|
[COMMON grace?? Think of it brethren, COMMON
grace? Is GRACE common? What does the word common mean here? Let us examine it. - ed]
The basic "prooftext" for the idea of "common grace" is found in the Gospels, specifically Matthew 5:43-48:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine, enemy.
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 the 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 on the unjust.
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 so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
The implication of this passage is that we should love our enemies as God loves his enemies. Thus, to admit to common grace as "explained" in Matthew is based on the idea that God loves all men. This idea
in turn leads to God wishing all men to be saved, which in turn leads to the idea of a universal atonement. Whether this position is consistently followed, is of no importance. Logically they lead from one position to another. MacArthur writes in his book
The God Who Loves:
Scripture clearly says that God is love. “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9). Christ even commands us to love our enemies, and the reason He gives is this:
“In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). The clear implication is that in some sense God loves His enemies.
He loves both “the evil and the good,” both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in precisely the same sense we are commanded to love our enemies.
In fact, the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31; cf. Leviticus 19:18), is a commandment for us to love everyone. We can be certain the scope of this
commandment is universal, because Luke 10 records that a lawyer, “wishing to justify himself . . . said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Luke 10:29)—and Jesus answered with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The point? Even Samaritans, a semi-pagan race
who had utterly corrupted Jewish worship and whom the Jews generally detested as enemies of God, were neighbors whom they were commanded to love. In other words, the command to love one’s “neighbor” applies to everyone. This love commanded here is clearly
a universal, indiscriminate love
Consider this: Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law in every respect (Matthew 5:17–18), including this command for universal love. His love for others was surely as far-reaching as His own application
of the commandment in Luke 10. Therefore, we can be certain that He loved everyone. He must have loved everyone in order to fulfill the Law. After all, the apostle Paul wrote, “The whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your
neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14). He reiterates this theme in Romans 13:8: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Therefore, Jesus must have loved His “neighbor.” And since He Himself defined “neighbor” in universal terms, we know that His
love while on earth was universal.
Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love? Would God command us to love in a way that He does not? Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than
His own? And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) (John
MacArthur, The God Who Loves, 102-03).
John’s simple explanation of those Scriptures compelled me to rethink my position on God’s love. Jesus was God. Jesus loved His neighbors—even His non-elect neighbors. Jesus was a friend to sinners.
Jesus loved His enemies—all of them. How could I have missed that? What caused me to overlook such clear, vital truths about the character of God? The answer is pride, that hideous sin lurking in all of us, waiting for the opportunity to express itself.
To be fair to MacArthur, he does not follow his logic through, since he believes in a limited atonement.
The major problem with this view is that the word love means nothing. Love is not a static word but a
dynamic word. This use of the word love reminds us of the Arminian interpretation of John 3.16's use of the word love. For God so loved the world (everyone in it) that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes should have everlasting life.
How does a person feel loved when they are roasting in hell? So we are faced with a pure contradiction.
There is not one verse MacArthur or others like him can propose that shows that God loves all people.
Indeed, we propose to show that all the good displays God shows toward unbelievers are done for the sake of the elect.
GOD AND THE LAW
But we will leave this point to last and cover another flaw in their thinking. Just because God asks us to love our neighbor as ourselves, does not mean he is subject to the same command. Indeed,
what Law is God subject to?? He created the law for MAN! The Mosaic Law was made for Israel, not for the almighty God. Indeed the law was not made for any in Christ!
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of
mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" (I Timothy 1.9-10)
Since God is not under any law, all he does is by definition good. Thus, there are many situations where God himself violates the Ten Commandments. We will not enumerate them here,
but sending a lying spirit to Ahab is one prominent example. God is not under the Ten Commandments.
ALL GOD DOES ON EARTH IS FOR THE SAKE OF THE ELECT OR REMNANT
"Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should
not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day." (Romans 11.7-8)
At times, the Hebrew word remnant simply means what is left or who is left, whether it refers to pagans or believers. At other times, it refers to his elect who survived the destruction of Jerusalem and
Israel.
In Luke 18, Jesus tells of the unjust judge who for a long time ignores the complaints of a widow. Finally, this unjust judge hears the widow and grants her request. What does Jesus say about the just
God and Father? "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night to him, THOUGH HE BEAR LONG WITH THEM? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily." (vs. 7-8). It is best to define this "bear long" as being patient. God is patient with his
elect and waits until the precise time to relieve them of their pain and suffering for their good. The classic passage for this is II Peter 3.9. Here, Peter reveals God's plan and the timing of his second return. The scoffers asked where is the promise of
his return. Peter answers:
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,
as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
His patience is toward his future elect. There is no mention of his common grace toward the non-elect. The entire course of history is centered around the remnant, the elect, his people, and those
who came to save. When that number is filled, then the end comes. This approach has been true since the beginning of time. Let us see.
In Genesis 6.3, we read the Lord saying: "...my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also in flesh...". The Hebrew word here translated strive is better translated as "abide". We do not know
the exact meaning of this in Genesis, since this Hebrew word is only found here. The word is related to the Hebrew word for "judge". Noah was saved out of all the men in the world who drowned in the flood.
We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless,
he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. (Acts 14.15-17)
THE ORIGINS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?" [Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics]
As to Theological Schools, we shall at present content ourselves with saying that they are a reflection upon the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost, who is engaged according to the promise of the great
Head of the church to lead the disciples into all truth. See John xvi. 13. Also, that in every age, from the school of Alexandria down to this day, they have been a real pest to the church of Christ. Of this we could produce abundant proof, did the limits
of our address admit their insertion.
Thus it should not surprise us to
read:
Anyone wishing to understand the Christian tradition deeply must consider the central, formative role of Platonism. At various times Platonism has constituted an essential philosophical and theological
resource, furnishing Christianity with a fundamental intellectual framework that has played a key role in its early development, and in subsequent periods of renewal. Alternately, at other times, it has been considered a compromising influence, conflicting
with the faith’s revelatory foundations and distorting its inherent message. In both the positive and negative cases, the central importance of Platonism, as a force which Christianity defined itself and against, is clear. Equally, this process of influence
is not unidirectional. Whereas Platonism played a key role in the development of Christianity, the further development of Platonism beyond antiquity was dependent to a large degree upon Christian thinkers.
This author goes on to explain to us (his confused readers), that "spiritual transcendence" in Christianity came from Plato. We were led to believe that any idea of transcendence came from the Jeus and the
Holy Spirit teaching us :
What Platonism provided to both Hellenistic Jews and Christians was a notion of spiritual transcendence by which they could articulate their own versions of monotheism. If you no longer believe that
God exists in space and time, but on an eternal and immaterial plane of reality, then the way you conceive of God fundamentally changes. God is, as it were, no longer out there somewhere beyond the heavens. As a result, the vector of spirituality shifts from
contacting a far-off God through sacrifice or angels to finding God present to the soul and discoverable through contemplation of his revealed word.
Augustine
became the poster child of Platonic philosophy in Christian Theology:
Augustine believed Platonism provided him with the framework for understanding Christianity and its spirituality, but he did not think Platonism could take him all the way there.
So now, we have a more accurate idea of the pagan origins of Systematic Theology and even the Platonic influence on the very word
Theologian.
From the patristic period to the high Middle Ages, reflection on the truths of the Christian faith was not understood as ‘theology’ but rather focused on the reading of scripture (lectio divina)
and the practicalities of teaching (doctrina). Lectio divina involved processes of reading, prayer, and contemplation. This was less a matter of rational explication of Christian doctrines than a process of spiritual formation. It was characteristic of the
approaches of Origen (c.184–c.253) and subsequently Ambrose of Milan (c.340–397) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430), becoming a well-established monastic practice from the sixth century. What may appear to be doctrinally focused discussions during this period
typically concerned practical pedagogy, although formal credal statements were important for maintaining church unity and establishing the bounds of orthodoxy. For these reasons, the primary site of interaction between natural philosophy and Christianity during
this period was biblical exegesis rather than systematic theology.
But then how did Systematic Theology come about?
A key step towards a more formal ‘theology’ was taken in the twelfth century by Peter Abelard (1079–1142), who introduced dialectical reasoning into the reflections on Christian doctrine. Abelard
effectively moved Christian theology beyond the interpretation and harmonization of biblical and patristic teachings to something more like a rational reflection on the nature of God, albeit one that continued to be informed by traditional authorities (Turner
1997). A number of Abelard’s works have theologian in the title, introducing this term, in something like its modern sense, into Western Christendom. Peter Lombard’s (1095–1160) highly influential Sentences also represents an important stage in the development
of a more systematic, dialectical theology. It was compiled from sayings of the Church Fathers, but organized around specific theological topics such as the Trinity, creation, the incarnation, and the sacraments.
This seemed like a sound New Testament approach to practice, but eventually, paganism demanded more from Christianity:
These new theological approaches were practised in a new institutional context, as the locus for theological reflection moved from monasteries to cathedral schools and the first universities. This
was accompanied by a shift of emphasis away from contemplative practice to rational disputation. Crucially, the university curriculum was increasingly influenced by the newly translated corpus of Aristotelian writings. These changes were not universally welcomed
and the term ‘theology’, along with the dialectical approach that it signalled, was met with resistance (Evans 1980; Brown 1990: 82–97).
This was not altogether surprising, since ‘theology’ was a pagan expression not found in the New Testament and rarely encountered in patristic writings. Augustine had equated ‘theology’ with pagan thinking about the gods (City of God VI.5; NPNF1
2: 113-114) and in the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas still preferred to use the expression sacra divina (holy teaching) in some contexts.
These reservations notwithstanding, both ‘theology’ and the systematic approach associated with it became central to Christian intellectual activity from this period onwards.
Were there any "theologians" in the New Testament? We doubt it.
With this background in mind, let us look at the modern-day Platonists who tell us about the term common grace.
THE LACK OF AN UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY
Edwards introduces the concepts of
moral ability and natural ability. Human beings, he says, are obviously limited in their natural ability. This corresponds to what we can do within our physical limitations in time and space. I cannot bench press more than 200 lbs anymore, for example.
Nor can any of us reading this blog post fly without the aid of aircraft. But moral ability has to do with what our soul will not or cannot do. A drunk (in Edwards's own illustration) is certainly able to put down his beer (natural ability) but it may be that
he does not have the spiritual capability to refuse another drop (moral ability).
This explains why some people receive the Gospel and others do not. Left to our own, we have the complete natural ability to receive Christ, but the problem lies in our lack of moral ability. Namely, our hearts are corrupt and will not come to
Him for clemency. Edwards argues that what is needed is for the Holy Spirit to override that selfish impulse within us which refuses the grace of God by giving us a new living “principle” (Edwards’s stock term for spiritual quickening) in the very heart.
This argument was the basis Andrew Fuller gave for saying that the
only thing that prevented men from coming to Christ was their unwillingness to believe. We shall not go into more detail here.
But this ignored the
distinction between accountability and responsibility. Even in secular dictionaries, this distinction is made:
accountability is "obliged to give a reckoning or explanation for one's actions; responsibility". Responsibility is defined as "legally or morally obliged to take care of something or to carry out
a duty; liable to be blamed for loss or failure"
Sinners are held accountable for not turning to God in the light of his goodness and power.
But sinners are not held responsible for believing, since this requires God giving them the supernatural gift of faith.
The classic argument is made to bring theological terms into our vocabulary. This is just one example when it comes to the term common grace:
In summary, though the phrase “common grace” doesn’t appear in the Bible, the concept of common grace does. Common grace refers to God’s blessings on the human race that fall short of salvation
from sin. Theologians usually classify these common expressions of divine kindness and benevolence as follows: (1) God’s restraint of human sin and its effects, (2) God’s bestowal of temporal blessings on humanity in general, and (3) God’s endowment of unbelievers
with knowledge and skills to benefit human society as a whole. The goodwill, tolerance, and patience of Romans
2:4 would extend to all three of these dimensions of common grace. Yet these indiscriminate blessings are not an end in themselves. God has an agenda.
This is the bane of Reformed and Catholic circles, upon which massive man-made edifices of systematic theology are built under the banner of "logical consequence". But why must they invent a term that
is not found in the Bible? The counterargument is made that this is just a shortcut to save time, like a formulaic word or phrase that includes a group of concepts that have already been settled by theologians. This at first sounds totally reasonable. After
all, when one is dealing with any technical or scientific discipline, terms are helpful. But the Bible is not such a discipline. It is not a science or a technical specialty. It is the revealed word of God! Like geometry, when two lines are not exactly
parallel, over time they diverge more and more until they are headed in totally different directions. So let us see the results of systematic theology over the centuries. These are just some of the
terms:
Is this approach what comforts the believers spiritually? Is an academic study (which is based on
Plato's Academy in pagan philosophy) the right way to go? Can God be studied through a series of scientific papers presented in forums, with footnotes and opinions of other men, which are subject (like all
scientific enterprises) to tentativeness, change, and retractions?
|
If we look at nGram we see when books began to appear using the term |
"Systematic Theology":
 |
| Double-click to enlarge |
We have an
idea of who coined the term "Systematic Theology":
Systematic theology is the study of God organized around pre-selected principles that highlight the relationships between various elements of biblical and natural truth, and in turn, the study immerses
these truths within a specific cultural context. The term “systematic theology” originated in the 16th century with the work of German theologian
Bartholomäus Keckermann (1572–1609); however, the idea goes back to the very beginning of Christianity. “Theology” is the study of God, or more accurately from its Platonic origin, a conversation or discussion about God. “Systematic” describes the parameters
of the discussion — it is not simply an attempt at an all-encompassing method, but more importantly, a structured development of the conversation about God. Since systematic theology studies God in relationship to and alongside truth revealed in the arts and
sciences, it is often considered the pinnacle of theological scholarship.
The central intellectual headquarters of the Reformed Baptists (if there can ever be such a thing consistently) -
Founders Ministry writes this on the concept of Common Grace:
The larger implication of
Romans 2:4 is the fact that we cannot limit God’s desire for human compliance with the terms of the law and the gospel to the elect alone.
Yet we fear that a strain of “High-Calvinism” does this very thing. Constrained by a “substance metaphysics” assumption that one cannot predicate the non-actualized potency of God, i.e., unfulfilled wishes or desires,20 these theologians make every effort
to avoid the force of such texts as
Romans 2:4. Thus, John Gill admits that “the providential goodness of God has a tendency to lead persons to repentance.”
However, Gill is shackled to the unbiblical notion that God can only desire what he decrees. Since God evidently did not decree the salvation of the person(s) envisioned in this text, Gill must find a way to “reinterpret” it to fit his system:
This is to be understood not of a spiritual and evangelical repentance, which is a free grace gift, and which none but the Spirit of God can lead, or bring persons to; but of a natural and legal repentance,
which lies in an external sorrow for sin, and in an outward cessation from it, and reformation of life and manners, which the goodness of God to the Jews should have led them to.21
Gill, who is absolutely right on this issue, is
critiqued by them:
But if the repentance (μετάνοιάν) of verse four is the “natural and legal” kind, why does Paul insist that those who’ve been led to such non-saving repentance will be judged as the Last Day because
of the lack of repentance (ἀμετανόητον) in verse 5? Same Greek term with alpha privative! Closer to the truth is John Calvin when he concludes, “The design of [God’s] benevolence is … to convert sinners to himself.” Indeed, it is Calvin’s moderate and chaste
form of “Calvinism” that better reflects the apostle’s thinking. God’s common grace cannot effect repentance in the sinner’s heart apart from his saving grace. Nevertheless, God’s common grace does serve to reveal God’s salvific posture toward fallen humanity,
including those who ultimately resist his overtures of goodwill.
If this is the design of God according to Calvin, then we must conclude that God has failed in his design the majority of times. Romans 2.5 says nothing about "salvific" purposes. All creatures are accountable
to God for their behavior, but they are not responsible for their behavior. Responsibility would imply that they have the
ability to repent. It is fascinating that this Greek word translated as "impenitent" is only attested once in this passage and occurs only once in the New Testament. In fact, a Greek respectable lexicon is translated as "irrevocable" and not impenitent.
Kittel's Theological Dictionary says of this word:
Koine adj., firmly attested only from the imperial period, mostly in the pass. sense of “exposed to no change of mind,” “beyond repentance or recall,” “unshakeable”.
There is no proof from the usage of this mere Greek word that this "repentance" is a
spiritual repentance. For this to happen it must be a "godly sorrow" that produces a "godly repentance". But even here, in I Corinthians 7, there is no mention of a saving experience. The individual
who repents is treated as a disobedient Christian. He is not advised to be baptized, or express his faith in Christ, he simply asks for forgiveness and ceases the behavior that got him excluded in the first place. The problem with these Jews is that they
never associated nature, sunshine, rain, food, raiment, and water as objects to encourage moral behavior.
The Jews who do the same things as the Gentiles in Romans 1 are described as behaving as the Gentiles:
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but
have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1.29-32)
These actions demonstrated that they did not possess the Spirit of God. These Jews, like their Gentile counterparts "...did not like to retain God in their knowledge". This corresponds to them NOT knowing
that the mercy of God should activate in them a change of behavior. Faith in Christ is not mentioned anywhere in this passage, and neither is justification. Hence, they are accountable for their behavior on the judgment day.
Now, if a works system toward salvation is being viewed here as being spoken about, then for any will-worshipper, this passage would be a proof text. This renders these men as being without excuse.
WHERE THE DOCTRINE OF COMMON GRACE IDEA INEVITABLY LEADS
We explained earlier the inevitable logical road from the concept of Gree Grace toward the position of a duty-faith system that Andrew Fuller espoused. Let us go step by step. God loves all men and this
shows them common grace - So passages like John 3.16 naturally mean that God loves the world refers to all men who have ever lived - this, of course, leads to God having multiple wills some of which indicate his unfulfilled desires implying that God is frustrated
or somehow disappointed - the atonement of Christ was for the whole world and it is only their lack of faith that prevented from the atonement being made "effective" for them. This position, of course, would of necessity deny
eternal vital union.
May God spare us from this infernal doctrine.
|
