(I)
[Source: The Protestant Reformed Churches in America
(1947), pp. 327-328]
22. But does not Luke 6:36 plainly speak of God
being kind to the unthankful and evil?
This text is far more simple than that
of Matt. 5, because it merely speaks of the unthankful and evil. No one denies
that God is kind to the unthankful and evil. Only, He is not kind to the reprobate unthankful and evil. The
entire context of Luke 6:35, 36 shows clearly that the Lord purposes to
teaching:
a. That His own people tasted the goodness and
the kindness of God toward them while they were and often sill are unthankful
and evil.
b.
That, having tasted the love of God, as a love that reveals itself as
grace and kindness toward the unthankful and evil, they must reveal that same
kindness toward their enemies, lending and giving without ever hoping to
receive again.
That God loves and is gracious to the ungodly in Christ, does not at all
prove that He loves and is gracious to all
the ungodly, even those that are outside
of Christ.
---------------------------------------------------
(II)
The questions arise at once: Who are
these enemies to whom God is merciful and kind? What is meant by the kindness
of God? To these questions [the defender of common grace] immediately replies,
“All unthankful and evil
are mentioned in one breath in the text. The text does not distinguish between
elect and reprobate. God’s kindness is non-saving grace and therefore refers to
God’s common grace. He is kind to all the unthankful and evil” …
The text does not speak of all the unthankful and evil. Nor must we
be too hasty to argue that it speaks of unthankful and evil without further
limitation and that, therefore, all the unthankful and evil are meant.
[This] is a very dangerous method [of reasoning]. Apart from the fact
that such an interpretation does not consider at all the current teaching of Scripture
concerning God’s attitude toward the reprobate ungodly, it is quite improper to
read Luke 6:35 as if it referred to all
the ungodly, merely on the basis that “they are not further defined.” If this
method of interpretation were sound in this instance, it certainly must be applied
in all other cases. That is, wherever the Bible speaks of the ungodly without any limitation, we must insert
the word all. If we would
apply this method to similar passages of the word of God, we would conclude
that the Arminian doctrine that Christ died for all men is correct.
[The defender of common grace often
argues against our exegesis thus:]
It must
be clear to anyone who is not controlled by prejudice that we have to do here
with the worst example of perverting scripture. This is no explanation of the
words of Jesus, but an induction of one’s notions into the text. Arbitrarily
something that is not contained in the text is inserted. For the text does not
say that God shows kindness to those who formerly
were unthankful and evil but are now converted from their unthankfulness
and wickedness. Nor do we read here that God is kind to those who still are unthankful and evil but will be converted from their
unthankfulness and wickedness in the future. This is made of the text; but it
does not say this. This arbitrary, high-handed exegesis is the result of
dogmatic prejudice.
… The error and danger of this
exegetical method, which refuses to interpret Scripture in its own light and is
satisfied with explaining each individual text by itself, become apparent when
we apply it to other parts of Holy Writ. Just apply it to Romans 5:6: “For when
we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” The
result is that you will reason as follows: The text says that Christ died for the ungodly. It does not say that Christ
died for those who formerly were
ungodly but now are no longer ungodly. Neither does the text teach that Christ
died for those who at that time were still ungodly but would be converted from
their ungodliness. The text speaks wholly in general of “the ungodly.”
Therefore, one has no right to insert the world elect into the text. One who limits the text
to the elect ungodly is guilty of
perverting the word of God, for the passage teaches clearly that Christ died
for all the ungodly.
We know very well that in this case
[our Reformed brethren] would not reason thus. [They] would not apply the same
method to interpret Romans 5:6 that [they follow] in [their] explanation of
Luke 6:35. [They] would object that the word of God elsewhere teaches plainly
that Christ did not die for all men
but only for the elect; that we must
remember this in the interpretation of Romans 5:6; and that the true
interpretation of the Romans passage cannot be that Christ died for all men.
But this is arbitrary. You cannot
apply two completely different methods of interpretation to Scripture. Yet this
is precisely what [the defenders of common grace] do. If we would follow the
same method to interpret Luke 6:35 that [they] admit is the correct method with
application to Romans 5:6, [they] would suddenly about-face and brand that
method as a perversion of Scripture and the result of dogmatic prejudice. Then
[they] would deny us the right to limit the unthankful and evil to the elect
only, although there is nothing in the text or context that forbids such an
interpretation, and it harmonizes with the correct teaching of the word of God
throughout. Then [our brethren] would not hesitate to insert the word all into the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment