…and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Ephesians 2:3
KJV).
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism,
he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? (Matthew 3:7 KJV).
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come (I Thessalonians 1:10 KJV).
The
Argument in Question:
Despite all arguments concerning the Scripture
doctrines of the Omnipotence, Simplicity, and Unchangeableness of God, it is
asserted by defenders of the teaching that God desires all to be saved that
because God evidently holds simultaneously two mutually incompatible attitudes
to the Elect prior to their conversion (i.e. the eternal decree to save, and
the damning wrath unto judgment for their sins), so, likewise, they argue, He
is able to hold simultaneously two mutually incompatible attitudes toward the
reprobate (i.e. the decree to leave them in their sins unto final damnation,
and also an ardent desire to save them from their sins). It is argued that if
God sincerely holds a damning wrath
over the Elect in their pre-conversion state and that this is compatible with
Him simultaneously setting them as the objects of His saving love, then, they
argue, it would follow, as a corollary that He can likewise exercise sincerely a desire to save the reprobate
co-extensively with His eternal decree to predestine them to destruction. Any
abrogation of the force of the word sincerely
in the case of the reprobate here would also necessitate logically a consonant
abrogation of its force with respect to the sincerity of the wrath of God over
the Elect prior to their conversion.
Responses:
(I)
British
Reformed Journal
(The
following is taken from the British
Reformed Journal, Issue No. 10, April-June 1995, pp. 4–8)
If, as
these theologians assert, God’s wrath over the pre-conversion elect is a
sincere threat of ultimate damnation, then two things follow. First, there is
then an evident will or purpose in God, i.e., to damn, which, in the case of
the elect, is never fulfilled, because of course, God saves His elect from that
damnation. Secondly, this indicates that there exists in God two parallel and
incompatible purposes with respect to the elect, one, an eternal purpose unto
the just damnation of the elect for their sins, and the other an equally
eternal purpose to redeem them. This, it is then alleged, establishes that in
God two mutually and simultaneously incompatible decrees and attitudes can
co-exist, and that unfulfilled purpose or intent is also to be found within the
Divine person. [It is asserted that if] this is so with respect to the elect,
then it is perfectly compatible with there being a similar phenomenon with
regard to the reprobate, or non-elect, that is, that God can and does hold with regard to them two mutually
simultaneous and incompatible purposes—the decree to leave them in their sins
unto damnation, and the sincere desire to save them from
this consequence, this latter purpose being, in the case of the non-elect, a
sincere desire or purpose which remains unfulfilled, or frustrated, even as the
sincere purpose to damn the pre-conversion elect was also unfulfilled.
All this,
it is claimed, indicates a salient proof of their notion of the “free offer” of
the gospel as being a sincere expression of God’s desire to save the non-elect.
Leaving aside the deleterious consequences of this kind of reasoning on the
Biblical doctrine of God in His Unity, Simplicity, and Omnipotence, it is
eye-opening to make a close inspection of the logic contained in this line of
argument. At the outset, it is necessary to point out that it is based on an
entirely false and unbiblical view of the matters in hand. A false scenario has
been drawn by proponents of this view, and their deductions follow, ipso facto and inexorably. But following as they
do from a false scenario, ipso
facto and inexorably their
deductions are wrong. One ought to consider here, the following criticism of
their arguments, given by Hugh Williams, thus:
They leave out of their picture the
most important feature of Biblical revelation and Christian Theology, that is,
the work of our Lord Jesus Christ in His Three-fold Office whereby He
effectuates the Redemption of God’s elect through His Atonement. It has to be
said that, on occasion, some Reformed theologians in discussing the decretive
purposes of God, lose connection with the work of our Saviour, and tend to hold
the doctrines of the decrees and of God’s nature and purpose in abstract from
Christ. The result can be such as exemplified in the false scenario put forth
here. The fact is, that biblically speaking, God’s wrath against the
pre-conversion elect is absolutely and indubitably as sincere and as damning as
the wrath He holds over the non-elect. There is NO difference whatsoever. To
the elect as well as to the non-elect comes the Scriptural warning “…flee from
the wrath to come…” (Matt. 3:7), and St. Paul can write to the Thessalonians
about “...even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (I Thess.
1:10). But it is utterly false, and contrary to Scripture, to assert that this
just, sincere, and damning wrath of God is unfulfilled and/or frustrated with
regard to the elect, and that concerning them an important aspect of God’s
purposes is left unfulfilled. Scripture indubitably teaches that God’s wrath
over the elect HAS BEEN FULFILLED, that His righteous anger over them has been
satisfied, and not in any way frustrated. His wrath on the elect was poured out
on Christ, who in His estate of humiliation fully bore and suffered the just anger
and retribution due to the elect for their sins. And thus the Scriptures teach:
Who His own self bare our
sins in His own body on the tree, that we,
being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we are
healed. (I Peter 2:24)
But God commendeth His love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us. (Rom. 5:8)
For Christ also hath once suffered
for sins, the just for the
unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit. (Rom. 4:25)
One could multiply such Scriptures
almost endlessly, e.g., I Thess. 5:9 and 10; Col. 1:14–22; Matt. 26:28; Titus
2:14; I Cor. 15:3; Heb. 9:12–27: Christ’s humiliation consisted in His being
born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries
of this life, THE WRATH OF GOD, and the cursed death of the cross, in being
buried, and in continuing under the power of death for a time.
Thus it is indubitably manifest
that God’s purpose of wrath over the pre-conversion elect, far from being
unfulfilled, has been fulfilled, and that in a manner that could not be more
excellent. At the same time as He procured this satisfaction for His justice
and wrath, God’s eternal decree to save the elect is effectuated, whereby they
undergo an ontological transition out from the estate of sin and misery and
into an estate of salvation, being metamorphosed into new creatures in Christ
in the process, and this by the sovereign application of the Holy Spirit’s
energies. Thus St. Paul is inspired to speak of how “the righteousness of God
without the law is…” and how God, through the work of Christ declares “…at this
time His righteousness: that HE MIGHT BE JUST, AND THE JUSTIFIER OF HIM WHICH
BELIEVETH ON JESUS.” (Rom. 3: vv. 20 through 26)
Hence there is also, no question of
God holding, with regard to the elect, two mutually simultaneous contradictory
attitudes or purposes. His purpose to damn is appropriate to the pre-conversion
elect, but His purpose to elect unto life is appropriate to Christ, and all
those IN CHRIST, for the Scriptures do not say “according as He hath chosen us
before the foundation of the world,” but rather, “according as He hath chosen
us IN HIM before the foundation of the world…” (Eph. 1:4). Outside of Christ
there is no election, only damnation.
The corollary of this is that the
assertion that there exists in God a temporally expressed desire to save the
non-elect immediately collapses, as it would require the positing of an
unfulfilled purpose or desire in the Divine personality, now no longer backed
by a similar parallel phenomenon registered vis a vis the elect. With it
collapses the notion of God holding two mutually simultaneous contradictory
purposes with regard to the non-elect, i.e., the decree to damn, and the
purpose or desire to save. For this too, is now seen to have no parallel
backing from God’s dealings with His elect. And with this too, the whole
charade of “common grace” disintegrates, collapsing like the pack of cards in
“Alice in Wonderland,” depending, as it does, like the “Free Offer” fantasy, on
the blasphemous notion of there being “double-track” psychology in a God who
suffers perpetually the pangs of frustration from unfulfilled but “sincere”
purposes and desires.
One might desire to do X, and
simultaneously to desire to do NOT X. But one cannot SINCERELY desire to do X,
and simultaneously SINCERELY desire to do NOT X. And to ascribe such logical
acrobatics to the Almighty is sheer blasphemy, and effectively reduces Him to
the level of being a crook, a downright fraud.8
One is left
therefore, with the conclusion that only those who hold that God does not will the salvation of the reprobate at
all, are in keeping with the teaching of the Westminster
Standards.
---------------------------------
FOOTNOTE:
FOOTNOTE:
8. Personal
correspondence from editor of British
Reformed Journal.
------------------------------------------------------
(II)
More to
come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment