On the common grace controversy: Rebuttal to Tony Byrne regarding the 'common grace' interpretation of Rom. 2:4

[continued from here; topic continuation from here and here]

We have previously read and exegeted the text of Rom. 2:4 in its context in the post here. I should have addressed Byrne's interpretation of Rom. 2:4 first, but I was too focused on the quotes Byrne quoted from the Reformers and Puritans to notice this. Now that we are done, we can go back and look once more at Byrne's particular interpretation of this verse, as stated here.

Before we start, let's add some clarification to the exegesis of Rom. 2:1-5, with regards to how the concept of the kindness of God obligating people to repent instead of leading them to repentance is derived. The truth is, it is both, but to different peoples. This kindness of God whose intention is to lead people to repentance will find its fulfilment in the elect individuals who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. And the salvation of these individuals from the Jewish stock, and therefore meaning from the OT Church, would indicate that God's intention to save as a collective have been fulfilled. Therefore, God's kindness is meant to lead people to repentance (v. 4) and it DOES lead people to repentance. That not everybody is led to repentance is not the issue, since the verse is talking about people collectively here.

The concept of obligation is derived from the tension of the God's intention for the collective and its overflow benefits to the reprobates within the collective Church. Since the reprobates individually belong to the collective whose intention was unto salvation, they should turn to Christ in repentance, seeing that God has showered them with so much blessing (the 'benevolence' of God). They therefore are obligated to repent because of God's benevolence to them as they are in the Church collectively.

Now, Byrne in this short post of his focuses mainly on the force of the Greek word agei. However, that isn't the issue for us. It may pose a problem to true hyper-Calvinists, but for us who can learn to differentiate between the individual and the collective, this is not a problem for us. We can always affirm that God's patience is meant to lead people to repentance in the collective sense (primarily with regards to the Covenant people and then to others), but not in the individual sense, and most definitely not to the class of reprobates both collectively nor individually.

Interestingly enough, Byrne perhaps unwittingly showed us more into his Amyraldian bent by mentioning the 'universal aspect of the atonement', which undermines his stated belief in the 'L' of TULIP. Now, I am not saying that those in the modern Amyraldian camp do not believe in Limited Atonement; they may, but their atonement is limited in the sense only of ultimate intent, not of God's intent in general, and that is what Byrne seems to be teaching too.

Some may remember that I have done a couple of series previously on the proclamation of the Gospel, in which I have defined the term Neo-Amyraldism as being the belief in the two wills of God (or two-fold will) as long as one will or part intends the salvation of all (universal aspect of the atonement) and the other will or part intends the salvation of some (Limited Atonement). The reason why I used the term 'Amyraldism' as te root form to describe the modern 'common grace' belief is because both classical Amyraldism and this belief are derived from Calvinism, and both have a disjunction in the wills and decrees of God. Classical Amyraldism postulated a disjunction by making the latter will of God with the intention to save some abrogate the former will of God to save all, although in fairness it must be stated that God in the middle decrees Man to save so that He cannot save all. The modern variery postulates a disjunction too, but it is even worse because now both wills operate at the same time (the timeline of the world), and on the same level (soteriology). Since no other belief is so close to Calvinism and postulates a disjunction within the wills of God on the same subject title (the Will of God) on the same level (soteriology) as Amyraldism, therefore the term Neo-Amyraldism is best suited for describing the 'common gracers'.

I would end this series, and being interaction with Tony Byrne on this topic with a look at this statement:

1) Common grace is based in intentional love (see Matt. 5:44-45).

Mt. 5:44-45 teaches the general benevolence of God towards His Creation. First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation or soteriology so such is not teaching 'common salvific grace'. Secondly, Byrne is commiting the fallacy of amphiboly when using the phrase 'intentional love' and also 'common grace'. For example, Byrne uses the phrase common grace in his point 2 with regards to Rom. 2:4, which even if that was correct (it has been shown wrong above), refers to 'common salvific grace' while in Mt. 5:44-45, it refers to 'common providential grace' or just providence. With regards to the phrase 'intentional love', is Byrne using it to mean that God has a reason behind his providence, which is the meaning of Mt. 5:44-45, or that God has an intention to use that for something else like wanting people to repent, which is what Byrne would use it for at the end. Note his summary statement of the chain of thoughts:

5) Common grace is intentional love (point #1) granted to all men so that they might be encouraged to repent (point #2) and be saved (point #3) by means of Christ's satisfaction (point #4).

I'm sorry, but this is just plainly unorthodox. This denies Limited Atonement in its true sense, and makes God out to be the eternally frustrated and schizophrenic God who is always making a genuine effort to save all but yet he doesn't actually wants to save all. However, I agree with Byrne that Calvinists should return to something more akin to Calvin's theology, or that of the major Reformers and Puritans, and that Byrne too should heed his own words instead of reading their writings through the glasses of American individualism.

[The End; for now]