The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Conclusion

 

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:16-17 KJV)

“ . . . In classical Greek pornos frequently, even usually, refers to homosexuals.  Other passages, . . . very explicitly condemn homosexuals.  For many years, even centuries, the Church has had little cause to apply these prohibitions in cases of discipline, for there was little or no such sin within the Church, but now, in the end of the twentieth century, the apostate denominations are not only condoning unnatural vice, they even form homosexual congregations.”  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Conclusion

 

I grew up in a different time in the early 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s.  As a baby boomer, I lived through the time of the invention of the color television set, the personal computer, the internet, and the evolution of the modern cellphone.  The technological advances have been enormous.  The internet and computer Bible software have greatly enhanced the spread of information about theology, biblical studies, apologetics, and a host of other sources of information about the Christian worldview.  Unfortunately, the dark side of technological advancement is the applications of those technologies for disinformation, misinformation, and outright propaganda.  In my view, this undermines the doctrine of common grace because instead of advancing the kingdom of God on earth it has instead promoted compromise, shallowness, and misusing proselytization as a form of evangelism. 

Simply getting new members to join a church is not the same thing as the command given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20.  The imperative given there is to go into the world to all nations and to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  But does the church growth movement do that?  I am not the first to answer that question in the negative.  Church has become more about appeasing sinners than speaking the truth.  Church has become more about pleasing seekers with good entertainment than about worshipping God or hearing the unadulterated word of God preached.  Instead of putting God first and the people of God first, the pragmatists have undermined solid biblical teaching and book by book expository preaching to replace it with meeting the emotional, psychological, and felt needs of the unbelievers. This approach has even descended to the level of giving homosexuals a special status.  All sin is sinful and there is nothing special about sexual immorality, especially a sexual immorality that violates basic biological nature.  God created humanity as male and female.  Genesis 1:27.  Furthermore, God made Adam head over his wife, Eve.  Patriarchy troubles modern egalitarians, but this is what the Bible says. 

God is not literally a man, yet the Bible always addresses God by masculine titles.  God is our Father, and His Son is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  The Holy Spirit is not presented by male titles, yet the pronouns used of the Holy Spirit are always masculine, not neuter.  (John 16:7; John 14:16; John 14:26.  See also:  Got Questions:  Is the Holy Spirit a “He,” “She,” or “It,” male, female, or neuter?).

The Apostle Paul makes it perfectly clear that Christians are to shun those who refuse to walk in faith and who are caught up in sexual immorality:

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. (1 Corinthians 5:6-7 NKJV).

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11 NKJV).

You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. (Galatians 5:7-10 NKJV).

Moreover, this includes both those outside the church and those who are members of the visible church.  Although it is true that the Presbyterians are not naïve about whether or not a person who makes a profession of faith is truly regenerate or not, they do require that the person makes a public profession of faith before being baptized and joining the church.  In regards to children who were baptized in infancy, they must be catechized using the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and they must make a valid profession of faith and be confirmed before partaking of the Lord’s table.  Some Presbyterians have taken this to the extreme by taking a Lutheran view of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.  But anyone familiar with church history can see that John Calvin reached a consensus with the Zwinglians on the sacraments called the Consensus of Tigurinus.  Calvin and the Zwinglians were in agreement in rejecting any sacerdotal powers in the waters of baptism or any real presence in the sacramental elements of bread and wine.  Instead, the true power of the sacraments was in being truly regenerate, having a genuine faith, and resting in the Gospel message of the word preached along with the sacrament.  Thus, it was more than just becoming a member of the church and partaking of the sacraments as some sort of magical real presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the father of the English Reformation, also took a Zwinglian and Calvinist view of the sacraments.  His treatise on the Lord’s supper plainly says that the bread and wine are called by the names that they represent and that eating the tangible elements is a metaphorical and spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ.  Only a true believer can partake of the body and blood of Christ because faith is the necessary element that makes a person worthy to partake of the consecrated bread and wine:

WCF 29.8  Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto. (Westminster Confession of Faith.  Westminster Standards.)

In the same way, in order to become a member of the visible church, one must be more than a seeker who is looking for something.  In fact, the Bible says that there is no such thing as a “seeker”.

As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” 13 “Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit”; “The poison of asps is under their lips”; 14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 And the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:10-20 NKJV)

 . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NKJV)

The pragmatic church growth movement turns the moral law and the Gospel on its head.  Instead of calling for repentance and faith, the pragmatists seek to appease unbelievers and entertain them with hypnotic contemporary praise and worship music which they have adopted from the Pentecostal/Charismatic style of worship.  There is a watered-down liturgy where a weak confession of sin is read and then a very weak corporate pronouncement of absolution.  The absolution is supposed to be a Gospel absolution, not a sacerdotal pronouncement of forgiveness as a power given to a priest or presbyter.  Of course, the church does possess the keys to the kingdom, but those keys are the preaching of the Word or Gospel message of the Bible and the right administration of the two Gospel sacraments:

1 The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. 2 To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. 3 Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offences, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. 4 For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. (WCF 30:1-4, Westminster Confessional Standards).

According to the modern church growth model, seekers should be the emphasis, not the edification of the church as a whole.  Anyone who questions the shallowness of the preaching or the ameliorated preaching of the moral law is seen as a troublemaker and a disturber of the peace of the church. 

The Revoice movement, following the church growth pragmatic principle, seeks to downplay homosexuality so that “celibate” homosexuals can join the church while still “identifying” as “gay” or “lesbian” Christians.  This is allowing wickedness and immorality into the church.  As I said in an earlier blog post, a minister preached a fairly good sermon against wokeness just prior to the November general elections.  Then in the middle of the sermon he invited homosexuals to the church and said that they are welcome there.  Would he make the same offer to current adulterers or fornicators?  “If you’re here and you’re a whoremonger or an adulterer, you’re welcome in this church.”  (See: Hebrews 13:4 KJV).  I think not.  I strongly object to the Tim Keller and Gospel Coalition approach to evangelism.  I would go so far as to say that Tim Keller was a reprobate, not a true believer.  Those who follow Tim Keller’s church growth pragmatics do not deserve the name of Christian or even Presbyterian.  They are enemies of Christ.  Any church or denomination following that model is not planting churches.  They are planting apostasy and unbelief by accommodating to the culture of homosexuality, compromise, and concession to the enemy.

The church growth movement recommends reaching out to select groups of people of one cultural group or class.  So, most church plants are directed toward suburban middle class white people.  The reason for this is obvious.  First, they have good jobs and financial security; they are able to contribute to the financial needs of the church.  This undermines the Gospel because it makes the end goal the successful planting of a financially self-sustaining church.  Furthermore, the end justifies the means.  The church planter is using utilitarian ethics to accomplish a goal.  As I said in an earlier post, parachurch ministries and even church plants were focused on homosexuals, the end result of which was disappointing.  Instead of producing a church of true converts, the result was a church full of outwardly repentant and celibate homosexuals who still identified as homosexuals instead of moving on, getting married to the opposite sex, and having a family.  Even the pastor whom I wrote said that he did not expect the homosexual to actually be attracted to the opposite sex or get married.  But the Apostle Paul expected young widows to remarry instead of being busy bodies and gossipers making trouble in the church.  Only those with the gift of celibacy should remain single, according to Paul.  (See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9; 1 Timothy 5:11-15).

One Arminian based parachurch ministry located in Orlando, Florida dissolved the ministry after its president and leadership, all former homosexuals, recanted their conversion to Christ and went back to living in their immoral and perverse homosexual lifestyle.  (See:  Exodus International:  Religion News: Ex-gay group Exodus International shuts down, president apologizes).  The efforts to cause reprobates to believe the Gospel and be converted using worldly psychology and conversion therapy does not work.  The Bible says that it is God who converts the sinner, not persuasion or secular science pretending to be “Christian”.  It is the power of the Gospel message as it is enabled by the Holy Spirit which brings about the effectual call and repentance.  Only God can bring an elect sinner to the point of conversion.  Even here, the sinner is passive in regeneration and in the perseverance of the faith which results from regeneration.   (John 3:3-8; Jude 1:24-25; 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 Corinthians 1:8). 

I therefore oppose all business and corporate models for church planting.  My approach, should I ever plant a church, would be to preach the Gospel without fear of man’s opinions.  We are to please God, not man.  If it be God’s will, then the church plant will succeed without compromising the moral law or the Gospel.  (See: Galatians 1:6-10 NKJV; Acts 5:34-39 NKJV). 

I will close here with the full quote from Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 5:8-13:

Although the case under discussion was one of incest [1 Corinthians 5:1-5], Paul uses the term “fornicators” (pornois).  Of course, incest is a kind of fornication, since a biblical marriage cannot there exist.  However, in classical Greek pornos frequently, even unusally, refers to homosexuals.  Other passages, for example, Romans 1:24, 26-27, very explicitly condemn homosexuals.  For many years, even centuries, the Church has had little cause to apply these prohibitions in cases of discipline, for there was little or no such sin within the Church, but now, in the end of the twentieth century, the apostate denominations are not only condoning unnatural vice, they even form homosexual congregations.  If these denominations were not apostate, if they were Christian, they would preach hell fire and warn these dregs of depraved humanity that against them the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, and perhaps by God’s grace induce them to cleanse their filth by the blood of Christ.

. . . In one’s everyday business, it is impossible to avoid all such associations.  . . . The command in 1 Corinthians, on the contrary, forbids the Church to have fornicators, homosexuals, incestuous persons in its membership.  The command also covers other sinners:  thieves and idolators.  Hodge remarks that this is the earliest known instance of the use of the word eidololatres.  Liddell and Scott give no earlier instance.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  First Corinthians. 1975.  Second edition.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1991). P. 84.

What changed?  What has changed is that theological liberalism and apostasy has taken over many, if not most, of the supposedly Evangelical churches, denominations, colleges and seminaries.  If we do not take a bold stance against apostasy, there could be only a small remnant of true churches left.  May God have mercy on us.

See previous posts here:  Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Part 5

 

  

“. . . The trouble with Arminianism is that it is illogical.  It retains parts of the Biblical message, but because of its unscriptural theory of free will rejects other parts.” 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001), p. 174.

 

For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. (Jn. 5:21 NKJV)

 

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Part 5

 

In a recent podcast, Tucker Carlson, a former news anchor at Fox News who is now an independent political pundit, made the point that in this technological era citizens of the United States of America are treated as commodities to be manipulated by government propaganda and leftist news organizations which work behind the scenes to manipulate the information given to the populace.  Another former reporter, Megan Basham, has exposed the fact that leftist news organizations are also working behind the scenes with Evangelical church denominations, Evangelical colleges and seminaries, and the church growth movement to change the Evangelical message from its commitment to biblical truth to an agenda of this worldly social justice called wokeism or Marxism.

The most prominent church growth advocate in Reformed circles was the late Dr. Tim Keller.  Keller’s views were openly in favor of theistic evolution, Biologos, LGBTQIA+ outreach, social justice, and other accommodations to the Marxist culture of the political left in our nation.  The argument given for doing this is that in order to reach the unchurched in our nation, we must reach them where they are.  The underlying basis for this argument was the unscriptural foundation of common grace, the free offer of the Gospel, the well meant offer, and pragmatic methods of evangelism.

As much as I do not like to appeal to my personal experience, I am old enough to remember a time before megachurches, the internet, artificial intelligence, and the church growth movement.  As a former Pentecostal of the 1980s era, I can recall that Pentecostals and Charismatics were somewhat conflicted over whether the Charismatic movement was a good thing or something bad.  But both sides boasted of the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement worldwide.  The oft repeated appeal of the movement was the explosive growth of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement in the global south, Africa, and Latin America.  Many of these countries were and are considered third world countries where many of the superstitions of the past continue in the popular culture.  So, the ground was ripe for the psychological manipulation of huge crowds at mass evangelistic campaigns organized by Charismatic preachers who taught the health and wealth gospel.  There was a huge response because the most of the people living in these countries were susceptible to being manipulated because of their extreme poverty and because of health and medical issues and the lack of access to modern healthcare facilities.

The supposed success of the church growth movement as it was adopted and promoted by Charismatics like C. Peter Wagner and Charles Kraft, was soon adopted by formerly holiness Pentecostal churches from the more classical background of the Wesley holiness and entire sanctification theology of the holiness movement of the 19^th century.  In a previous post, I mentioned that I was converted at about age 8 or 9 at a Pentecostal Church of God, (which is headquartered in Cleveland, Tennessee), located in Weaver, Alabama.  That church was thoroughly old school and classical Pentecostal with a hard focus on Christian holiness and holy living.  The minister literally scared the hell out of me that day because he was preaching a fire and brimstone message.  In modern times this kind of preaching is few and far between among Church of God Pentecostal churches, Pentecostal holiness churches, or even Assemblies of God churches.  Most of the Pentecostal movement has moved on from the holiness movement and has adopted a more Charismatic approach to evangelistic preaching.

The popularity of the church growth principles spread to other denominations afterwards, but without the emphasis on the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit or the Pentecostal emphasis on entire sanctification and the empowerment for evangelistic and supernatural service.  (See Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-4).  Southern Baptists like Rick Warren became widely popular and successful in building megachurches.  Joel Osteen de-emphasized his charismatic theology by transforming the Word of Faith doctrine into a positive thinking ministry much like the late Norman Vincent Peale’s ministry.  Osteen’s church in Houston is supposed the largest megachurch in the United States.

Methodists, Evangelical Free, Lutherans, and Presbyterians all happily jumped on the megachurch pragmatic growth bandwagon because results matter.  However, the end result was not discipleship and a growth in spiritual discipline as promised.  Instead, what ended up happening was a multitude of churches full of apparently baby Christians or blatantly unconverted sinners who just wanted to be part of the entertainment and who wanted their unfelt needs met.  The emphasis of church plants was to downplay theological differences by removing the denominational affiliation from the church sign, having superficial contemporary praise and worship songs, emulating the Charismatics who denigrated denominational divides as well.  The approach of the Charismatics was to attack denominationalism as Pharisaical and legalistic Christianity.

The same approach has been taken by the common grace Presbyterians.  They constantly attack classical Presbyterians and classical Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed variety as legalistic Pharisees, hyper-Calvinists, and navel gazers who are focused only on themselves.  Tim Keller employed this tactic many times in his videos.  Keller formulated his own catechism called the New City Catechism where he downplayed the Calvinist distinctives, the Reformed confessional standards, and the doctrines of sovereign grace like the effectual call, unconditional election and special providence.  Instead, Keller preached like an Arminian using the appeal of the doctrine of common grace, which said that God loves everyone, including the reprobate, but only gave special saving grace to the elect.  In his actual preaching, however, Keller never mentions the difference between special grace and common grace.  He only emphasized common grace while the doctrines of sovereign grace faded into the background.  I should also mention that Keller’s catechism is not part of any reformed doctrinal standard.  The Three Points of Common Grace of 1924 are not the official doctrine of any modern Reformed denomination except the Christian Reformed Church, although most of the Reformed churches act as if common grace is official doctrine.

Keller used common grace as well to justify moving his focus from personal conversion to a more group oriented theology of social justice, theistic evolution, and forging pragmatic Christian community over and above Gospel focused evangelism.  Another compromise made by Keller was to stop focusing on sanctification as a process and instead to preach only justification by faith alone.  The Westminster standards, in contrast, focused on a preaching of the three uses of the moral law of God and then preaching the Gospel.  The pedagogical use of the moral law was supposed to show the sinner that he or she was lost and without any hope of keeping God’s law perfectly or of meriting or earning any forgiveness for their sins.  Of course, Keller did mention this pedagogical use of the law at times in order to emphasize justification by faith alone.  But because sanctification was not emphasized, Keller’s view, much like the Escondido, California version of Westminster theology, was much more closely related to a once saved always saved Baptist version of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

The Presbyterian denominations today by and large do not preach the holiness of God or that the assurance of salvation can be lost without any change in the habits of the converted believer.  The one exception would be the Ligonier Ministries, but even here the doctrines of the free offer of the Gospel and common grace prevails.  The free offer teaches that God desires to save everyone but has not decreed to save everyone head for head.  This is a blatantly contradictory proposition.  If God truly desired or wished to save everyone, then surely God would have decreed to save everyone head for head; He would have unconditionally elected everyone;  He would have given everyone special saving grace or the effectual call.  In other words, common grace and the doctrine of the well meant offer or free offer of the Gospel teaches that God’s will is twofold.  In one aspect, God is powerless to save anyone, just like the Arminians!  In the other aspect, God’s will is not frustrated, and He saves those whom He has predetermined in eternity to save.  This is violation of the law of contradiction.  In other words, just as I cannot both go to lunch and not got to lunch.  Obviously, if God is Almighty and can do whatever He pleases, then whatever God has decreed to come to pass is what God desires and wills to do.  God has only one will.  The command to repent and believe the Gospel is the prescriptive will of God, not an emotional appeal based on some fake offer of salvation to those who are predestined to reprobation.

When the Scriptures say that God does not desire that anyone should perish, those passages are always directed either to the Old Testament congregation or nation of Israel or to the New Testament church.  None of those passages are directed to the pagan nations or to anyone outside of the church.  (See: 2 Peter 3:21 NKJV, and Ezekiel 33:11).  Even then, God does desire that some of the Israelites would perish:

". . .indeed, therefore, I will stretch out My hand against you, and give you as plunder to the nations; I will cut you off from the peoples, and I will cause you to perish from the countries; I will destroy you, and you shall know that I am the LORD." (Ezekiel 25:7 NKJV).

The warning passages apply to everyone without exception, yet on the elect are preserved from apostasy by God.  (See Romans 11).  Those of us who oppose common grace and the free offer are not hyper-Calvinists.  Even the Prostestant Reformed Churches in America advocate for the promiscuous preaching of the general call of the Gospel to everyone without exception.  This is not hyper-Calvinism at all.  The difference is between what doctrines are taught and emphasized.  Classical Calvinism teaches that God hates the wicked and the reprobate, not that God loves everyone in general, but that He has a special love for the elect.  In fact, in providential time on earth, even the elect are under God’s wrath temporarily until they are effectually called, though God does love them from all eternity.  (See Romans 9:11-13).

The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: "Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you. (Jeremiah 31:3 NKJV).

In his commentary on Westminster Confession of Faith, Dr. Gordon H. Clark says:

Someone may be tempted to say that although God undoubtedly calls the elect, he does not call them only, as the Confession says.  Does not God call everybody?  The answer to this question is to be found by searching the Scriptures.  John 12:39, 40 says, “They could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”  In Romans 11:7 we read, “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”  Since God does all that he pleases (Psalm 135:6), and since his causative power is omnipotent, it follows that he has not called the lost, but the elect only.

Of course, ministers and evangelists call people too.  That is, they preach the Gospel publicly.  But the effective call, the call that actually produces the proper response, comes from God alone.

Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?, p. 114.

Only by rejecting biblical logic, biblical and propositional revelation, can anyone preach Arminianism and the compromises of the neo-reformed churches.  Are some of these people truly converted and effectually called by God?  Certainly some of them can be.  I myself was converted under Pentecostal holiness preaching in the mid 1960s.  But should we be compromising with Arminianism or the church growth movement?  I don’t think so.  In fact, many of the megachurches today have little to no difference with outright theological liberalism and leftist immorality.  Tim Keller’s evangelism is a good example of that.  He openly promoted the idea that homosexuals cannot be changed by God and that we should just accept them as celibate Christians.  But the Bible says that celibacy is a gift of God, not a moral imperative given to immutable homosexuals.

I could go on.  However, I will take a break here and continue this series in Part 6. 

You can read my previous posts on The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth here:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.  

See the conclusion here:  Conclusion.

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Part 3

  

2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation.  John Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:2.

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Part 3

 

In this blog post I will now consider how the free offer of the Gospel and the 19^th and 20^th century doctrine of common grace is related.  In future posts I will then show how the free offer or well meant offer of the Gospel and common grace have influenced the pragmatic approach to church growth and evangelism.

The most controversial downgrade of Calvinistic Reformed theology since the Protestant Reformation happened in 1924 when the Christian Reformed Church decided that God loves the reprobate, that the reprobate can do civic good, and that there is some hope that those who appear to be reprobate can be persuaded to accept the effectual call of the Gospel.  Of course, modern day semi-Calvinists will tell you that this is only an apparent contradiction or paradox.  The controversy at Kalamazoo, Michigan began when certain moderate theologians in the Christian Reformed Church passed the Three Points of Common Grace at the 1924 General Synod and later excommunicated the conservative Dutch Reformed pastors and theologians who dissented from the compromising document.  The deposed ministers then formed the Protestant Reformed Churches in America.  (See:  The Three Points of Common Grace).

Early on in my theological education I learned that accommodation to the surrounding culture leads to compromise, to theological liberalism and even universalism.  Even the classical Pentecostals at the Assemblies of God Bible college where I did my undergraduate studies warned students about the dangers of theological liberalism.  However, today, semi-Calvinist reformed denominations or churches are telling its laity that there is nothing to see here and that they are actually Evangelicals and conservatives.  Just recently, Dr. Neil Stewart, the senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church, which is part of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination, asserted that this is one of the most conservative denominations in America.  Either Dr. Stewart is ignorant of the controversies going on behind the scenes at the presbytery level and at the denominational seminary and college, i.e. Erskine Theological Seminary, and Erskine College, or Dr. Stewart is deliberately misleading the congregants.  (See:  Dissolution of the Catawba Presbytery;  see also, William B. Evans:  A Change in Ecclesial Affiliation).

If the doctrine of common grace is true, why is it that society is waxing worse and worse and not better and better?  The basic premise of the doctrine of common grace is that God loves the entire human race but has a special love for the elect.  Unfortunately, this leaves the semi-Calvinists open to the charge of elitism.  Calvinists are special, do you not know?  The Bible, on the other hand, says that the entire human race is fallen in Adam and under the wrath of God.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 5:12-14).  Such love!  The apparent contradiction or paradox here is that God supposedly loves and desires the salvation of the reprobate; but the reprobate have decided to damn themselves and frustrate God’s desire to save them.  Of course, this would imply that God only reprobates them because He foresaw that they would harden their hearts and refuse to be saved.  But is this not Arminianism?  Does God need to look into the future to learn what will happen in order to make His eternal and timeless decree?

Not only is the culture and society at large getting worse, but it seems to me that Evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries are on a downward spiral as well.  Church splits and new seminaries and colleges are formed as liberalism arises; Yet, in time these same organizations and denominations tend to drift into liberalism themselves.  Even the terms Evangelical and reformed have been redefined in ways that are foreign to their original meaning.  Even Roman Catholics today claim to be “Evangelical” if they happen to trend toward a more conservative interpretation of Romanism. 

If common grace means that the reprobate can do civil and civic good, why is woke ideology, LGBTQIA+, secular humanism, social justice, and Marxism turning the national morality on its head?  What was once generally considered evil is not called good.  (Isaiah 5:20).  Children from kindergarten age are being nurtured by irrational parents and public school teachers into the ideology of transgenderism and homosexuality.  Criminals are now the victims of society rather than lawbreakers who victimize other citizens.  The progressive left is turning homelessness and crime into virtues of victimhood rather than an undermining of the virtues of individual responsibility and hard work.

Modernism was a dismal failure as a means of ushering in the utopian of a brave new world.  World War I put an end to that fantasy.  We live in a fallen world where moral evil causes crime, wars, and totalitarian regimes.  Yet, the so-called progressive “conservatives” who promote the theology of apparent contradiction tell us that common grace means that the world is getting better.  Some of them are postmillennalists and others are amillennialists.  The amillennialists tend toward a radical separation between the kingdom of God ruled in the ecclesiastical realm and the kingdom of secularism ruled by the civil government.  The postmillennialists tend toward a theonomic view where the civil realm is made better and better through the agency of natural law and the moral law of God.  Both views compromise with the culture in order to achieve the goals of their respective theological agendas.

The problem is that there is no common ground between the Christian worldview and the worldview of secularism and secular humanism.  The world views abortion, homosexuality, and surgical trans-sexuality as morally good.  The world views criminals as victims who have no responsibility for their crimes because of systemic racism, systemic homophobia/transphobia, etc., et. al.  However, the Bible condemns all of these things as violations of God’s moral law.  Natural law is supposed to be deduced from the cultures around the world.  But if this so, why so many different views of what is right and wrong in various nations and societies around the world.  C. S. Lewis used the existence of relativistic moralism as an argument for the existence of a moral God.  However, this, too, seems to be a dismal failure.  Why?  The human mind is corrupted by the noetic effects of sin and idolatry seems to replace the biblical God at every turn.

It would seem ironic, then, that the optimism of Kuyperian common grace would so soon replace modernism just after the first world war.  Common grace, like modernism, has failed miserably at making the world a better place to live for the reprobate and for elect and believing Christians alike. 

The pragmatic church growth is the attempt to use Pelagian and Arminian ways of preaching the Gospel in an attempt to persuade the reprobate which, biblically speaking, cannot be persuaded.  Using the corporate business model of selling the unchurched a felt need, these progressive Evangelicals pretend to preserve their conservative theology while in fact selling out to the culture of woke-ism, behaviorism, and Marxism.  They claim that after these persons are persuaded into joining their churches, that the new members will be transformed by the teaching of the church.  By this means, the progressives hope to reform and transform the culture at large.  The problem is that the teaching remains obscure, equivocal, and ambiguous by hiding behind the theology of paradox.  It fails to transform individuals or society.

Here ends this blog post.  I will explain the historical roots of the church growth movement, Tim Keller’s compromise of the Reformed theology, and how this is producing psychological conversions instead of actual conversions to Calvinist and reformed Christianity in my next post.

You can read my previous posts here:  Part 1, Part 2.

The next post is Part 4.

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Part 2

 

“. . . By 1936 the signers of the Auburn Affirmation showed that they had captured the church by reorganizing Princeton Seminary and placing one of the signers on its governing board, by electing one of their number Moderator of the General Assembly [of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America], and, what was decisive, by excommunicating those ministers who had insisted on maintaining the Westminster standards in practice.  Thus, ministers who rejected the Scripture and all it contains were given authority, while men who believed the Bible and all it contains were rejected as disturbers of the peace.  Since that day the Westminster Confession has been a dead letter in that denomination, and now the process to drop it officially has begun.” 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1^st Ed.  1965.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  P. viii.

 

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Part 2

 

I will now discuss the free offer of the Gospel or FOG.  This is closely related to another doctrine proposed by those who wish to water down the Bible and the best summary of the Bible ever produced, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The other doctrine is called the well-meant offer of the Gospel.  The doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel presupposes that the reprobate wicked can be persuaded to believe the Gospel and thus moved from the category of reprobation to the category of unconditional election.  The justification for this is that we here on earth do not know what God’s eternal decree has foreordained to happen.  Since we have no knowledge of God’s hidden or secret decree, it is therefore justified to completely ignore the doctrines of predestination, special providence, regeneration/effectual calling and to preach the Gospel as any Arminian would preach it.  (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Those who prosecute the doctrines of the free offer of the gospel, common grace, and pragmatism in evangelism and mission will tell us that we should never mention predestination or special providence when preaching because those are doctrines that immediately irritate unbelievers and stand as roadblocks to our evangelistic mission.  Unfortunately, the downgrade begins with ignoring certain parts of Scripture and focusing on more favorable portions of Scripture instead.  These semi-Calvinists want to focus on the common ground that Calvinists and Arminians have instead of the differences and the distinctions.

In my Pentecostal days, it was often claimed that Pentecostals alone preached the full Gospel message.  Of course, what they meant by this was the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, which they claim is normative for all times and places up until the parousia or the return of Christ.  The proposition comes from Acts 20:27  KJV.  “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27 NKJ)  Presupposing Pentecostal experiential theology, I suppose that could be one way to interpret that verse.  But Presbyterians focus on propositional revelation in the Scriptures, not experiential hermeneutics.  The Bible contains numerous propositions from which other propositions can be deduced.  These logical propositions can then be arranged into a system of propositional truths which is deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence:

WCF 1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:  . . .  (Westminster Confession of Faith.  Of the Holy Scripture.)

The Presbyterian who truly believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, including ministers and the laity, has an obligation to believe all of the Scriptures.  As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark once said, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.  2 Timothy 3:16. This means that not only are the evangelistic verses appropriate for doctrinal teaching, but also the less significant portions of Scriptures like the genealogies and how many pots and pans were in the temple that Solomon built.  Since the Westminster Confession is arranged in a descending order of theological importance, the most important doctrine of Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in chapter one.  Scripture alone is the written Word of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 10:35; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-19).  The second most important doctrine of the Bible, according to the Westminster divines, is the doctrine of God as Triune.  The most important attributes of deity are dealt with in chapter 2, Of God, and the Holy Trinity.  However, the third most important doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the most controversial one, yet the most avoided doctrine.  It is the doctrine of predestination:  chapter 3, Of God’s Eternal Decree.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark lays out the issue that is most disturbing to unbelievers and Arminians:

The Protestant Reformation, the greatest religious awakening since the days of the Apostles, was characterized by a zeal to understand God’s Word.  Not only were its obvious teachings emphasized, e.g., the sufficiency of Christ’s work for our salvation and the uselessness of purgatory and penance, but also its deeper doctrines, e.g., predestination, were carefully examined.

However, two or three centuries later, after the love many had waxed cold, and when unbelief came in like a flood, the discouraged and fragmented faithful became Fundamentalists and were content to defend a few vital doctrines.  Sometimes they even said that Christians ought not to go too deeply into the Scriptures.  It is presumptuous, useless, and worst of all, divisive.

Such an attitude is not commended in the Scriptures themselves, nor was it the practice of the Reformers and the Westminster divines.  The Bible says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, not just some.  And the Reformers did not draw back from the difficult passages on predestination, foreordination, and God’s eternal decrees.  [Emphasis is mine.]  Really, these passages are not difficult to understand, though many people find them difficult to believe.  But if they are God’s words, then we should study, believe, and preach them.

The Westminster Confession, summarizing the Bible, asserts in Chapter III that God from all eternity did ordain whatsoever comes to pass.  Obviously, if God is omnipotent, if nothing can thwart his will, and if he decided to make a world, then all his creatures and all their actions must be according to his plan.

This is easy to understand; but many people find it difficult to believe that God planned to have sin in the world.  Does Chapter III of the Confession mean that God commits sin?  And even in the case of a man’s doing something good, does it mean that God makes the man do the good act while the man willed to do something evil?  These questions have perplexed many minds, but the first question is, What does the Bible say?  If the Bible talks about foreordination, we have no right to avoid it and keep silent.   [Emphasis is mine.]

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?, pp. 36-37.

On one side of the issue are those who oppose the doctrine of the free offer.  The objection is that it is impossible to persuade a person who has been unconditionally reprobated prior to the creation of the world by God’s eternal decree.  The opponents of FOG do not object to the promiscuous preaching of the Gospel everywhere on earth to all who will hear the message.  That is often a false misrepresentation used to label opponents as “hyper-Calvinists” who do not believe in evangelism or foreign missions. 

On the other hand, the proponents of the FOG will then argue two things.  First, they argue that we cannot know God’s secret will in His archetypal mind.  We can only have an analogical and ectypal knowledge of God’s will revealed in Holy Scripture.  From this they further infer that it would be confusing to the congregation to speak the truth emphatically that no one can come to Christ without first being born again.  This would upset those in the congregation who are not fully on board with what the Bible says about unconditional election and reprobation.  This objection is a telling indictment on those who refuse to teach all that the Bible says.

One proponent of the doctrine of the free offer is Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California.  He objects to David Engelsma’s contention that the Latin word for offer, namely offero, means only to present or exhibit:

Both Klaas Schilder (1890-1952) and Herman Hoeksema and more recently David Engelsma and Randy Blacketer have argued that when Dort and our theologians said, “offero” they only meant, “to present” or “to demand.” There is weighty evidence to the contrary however. For example, Caspar Olevianus (1536–87) used this term and its cognates frequently to mean “to offer with intention that the offer should be fulfilled if the recipients meet the condition of trust in Christ.” In his massive 1579 commentary on Romans and in his final commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos (1585) he used it frequently this way (e.g. “oblatum beneficium”) just as Dort later used it.

 

When our theologians wished to say “present” or “exhibit” or “demand” they had other verbs (e.g. “exhibeo” or “mando”) with which to do it. They did not need “offero” to perform the same function. Rather, when our theologians spoke of the “evangellium oblatum,” i.e., “gospel offered” in preaching, they believed that it entailed a well and sincerely meant revealed divine intention that whoever believes should be saved. As we shall see below, the semantic range of “offero,” as it was used by the orthodox is closer to “invitation,” than “demand.”

R. Scott Clark.  The Heidelblog, “The Reformed Tradition On The Free Or Well-Meant Offer Of The Gospel,” December 29, 2013.

Scott Clark then proceeds to argue in an equivocal manner that Christ is offered on the cross for the sins of the whole world.  I say that he is arguing equivocally because here he substitutes the Latin term oblatae or oblation for the word offero.  Any Calvinist worth his salt will instantly recognize that nowhere does Scott Clark even mention the fact that Christ died on the cross as a propitiation for the sins of all the elect in all times and places from the beginning of the world to the end of the world.  So, the offer of the Gospel is not effectual to all who hear it, as even Scott Clark must acknowledge.  Yet, the oblation that Christ was offered on the cross for the all the sins of those who are unconditionally elect is an effectual oblation or sacrifice which propitiates God’s wrath against the elect, who by original sin and total depravity are sinners.  Only the elect are provided for efficaciously by the cross of Jesus Christ.  This makes me wonder why Clark even brings it up?  Does Scott Clark think that there is a possibility that the person who is eternally decreed to reprobation can be persuaded?  In other words, Clark is deliberately conflating the atonement with the general call of the Gospel.  One is effectual and efficacious and the other is not.

Apparently, Scott Clark is offended that the general call of the Gospel is a command to repent and to believe the Gospel.  It is the Arminians who spend the most of their time trying to convince reprobate persons that the Gospel is true.  But this is because Arminians do not believe in total depravity or total inability.  Instead, Arminians believe that common grace makes depravity less than total.  Common grace, according to the Arminians lessens the effects of original sin so that libertarian free will is restored such that even the worst sinner has enough liberty to choose between two equal choices:  salvation and damnation.  But is that what the Bible says?  The so-called “reformed” doctrine of common grace is meant to be a compromise between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the doctrines of the Remonstrance.  The “reformed” insist that there are two kinds of grace:  1.  Special or efficacious grace, and, 2. Common grace that is not salvific.  So why does Scott Clark pivot to an Arminian presentation of the Gospel instead of preaching the biblical view of election, regeneration, and effectual call?  Is for pragmatic purposes?

John Wesley referred to the Arminian view of common grace as “prevenient grace.”  However, even here Wesley is misusing the term prevenient in a way that is opposed to the way the term in used in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which he as an Anglican clergyman would be obligated to believe.  But that is information to be discussed more fully in the next article.

The major problem with R. Scott Clark is that his view is to downplay the clear biblical doctrines of predestination, special providence, effectual calling, total depravity and to find a middle ground between free will and predestinaion:

In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us.  [Emphasis is mine.]

R. Scott Clark, Ibid.

In other words, R. Scott Clark rejects propositional revelation and instead proposes that we accept all Scripture as paradoxical--even when Scripture is crystal clear that God alone decides who will be save and who will be lost.  For Scott Clark, the preaching of the general call of the Gospel must conform to the Arminian presentation of persuasion, begging the sinner to repent, and an outward appeal to libertarian free will.  Of course, Clark denied all that by citing The Canons of Dort, Rejection of Errors 2:6.  But this debate has nothing to do with merits or congruent grace.  The problem is that Clark talks out of both sides of his mouth.  Is election unconditional or is it conditioned on faith? 

That one is called by the preaching of the Gospel does not make one elect, because this call is common to elect and reprobates, on the condition of faith (sub conditione fidei).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

Just above, Clark contradicts himself:

Having ordained the means of grace, God is free is to confer faith or not through the external Gospel call. [Emphasis is mine.]  The moral culpability for unbelief lies in those who “carelessly do not receive the Word of life” (verbum vitae non admittunt securi). “Therefore,” Dort says, justifying faith is the “Dei donum,” not because “it is offered by God to man’s free will,” (a Deo hominis arbitrio offeratur) but because faith is “conferred,” (conferatur), “inspired,” (inspiretur) and “infused,” (infundatur).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

As you can clearly see, Scott Clark knows that his view is apparently contradictory or "paradoxical."  That's why he has to reject WCF 1:6 and propositional revelation in favor of a theology of paradox.  The Bible is not analogical revelation.  It is a logical and propositional revelation from God because God is Logic.  John 1:1. Man is responsible to obey God and the Gospel precisely because the moral law is written in man's heart in creation and because as God's image man is a rational creature.  (John 1:9; Genesis 1:27; Romans 2:14-15).  Mankind alone is created with rationality and holiness.  Animals, not being in God's image, cannot sin.

What is the apparent contradiction?  The apparent contradiction or paradox that Scott Clark favors is the idea that God "sincerely" desires or wills the salvation of the reprobate by giving them a well-meant offer of salvation.  But how could God both desire and will the salvation of those He has decreed to reprobation while withholding the grace of regeneration which He alone can bestow or confer?  We agree that God is the primary cause of their reprobation, and that the sinner is the secondary cause of his or her own unbelief, and, therefore, morally culpable for their own damnation.  The problem is that Scott Clark does not wish to acknowledge that sin is ultimately caused by God, and, by logical inference, so is the sin of unbelief.  We call that reprobation.  Scott Clark calls it paradox. 

Here ends Part 2 of my blog series on efficaciously the free offer, common grace, and pragmatic church growth.  I will post Part 3 in the near future.

You can read the previous post here:  Part 1.  You can read the next post here:  Part 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Biblical or Confessional?

 

Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Biblical or Confessional?

 

“To the reprobate the preaching of the gospel is no favor because as it increases their knowledge, it increases their responsibility and condemnation. Better if they had never heard the gospel. One can reply, nonetheless, that in some cases the preaching of the gospel may restrain an evil man from some of his evil ways. Since therefore sins are not all equal, and since some are punished with many stripes, but others with few, the preaching of the gospel results in the lessening of the punishment. Thus preaching would be a small favor, a modicum of grace. We note it and pass on.”  Dr. Gordon H. Clark  (See:  A Place for Thoughts:  Gordon Clark on “Common Grace,” by Doug Douma).

 

To discuss the issue of the reputedly “reformed” doctrine of common grace is a convoluted and complicated matter.  Often it is hard for the layperson to understand exactly what the controversy is about.  Basically, it comes down to a controversial doctrinal statement issued by the Christian Reformed Church in 1924 at Kalamazoo, Michigan.  That document outlined what is identified as the Three Points of Common Grace.  You can access a direct quote of the three points and subsequent critique of the three points at the Protestant Reformed Churches in America website here:  The Three Points of Common Grace.

The first thing I would like to point out is that common grace often is used to justify accommodation with Arminianism, and worse, liberal theology.  The point of compromise here is that even theological liberals and other reprobate persons allegedly can do civil good by practicing the discipline of liberal scholarship.  But, this is hard to understand because the agenda of theological liberals and other ungodly scholars is to undermine the Bible, not to support it as special revelation from God.  A good example of this is the apostasy of Bart Ehrman, who attended Princeton Theological Seminary in order to study textual criticism.  Ehrman was once an Evangelical Christian who attended Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois.  Being weak in his faith, he decided that the Bible could not be trusted because of the many errors in the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  The Evangelical position is that God has providentially preserved what was contained in the original autographs, even though the originals are no longer extant.

This is a significant issue because if we no longer have the original autographs, then logically speaking none of the extant manuscripts are without error or infallible.  Using the axioms or principles of reasoned eclecticism, the Bible is alleged to be a reconstruction of the original autographs and only in that sense can any modern translation of the Bible be considered infallible or inerrant.  Any apparent errors are to be attributed to the translation from the original languages or to errors in transmission of the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts which are only preserved in copies of the copies passed down through hundreds and thousands of years.  The debate then degenerates into which manuscripts are best and who has the logical upper hand in making those determinations?  In short, the science of textual criticism is alleged to be a part of the common grace of God since many of the men who invented the basic principles of the science were either part of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.  From there we get the 19^th century scholars of Westcott and Hort, who then influenced subsequent schools of textual criticism that went in other directions.

One of the opponents of the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism used to be part of the reasoned eclecticism approach.  His name is Maurice Robinson.  His main objection to that approach is that the reasoned eclecticism approach often creates verses by splicing together fragments and variants to create verses that do not exist in any extant manuscripts whatsoever. 

Another issue with common grace is the third point mentioned above that the reprobate can do civic good.  Theological liberals prior to the first world war were optimistic that the entire world could be harmonized into a peaceful global community.  Where have we heard that one before?  After WWI, that optimism changed to pessimism.  Now, apparently, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.  Part of the blame for this would be the theology of Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed theologian turned politician.  Kuyper gave his Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898.  The vast majority of modern Reformed denominations support the compromised theology of the Three Points of Common Grace.  This compromise can be traced all the way back to the Stone Lectures.  It could even be argued that the Stone Lectures were the genetic cause of the eventual fall of the Presbyterian Church in the United States into apostasy.  The Old Princeton stalwarts became infatuated with creating a Calvinist cultural reformation worldwide such that eventually the emphasis on solid biblical and systematic theology fell to the wayside in order to facilitate missions and evangelism at the cost of special revelation and biblical truth.  

Even otherwise solid theologians like Benjamin B. Warfield and Charles Hodge were caught up in theological compromise.  Warfield advocated for reasoned eclecticism and the Westcott and Hort approach to New Testament textual criticism, while Hodge fell to the compromise that Christ in some sense died not only for the elect, but also for the reprobate.  Hodge’s reasoning was that common grace was somehow purchased on the cross for the entire world, not just for the irresistible grace and the efficacious atonement which propitiated the wrath of God against the elect.

A postmillennialist view of reforming the culture seems to lead inevitably towards an overly optimistic agenda to transform the culture.  I would contend that this naivete has led to accommodation to culture instead of a prophetic calling out of the culture, which is in manifold rebellion against the moral law of God as summarized in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments.  A further problem with this is that this postmillennialism is combined with a theonomic view of evangelization and mission, which leads to a co-belligerent cooperation with papists, Arminians, Lutherans and various other opponents of a Reformed worldview.  As the saying goes, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 

While it is true that Old Princeton was for a time a bastion of conservative and reformed theology, a small compromise leads to later generations which compromise a little more, and so on until three or four generations later there is a major compromise that leads to apostasy.  It was only a period of forty years or so until the 1940s when the foreign mission board of the Presbyterian Church of the United States went in a completely liberal direction, and J. Gresham Machen and his followers were forced out of the PCUS for refusing to support the foreign mission board.  Machen, along with Gordon H. Clark, Cornelius Van Til and others helped to found Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Unfortunately, Van Til, Ned Stonehouse, and John Murray decided to oppose Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s ordination with the newly formed Orthodox Presbyterian Church because of Clark’s disagreement with common grace, the free offer of the Gospel, and the well meant offer of the Gospel. Van Til, Stonehouse, and Murray rejected propositional revelation as the basis for systematic theology.  They redefined Francis Turretin’s doctrine of archetypal and ectypal knowledge so that they unwittingly affirmed some aspects of neo-orthodoxy.  Their emphasis on an analogical system of theology in the Westminster Standards went well beyond the traditional view of Scripture as the analogy of faith, meaning that Scripture interprets Scripture.  Van Til said that all Scripture is apparently contradictory.  Gordon Clark’s response to this in an audio lecture cuts to the heart of the issue:

What are we to make of his statement that “all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory?” Now, Van Til said omnipotence is not self-contradictory, but creation and responsibility are contradictory. And, also, he said all teaching of scripture is apparently contradictory. Which would of course include the idea of omnipotence.  …

I might say that the statement “David was King of Israel” is not apparently contradictory to me. 

[Audio Transcript:  (From the Gordon Conwell Lectures on Apologetics, 1981.)  “John Frame and Cornelius Van Til.”  P. 11.  Posted at:  The Gordon H. Clark Foundation.]

I would contend that the doctrine of common grace is a contradiction of the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty by implication.  The implication of the doctrine is that God gives a non-salvific grace to those whom He has decreed to reprobation before the foundation of the world.  This is a mere charade if it is intended to solve the problem of evil.  For billions of human beings of all ages suffer the effects of the fall of Adam, yet God does not relieve their suffering.  So, this would contradict the proponents of common grace who misuse the doctrine of providence to show that God loves the reprobate.  (Matthew 5:43-48 KJV).  But, David, says that we should hate those who blaspheme God:

Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. 20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. 21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. (Ps. 139:19-24 KJV)

I would contend that it is extremely naïve to promote common grace as any kind of good whatsoever.  The Protestant Reformed Churches in America have rightly pointed out that this doctrine leads to Arminianism and Pelagianism.  It looks the other way when the Bible specifically says that the wicked are the enemies of God:

The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. (Ps. 5:5-6 KJV)

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Ps. 11:5 KJV)

 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom. 9:13 KJV)