Prof. Engelsma (does not affirm “common grace”): God does indeed command us Christians to love people whom He does not love, but hates. The Bible teaches that God hates persons. God hates some persons. Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all the workers of iniquity. In Romans 9:13 as everybody knows, [scripture] teaches that God hated Esau. At the same time, the Bible teaches Christians that they are to love their enemies who curse them and persecute them, who may very well be these non-elect, or reprobate persons whom God hates. We are commanded to love persons, whom God, for all we know, hates. The explanation of that is the difference between us and God. We are the neighbors of these ungodly persons, linked to them by a common humanity, a common blood. Besides, we’re commanded by Christ to view these people as originally created in the image of God, and to love them in the sense that we do good to them, pray for them, and bless them. God is not the neighbor of these persons. God is the Holy Judge of these persons. They don’t appear in connection with Him as their neighbor, but they appear before Him as guilty and as depraved, and therefore as worthy objects of His hatred. There is a ground in God for our love of the ungodly, pagan, idolatrous, and, for all we know, non-elect neighbor. That ground in God is not that God loves all human beings without exception. That ground in God for our activity of loving our personal neighbors, our personal enemies perhaps, is that the love of God is so wonderful, that the love of God is a love for persons who in themselves are His enemies. Not all persons who are in themselves His enemies, but persons, nevertheless, who in themselves are His enemies. I’m one ! I know the love of God, as the love of God for someone who in himself is a personal enemy of God, by nature hate Him and curse Him. And the love of God is so wonderful that it reached me. I show that by loving my own personal enemy , and thus I show the nature of the love of God.
Dr.Mouw (proponent of “common grace”): I think the real issue is once we have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, and we’re called to serve the cause of God, to bring glory to God in the larger creation, in all spheres of creation. What does it mean for us to glorify God? And this gets back to the basic question, what kinds of things does God care about, what kinds of things does God take delight in, and what kinds of things does God hate? You got to really get clear now about Prof. Engelsma’s reading, for example, of that wonderful verse in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 : where Jesus says, Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, for your reward shall be great. For He, your heavenly Father, is kind, is one who loves His enemies. That we are to imitate God. He agrees with that, but there’s a kind of strange way of agreeing with it. He says,that God is an enemy lover, the whole notion of the ‘ imitatio Dei ‘, the imitation of God, God is an enemy lover, and — we have to be enemy lovers. But the enemies that God loves, are people like us, who have been redeemed, but God commands us to love people who haven’t been redeemed. And so you get this strange notion that God is commanding us to love people whom He hates. And I want to say, that is not the obvious meaning of all of that. And so the question is, does it really fit the larger sense of the scriptures? And this is why I raise the question. I agree that the grieving Savior over Jerusalem is a somewhat different issue, but its a question, it is an important example of seeing the heart of God go out to people who are His enemies. And I want to insist, when Saddam Hussein opened the prisons, I’ll never forget that, it was before the war, he opened the prisons, and people who had been cooped up in these cells for years, came out, and they were jumpin’ around, and I want to say, my instinct, now my instinct, my inclination, my feeling at that point, was to say, with all that scriptures say about the opening of the prisons to those who are bound, that’s not just talking about Peter in the book of Acts, it’s talking about God rejoices, under certain conditions, when certain kinds of people are released from prison, and there was a joy of seeing people liberated from imprisonment by an unjust government, and I want to say, I think God delights in that. And that God wants me to delight in that, because God delights in that. I don’t think that God is in the business of telling us to love people whom He hates, to have our compassion go out to people whose suffering He is causing ! That just does not fit the sense of the scriptures, and we could spend allot of time on Matthew 5, and other passages in that regard. But I just have to say Prof. Engelsma, I find that a very strange interpretation of what it means for us to love as our heavenly Father loves. That’s enough.
[Dr. Richard Mouw is the president of Fuller Seminary in CA and was a professor at the liberal Calvin's College. Click here to see what Mouw said about Mormons. The reason that Mouw said those things is because he believes that "common grace" requires one to respect the religion aspirations of others since they flow from God's "common grace" and thus must be of some good. Also click here for an article by Triablogue.]
Both men make good points. But I think Engelsma may be more consistent. I know that many have conveniently tagged Engelsma as hyper-Calvinist, but I think such a label has unfortunately caused some to not even consider what Engelsma is trying to say. It reminds me of how many I have met who will not read A. W. Pink or John Gill because someone carelessly labeled them hyper-Calvinist and thus marginalized them. I truly hate the term hyper-Calvinist since it is usually thrown upon people who love the ministry of the Gospel but have bravely tried to make some theological distinctions where others have feared to tread.
Notice that Engelsma affirms that the elect are enemies of God prior to regeneration, that the elect should love the non-elect, that God loves His enemies, and that all goodness shown by God and by His elect are for God’s glory. Englesma explains his position as: God is commanding us to love our enemies because He loved His enemies, but just because He commands us to love our enemies does not mean that God loves all men without exception. I agree with this theological assertion — it is not hyper-Calvinism. The question that one is left with in Engelsma’s position is does God love all men without exception? And if so, does He love them in the same sense? Those who do not affirm the current definitions of “common grace” say NO; proponents of “common grace” say YES.
This debate is important, even if only a few of the Reformed are willing to brave the debate and risk being labeled.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I am grateful you have posted this debate. Is it available in audio format anywhere? It it anywhere on the web? Engelsma is not a ‘hyper-C’ and you are right to point that out. To be clear, I agree with Englesma and not Mouw on this important issue many do not even consider.
Here is an excellent essay on the subject that shows many of the shortcomings of the John Murray position that so many often cite. I just wish Murray addressed those portions of scripture that go against his view. It leaves his readers thinking there are really no texts that are troubling to his position.
Anyways, I’m thankful to read this wonderful exchange. Thanks for posting it.
Yes, it seems as if Hodge and Kuyper wrote decent definitions of “common grace” — basically trying to describe the universal goodness of God. But some Reformed theologians took the issue too far and developed numerous “wills” of God in their theology and became inconsistent in their soteriology.
I think it would be a good excercise for us all to be aware of this controversy and how these issues came to the place where they are. May it help us to be discerning in our distinctions and safe from making the same mistakes while trying to explain things about God’s goodness that may be too far beyond us.
Did you know that MacArthur camps on the side of common grace “This plainly teaches that God’s love extends even to his enemies” (Study bible note on Mat.5:44,45).
To be clear, I agree with Englesma and not Mouw on this important issue many do not even consider.
——————————–
Amen and amen….
Mark
I don’t agree with Mouw, Englesma or Robertson.
Proponents of Common Grace, which I am one, would NOT say God loves all his enemies in the same sense.
MacArthur makes a qualification on love too. (Incase I misled in any way.)
I must admit a bit of confusion over this exchange. From the words of the men themselves, I can’t clearly understand their points.
I believe that God loves everyone, and that He has a particular love for the elect. Does that put me into one of these guys camps?
Who defines common grace as God loving “all human beings without exception”? For Engelsma to imply that seems like a straw man argument on his part.
Actually both camps are slightly off kilter in my opinion. Dr. Mouw believes that the Canons of Dort teach that God has given “common grace” that relaxes the effects of depravity allowing men to accomplish civic and social good. But the Canon does not teach this — it actually says the opposite.
Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature: There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him–so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.
One the other hand:
Engelsma’s argument against “common grace” is strictly in contrast to the liberal definition of “common grace” as affirmed by the CRC and Dr. Mouw. Historically, others of the Reformed faith also would not agree with the CRC’s definition. So Engelsma’s says things in an absolute way that pitted against the CRC sounds true, but pitted against, say Hodge, seems false. I think this is unfortunate. Engelsma seems guilty of associating everyone who affirms the doctrine of “common grace” with the CRC’s definition. I agree that there are problems with even the historical definitions that need to be thought out and clarified, but I know that not all who believe in the concept of “common grace” are thinking of it the same way.
For example, Scott Hill sent me an article where Dr. Matthew Mcmahon explains that God displays in some sense love upon all men. Dr. Mcmahon also, like myself, does not like the term “common grace” but refers to this particular action of God as God’s indiscriminate providence. [I like to use the term "common goodness" because all that God does is good, even when he judges the wicked.]
Through His “indiscriminate providence” God demonstrates intended goodness and thus reveals His glory to the wicked by lavishing upon them worldly goods. Without such acts of God’s love, one would really have nothing to reject or rebel against in order to procure God’s wrath. But the sinner does reject God’s goodness and love and thus fills his measure of condemnation.
In this manner all men are guilty, all are sinners, all have fallen short of God’s glory.
Thankfully in Christ God has loved the elect in a particular way. This elect was among the same group that procured the wrath and hatred of God “in Adam.” But now “in Christ” they find themselves thankful for the grace of God — for God has now loved them as He loves His own Son.
Maybe Scott will write a full post on Dr. Macmahon’s essay.
But so far, I hope those who read these posts have come to appreciate the debate. It is not insignificant, nor is it simple. Both sides desire for God’s glory to be revealed. Both sides are striving to have a Biblical understanding of LOVE.
And it saddens me that some, even as noted on Fide-O, just label one side or the other and pooh-pooh the whole debate. I do not believe Engelsma is completely correct, but neither is he truly a “hyper-Calvinist.” And yet he and the PRC has become the whipping boy of Calvinists who are afraid of being labeled as extreme, unloving, or hyper.
As I have read these posts, it seems to me that some of the problem comes from the hyper-labeling and hyper-definition of God’s character beyond what the scriptures reveal. Eventually, you can’t see the forest for the pine needles.
If the question ever comes to us withholding God’s love and grace from the world (and there are some who make this argument), then we have lost sight of the One who sent His Son to seek and save that which was lost.
Jason, you say you think both camps are off-kilter, but in your analysis of Engelsma, it seems like you disagree with his characterization of the other position rather than Engelsma’s position itself. So would it be safe to say that you agree with Engelsma’s position? If not, why not?
I’ve found D. A. Carson’s “Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God” to be particularly helpful on this topic, and I recommend it everyone.
A little something to naw on: “Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘One thing you lack…” (Did he receive recognition for what good he had done in his life?) And Rom. 2:14 “For when the Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,…their thoughts accusing or excusing them.”
Elnwood,
I agree with Engelsma on certain things as he corrects Dr. Mouw. And then there are things that I do not agree with Engelsma — basically I think Engelsma does not leave room for a belief that God does good things for the unelect without it being related somehow to the elect. Though this belief is not hyper-Calvinism, it is still off kilter in my opinion. Stay tuned for posts on Fide-o on these very distinctions.
A question for people to consider, and the way Herman Hoeksema (alarm bells start going off for some!) often frames it: Is grace to be found in “things,” or in Christ? ie. is it grace that causes the rain to also fall on the wicked? or is there another reason for this to occur? Opponents of common grace believe that grace is only found in Christ and the word “charis” is used in scripture to denote that. If it is true that grace is only found in Christ, and not in “things”, then there is no such thing as “common” grace.
I haven’t read enough Engelsma to know if he also argues that but this is a common argument used by those opposed to the notion.
Grace is not a substance but God’s udeserved mercy. In some sense it can be applied to God’s giving unbelievers good things in this life and not sending them to hell right away (as He might). In this sense I believe in common grace, yet I cannot ignore those passages that state God’s hatred not only for sin but for sinners. Thus I’d have to go with Robertson and Engelsma on this one.
PS. I just thought of this point. There are things God may do that we may not, simply because He is God and we are not. Since God is the ‘Judge of all the earth’, He stands in a different relation to mankind than we do. Failure to recognise this leads to serious and STARTLING consequences (yes, the caps are something of a joke). One of them is Steve Chalke’s ‘divine child abuse’ blasphemy, another would be a denial of hell, etc.
I think Prof. Engelsma is right on the ball on this one. Since God loved us, though we were His enemies, we love OUR enemies.
Mr. Engelsma demonstrates clearly that God hates sinners. But his conclusion that He does not love them in a logical leap. His contention, logically, is that H = ~L. But this isn’t warranted. Only ~L = ~L. H = H. H ≠ ~L! Engelsma has constructed a false dichotomy between love and hatred. God has a love-hate relationship with the workers of iniquity. He does not love all equally and alike, to be sure; but He does love all.
http://tartantalk.yuku.com/topic/429/t/Two-wills–meant-offer-John-Piper—Arminian-thrown—free-.html
Regards
Mark aka Tartanarmy
“Is grace to be found in “things,” or in Christ?”
Of course, the simple rejoinder to that argument is that we thus say that, at the Cross, Christ purchased common grace for all, and not simply the elect. That, to me, is an answer which comports with large chunks of the big story of the Bible: cross as victory, God’s love as prior, Christ as the first object of the Father’s purposes. It also gives us a handle on how Christ’s death can purchase blessing for all–indeed, even to be “for the sin of the world”–without abandoning a commitment to Christ’s purchase of his kingdom (limited atonement).
Phil Walker is absolutely correct. Christ purchased common grace for all. It is because of Christ’s work on the cross that God can bless the reprobate, as He does all the time. It is because of the cross that men are not now consumed. This world is the only taste of heaven the reprobate will ever get, and it is amazing what good things God, out of love, bestows on them, though they reject Him in return. Don’t get me wrong: I believe in definite atonement, but all the same, I believe there is a sense in which Christ did die for all people indiscriminately. That is not say He bore everyone’s sins. It is only to say that because of the cross God can benevolently interact with all people indiscriminately and bless them.
Furthermore, our conduct is based on God’s. We are to tell the truth because God is truthful. David hated those who hated God (Psalm 139:21). Was that a vice? I think not. And yet, we are unequivocally to love our enemies, including God’s enemies. God hates the workers of iniquity. So did David. David was simultaneously required to love. Why? Because God loves. It is therefore necessarily possibly that we can speak of a love-hate relationship with the wicked. We can derive from scripture that we must have such a disposition toward them. Why? Because such is the disposition of God towards unbelievers. He hates them, yes. And He loves them, too!