Loveland
Protestant Reformed Church
709 East 57th
Street; Loveland, CO 80538
Services: 9:30
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. June through August)
Vol. 5, No. 5 Pastor: Rev. G. Van Baren Phone: (970) 667-9481
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
Turning
God’s Grace into Lasciviousness (2)
Unconditional
Obedience to Government?
There
are many today who prefer to speak of the gospel as an offer rather than a
call. It is interesting, to say the
least, that Scripture NEVER uses the word "offer" to describe the
gospel.
We have no objection to the word
"offer" as such. In its older
sense it only means that in the gospel there is a "showing-forth" of
Christ. The Westminster Larger
Catechism, for example, defines an offer of Christ as a "testimony"
that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved (64).
In its modern sense, however, the word
"offer" suggests and is used to teach (1) that God loves all men and
wants to save every one of them; (2) that He even makes an effort to save them;
and (3) that He is, however, dependent on the will of the sinner whether the
sinner is saved. This is contrary to
Scripture.
Scripture does not teach that God loves
all men (Ps. 11:5, Jn. 13:1, Rom. 9:13) nor does it teach that He is trying to
save all of them, i.e., to give them salvation (Is. 6:9-11, Rom. 9:18, II Cor.
2:14-16). Certainly it does not teach
that God in saving sinners can be frustrated by their unwillingness, or that He
waits, cap in hand, as it were, for them to accept His salvation (Ps.
115:3, Jn. 6:44, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:8-9).
For these reasons we prefer not to speak of the gospel as a well-meaning
offer.
On the other hand, the Biblical word
"calling" is different. It
reminds us of the sovereignty of God.
He, as King, summons sinners to believe and obey the gospel. It even intimates that He actually does
bring some to salvation by His sovereign call.
When we remember that it is GOD who calls, it is not difficult to
understand this. He is the one who
"calls those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17).
That call is heard in the preaching of
the gospel. It is made effectual unto
salvation by the inward work of the Holy Spirit, so that some not only hear but
also obey that call. But we would
emphasize that even in the preaching of the gospel it is God in Christ
who calls, not the preacher. The
preacher is only an instrument.
That is the reason the ungodly are
condemned for disobedience when they refuse to heed the call. By their unbelief they do not refuse a mere
man, but the living God Himself as He speaks through His only-begotten Son. That is serious.
It is also the reason the preacher must
bring nothing but Scripture. Those who
hear must hear God's Word, not the preacher's notions, philosophies, political
commentaries, etc. The preacher must
even be careful that he does not obscure the sovereign God's call by adding all
sorts of unnecessary begging or "hard-sell" tactics that leave the
impression that God waits upon the sinners will.
It must be clear in the preaching of
the gospel that God sovereignly demands faith and repentance of sinners - that
He, the Almighty, the Judge of heaven and earth requires obedience and will
punish disobedience. By such preaching
sinners are saved and God glorified. Rev. Ronald Hanko
Turning
God’s Grace into Lasciviousness (2)
For there are certain men crept
in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men,
turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 4.
In
our last article we began a discussion of an important question sent in by a
reader concerning the passage in Jude 4.
I quote the entire question. “Of
course, this verse is one of the relatively few times the NT mentions reprobation. My question is about the phrase, ‘turning
the grace of our God into lasciviousness.’
I have seen this phrase used to teach that God’s sovereign grace is
resistible when shown to the wicked reprobate.
I know that that explanation is in error. But what does the phrase mean?
And why is the phrase used in a verse about the reprobate? Were the false teachers antinomians who were
perverting the truth of salvation by grace to excuse immoral behavior? Does the ‘grace of our God’ refer to the
grace God has shown to the Christians in the church, which the false teachers
were distorting, rather than grace that was actually shown to the false
teachers (since they received none)?”
We
were discussing in our last article a few other aspects of the text before we
get at the main question which concerns the clause: "turning the grace of
God into lasciviousness." In
particular we were discussing whether or not the text teaches divine reprobation. I had pointed out that the words in the text
translated "before ordained" can also mean "before
written." Many appeal to this
translation and deny that the text teaches divine and sovereign reprobation.
We
granted that this was a possible translation and that indeed it was true that
the Scriptures written prior to Jude's epistle often spoke of such ungodly men
who creep unawares into the church, and Scripture over and over again warns the
church against such men.
Nevertheless,
the translation of the AV is also a proper translation of the word used in the
Greek. In fact, the idea of being
written before (in a Scripture infallibly inspired by God Himself) surely
implies also that they were ordained before unto this condemnation that they
would creep unawares into the church to corrupt it.
But
it must be remembered that although their motives are to corrupt the church,
they cannot do this. The very fact that
they are ordained before means that they serve a purpose in the church ordained
by God. They cannot destroy the church,
nor can they lead one elect away from Christ.
Their purpose is to corrupt the church; but God's purpose for them,
which is always realized, is to purify the church. It may seem as if their efforts are successful when they lead
many astray and the church is reduced in size.
But the fact is that they are ordained by God for the purpose of serving
the good of the church. Those who are
led astray fit the category of men described by John in I John 2:19: "They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be
made manifest that they were not all of us." And when these men who are led astray by those who corrupt the
gospel leave, the church is purified.
But
what John writes is true when the church is faithful and expels from her
fellowship these ungodly men who change the grace of God into
lasciviousness. If the church refuses
to expel such ungodly men -- and this is increasingly true in our day when we
are told to love everyone, tolerate every one's opinions, and permit everyone
with any heresy to remain in the church; if, I say, the church refuses to expel
ungodly men, the church signs her own death warrant. But even then, the church of Christ is not harmed, for Christ calls
the faithful out that they may, through church reformation, re-establish the
church of Christ.
In
our next issue we will answer the specific question of the reader. Prof.
Herman Hanko
We
would offer to you, our reader, a free copy of the latest Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal (Nov. 1998).
It contains articles of interest to any Reformed person. There is a continued article by Rev. Henry
Danhof on “The Idea of the Covenant of Grace.” Another article treats the “Kingdom and Church in ‘Christian’
Reconstruction” by Rev. Ronald Hanko.
Another article gives an interpretation of the views of John
Davenant—was he Reformed or a “Tarnished Stone?” The magazine contains also a number of interesting book
reviews. Write us for your free copy.
Unconditional
Obedience to Government?
A
reader has asked: "Was the late William Symington, theologian of the Free
Church of Scotland, right when he stated, 'Without confounding all moral
distinctions it is impossible to suppose that the lawfulness of a power depends
solely on the fact of its existence.
People say, If a government exists them it must be of God. The Bible says no such thing, and if the
Bible did say such a thing, it would be contradicting its own principles of
purity, equity and judgment'?"
This question is important. If the mere fact of a government's existence
does not mean it is from God, then there are certain governments that have no
divine warrant for their existence. And
the injunction against resistance does not apply in such cases. Against such governments we may rebel.
If the mere fact that a government
exists means that it is of God, then there are no circumstances under which we
may rebel or resist. Then unconditional
submission is required. This, we
believe, is what the Bible teaches.
Romans 13:1 clearly says that the
"sole fact" of a government's existence means that it is ordained of
God. We know of no other way to
interpret the reference to "the powers that be." Indeed, the words could very well be
translated "the existing powers."
We believe, therefore, that Symington was wrong.
Trying to get around these words, some
have insisted that they refer to the powers that existed when Paul was writing
his epistle to the Romans. If that is
the case, then Romans 13:1-7 has nothing at all to say to us, for we are no
longer under Roman rule, and that part of Scripture is made null and void
today.
Nor as Symington suggests, does this
contradict Biblical principles of purity, equity and justice. The fact that these powers are ordained of
God, that is, predetermined (Is. 45:1-4) and raised up (Rom. 9:17) by God does
not mean He approves of them or of their wickedness. The very government under which Paul wrote these words was
corrupt and persecuting.
In fact, if the wickedness of a
government means it cannot be ordained by God without
"contradicting Biblical principles of purity, equity and justice"
then there is NO government that is ordained of God, except a completely
Christian government. When has there
been such a thing? Thus the teaching of
the passage is voided, for a Christian is called to submit and pay taxes to
those governments that are ordained of God.
Scripture here condemns resistance in
any form and against any government. We
must submit unconditionally (I Pet. 2:13-15, 21-23). Scripture threatens all resistance with
damnation. And we should be far more afraid of damnation
than of any government, no matter how depraved and ungodly it may be.
Nevertheless, we do not want to be
misunderstood. We speak deliberately of
submission and not obedience. Scripture
demands unconditional submission (subjection in Rom. 13:1), but not
unconditional obedience. There is a
difference.
Submission is not rebelling and
resisting (Rom. 13:2). Obedience has to
do with actually doing what the government says. That we cannot always do.
We must always obey God rather than men. But even in disobeying for God's sake and for conscience’ sake,
we may not resist and rebel. This the
examples of Jesus (I Pet. 2:21-23), Paul (Acts 23:1-5), David (I Sam. 26:8-11),
and others teach us.Rev. R.H. Ronald
Hanko