis of Scripture
that God realises His sovereign purpose toward the reprobate through
the means of preaching. God sovereignly hardens the reprobate
through the very gospel which sets forth Christ Jesus, so leaving
them without excuse to the praise of His glorious justice.
All Rev. Stebbins has succeeded in
doing with this doctrine of "aimless pursuit" is inject
enough universalism into the Reformed faith to allow the preacher
to make a well-meant offer of Christ for all as would the
Arminian.
The Well-Meant Offer As "Common" Grace.
Here the question is not whether the
preaching of the gospel is intrinsically good, useful, and perfectly
suited to God's purpose of saving sinners. It is! Not only so,
but it is the instrument of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of
sinners. Nor is the question whether God clearly and wonderfully
sets forth Christ Jesus and full and free salvation in Him in
the proclamation of the gospel. He does! Not only so, but He applies
that grace and that salvation irresistibly to the hearts of His
elect, regenerating and effectually calling them unto Himself.
The question is rather: Is the preaching grace for the reprobate?
To this question Rev. Stebbins answers Yes! Scripture and the
Confessions we believe require us to answer, No!
No Grace In the Offer For The Reprobate.
To call the preaching grace to the
reprobate when it is the very means through which God hardens
the reprobate in sin and increases their guilt and condemnation
is absurd.
Nor is it possible to argue, as does
Rev. Stebbins, that hardening is not an act of God, but of the
sinner who hardens himself by rejecting or resisting God's grace.
God hardens sinners' hearts even through His word. "And
the LORD said unto Moses . . . I will harden his heart that he
shall not let the people go," (Exodus 4:21). "For
the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have
I raised thee up that I might show my power in thee . . . Therefore
He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he
hardeneth." God's word hardened Pharaoh's wicked
heart as it does every wicked rebellious heart except grace intervene
to change the heart and set the captive free. John Calvin is worthy
of an hearing on this point.
God commands the ears of His people
Israel to be stricken by, and filled with, the voice of His prophet.
For what end? That their hearts might be touched? Nay; but
that they might be hardened! That those who hear might repent?
Nay; but that, being already lost, they might doubly perish!
. . . Hence, it is by no means absurd that the doctrine of the
truth should, as commanded of God, be spread abroad; though He
knows that, in multitudes, it will be without its saving effects.
Pharaoh, wicked Israel, and an innumerable
host of sinners have resisted and denied the truth as applied
to their consciences by word and common operations of the Spirit,
but never, not once has God's grace been successfully
resisted. This is because God's grace is irresistible.
Irresistible grace is axiomatic to Reformed theology and does
not rely for its efficacy upon the spiritually dead sinner.
The Confession delivers us from Rev.
Stebbins' quandary when, as we have seen, it declares quite clearly
that whilst God sends the "means of salvation" to all,
He withholds His grace from all but the elect. The purpose of
God (who stands always toward the reprobate as a righteous and
offended judge) through the means of grace is "to blind and
harden . . . whereby it comes to pass, that they harden themselves,
even under those means which God uses for the softening of others."
Therefore, the preaching of the gospel is not in itself "grace
to the hearer." Rather, it is grace only to those elect who
are the objects of God's love and for whom Christ died. All those
who are "pursued by grace" are most certainly saved!
The Insincerity Of A Well-Meant Offer To All Men.
We must do what Rev. Stebbins steadfastly
refuses to do, face the fact that there must be a basis
provided which shows that God is sincere in His well-meant
offer of Christ to the reprobate. Rev. Stebbins acknowledges
that: "This debate centres around the question of whether
God offers salvation to every hearer of the gospel, and if so,
how such an offer can be sincere in the light of the particular
atonement." That a basis in the nature and extent of the
atonement (and not Rev. Stebbins' "necessary principle of
delight") is the real issue is evident from the
fact that he wrote a book entitled: "A discussion of
the general offer of salvation in light of particular atonement."
The precise question at issue is: "How can God "well-meaningly"
offer (promise) to give the reprobate what is not provided for
him?
For the well-meant offer to
the reprobate to be sincere it must have a basis in fact, not
mystery. That is, if Christ and salvation in His blood
is conditionally promised to the reprobate, then the redemption
purchased by Christ must be provided for the reprobate. If the
redemption offered is not provided, then
the well-meant offer cannot be sincere.
This being the case we must ask: What
basis in fact can Rev. Stebbins show for teaching that God makes
a well-meant and sincere offer of Christ to the reprobate?
He fails to give one, which is hardly surprising for there is
none to be found. Instead he flees to the paradox of his own
making and from its shadow declares, with authority, that God's
basis for making a well-meant offer is "essentially
mysterious." Rev. Stebbins declares that to require a non-contradictory
basis for his well-meant offer is the height of impiety.
Then, he asserts that though his offer is shrouded by the mysterious
paradox, "there are no evidences of insincerity." On
the contrary, it appears to us that there are clear evidences
of insincerity in the well-meant offer. Rev. Stebbins
can show no basis in either God's decree of election - His intention
to give; nor can he show any basis in Christ's substitutionary
and limited atonement - the content of God's offer
and promise. Without a basis in the blood of Christ there can
be no sincerity.
Rev. Stebbins' well-meant offer
may lay no claim to the legitimate argument that "a charge
of insincerity on God's part can only be sustained if it can be
shown that someone has accepted God's offer only to find it void."
In reference to the well-meant offer this would mean that,
although a general conditional promise is void, the void
will never be discovered. This is cold comfort indeed. Rev. Stebbins
has overlooked the fact that this argument belongs to those of
us, who like John Owen, and William Cunningham maintain sovereign
particular grace. This argument is legitimate only when the outward
call is accompanied by a particular promise to all
those who hear and obey. Then there is no insincerity, for God's
promise to all who believe will never be found to be void. However,
for those who preach a general conditional promise
to the reprobate, this valid argument
is irrelevant.
Rev. Stebbins simply can not
provide a satisfactory answer to what he recognises is
the crucial point. He is hemmed in and thwarted
by God's decree on the one hand, and by a limited atonement on
the other. This failure shows that his whole elaborately constructed
position is without basis. This fundamental flaw can not be hidden
behind some "mysterious paradox." The necessary
contradiction is there. It must be faced.
We do not for a moment question the
sincerity of God in the offer of the gospel when the "offer"
is rightly understood. Rather, we insist that the well-meant
offer Rev. Stebbins defends can not be sincere, because it has
no basis in the blood of Christ, apart from which there is no
salvation to offer.
The sincerity of a well-meant
offer to the reprobate not only relies upon the atonement of Christ,
but more particularly upon the extent of that atonement.
A Divine warrant for the well-meant offer of Christ to
all, therefore, requires that Rev. Stebbins prove from Scripture
that the extent and nature of Christ's atonement answers exactly
to the extent and nature of his well-meant offer. That
is, the redemption purchased by Christ, in all its efficacy, must
be shown to extend at least to every sinner who hears the
well-meant offer. It will not do for Rev. Stebbins to appeal
to the infinite sufficiency of Christ's atonement; the question
has to do with the efficiency and intention of God in the
atonement. The redemption provided in the substitutionary
atonement of Christ is, after all, what Rev. Stebbins would have
us believe God is sincerely offering all who hear the gospel.
Full and free redemption purchased by Christ for all who
hear the gospel is, therefore, the
only basis that will support Rev. Stebbins well-meant offer.
Surely, then, it is no solution to
say, as does Rev. Stebbins, that God's ground for the call of
the gospel is "essentially mysterious." Rev. Stebbins
is either saying that the basis of the universal well-meant
offer is a contradiction that faith believes, or, he sees there
is no basis but refuses to acknowledge it. Either way this response
is not to be accepted or allowed to slip quietly past, hidden
in a cloud of rhetoric. Rev. Stebbins must show some basis
in Christ's atonement for a well-meant offer.
In our judgement, professors Murray
and Stonehouse were more consistent than Rev. Stebbins when they
said:
The loving and benevolent will that
is the source of that offer and that grounds its veracity and
reality is the will to the possession of Christ and the enjoyment
of the salvation that resides in him.
Murray and Stonehouse, though mistaken
in their theology, were undoubtedly correct on this score. The
only ground that can support a well-meant offer is a conditional
will to the salvation of the reprobate. That this contradicts
the will of decree forces Rev. Stebbins to flee to the sanctuary
of the "profound mystery."
The Insincerity Of General Conditional Promises.
Rev. Stebbins says: "The gospel
is a gracious offer of salvation to man if he will perform his
duty." This "offer" is a general conditional promise
of Christ for all upon fulfilment of certain conditions.
The theology of the well-meant
offer forces Rev. Stebbins to present faith as a pre-requisite
which the sinner must provide in order to be saved. We reject
this notion. It is one of the basic premises of Arminianism.
God does not promise salvation to all
men contingent upon their fulfilling certain conditions. Such
a general conditional promise of salvation is inherently insincere.
It can be genuine and sincere only if it is first grounded in
a conditional decree within the being of God. As we have seen,
there is no such conditional decree. The reader should note just
how "natural" it is to slide from Rev. Stebbins' "common"
grace and well-meant offer to all, into the Arminian's
"universal" grace and conditional salvation.
Contrary to Rev. Stebbins' usage, the
Westminster Confession of Faith and the Reformed tradition
uses the term condition to express the idea of the necessary
means through which God works salvation. Faith as a condition
or means unto salvation was merited, is promised, and is bestowed
by Christ through His Spirit upon "those whom God hath predestinated
unto life and those only." The Synod of Dort dealing with
the Arminian heresy of general love and grace, also repudiated
the whole idea of faith as a condition in the sense that Rev.
Stebbins uses it:
... the Synod rejects the errors of
those ... who teach that He chose out of all possible conditions
... the act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving
... as a condition of salvation .... the Synod rejects the
errors of those ... who teach that faith, the obedience of faith,
holiness, godliness and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable
election unto glory, but are conditions . . .
Faith within the Covenant of Grace
is not a condition to be met by the sinner in order to be saved.
It is a benefit which flows from Christ to the elect. It is not
a prerequisite but a free gift bestowed upon the sinner as the
divinely appointed means of union with Christ. It is in this light
that faith is to be viewed in relation to the call and promise
of the gospel. God seriously and sincerely calls all who hear
the gospel to believe. He promises life to all who believe.
He "promises to give the Spirit to all those who are ordained
unto life to make them willing and able to believe." He
sovereignly and graciously bestows the promised gift, effectually
drawing the elect sinner to Christ as He is presented in the
gospel. There is no condition within the Covenant of Grace that
is not fulfilled in and bestowed by Christ as Mediator of the
grace of that covenant.
Chapter Six. A Sincere Biblical Offer.
Though Rev. Stebbins' well-meant
offer is inherently insincere, God is and can be seen to be completely
sincere in every aspect of the biblical offer of the gospel.
Firstly, because He has provided a
Mediator, Christ Jesus, and sets Him forth in absolute verity
as the Saviour of sinners. In this God is absolutely sincere.
Secondly, because God seriously and
solemnly commands all sinners as responsible, rational, moral
creatures to repent and believe on Christ as the way unto life.
If the sinner, who is responsible and accountable for his own
actions, perishes because he will not believe, he may never blame
the righteous and holy God.
The cause and guilt of this unbelief
as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself,
whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the
free gift of God . . .
This being so it can not be argued,
as does Rev. Stebbins, that God must love, be gracious toward
and pursue the reprobate with salvation before he can be held
accountable for his rejection of Christ. This is to deny God's
sovereign right to command the whole duty of sinners. When God
commands, the sinner is obligated to obey. Nothing could be clearer,
nothing could be more sincere, for when God commands repentance
and faith He makes known what is most pleasing to Him. Furthermore,
God is under no obligation to bestow grace upon sinners to make
them willing and able to obey. That He does so flows alone from
His sovereign electing love in Christ.
Thirdly, God is absolutely sincere
in His promise of life to "whosoever believes". The
biblical offer is the revelation of what God really wills
in regard to the salvation of perishing sinners. As Francis Turretin
has pointed out:
When God's revealed will signifies
that he wills the salvation of all believers and penitents it
signifies that He wills that which He really wills and nothing
is more true, nothing more sincere than such a declaration."
God actively wills the salvation of
all penitent sinners. His promise is personal and particular to
sinners who repent and believe. It is never made generally to
all men if they will fulfil certain conditions. The particular
promise is sincere because it promises what God Himself intends
to do and has already provided in Christ. It is always and forever
fulfilled.
In the Biblical offer, Christ promises
rest to the weary and heavy laden sinner, the water and bread
of life to the spiritually thirsty and hungry, and salvation to
the man who sees himself as sick and perishing in sin; never
is God's promise made generally to those who are carnally secure
and smugly self-righteous. This is so, because it is through
the means of the outward call of the gospel Christ effectually
calls His sheep by name. They recognise their spiritual name and
heed the Shepherd's call. The elect sinner hears himself described
in his spiritual condition, heavy laden, weary, hungry, thirsty,
poor, guilty sinner. Ah! cries the awakened sinner with wonder:
He calls me! Jesus is calling me! I will flee to Hi
