The "Free Offer" and Christ's Atonement (44)

Dear forum members,

In the previous installment I mentioned that a particularly persuasive ground for the well-meant gospel offer is the universal sufficiency of the atonement of Christ. A telling objection to the well-meant gospel offer has been the need for universalizing the extent of the atonement so that it may serve as the judicial basis for God’s desire to save all men: What God offers has to be available. If salvation in Christ is offered to all, salvation in Christ has to be available. If one likes to retain his Calvinistic credentials, then he speaks of a universal sufficiency to the atonement but an efficacy limited only to the elect.

I found an interesting quote concerning this matter. It is found in Eugene Heideman, The Theology of the Midwestern Reformed Church in America, 1866-1966 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eedrmans Publishing Company, 2009) 141, 142 footnote. The comment came in the context of a discussion of the influence of Kuyperian common grace on the RCA. One RCA, a professor in Western Theological Seminary, wrote: “There is a sense in which it is true that the whole world shares in the sacrifice of Christ. It is the basis of common grace as it is of saving grace. God is longsuffering with the wicked, causes rain to fall on the unjust, holds in check the destructive forces in nature and humanity, brings to fullest development the hidden possibilities in both man and beast, through his Spirit and for the sake of the mediatorial work of Christ.” Although this was written in connection with Kuyperian common grace, the same applies to the well-meant gospel offer, for, as the author of the quote says, “. . . the whole world shares in the sacrifice of Christ. It is the basis of common grace as it is of saving grace.”

Those who appreciated the force of the argument that somehow the grace offered in the gospel had to be earned by Christ, but were hesitant to widen the scope of the atonement fell back on the doctrine of the sufficiency of the atonement, while holding to the doctrine of the limited efficacy of the atonement (that is, that the atonement is efficacious only for the elect, though sufficient for all.) Thus the defenders of a well-meant gospel offer fell back on what is basically an Amyraldian position. (Amyraldianism is the heresy of a hypothetical universalism with respect to the atonement of Christ, and is used to support a well-meant gospel offer. It was developed shortly after Dordt in France and spread to the United Kingdom where it was widely accepted.)

The strength of an appeal to the universal sufficiency of the atonement lies in its confessional basis. I quoted from the Canons of Dordt in this connection, where the sufficiency of the atonement is explicitly stated. The trouble is that those who appeal to the universal sufficiency of the atonement as taught in the Canons of Dordrecht do so without understanding the Canons, and, in fact, twisting their meaning and purpose. They cling to this one article in the Canons (2.A.3), as a drowning man clings to what appears to him to be a life raft.

Let us look closely at the article a moment.

Historically, the reason for inserting this article in the Canons was the wicked charge of the Arminians that the Reformed with their doctrine of particular redemption did serious injustice to the atonement by limiting its power or efficacy to only a relatively small number of people. The Reformed denied that and insisted rather that the suffering and death of Christ is “of infinite worth and value.”

The meaning of the fathers is clear. First of all, one must not measure the value and worth of Christ’s suffering and death in terms of kilograms, meters or liters. Christ’s suffering is not something of quantitative importance. If, and I speak as a fool speaks, there had been one more elect than there actually is, Christ would not have had to suffer a bit more than he did. Christ’s suffering is not a matter of “so much” for this sin, so much for that sin, so much for this sinner, so much for that sinner. To speak of the atonement in such a fashion is to mock it.

Secondly, the value and worth of the atonement is to be found in the person who submitted to it. The article emphatically states that “the death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin,” and it is therefore, “of infinite worth and value.”

The next article develops that idea further: “This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin” (2.A.4).

The Canons do not say that the atonement of Christ was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world because God wanted to offer salvation to all; or because salvation is then available to all; or even because the great Synod of Dordt wanted to open the door a crack for the Amyraldian position that God is gracious to all. Nothing could have been farther from the minds of the fathers at Dordt. Their sole purpose is to extol the dignity and greatness of Christ who as both truly God and man paid the price for our sins.

There is something sinister about such careless re-writing of history and such blatant attempt to make the great theologians of Dordt say something that was so far from their minds. The Canons themselves compel us to abandon all efforts to find the judicial basis for common grace in the cross. It isn’t there. It cannot be found there. To appeal to the cross as providing blessings for others than the elect is pulling ideas out of the mind of man. Apart from the cross, common grace hangs there in the air, a mockery of God’s justice. In his work of showing grace to all God is content to set his justice aside and let his grace push his justice out of the way. In common grace God acts as one devoid of justice.


With warm regards,

Prof Hanko

Theological Arguments Given for the "Free Offer of the Gospel" (43)

Dear Forum Members,

Before we get into the Biblical and confessional proof that was offered for the well-meant offer of the gospel, I want to say some things about the arguments that have been used to substantiate the well-meant offer as answers to theological objections which have been brought against it. These objections of a theological nature have been mentioned and described in the previous installment. They are important for our discussion, because they are the crutches used to make it possible to walk the path of a well-meant offer.

The first point that needs addressing is the claim that the well-meant offer is the testimony of God’s grace to all men. The claim itself I have addressed more than once in previous installments, but as that claim is made in connection with what has been called “the chief point of the first point” – with an obvious reference to the first point of common grace adopted by the Christian Reformed Church in 1924, I have not said anything about it.

Our readers will recall that when we were discussing the teaching that there is a grace of God shown to all men and not only to the elect, I claimed that this common grace was not intended to be limited to an outward attitude of God towards all men (although it surely includes that), but was also intended to include a subjective infusion of grace into the hearts of the unregenerate, which did not result in conversion and salvation, but which was there to enable the unregenerate to do good works pleasing in the sight of God. In the preaching of the gospel the same is true: a certain grace is conveyed to those who hear the gospel.

It is quite possible that this idea too, came from the Marrow Men of Scotland. The Marrow Men taught a certain “preparationism;” by which they meant that all who heard the gospel, were by a grace that came to all the hearers, prepared for the gospel itself and its reception. Usually it was maintained that the preaching of the law conveyed to the hearer the grace that put the sinner under the conviction of sin, so that he saw sin in himself as it really was, saw the hopelessness of his own sad condition, and saw the need for help outside himself in order to escape the just punishment of sin. But this conviction of sin did not necessarily guarantee that such a one would be saved.

One defender of the well-meant offer told me that this grace conveyed to the unregenerate enabled the person who received it to pray for regeneration. That is a powerful grace, but a prayer which, apparently, God does not always hear.

Some of the distinguishing features of preparationism can be found in Norman Petit, The Heart Prepared: Grace and Conversion in Puritan Spiritual Life (Wesleyan University Press, 1969.) The later Puritans were not so concerned with “the disparity between the regenerate and the unregenerate and with the requirement of grace as an instantaneous illumination,” the author writes; “Rather, the baptized were expected to look for the beginnings, or first ‘signs,’ of regeneration.” Petit goes on to say, “If God’s will was always omnipotent, still He looked to the inner man for the ‘new heart’ required in the new covenant. If God alone sought out those to be taken, man had always to ‘choose’ God by entering the covenant voluntarily. And as the more English Puritans turned toward voluntarism, the higher became their conception of baptism, with greater possibilities for man’s doing something of his own” (13)

Thus the Puritans made room for man’s own work in salvation. “The preparationists maintain that contrition and humiliation were not in themselves saving graces but preliminary steps, and that while God takes away all resistance, this cannot be done without man’s consent” (18). “God’s mercy could be denied in the end. The prepared heart, while a necessary prerequisite to the conversion experience, was no guarantee of salvation. The lost soul could be left in utter confusion, between preparation and conversion, in ‘horror of heart, anguish and perplexity of spirit,’ even in the ‘very flames of hell’” (19).

More and more the emphasis in Puritan thought fell on man’s work. Petit writes, “With Hildersam (a Puritan theologian of great influence who lived 1536 – 1632, HH), in fact, the steps leading up to effectual conversion were given full elaboration for the first time. Beginning with the work of the Law in the external call, he alluded to the covenant promises themselves and emphasized throughout what man must ‘do’ before conversion. Ever careful to insist that regeneration ‘to speak properly be the mighty work of God,’ he nevertheless proclaimed that ‘we may ourselves do much in this work, yea . . . we must be doers in it ourselves or else it will never be well done’” (57, 58).

Still describing Hilversam’s position, the author goes on to say, “Hilversam does not commit himself on the efficacy of the preparatory states themselves. This point is also unclear in Rogers, where man in preparation is considered neither to have faith nor to be entirely ‘without it.’ In effect, Puritan divines had yet to take a clear stand on man’s spiritual status in the preparatory phase. If a reprobate, could man desire grace as well as fear the Law? Or are all desires God-given, indicating some kind of regenerative condition? Few Puritans, if any, could offer a satisfactory solution; but of those who tried, William Perkins was perhaps the most articulate of his age.” (61).

This notion became the ground for the emphasis that was placed in the preaching to urge the hearer to close with Christ, a plea that was filled with tenderness, pathos, and with the assurances that God truly desired the salvation of the sinner. And this subjective grace, worked in the hearts of the hearers by the preaching, put the hearer in a position to accept or reject the gospel offer. Especially the Marrow Men in the early 18th century emphasized this aspect of the preaching.

It is of passing interest that this same idea is present in the theology of those who hold to a conditional covenant. Their claim is that all who are baptized receive the promise of God that they will be saved, on condition of faith. But all at baptism also receive covenantal grace, by which they are enabled to make their decision.

So also the well-meant gospel offer is gracious, that is, it actually bestows grace on the sinner; not saving grace but grace sufficient for a man to choose between accepting or rejecting the gospel.

There is no evidence in Scripture or the confessions that God gives such a grace to all who hear the gospel. In fact, our Canons sharply repudiated the notion of a conviction of sin brought about by the gospel: “The synod rejects the errors of those who teach that the unregenerate man is not really nor utterly dead in sin, nor destitute of all powers unto spiritual good, but that he can yet hunger and thirst after righteousness and life, and offer the sacrifice of a contrite and broken spirit, which is pleasing to God” (Canons, 3/4.B.4).

The whole concept of a subjective grace is Arminian. I know full well that those who want to maintain their Calvinistic credentials appeal to the fact that the final decision to accept Christ is due to the special grace of God; but this is like tipping one’s hat in God’s direction to acknowledge his presence, while ignoring him in fact as one goes his way down Arminian paths. God, in doing all he can do to persuade man to accept Christ, even goes so far as to give him grace by which he can accept Christ, but which grace does not guarantee salvation. When one adds to this the essential idea of the well-meant offer, namely that God earnestly desires the salvation of the sinner, then one has been caught in the quicksand of Arminian free-willism.

The question of the extent of Christ’s atonement is crucial to any discussion of the well-meant offer. Theologians have proposed different solutions to the problem of the relationship between a well-meant gospel offer and the question: For whom did Christ die? Calvinists who held to limited atonement frequently refused to face the question and simply tried to maintain both a limited atonement and a general or universal desire on God’s part to save all men. But this proved impossible. Grace, whether common or particular, is unmerited favor. Somewhere, somehow that grace shown to reprobate people had to have some judicial basis in God’s own being if God’s justice was to be maintained. Grace cannot be justly given to unworthy sinners unless God’s justice is satisfied. And so gradually the idea of a universalizing of the atonement crept into the churches, which held to a well-meant offer.

The Calvinistic Church in Wales finally drifted into a universal atonement because of the pressure of those who held to a well-meant gospel offer and charged all who denied it with the charge: Hyper-Calvinism. The Christian Reformed Church, because of its adoption of a well-meant offer, was forced in the 60’s to face the question of the extent of the atonement. I was present at the synod when the discussion was being carried on and there were those who opposed widening the effects of the atonement. But a stop was put to the debate by one speaker who said, in a fairly lengthy speech, Brethren, we believe in a well-meant offer, do we not? How is it then that we can deny that in some important ways Christ died for all men? As I recall, the three key words that were used to define a universal atonement were: intention, availability and sufficiency. Efficacy was denied and limited to the people of God.

The pressure put on the importance of the question of the extent of the atonement arose out of the simple question: “Can God, without hypocrisy, offer men what is not available?” It would surely be hypocrisy on my part to offer everyone who came to my front door $100.00, if I only had about $100.00 available to me.

But it is the question of the sufficiency of the gospel that attracted the most support, and most defenders were willing to base the well-meant gospel offer on the sufficiency of the atonement for all. This probably was due to the fact that the Canons of Dordt speak of the universal sufficiency of the atonement. The Canons say: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world’ (Canons 2.3).

That the Canons do not intend to teach a universal atonement is evident from what the confession says a bit later in the same chapter: “For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect . . . that is, that it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross . . . should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, and those only (emphasis is mine HH) who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given Him by the Father. . .” (Canons 2.8).

We shall have to examine this question of sufficiency further, but at a later time.

With warm regards,

Prof

The Teaching of "The Well-meant Offer" of Salvation" (42)

Dear Forum Members,

In the last installment I gave a brief history of the doctrine of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. I shall in this installment, describe what the teaching of this error is. I have used for references chiefly the following works, so that the reader can, if he wishes, look them up himself.

Louis Berkhof, De Drie Punten in Alle Deelen Gereformeerd (The Three Points, Reformed in all its Parts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1925).

K. W. Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered (Covenanter Press, 1958).

John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (A copy downloaded from the internet with a foreword by R. Scott Clark. Found on R. Scott Clark blog.)

R. Scott Clark, Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology. The chapter referred to is Chapter 7 of The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, David Van Drunen, ed.

H. J. Kuiper, The Three Points of Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., no date).

I recognize the fact that dozens of books have been written on the question, but these books and papers mentioned above contain, in one way or another, all the basic teachings of the gracious and well-meant offer. I might add that Hugh Lindsay Williams has written (and is still writing) a thorough critique of the well-meant offer in The British Reformed Journal. These articles are a critique of David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical and Reformed (Marpet Press, 2005).The articles are thoroughly researched and carefully written. Copies can be obtained from Rev. Angus Stewart in Ballymena, Northern Ireland.

The following points are the chief points of the well-meant gospel offer as defined by the proponents of common grace.

First this gospel offer is part of common grace; that is, it is part of God’s attitude of favor towards all men. The first point adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1924 explicitly stated this: “. . . synod declares it to be established . . . that, apart from the saving grace of God shown only to those that are elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from . . . the general offer of the gospel . . . .” In fact, almost all the Scriptural and confessional proof that was offered in support of the first point refers to this general offer of the gospel; it would seem that in the mind of synod the offer was the chief way in which God showed his favor to all men.

I remind our readers that subsequent discussions of common grace made clear that God’s attitude of favor towards the wicked includes God’s love, mercy, lovingkindness and all communicable attributes.

Second, the grace and love that God has for all men is expressed in the preaching of the gospel. The gospel must not hesitate to say to all who hear, “God loves you and is favorably inclined towards you. He is gracious and merciful towards you.”

Third, that love and favor God has towards all men and expressed in the gospel is explicitly expressed by telling people that it is God’s desire that all who hear the gospel be saved. God wants all men to be with him in heaven. His desire and will are that all men be a part of the church, which some day is destined to go to heaven.

Fourth, God expresses his desire to save all that hear the gospel by doing all that is possible for him to do to persuade man that salvation is preferable to damnation and that accepting Christ is preferable to rejecting him; that they should, therefore, hear God’s overtures of love. There is, so to speak, nothing more that God can do. If man persists in rejecting Christ proclaimed in the gospel, it is due to man’s own refusal to do what alone is good for him.

Questions arise in connection with this presentation to which various answers have been given.

One crucially important question involves the extent of the atonement. The question can be stated in this way: “What is the judicial ground of God’s favor towards the wicked? And, specifically, God’s desire to save them?” The point here is that if God loves the wicked, even though it be with a non-saving love, it must be rooted in what Christ does for men, for it cannot be grounded on man’s meriting that love. Besides, the justice of God must be satisfied: for sin is against God’s most high majesty and the debt sin incurs must be paid. Christ has paid that debt, for no man can possibly pay it. The answer to the question has been ambiguous with some saying, Yes, Christ died for all men; and others saying, No, the atonement is limited. But the very force of the relation between God’s love and favor towards all men has compelled many to say that, although Christ did not necessarily die efficaciously or effectively for all men, his atonement is sufficient for all men and its effectiveness depends on man’s response to the gospel.

Another important question that has come up, especially among Calvinists, is the harmony between God’s will to save some (the elect) and to reprobate others on the one hand, and his will that all men be saved on the other. There is evident and incontrovertible conflict between the two wills of God. In answer to this problem, some have felt free to speak of two wills in God, one will to save all, and another will to save some. Others have appealed to paradox and apparent contradiction, by which God’s “logic” is placed on a much higher level that our logic, so that what seems to us as contradictory is not contradictory in God’s thoughts.

This, e.g., is the whole argument of R. Scott Clark in an article entitled “Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel and Westminster Theology.” He writes, “This essay contends that the reason the well-meant offer has not been more persuasive is that its critics have not understood or sympathized with the fundamental assumption on which the doctrine of the well-meant offer was premised: the distinction between theology as God knows it (theolologia archetypa) and theology as it is revealed to and done by us (theologia ectypa). In making the biblical case for the claim that God reveals himself as desiring what he has not secretly willed to do, Murray and Strimple assumed this distinction which they did not articulate explicitly.”

This proposed solution is a rather fancy and Latinized way of saying that the conflict in God’s will to save the elect only and God’s will to save all men is only in our theology and not in God’s theology. God’s theology is fundamentally different from revelation and from our theology.

Yet another problem with the well-meant offer is the rather obvious conclusion that, because God desires the salvation of all men, yet not all are saved, the final decision for or against salvation rests with man. Arminians, of course, see no problem here. They insisted all along that man’s choice by his own free will is the decisive factor in salvation. But Calvinists struggle with this question, for they profess to believe that God actually works faith in the hearts of men. So, one stands perplexed over the problem of why God only works faith in the hearts of a few when his desire is to save all who hear the gospel. This too is a problem without solution, although some, once again, almost in desperation, appeal to paradox and apparent contradiction to support such a strange position. Apparent contradiction is found to be a safe haven in which to find refuge when confronted with a problem to which no answer can be found.

A charge that is consistently brought against those who repudiate such an idea as a well-meant offer is that a denial of a well-meant offer makes all evangelism impossible. The argument seems to be that one cannot go out to preach to the unchurched unless one can assure them that God loves them and on his part is longing to save them. But why? Why is evangelism dependent upon a gospel that announces God’s love for all? I have never been able to come up with any answer to this question other than to conclude that wrong ideas of evangelism have brought about some notions that God must be shown to have done all he possibly can to save sinners, but that the salvation of sinners rests on their willingness to accept God’s overtures. But this is Arminian to the core and not at all what evangelism is all about.

Much the same is true of those who label all who deny the well-meant offer as “Hyper-Calvinists.” One point that needs to be made is that it is easiest when caught up in a theological debate to escape responsible defenses of one’s position by labeling one’s opponents with an opprobrious name. When one raises objections to the whole concept of a well-meant offer, his arguments are dismissed, not by careful and Biblical counter-arguments, but by the remark, “Those people are Hyper-Calvinists.” And it is assumed that Hyper-Calvinists are dangerous people to have around and whose theological arguments are not worth weighing and considering carefully. But it works with the unwary. I have met the charge myself – repeatedly. “Oh, you deny the well-meant offer? You must be a Hyper Calvinist. I need not listen to what you have to say. Your theology is dangerous.” Such responses save a lot of time and hard work – the hard work of searching the Scriptures.


What I have said in this installment pretty much sums up the position of those who hold to a well-meant offer. I shall examine the arguments in later installments and present in a positive way the teaching of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions on the matter.

With warm regards,

Prof

The Gracious Well-meant Offer (41)

Dear Forum members,

I begin with this installment a discussion of the fourth aspect of common grace, probably the most widely accepted aspect, and about which much has been written. I refer to that point of common grace that is called the gracious well-meant gospel offer. It is the doctrine that defines the gospel as an declaration from God that it is his desire to save all that hear the gospel proclaimed.

Many books have been written on the subject, and it surely is not my intention to write yet another book. We shall therefore, limit these articles to an examination of what is meant by this gracious and well-meant gospel offer, what proof is given from Scripture and the confessions in support of it, what aberrations in doctrine have resulted from it, and what is the Biblical teaching over against it.

Actually, the doctrine itself is of rather recent origin. In the form in which it is taught by many churches today, it did not appear in the preaching until the so-called Marrow Controversy that took place in Scotland in the early part of the 18th century.

This does not mean, however, that various other doctrines that are a necessary part of the doctrine of the well-meant offer have not been taught in the church for a very long time. A brief survey of the history will demonstrate this.

Until the time of the great church father, Augustine, the church with few exceptions held to the doctrine of the free will of man. The church was, of course, preoccupied with the development of the truths of the trinity and the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ. It had little time to give the doctrines of salvation by grace any attention. This doctrine of the free will of man was thought necessary because of the heresies of Gnosticism and Manichaeism that had troubled the church. Both these heresies had taught that matter itself, of which the creation was composed, was inherently evil. There was, therefore a certain necessity in evil. To escape this necessity of evil, the church clung to the doctrine of man’s free will.

It was not until the time of Augustine that the church took a long and hard look at the widely accepted doctrine of free will. This was occasioned by the heresy of Pelagianism. (For a detailed history of Pelagianism and its teachings see my recently published book, Contending for the Faith, available from the RFPA.) Because Pelagianism was blatantly and openly a heresy that based salvation firmly in the hands of man, Augustine developed the doctrines of grace – the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,” although, of course, they were not called that till over 1000 years later. Augustine’s teachings were exactly like we believe today. He even explained such texts as II Timothy 2:4, II Peter 3:9, and other such texts as are used by the defenders of the gracious offer of the gospel to prove that Scripture teaches this heresy, as referring only to the elect.

When the Roman Catholic Church faced the question of sovereign grace, it waffled badly. Many in the Romish Church insisted the atoning sacrifice of Christ was for all men and that this general atonement made salvation for all men possible . The Romish Church officially adopted a Semi-Pelagian view of salvation by faith and works.

While the Arminian controversy, which arose in the Netherlands in less than 100 years after the Reformation, did not address itself specifically to the question of the gracious offer of the gospel, it did condemn two doctrines inevitably attached to and an integral part of the offer. Although all adherents of the gracious offer of the gospel will not admit it, the broadening of the extent of the atonement is necessary to maintain the error. Because man is a sinner, only Christ can earn for the sinner God’s grace. He can do this only in his suffering and death of the cross of Calvary. The relation between the gracious offer and the atonement is so compelling that most who hold to the offer also hold to the doctrine that, at least in some sense, Christ died for every one. Even John Murray, the noted Presbyterian theologian, had no hesitation in writing: “The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again.” (John Murray, Redemption – Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1955] 71.) But Dordt would have no such increasing the extent of the atonement beyond the elect. (Canons 2.8).

In France, the Amyraldian heresy arose, a heresy that developed another aspect of the doctrine of the gracious offer. This heresy taught that God has two wills, one of which determines salvation only for the elect, and another will according to which God desires the salvation of all men. This heresy, rejected by the Genevan theologians, nevertheless took root in Scotland and was held by the so-called Marrow Men. They taught, not only that the gospel had to be presented in such a way that God’s desire to save all men was proclaimed, but that it was right and proper to speak of Christ as dead for all men.

Although the Marrow position was officially condemned by the Presbyterian church of Scotland, it entered the Netherlands by way of the close ecclesiastical contact between those who were concerned for the orthodoxy of the church in the Netherlands and the Marrow men. And so, this idea entered into the thinking of Dutch theologians.

When the Separation of 1834 took place under the leadership of Henry De Cock and others, the movement was divided between an orthodox wing of the Separation represented by De Cock and Van Velzen, and a weaker wing represented by Brummelkamp and Henry De Cock’s son, Helenius De Cock.

The separation from the State Church that took place 52 years later under the leadership of Abraham Kuyper was, on this point of a gracious gospel offer, sound and orthodox. In fact Kuyper himself repudiated the idea of a gospel offer in his book, Dat De Genade Particulier Is (That Grace is Particular. This book has been translated by Marvin Kamps and is available from the Reformed Free Publishing Association, under the title, Particular Grace.) This book was written by the earlier Kuyper, several years before he published his three-volume work on common or general grace. But even in this latter work he did not and would not teach a gracious offer of the gospel.

Because many of the immigrants to this country in the latter half of the 19th century were from the Separation of 1834, the idea of a gracious offer of the gospel entered into the thinking of the Christian Reformed Church. Hence, when the common grace controversy erupted in the late nineteen-teens and came to a head at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, in 1924, the gracious gospel offer was a point at issue. The Synod included it in its decisions on common grace, although strangely enough, it was mentioned only in passing. The first point reads: “Regarding the first point, touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the elect, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confessions it is established, that besides the saving grace of God shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Canons of Dordt, II, 5 and III, IV, 8, 9, where the general offer of the gospel is set forth . . .” (emphasis is mine, HH).

Yet, in spite of the fact that the “general offer of the gospel is only mentioned in passing, it became the most important part of the entire theory of common grace.

The issue was also faced by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the Forties when controversy arose between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark over the incomprehensibility of God. In the report that was submitted to the General Assembly a section was devoted to the question of the gracious gospel offer. While this part of the report was never adopted by the OPC, it nevertheless was distributed in the churches by the General Assembly in pamphlet form. Authored by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, it is a detailed defense of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer.

Today the doctrine has spread far and wide and its supporters from Northern Ireland to Australia. And so it has entered the thinking and theology of many churches and has driven the church into open Arminianism.

With warm regards,

Prof. Hanko

Final remarks on the "good" that the ungodly do (40)

Dear Forum members,

In the last installment I began an answer to a correspondent who inquired about the relative good that the ungodly do. He was not about to defend the position that the wicked do good by the power of God’s grace worked through the Holy Spirit; nor was he of a mind to defend the proposition that the unregenerate are able to do good that meets with God’s approval. But he was inquiring about the fact that, from an earthly point of view, there is a lot of good in this world.

I agree with this assertion and have been at some pains to develop that idea, including the fact that from an earthly point of view the man who keeps God’s law outwardly experiences a happy and more trouble-free life than the man who tramples God’s law under foot. And, what is true of individuals, is also true of families and nations. There is a direct correlation between the outward good men do and earthly success, health and prosperity. All of this comes from God. We must inquire into this problem.

Before I give a more detailed answer to this question, let it be observed that this principle holds for all of life. A man who eats only McDonald’s hamburgers is not going to be as healthy as the man who eats nutritious foods. A man who obeys traffic laws is not as likely to be in an accident as one who drives recklessly. Nor would anyone, so far as I know, deny that the man or woman who lives a life free from fornication is less likely to contact a STD than one who has no moral scruples that govern his life. No one, I think, would claim that the habit of eating nutritious foods is a gift of grace and that the resulting good health of a man merits God’s approval. God has established certain laws by which he rules in his creation. Sometimes these laws are called secondary means by which God exercises his sovereignty.

To defy God’s law brings trouble and grief in every area of life. To practice abortion brings its own grief and trouble. To live a homosexual life is to incur the dreaded HIV virus. To fornicate in the marriage state results in its own sorrows. Such obvious rules in God’s world has nothing to do with common grace, the ability of the natural man to do good, or the favor and blessing of God upon a person.

Why does consequent prosperity in some measure come to those who do keep God’s law outwardly? The answer is, first of all, that God works this way for the sake of His church. That is precisely the reason why God blessed the house of Potiphar for Joseph’s sake (Gen. 39:5). That is why we are commanded to pray for all those in authority over us, pray even that they may observe the law of God; for, Paul writes Timothy, that among the reasons to pray for magistrates is that the church may lead a quiet and peaceable life (I Timothy 2:1-6).

There are, however, other reasons. The unregenerate know also the difference between right and wrong. In an earlier forum article I discussed the meaning of Romans 2:14, 15, a text which teaches that God puts the works of the law on their hearts so that their consciences tell them what is right and what is wrong according to his moral law. They are also able to see in their lives and in the lives of others that an outward keeping of the law of God brings with it a certain amount of pleasure and order. And they are able to see that to break God’s law brings grief and suffering. If the law against murder were abandoned all together life would become well nigh impossible. If every one committed adultery and family life would cease to exist, society would end in chaos. If laws against stealing were not enforced and everyone was given free rein to steal anything he wished, businesses could not operate and a man’s possessions would never be safe. It doesn’t take regeneration to see and understand that. It is clear from life itself that what a man’s conscience dictates is best for society and a decent life in the world.

This great truth does not keep men from sinning anyway. The homosexual knows that the possibility of him acquiring the HIV virus is increased greatly if he continues his wicked practices, but he goes his own way in spite of it all. A drunkard can see his life disintegrate in his family, his work and his own life as he continues his drinking. But this does not always check his sin.

Yet the law of God serves as a certain rein to sin, especially when the violation of God’s law brings its own judgments from God. God does not wait till the judgment day to punish sin, but executes judgment already in this life.

That such a man becomes a slave to a sin and finds it impossible to escape the slavery of the sin into which he has fallen is also a law of God. Man can, as a matter of fact, become so much a slave of sin that he finds it impossible to escape from the shackles that bind him. A drug addict cannot live without his drugs. But I have dealt with people who have even become slaves of lying, slaves of adultery, slaves of hatred. It is dreadful. Even if, because they see the consequences of their sin, the want to escape it, they find it impossible – apart from sovereign grace, which is able to deliver anyone from any sin and from the bondage of sin.

The wicked do two things about this slavery of sin. The first thing they do is try to find ways and means of avoiding the consequences of sin. They invent birth control instruments to prevent pregnancies resulting from adulteries. They build abortion clinics to kill babies when they discover that some people are too stupid or too captured by their sin to use available techniques to avoid pregnancy. They invent medicines that can curb the harmful effects of the HIV virus. They establish elaborate rehabilitation centers for those caught in the trap of drug addiction, liquor addiction or gambling addiction. And the answer of the world to these addictions is not to cease from the sin that brought them on, but to use the latest medical techniques that enable a man to continue in his sin but stave off the consequences.

The second thing they do is mount elaborate campaigns to condition people into thinking that all these violations of God’s law are not sins. These weaknesses into which men plunge themselves are the results of their genes, or remnants from their animal ancestry, or sicknesses for which cures can be found. They are treatable and science, in its performance of miracles, will conquer bad consequences of a wicked life. But if one says that homosexuality is a sin against God, he is as liable as not to be arrested and tried for a “hate crime.” The poor person cannot help doing what he does; it is in his genes. His actions are predetermined. (And these same people call Calvinists “Fatalists”!)

All this is proof that man does no good out of the motive of love for God and his neighbor. He seeks himself and will sin as much as he dares. He rejoices when apparently means are invented to help him escape the consequences of his sin. He claps his hands in glee when he has succeeded in overcoming God’s judgments on sin.

But God is in heaven and he is just and righteous in all he does. He punishes sin and laughs at man’s silly poking around to invent means to avoid God’s wrath. God does not respect persons. He does not judge on the basis of outward appearances (I Samuel 16:7). Teachers of common grace look at outward appearances, but in doing so fail to follow the Scriptures where God tells us what is pleasing in his sight.

God will tell us what works are pleasing to him. And we had better listen.

The Canons and the Westminster Confession describe, these good works that are approved by God as they ought to be described (See Canons 3/4.4 and WC 16.7, which we have already quoted). If one is talking about good that is approved by God himself, then the criteria of the Heidelberg Catechism must be used as a measuring rod: “They must proceed from a true faith”. This assertion is also Biblical: “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). They must be performed according to the law of God. Surely, if outward conformity to that law is approved by God, the Pharisees did more that met with God’s approval than anyone else. But the law of God is all summed up in the words of Jesus in Matt. 22:37-40. The only true keeping of the law is love: love for God and love for one’s neighbor for God’s sake. True good works are done to God’s glory. Man’s “good” is done for the glory and praise of man; good works are done only for God’s glory. Then, and then only is a work something that meets with God’s approval.

Works that are “good” in this world are actually sins. A man who is faithful to his wife and family goes to hell, not in spite of his faithfulness to his family, but because he did not remain faithful out of a true faith in Christ; nor because he loved God and his neighbor; nor because he was seeking God’s glory. Does this seem to you to be impossible? We must measure man’s works, not by our standards, but by the standards of a holy God. Nor must we forget that God created man good, and his inability to do good is his own fault, for he chose the way of sin in the place of the way of obedience.

One more matter must be addressed. It takes us back to the basic idea of common grace. Is the prosperity of the wicked, even when it is the result of a life in conformity with the outwards demands of the law, indicative of God’s favor and blessings?

To answer this question, perhaps we ought to read once again Psalm 73, Psalm 37, Proverbs 3:33, and such like passages. The answer in Scripture is obvious. The prosperity of the wicked, even when it is the consequence of a walk in keeping with God’s law outwardly, sets the wicked on slippery places that end in everlasting destruction. The Psalm is quite clear on the matter: God sets them on slippery places. His purpose never is to bless the wicked, but to destroy them. Even their riches, their health, their pleasures are God’s wrath. God’s curse is in the house of the wicked.

But this is not the case with God’s people. They may and do wash their hands in innocency, but know only the chastening of the Lord: poverty, sickness, trouble, grief, suffering; but, says the Psalmist, in spite of all his troubles, “I am continually before thee: thou hast held me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with they counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever. For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee. But it is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord God, that I may declare all thy works.”

With warm greetings in Christ,

Prof. Hanko

Further questions on the "good works" of the reprobate (39)

Dear Forum members:

In the last installment I considered the Biblical and confessional proof for the notion that the unregenerated are able to do good that is pleasing in the sight of God. I have, however, received some correspondence concerning the teaching of the third point of common grace. This correspondence had to do with the remarks I made concerning the law of God in the life of the Christian. One correspondent thought my remarks were irrelevant to the point at hand, too brief and therefore misleading.

I justified my remarks concerning the law in the life of the Christian by pointing out that I have had personal contact with people, frequently Presbyterians, who have made those passages that speak of the keeping of the law as a way of life prove common grace. I am not sure what the reasoning behind these claims is; it seems that the statement of the text itself (“the man that doeth them [the works of the law] shall live in them”) is quoted as proof that it is possible for the unregenerated to keep the law. (These texts are Rom. 2:13, and Gal. 3:12.) Actually, it is obvious that the texts simply refer to the principle of the law that requires the keeping of the law for life. But the point is that no man can keep the law, and that, therefore, salvation is not to be found in the keeping of the law.

My point in commenting briefly on the meaning of these texts was to prove that God has tied in an unbreakable bond the keeping of his law with salvation. I did not say and would never say that our ability to keep the law is tied to salvation. But God is Creator and we are creatures. God’s law, given for every creature, defines how that creature is to serve him: The bird by living in the air, the fish by living in the water, the tree by being planted in the ground and reaching out to the sun; man by loving the Lord his God. To break that law means death.

We cannot keep that law of God in any respect, but Christ kept it for us. While he suffered the pains and anguish of hell for his people, he still kept the law perfectly. He loved his God though his God had forsaken him. By doing this, he fulfilled the law for his people so that the law is written on their hearts (Heb. 8:10). With the law written in their hearts God’s people are given the spiritual power to keep that law and love the Lord their God. Salvation includes the grace necessary to keep that law as the rule of gratitude. God takes his people to heaven in the way of keeping his law, a way that is possible by the wonderful work of Christ who enables us by his Spirit to be obedient to God.

That is the meaning of these texts.

In other correspondence I received, the correspondent made several important points that ought to be addressed. I propose to do that in this installment. Some of the points that I consider as I answer this question I have already dealt with in an earlier installment. I beg the readers’ patience in a reiteration of these points, but they are sufficiently important to deal with the matter again.

The question really has to do with the good that unregenerated men obviously do. All those who have not been brought to faith in Christ are not as evil as, say, Hitler or Stalin, or a hit-man hired by the mafia. In a positive sense, there are unconverted people who do live with their wives all their life; who do finance the building of hospitals and schools; who do operate institutions that care for the poor and needy. There are many unconverted people who never in their life get in trouble with the law and who, considered from an earthly point of view, are sometimes more virtuous than a regenerated and converted child of God.

Such conduct is considered by all men everywhere to be “good”. Few people are devils here in the world – although some are. Few people are criminals – although some are. Few people deliberately break the outward demands of God’s law – although increasingly many do. Many are humanitarian with a “love” for their fellow man that manifests itself in many ways.

The correspondent based the question on the assertion that when Dr. A. Kuyper spoke of common grace as a power that prevented men, at the time of the fall, from becoming devils, he did not mean devils in the literal sense of the word, but people who did devilish things. And the assertion was made that there is a lot of good in the world that is not devilish. It may be relatively good; it may be good only in an outward sense, but it is good for all that.

I agree fully with the correspondent’s remarks. What he says is obvious from the world about us. Whether Dr. A. Kuyper actually meant that people do not literally become devils, but that common grace prevents them from degenerating morally into devils is another question. But whatever Dr. Kuyper meant is irrelevant. The question stands in its own right. And with that position I am in total agreement.

We may even go a step further. It is my judgment, as I wrote in an earlier installment, that an outward observance of the law is beneficial for a family and a nation. Whether we may call that benefit a “blessing” from God is another question, although the answer lies in how one defines “blessing.” But before I proceed any further along these lines, it is quite important that we remember a few things.

First of all, although the question is an important one, it is not entirely the question at issue. The question at issue is: Is this good of the unregenerated a gift of grace? Are those capable of doing this relative good the beneficiaries of grace? I contend that they are not – not even of a “common” grace.

Second, Because it is said that God’s grace is both, objectively, an attitude of God that makes him favorably inclined towards the unconverted, and, subjectively, that grace is the subjective bestowal of gracious gifts, the answer of those who hold to common grace is that this subjective grace is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, which alters the nature of man so that he is no longer totally depraved, but is morally better than he was. The Holy Spirit restrains sin and produces good. No one claims, if he claims to be a Calvinist, that this grace manifested in the gift of the Holy Spirit is a saving grace. It is not that. Nor are the good works produced by the Spirit saving good; no one claims that to be true. But the Holy Spirit performs a work that does in fact change of nature of the sinner that enables him to do good. I deny this work of the Holy Spirit and insist that Scripture does not speak of it.

Third, The good that the unconverted and unsaved sinner does, according to the defenders of common grace, is pleasing to God. It is rewarded with temporal blessings. This position is, of course, a necessary position to take, given the fact that these good works are the fruit of the Holy Spirit’s work. God would certainly not condemn his own work that he does through the Spirit; God’s work can only be approved by God himself who delights in all his works.

It is necessary that we remember these points. Nevertheless, we are compelled to answer this question: How is it possible for an unregenerated man to do “good” in a relative sense –though it not saving good?

I remind our readers that the historic Reformed and Presbyterian Confessions readily acknowledge such good that sinners are able to do. The part of the Canons, quoted by the Christian Reformed Synod in proof of this good that sinners do, demonstrates that the unconverted can indeed do “good” in a relative sense. You recall that Canons 3/4.4 emphatically teaches that: “There remain, however, in man since the fall the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.” Westminster, in 16.7 has a strong statement on the subject. I have quoted the article before, but quote it once again. “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them that may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others . . . .” But the Confession, in the same article, goes on to say, “yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God.” Then the Confession adds, correctly, “And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.” The matter is not a question of relative good found in the wicked, but of relative evil.

A righteous man is rewarded according to his works, but a wicked man is also punished according to his works. It is more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah, and for Tyre and Sidon than it is for Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin (Matt. 11:21-24).

We freely confess that, apart from the good works that are the fruit of regeneration and given as a gift of grace, there are many degrees of good that can be found in the world of unconverted men. It is better to help a man who is in the ditch than to drive past. It is better to give one’s money to an orphanage than to get drunk. It is better to work hard for one’s employer than to steal from him. And so we could go on, but there is no need of this; we all know how true these things are. There is, after all, the good that Jehu did when he killed all the descendants of Ahab. It pleased the Lord that he did this because he was obedient to the command of God. You can find Jehu’s history in II Kings 10. One must read however, verses 29-31 as well. “Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.”

But the question remains: Are these good works authored by the Holy Spirit? The answer to that is an unqualified No. Nor is there any indication either in Scripture or the Confessions that teaches this. Are these good works gracious gifts of God? There is no evidence either in Scripture or the Confessions that such is the case. Do these good works merit God’s approval? In a certain sense they do, for Jehu is commended for his slaughter of Ahab’s house and the worshippers of Baal. The same thing is true in our time. A family in which there is no divorce and remarriage is a happier family than one in which father and mother part to marry others. A family has a better life, given it of God, when neither the father nor the mother is an alcoholic. A nation in which the law of God is observed, be it but outwardly, prospers. A government that enforces legislation against abortion and homosexuality can expect a more trouble-free country than one where abortion is openly practiced and homosexuality is considered “an alternate lifestyle.” History is strewn with the wreckage of powerful nations who were destroyed by internal moral rot and a ruthless waste of the natural resources that God had given.

Whether the ability to keep God’s law outwardly is due to God’s grace is quite another question. The answer has to be No! Whether the external prosperity which follows for a nation outwardly observant of the law of God is a blessing from God cannot be answered in any other way than with a Biblical No. Why then does God in His providence enable one person – or family, or nation – to keep God’s law outwardly? We shall look at this question in the next installment.

With warm regards,

Prof. Hanko

Scripture and the Confessions on the "good works" of the reprobate (38)

Dear forum members:

I was talking in the last installment about the view of God that one must take to hold to common grace in general and the good that sinners do in particular. It is a view that disparages God and makes of him a changeable and helpless god who is unable to accomplish his purpose. No man who fears the Lord God of heaven and earth ought to speak of God as the defenders of common grace speak of him

But in this installment, before I look more closely at the confessional and Biblical proof for this position, I want to quote for you a few articles from the Confessions of the church on this very subject.

My first quote is from the Westminster Confession of Faith. There is an important article in this confession, which forms the confessional basis for Presbyterianism the world over. It is all the more powerful because the Westminster Confession of Faith was written to serve as the confessional basis of a national church. The Westminster Assembly met under the direction of the British Parliament and the Confession itself was approved by Parliament.

In chapter 16, entitled “Of Good Works,” paragraph 7 the confession states: “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and to others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983] 635, 636.That article is about as clear a refutation as one can find anywhere.

The Heidelberg Catechism emphatically states: “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness? Indeed we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God” ( The Confessions . . . [Grandville: The Protestant Reformed Churches in America,. 2005] q. & a. 8, 86). This too is unmistakable. Everything we do is wicked; nothing is good. Wickedness is characteristic of our whole life. The only work that can change that wickedness and produce good works is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The Heidelberg Catechism also very carefully defines those works of man that do meet with God’s approval. “But what are good works? Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to His glory, and not such as are founded on our imagination or the institutions of men” ( Idem, q & a 91. 122). Good works are not defined as products of a common grace and as civil good, but are said to be only those that proceed from a true faith and are to God’s glory. Common grace perverts the Catechism when it defines good works in terms of “our imagination or the institutions of men.”

It is true that the Canons of Dordrecht speak of “glimmerings of natural light” in fallen man that enable him to retain “some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil”; that enable man to discover “some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.” But the same article goes on to say, “But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God” (Idem, 167). The Canons are very emphatic that the natural light, which fallen man still possesses cannot be used aright by the unregenerated sinner even “in things natural and civil.” He pollutes the civil good and holds it in unrighteousness. This is strong language.

An appeal to the Confessions ends in exposing the error of common grace clearly and emphatically.

It is also noteworthy that the error of an internal restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit and the error of the ability of the unregenerate to do good stand or fall together. If indeed the Spirit is at work in the hearts of reprobate, their works are good and pleasing in the sight of God; for the good that men do is God’s work in them and God never disapproves his own works. If, on the other hand, God condemns every work of the ungodly, there cannot possibly be any restraint of sin by God through the Holy Spirit.

The defenders of the good that the unrighteous are capable of doing offer us some proof from Scripture. We will look at this proof to see whether Scripture gives any indication of the ability of the wicked to do good – good, that is, worked by the Holy Spirit and pleasing in the sight of God.

The proof that is offered is first of all several texts from the history of the kings of Israel and Judah who are said to have done “good” in the eyes of the Lord. These texts are II Kings 10:29, 30; II Kings 12:2; II Kings 14:3; II Chronicles 25:2. We quote only one of these; the reader can look up the others. II Kings 12:2 reads: “And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” The other passages make a similar statement about Jehu, and Amaziah.

While what these texts say about these kings of Israel and Judah is that they did good in the eyes of Jehovah, it is quite possible and even likely that Amaziah was a godly king who loved the Lord, although he was also very weak in many respects and did not do good “with a perfect heart.” But the same cannot be said of Jehu and Jehoash. Of Jehu Scripture say: “Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan” (II Kings 10:29). And concerning Jehoash we know that when Jehoiada died, Jehoash turned to wickedness and even killed the prophet that was sent to warn him (II Kings 12:17-19, II Chronicles 25:17-25).

It is true, of course, that the texts say that Jehu and Jehoash did good. But that this is proof for good influences of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of wicked men so that they do good in the sight of God is quite another matter, and there is no mention of any such thing in the text. Jehu did good in destroying the whole house of Ahab. This was God’s will that Ahab and his house be destroyed because of its great wickedness. Jehu was God’s appointed means to accomplish this destruction. But Jehu was glad to do it, for he reveled in killing and was sure to secure his throne by destroying any threat from Ahab’s family. Jehoash kept God’s commandments and preserved the faithful worship of God in the temple, but only because of the strong influence of godly Jehoiada. But that his own heart was evil and that he did not do good to please God is evident from his dreadful sins after Jehoiada’s death. They did good in an outward obedience to God’s commands, the doing of which was for their own personal advantage.

No one has ever denied that wicked and unregenerate men are able to do good in a certain sense of the word. Mozart can compose very beautiful music, though he was a wicked man. An architect can design a beautiful building, but not do so in a way pleasing to God and bringing God’s approval upon his good works. A carpenter can and often does build a house that has few if any defects, because he is an excellent builder; and we say, “He did a good job of this house.” I recall one noted theologian who said that Tiger Woods ability to sink a 40-foot putt was surely due to common grace. And so we can go on. It happens all the time in the world that men do good from a purely earthly viewpoint. But this is still a far cry from moral good that the Spirit enables wicked men to do; and it is a far cry from good that meets with God’s approval. The texts quoted are entirely beside the point and have no bearing on the matter at hand.

Luke 6:33 is also quoted as proof for the good that sinners do: “And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same.” I am puzzled by the appeal to this text as proof for the good that sinners do. It teaches quite the opposite. Sinners do good, not to please God, but to please themselves and advance their own welfare. They invite people to their feasts so that they will in turn be invited by the high and mighty. They do good to others so that they may reap the fruits of having others do good to them. Pure selfishness can hardly be the fruit of the Spirit and pleasing to God. We are warned not to do good as the wicked do it.

Another three texts are also used in support of this aspect of common grace, that unregenerated men can do good in God’s sight. These texts all say the same thing. Romans 10:5 says: “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth these things shall live by them.” Galatians 3:12 reads: “And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them” Romans 2:14 says, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

I think that the appeal by the Synod to these texts was a mistake on the part of the authors of the theory of common grace. Actually, the Synod that adopted officially the doctrines of common grace is the body that referred to these texts in support of the doctrine. But somewhere along the line a serious mistake was made, for these texts teach quite the opposite from what was the intention of the authors of the good that sinners do by the grace of God. For these texts teach that the fundamental principle for all time and for eternity is that fellowship with God is inescapably connected to the keeping of God’s law. But as the passages in their context go on to say, just because this principle is so true no man can possibly be saved by the keeping of the law, because it is impossible for depraved man to keep it.

The texts, however, teach a profound truth: The keeping of the law is necessary for anyone to be saved. This is a truth that dates back to the beginning of time. Adam remained in a state of rectitude only as long as he obeyed the law. It is true for all time and in every place: man only lives through the keeping of the law. This is Paul’s point.

But Adam fell and all men with and in him. The keeping of the law was now forever impossible for man. For, while it is possible for sinful and totally depraved man to conform his life outwardly to the law, the law requires love within: love of God and one’s neighbor. Sin is the opposite. Sin is love for one’s self. And so Christ had to come to do what man of himself can never do. That is why Paul calls the law a school-teacher to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Christ kept the law. He loved his God perfectly – even when the horrors of hell drowned him in sorrow and pain and all he knew was abandonment by him whom alone he loved. By His perfect atonement Christ fulfilled the law for those for whom he died, and now, by his Spirit, he enables his people to keep the law, for the law is written on their hearts. And so still today the way to life is the keeping of the law, but it is the keeping of the law by him who works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).

And so we are left without any proof whatsoever, a fact that compels us to reject the heresy of the ability of the totally depraved sinner to do good.

With warm regards,

Prof Hanko