On the common grace controversy: The Reformers and Puritans on Rom. 2:4 Or A rebuttal to Tony Byrne's misquotation of their words

[Topic continuation from here and here]

I will now take the first step to engage Tony Bryne and the various stuff that he has posted onto his blog in order to prop up his support of Neo-Amyraldism. Anyway, here is the post I will primarily be interacting with. Please note that as stated in my first post on the topic, I will just need to show that the words of the Reformers and Puritans can need be interpreted differently from how Byrne is (mis)interpreting them, and in a way consistent with the worldview of the Reformers and Puritans, in order to prove that Byrne is not being correct in his appropriating them to support his neo-Amryldism. Without further to do, let us look at the quotes.

This is the first quote purportedly from Calvin, as taken from Tony's blog, which is claimed to support the Neo-Amyraldian view of 'common salvific grace':

"...the Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by an argument taken from a reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for them to think that God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to them, since the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to convert sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule, confidence, on account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great goodness. It hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those whom God has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other wickedness, they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all the gifts of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often has a different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and bountifully supports them.

And hre is the full commentary of Rom. 2:4 as taken from the real source:

It does not seem to me, as some think, that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds, (dilemma,) but an anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are commonly transported with prosperity, as though they had merited the Lord’s kindness by their good deeds, and become thus more hardened in their contempt of God, the Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by an argument taken from a reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for them to think that God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to them, since the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to convert sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule, confidence, on account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great goodness. It hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those whom God has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other wickedness, they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all the gifts of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often has a different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and bountifully supports them. (Online source)

Notice the words which Tony has conveniently ommitted, which sounds out the context upon which Calvin make the statements that he has made. The words which are ommitted are:

It does not seem to me, as some think, that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds, (dilemma,) but an anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are commonly transported with prosperity, as though they had merited the Lord’s kindness by their good deeds, and become thus more hardened in their contempt of God, ... (Bold added)

We can see that the later statements made by Calvin used by Byrne to prop up his doctrine of 'common salvific grace' actually do not do so. As it can be seen, Calvin applies these statements to the class of those he called the 'hypocrites'. It is these people whom God is blessing in order to 'lead them to repentance'. Who these people are must be seen also in the larger context. In Calvin's commentary of Rom. 2:1, the class of 'hypocrites' are mentioned as those who 'dazzle the eyes of men by displays of outward sanctity' and yet transgressed the law. Calvin therefore had in mind the religious hypocrites who are found within the bosom of the Visible Church (until they are kicked out if they are indeed ever kicked out).

And since such is the case, Calvin's exposition of Rom. 2:4 takes on a more comprehensive light. What Calvin is teaching is NOT 'common salvific grace', but that the kindness, forebearance and patience of God is directed towards those who are within the Visible Church. As Calvin mentioned about their arrogance due to God's benevolance to them (on account of their being in the Covenant), yet he shows that, just like the Jews which Paul had in mind, the benevolance of God towards them is in order to obligate them to repent and turn to Him.

With that, let us turn to Byrne's pointers which he thinks Calvin is here teaching:

1) The "design" of God's "benevolence" is "to convert sinners to himself."

2) God's "goodness" is associated with this conversion seeking benevolence that some mock and show contempt for in their vain "prosperity."

3) God's "benevolence" and "goodness" are then associated with his "favor."

My response to this is to define the group of 'sinners' which Calvin had in mind. Calvin had in mind here the religious hypocrites, not just any sinner.

4) Conversion seeking goodness, benevolence and favor are then associated with God's "fatherly invitation," and those who are to receive "a heavier punishment" are in view, i.e. the reprobate who hear the "fatherly invitation."

5) "All the gifts" that they receive are evidences of God's "paternal goodness" toward the "ungodly."

6) God is said to "kindly" and "bountifully" support them through their prosperity.

All of such is true as long as we know whom Calvin was talking about; he was talking about religious hypocrites within the Visible professing Church, not just any Tom, Dick and Harry.

Other quotes from Calvin suffer from the same problem. Byrne has shown himself unable to grasp the very idea of the collective, and of course of Covenantal Theology. Disagree with the concept of Covenant Theology if you may, but at least he should realize and respect that the Reformers and Puritans believe in it and applied it to their theology. Even the early Baptists (ie the English Particular Baptists) had a framework more similar to Covenantal Theology compared to the individualistic American mindset, which is displayed by Byrne in his misquotation of the Reformer John Calvin. The refusal to differentiate between individuals and collective, which is the only way to understand Rom. 2:4 without causing it to create a logical contradiction in the Bible (something which Neo-Amyraldism does), is jettisoned by these baptists who are do not know when the Bible talks about individuals and when the collective is being mentioned.

Byrne then mentioned the Puritan John Flavel, and in another post posted a full excerpt from his now archived book:

2. The Lord exercises this patience towards sinners, thereby to lead them to repentance; this is the direct intention of it. The Lord desires and delights to see ingenuous relentings and brokenness of heart for sin; and there is nothing like his forbearance and patience in promoting such an evangelical repentance. All the terrors of the law will not break the heart of a sinner, as the patience and long-suffering of God will; therefore it is said that the goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering of God, lead men to repentance. Rom. 2:4. These are fitted to work upon all the principles of humanity which incline men to repentance; reason, conscience, gratitude, feel the influences of the goodness of God herein, and melt under it. Thus Saul's heart relented: "Is this thy voice, my son David? and Saul lifted up his voice and wept. And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil." 1 Sam. 24:16, 17. Thus the goodness and forbearance of God doth, as it were, take a sinner by the hand, lead him into a corner, and say, "Come, let us talk together; thus and thus vile hast thou been, and thus and thus long-suffering and merciful has God been to thee; thy heart has been full of sin, the heart of thy God has been full of pity and mercy." This dissolves the sinner into tears, and breaks his heart in pieces. If any thing will melt a hard heart, this will do it. How good has God been to me. How have I tried his patience to the uttermost, and still he waits to be gracious, and is exalted that he may have compassion. The sobs and tears, the ingenuous relentings of a sinner's heart, under the apprehensions of the sparing mercy and goodness of God, are the music of heaven.

Or course, conveniently overlooked from this is the context. This was most probably taken from a sermon preached by Flavel, and nothing from here proves anything related to the novel idea of 'common salvific grace'. Remeber that the Reformers and Puritans generally hold to Covenant Theology, and the principle of the collective, thus there is no problem with stating that Christ exhorts and desires to see sinners save; that he is kind to sinners as a group (which is after all an application of Rom. 2:4). Flavel here is exhorting sinners as a collective to repent, not writing a theological treatise on how God has given 'common savific grace' to each individual sinner which seeks their ultimate well-being. The confusing of the two again is the reason why Byrne continues to read his novelty into the writings of these great men.

Lastly, we would look into John Howe's words as written by Byrne here. I could not ascertain the source, however, and I don't have the book, so I will just take it that Bryne has quoted it in context.

3. Consider the forbearance of God towards you, while you are continually at mercy. With what patience doth he spare you, though your own hearts must tell you that you are offending creatures, and whom he can destroy in a moment! He spares you that neglect him. He is not willing that you should perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth, that you may be saved; by which he calls and leads you to repentance, Rom. ii 4. On God's part, here is a kind intention; but on man's part, nothing but persevering enmity.

I agree with Byrne that Howe seems to be alluding to 2 Peter 3:9 ("He is not willing that you should perish") and 1 Tim. 2:4 ("come to the knowledge of the truth, that you may be saved"). However, that makes Byrne's case even worse. For unless you agree with the Arminian eisegesis of the texts of 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4 to teach a universal intention of the atonement, a correct exegesis will show that these texts are properly applied to the people of God and specifically the elect of God. Howe is using those texts to call the individual elect in his invitation to the collective whole, using Rom. 2:4 as the text in order to convict the individual elect sinners of sin and bring them to the Savior.

In conclusion, as we have seen, Byrne does not understand the worldview of the Reformers and the Puritans, and use his individualistic American cultural glasses to interpret their writings. By failing to understand the idea of the collective, Byrne falsely read the novel idea of 'common salvific grace', first invented in its present form sometime after Van Til, Murray et al arose, into their words. Of course, if he subscribes to New Covenantal Theology, then that would confound things, since he cannot read Rom. 2:1-5 as stating that God is gracious towards His covenant people in the Jews in order to lead thm to repentance, becase one of the distinctives ofNew Covenantal Theology is the denial of any salvific intent in the covenants made in the OT.

We would end this off by looking at Byrne's understanding of Rom. 2:4, in his post here, in the next post.

[to be continued]