Basic HTML Version
426
implied contradiction. The Canons teach particular atonement,[II. 8.] and also require the
universal proclamation of the gospel.[II. 5 and III. 8.] And this is in perfect harmony with
Scripture, which teaches on the one hand, that Christ atoned only for the elect, John 10:15;
Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32,33; cf. also John 17:9; and on the other hand, that the gospel call must be
extended to all men indiscriminately, Matt. 22:2-14; 28:19; Mark 16:15,16. If it be objected that
we cannot fully harmonize the indiscriminate and sincere offer of salvation on condition of faith
and repentance with the doctrine of particular atonement, this may be admitted but with the
distinct understanding that the truth of a doctrine does not depend on our ability to harmonize
it with every other doctrine of Scripture.
3. Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable
disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a
disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His
election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and
longsuffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realization of His reprobation He gives
expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath, leading to destruction. But this
looks like a rationalistic over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take
sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful
and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold
inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our
logical categories. Are the elect in this life the objects of God’s love only, and never in any sense
the objects of His wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: “For we are
consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7. Does not the statement
of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed
from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36.
And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature children of wrath even as the
rest”? Eph. 2:3. Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of
God’s love. And if they who are the objects of God’s redeeming love can also in some sense of
the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who
are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is
also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to
visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is
under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the
traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time
showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have
compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need
not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men
and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which