Semi-Calvinist Confusions: Common Grace and the Well Meant Offer

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:4 KJV)

3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (WCF 3:3-4 WCS)

In my last post I pointed out that the purveyors of semi-Calvinist common grace propose that there are apparent contradictions, or paradoxes in the Bible, thereby agreeing with Cornelius Van Til's view that all Scripture is apparently contradictory.  The problem arises when no solutions to the apparent contradictions are offered, and the contradiction is allowed to stand with no further attempt at harmonization or rational solution.  According to their view, it would be prying into the secret counsel of God to give rational explanations for paradoxes in the Bible.

The Calvinista common grace disrupters contend that God both desires to save all individuals without exception and does not decree the salvation of all individuals without exception. This view fails to distinguish between God's revealed will to promiscuously give a general call of the Gospel to all who will hear the Gospel, (Matthew 22:14), and the effectual call of regeneration.  (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3-8).  This general presentation is a call of the Gospel on the part of humans who are limited in knowledge.  But does it mean that Calvinists should preach the Gospel as if we were all Arminians?  The answer is no.  But that is what Scott Clark wants us to do.  He wants us to tell all of the human race that Christ died for them, knowing full well that the Bible teaches particular atonement and particular redemption, not a universal atonement.  This is just one example of the contradictions in R. Scott Clark's theology.  God does not literally desire the salvation of every single individual.  Since we do not know who is elect and who is not, we must promiscuously preach to all.  The difference is in how we frame the Gospel call.  We must be faithful to the biblical confessions of faith, especially the Westminster Confession of Faith, if we are to claim to be Reformed.  I would contend that the common grace doctrine betrays this dedication to the truth of Scripture as summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Obviously, when the word "all" is used, it does not literally mean all in every context, so RSC's exegesis is duplicitous at best.  If all of Jerusalem came to hear Jesus preach, does it literally mean that every single person in the city came to hear Him preach?  I think not.  In the same way, when God declares that He wishes for all men to be saved, the deduced conclusion is that He wishes to save all of His elect from among the entire human race.  It is our duty to fulfill that general call because it is commanded in the great commission.  (Matthew 28:18-20).

Scott Clark thinks that there are actual contradictions in God's eternally unchanging mind.  Clark can say that because he thinks that the archetypal knowledge of God is absolutely unknowable, rendering the predestination question a merely theoretical doctrine that should never be defended or mentioned in any evangelistic context whatsoever.  But if God's secret will is unknowable in regards to individuals, does it mean that we should never preach on the terrible doctrine of predestination, especially when it has a dual outcome of election to salvation and reprobation to damnation?  According to Scott Clark, that will not preach, so we should just not say anything about it.  But what does John Calvin say about this?  Calvin actually puts RSC's view in the mouth of the opponents; it is to be refuted.

1 Timothy 2:4 means that God wants to save His elect from every class of mankind, high and low.  It does not literally mean universal salvation for all of mankind as the Arminians, the Unitarian Universalists, and the common grace Semi-Calvinists contend.  The general call of the Gospel does not prove that God literally desires to save everyone head for head, as the purveyors of paradox contend.  Rather, the general call of the Gospel is preached to all indiscriminately because we do not know whom God has individually elected.  He wants us to preach to all so that the elect may be gathered from all nations and classes of men.  The common grace people take this is as a contradiction with no solution.  See Calvin's Commentaries: 

4. Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?

And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth,” (Rom. 1:16,) it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. “If God,” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestinated by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.” They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.

But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, “Now, kings, understand,” and again, in the same Psalm, “I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession.” (Ps. 2:8, 10.)

In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbour is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavour for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.

Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4.

Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Print.]