Rev. Ron Hanko’s Rebuttal of Rev.

David Silversides’
defense of Common Grace!
[From a public debate between Ron Hanko and David Silversides which took
place over two evenings on 3rd & 4th February 1995 in Belfast]

[Transcribed accurately and edited by Mike Jeshurun for the blessing of

God’s Elect]

What the Debate is about!

I am thankful for the opportunity to be here this evening. I would agree with David
Silverside that the subject is certainly worthy of our attention, that there are some
extremely important issues that we are talking about here and I hope to lay before
you the truth of the Word of God concerning those issues as we go about our
business. Mostly glad for the opportunity this evening because it gives me the
opportunity to correct some misconceptions and misrepresentations. Some of them
you have heard this evening, some you have not heard. But Mr. Silverside has
spoken and written against our views in number of different occasions around the
United Kingdom and in doing that he has in a number of different ways
misconstrued, misrepresented and misquoted us. And I hope to set some of those
things straight. I would want to say at the beginning, I want to agree with him on a
couple of things and we’ll go on to the disagreements.

First of all, I have no quarrel with the fact that when we are speaking of Common
Grace, we are also speaking of Common Love, Common Mercy, Common
Goodness, Common Long Suffering, they all go together. They cannot be
separated; I am not going to argue just against a Common Grace this evening but
against a Common Love, Common Mercy, Common benevolence, Common
Goodness, common Long Suffering. I agree with him at that point that they all
stand or fall together. I also agree with him on the fact that the issue is whether or
not God has a favorable disposition to the wicked in this life. We don’t disagree
about God’s eternal wrath against the wicked in hell, we don’t disagree about the
fact that the love of God in Election is only for God’s people. The question is
whether there is a love or grace of God for the reprobate wicked in this life and
only in this life.

Rev Herman Hoeksema vindicated. Justification takes place in ‘time’ not

Eternity!

With that in mind, I want to begin this evening by clarifying some things. Want to
say just a little bit first of all a little bit about that matter of justification. That’s not
really the issue this evening but Mr. Siversides made quite a thing of it. Want to
make it absolutely clear that for myself at least justification is something takes
place in time when we believed on Jesus Christ and that we are justified only then.
I believe that God decreed the justification of His people from eternity, but I whole
heartedly agree with the Westminster standards which say that we are not actually
justified until we believe. And I think Mr. Silversides even misrepresented Herman
Hoeksema at that point. If he had read just a little bit further from the quote that he
gave. He would have seen first of all that Rev. Hoeksema calls ‘Justification by
Faith’ Actual justification. That says something. He would have also seen that
Rev. Hoeksema did not believe that justification by faith is just simply a matter of
learning that you are justified or that you are being assured that you are justified.
He believed, and he says that from the same chapter from which Mr. Silversides
quoted, that faith is imputed to us as righteousness and that is in that way we are
justified and made righteous before God.

God’s Elect can experience God’s Wrath but not Hatred!

I also want to clarify another misrepresentation. I think that Mr. Silversides has
made quite an error there. He says that we don’t believe (he used the example of
John Bunyan) that God’s people are ever under the wrath of God. That simply is
not true. If John Bunyan and as he says experienced the wrath of God, then I
believe that he meant what he said. And I think that everyone of God’s people
experiences that wrath of God. But that’s not the question! The point is and that’s
the thing I would like you to remember, that there’s a difference between wrath
and hatred. Mr. Silversides has confused the two. I don’t believe that the Elect are
ever hated by God. But I certainly believe that they can be under the judicial
wrath of God. And that they often are under the judicial wrath of God even after
they are brought to salvation! That they can experience the heavy hand of God
against them in their sins, as David did when he sinned with Bathsheba. He records
his experience of the wrath of God against his sins in Psalm 32. I don’t have any
problem with that. But there’s a difference you see between wrath and hatred. I can
be very wrathful with my children, but that doesn’t mean that I hate them! I’d
certainly had not better hate them in being wrathful with them. In fact my wrath
with them is an expression of my love for them. At least it should be and by the
grace of God I hope it is. But you see what I’m saying, there is quite a difference
between wrath and hatred. God certainly can be angry with His people, and when
He comes to them to save them then He saves them from wrath, and from that
deep sense of condemnation that’s part of the wrath of God to give them peace
through His grace. But that does not mean that He hates them. His wrath against
them is not a wrath which is rooted in hatred for them but a wrath which is rooted
in His eternal and unchangeable love for them. Even after they’ve been saved
when He reveals His wrath He reveals it in order to turn them from their sins and
to bring them back to Himself. Maybe we’ll have opportunity to come back to that.
But remember that there’s a difference between wrath and hatred and I by no
means deny that God’s people can be under the wrath of God. Wrath and hatred
are not the same.

What theologians mean while using the term ‘Common Grace’

But I want to go back now. I think we need to clarify a little bit what Common
Grace is. We read about Common Grace in a lot of different writers, they don’t all
mean the same thing. That’s something that needs to be clear. I have friends who
say that they believe in Common Grace and when we discuss that together it
becomes obvious that there really is no difference between us. It’s just a matter of
terminology, just a matter of words. And I’m not going to fight about words. On
the other hand the differences I think that was clear this evening between Mr.
Silverside and myself are more than words. So he means something quite different
from Common Grace than those friends that I was talking about. And those
differences between Mr. Silverside and myself touch on such important things as
the very nature of God Himself, and the nature of Gospel preaching and the truth
of Calvinism, and the Sovereignty of God! I believe that that’s true in spite of his
efforts to show that it was not the case that his views conflict with the sovereignty
of God and with some of the five points of Calvinism. That’s important too for
your reading, to remember that there are these differences. You’ll find Common
Grace mentioned in many many Reformed writers and theologians. You may not
simply take it for granted that they all mean the same thing when they talk about
Common Grace. You certainly may not take it for granted that they mean by
Common Grace what Mr. Silverside means by Common Grace. In many cases the
older Reformed writers when they speak of Common Grace mean nothing more
than what I mean when I talk about a Common Providence of God. And if you read
them in the context you’ll be able to see that.

Three different views of Common grace basically. There are three different things
that people mean by Common Grace. Some mean as I just indicated just a
Common Providence of God. If you read the older Reformed writers, I think
you’ll find that’s what they usually mean. Calvin, Owen, Thornwell and so on.
There was an article in ‘Reformation Today’ not so long ago, in which the man
(one of the writers, the editors of Reformation Today) quoted, Calvin Turretin,
Owen, Gill, Thornwell, Murray and Berkhof in proof of a common love of God. I
looked up all of those quotes, and with the exception of Berkof and Murray all the
other writers in their refrences to a common love of God were referring to nothing,
nothing but a Common Providence. My differences with people who mean by
Common Grace a Common Providence is nothing more than a matter of
terminology. Maybe I should explain that a little more.

The purpose of God in providence concerning the Reprobate wicked!

I believe for example that God in His providence gives good gifts to the wicked. I
don’t think you can deny that on the basis of Scripture. I only deny that in giving
them those good gifts His motive is to bless them, or be merciful to them, or that
He does that out of love for them. It is possible you know to give someone a good
gift without loving them, without giving them that gift for a good motive. Think of
a farmer as he goes about his business on his farm. He takes care of all the animals.
When one of them gets sick, he calls for the veterinarian to come and give
whatever medication is necessary to that sick animal so that it can be healed. He
feeds the animals, he keeps them from hurting each other (they often do that if left
to themselves) he does all of those things for those animals, not out of love for
them! He’s only raising them for slaughter. But he does all of those good things
(Picture of the providential operations of God) out of love for himself, for his own
family, for his own earthly wellbeing. His motive in giving them all of those good
things is not love for them. Especially not in view of the fact that he’s raising them
for slaughter.

I believe in common operations of the Spirit. Mr. Silverside said he didn’t know
what I believed. Now he does. I believe in common operations of the Spirit. That
the Spirit works with and in the reprobate wicked as well as in the elect. And I
believe that that’s part of God’s providence with respect to all men. I only
disagree that that’s in any way a gracious operation of God’s Spirit, or an
operation that does them any good; any spiritual good at least. In fact I believe that
leaves them even more worthy of the damnation of God, and in view of that can
hardly be called grace or love or mercy. Whatever those operations are it leaves
them all the more worthy of God’s Judgments. I find it very difficult even to think
of that as grace. I don’t deny that by His providence that God restrains sin. He
does. He restrained sin at the Tower of Babel when He changed the languages of
those who were building the Tower. But in all of that God is not making them less
wicked, nor is he showing any goodness, favor, love or grace to them. What He’s
doing is a little bit like what you do when you put a muzzle on a rabid dog. All
you’re doing is keeping the dog from biting. Not changing the dog at all; not
changing the nature of the dog; all you’re doing is keeping it from biting people.
Operations of God’s providence do that with respect to the wicked. Nothing of a
love, or grace, or mercy of God in it.

God delays Judgment on the Reprobate for the Elect’s sake!

I believe too that God delays His judgment with respect to those who will finally
come under His wrath. But not for their sakes, He does it for the sake of His
people, His beloved people. I believe that’s what Peter means when he says in
2Peter 3:9, that the Lord is longsuffering to usward. Not willing that any of us
(that’s the implication) should perish but that all of us should come to repentance.
That’s why He delays the sending of Christ in the Day of Judgment when His
wrath will break forth in all its fury against the workers of iniquity.

Common providence, that’s all many mean when they speak of Common Grace.
And there are those who go a step further. There are those who not only talk about
a Common Providence but see in those common providences of God a favorable
disposition of God to the reprobate wicked, or to all men if you prefer. They see in
the restraint of sin in common operations of the Spirit, in the good gifts of rain,
sunshine, health, food and shelter and all of the rest a favorable disposition of God
towards all men. But these people totally divorce that common grace from
salvation. It has nothing to do with salvation. That was the position of the well
known Dutch Theologian Abraham Kuyper. He believed in Common Grace, he
wrote three volumes on it. But he insisted that that Common grace had absolutely
nothing to do with salvation. And he was so insistent on that that he even used two
different words to describe the grace that brings salvation which is only for the
elect and grace that’s shown in natural gifts, rain and sunshine, common operations
of the Spirit, restraint of sin etc. He said that they are two entirely different things.

Mr. Silversides’ position of Common Grace defined

Now that’s not the position of Mr. Silversides. He has a common grace that does
have something to do with salvation. I want to make that clear. This Common
Grace is not just a Common grace which involves gifts of food and drink, it’s not a
Common grace which just has to do with the restraint of sin, but a Common Grace
which wants to save all men. A Common Grace which offers salvation to all men.
A Common Grace which sincerely desires the salvation of all men. When you talk
about the preaching of the gospel, and say that God in the preaching of the gospel
offers Christ in all His fullness to all men; you are not talking about a Common
Grace anymore that is limited just to providence, but you are talking about a
Common Grace that has to do with salvation. And that’s the third position on
Common Grace too. There are those like Mr. Silverside whose Common grace is
not just in natural things, the things of this life but is involved with salvation,
mixed up with the grace by which we actually receive salvation from God.

Now there are all different (in that third position) shades of opinion. Some like Mr.
Silversides will say that grace isn’t rooted in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Others will
say it is. Erroll Hulse the editor of Reformation Today says without any
qualification that that grace that desires the salvation of all men, that wants to save
all men, is rooted in the Cross. He understands I guess that it has to come from
somewhere. In that respect he is more consistent I think than Mr. Silversides. He
understands that if God is offering salvation to all men, He has to have something
to offer. Something that Christ purchased. Or if there is this grace for all men that
wants to save them, it has to be purchased somewhere. You can’t have Christ less
grace! If it’s involved with salvation especially. So there are those who go a step
further than Mr. Silversides does and root this grace in the Cross of Jesus Christ,
then there are those who go way beyond that and say that this Common grace
makes it possible for all men to exercise their free will and choose whether or not
they are going to be saved. It makes it possible for them to actually make the first
steps in being saved and so on. Different shades of opinion. But the thing I want
you to understand is that the Common grace that Mr. Silversides is talking about is
inseparably involved with salvation. It offers salvation to all men. It expresses a
desire of God to save them. Might ask yourself at this point where you stand.

I think it’s evident now, perhaps a little bit more evident where Mr. Silversides and
I stand. He stands at one end of the spectrum and I stand at the other. In fact I
prefer not to call God’s common providence grace at all! I’m not going to quarrel
about words with those who do, but I think it’s better not even to call it grace.
Because there is no love, no favorable disposition of God in those things to the
wicked.

Why do I believe that? Well I don’t believe it because I am a student of Herman

Hoeksema or of my father who David Silversides quoted. I believe that because I
believe it is the clear teaching of the Word of God. I want you to remember at this
point that love, grace, mercy, lovingkindness and goodness are really all the same
thing (not quite the same thing) but they are all related to one another. I want you
to remember that. And I’d like you to check to what I say in a good concordance
when you get home.

The words ‘love’ and ‘grace’ never used in Scripture with reference to the
reprobate wicked!

First of all the word ‘love’. Now let’s use the word grace first, ‘cause that’s the one
we are talking about. The word grace (this is why I don’t believe in Common
Grace) is used over 300 times in the Bible, about 200 times it’s actually translated
grace. Never, never once in the Bible is it used with reference to the reprobate
wicked. Never once! Go home and check! The word ‘love’ is the same, it is used
over 500 times in the Bible, and I’ll let you use passages like John three verse
sixteen which off course are closed to the Calvinist (can’t use those to prove a
general love of God). I’ll let you use passages like John three verse sixteen, the
word ‘love’ is never used either in reference to the reprobate wicked. Never once!
You can check it in a concordance.

Some of the other things we are talking about –mercy, goodness. When you talk
about those words then the whole argument for a common mercy or a common
goodness of God rests on two or three passages – Psalm 145:9, Matthew 5:43-48,
and the parallel passage in Luke 6:27-36. The whole argument (understand that
there are no other passages) in Scripture that clearly use the words mercy and
goodness in relation to the reprobate wicked except perhaps those three and I am
going to talk about those three. Same is true of the word longsuffering. There are
possibly three passages that could be used to prove a general longsuffering of God,
and they are the ones Mr. Silversides referred to – Romans 2:4, Romans 9:22,
2Peter 3:9.

God’s disposition towards the Reprobate is one of unremitting and

unchangeable hatred!

So in defense of the doctrine of Common Grace over against all the passages that
talk about God’s love, grace, mercy, loving kindness and all of the rest, we have a
total of five or six passages that seem to teach a common love of God. And that’s a
rather formidable argument in my opinion. Especially with respect to the word
grace and the word love; that those important words are never, never used in
reference to the reprobate wicked. Never! Maybe you didn’t notice that even
Matthew 5:43-48 does not actually say that God loves the reprobate wicked. He
doesn’t use the word in reference to God there. You have to come to the
conclusions that Mr. Silversides came to by implication. It does not say in so many
words: God loves every person in giving them rain and sunshine and all of the rest.
But that’s not my only basis for rejecting the doctrine of Common Grace. I believe
that the Scriptures teach clearly that God’s attitude toward those who are not elect
is an attitude of unchanging hatred; His disposition (let’s use that word) is one of
hatred. Not denying now that he gives them good gifts, not denying that there are
common operations of the Spirit, but that in all of it His disposition towards them
is one of unremitting and unchangeable hatred.

Psalm five. We don’t the time to look at all the passages this evening. Remember
though that I said that there are no passages that say in so many words that God
loves the reprobate wicked even in His providential dealings with them. Over
against those you can set many passages that speak of a hatred of God for the non
elect. Psalm 5:4-6 “Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither
shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all
workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will
abhor the bloody and deceitful man”. I want you to notice too that that is not a
reference to wicked men in general, but to the wicked who are non elect. These are
the wicked who will not stand in God’s sight. These are the wicked that God is
going to destroy, according to the words of that text.

Psalm 11:5 even separates people into two groups: the righteous and the wicked
and tells us “The LORD trieth the righteous (Psalm 11:5): but the wicked and him
that loveth violence his soul hateth”. And notice too that that hatred of the Lord is
something that He manifests in His dealings with them. You can’t make the
distinction that Mr. Silversides made and say that God can hate someone as far as
His disposition towards them is concerned, but love them as far as His dealings are
concerned. Psalm 11:5 says because He hates them He also rains snares fire and
brimstone and a horrible tempest. This, the psalm says shall be the portion of their
cup. That’s their portion. The portion which God gives them, i.e. a hatred which
manifests in snares fire and brimstone and an horrible tempest.

God’s hatred towards the reprobate in His dealings towards them!

Other passages too that speak of the fact that God doesn’t just hate them as far His
disposition is concerned, but that He hates them as far as His dealings are
concerned too. (Malachi one). Now I understand that this is hard doctrine to talk
about God hating people, hating them unchangeably. I don’t have time this
evening to argue for Calvinism and for Sovereign Double Predestination. I hope
that even if you don’t agree with it that you understand that that is what Calvinists
believe; that God eternally loves some and God eternally hates some as well. I am
arguing for the point this evening that that hatred of God, that eternal hatred is also
manifest in His dealings toward those who are not elect. Malachi 1:2,3 has in it the
words that are quoted in Romans 9:13 in proof of double predestination. “I loved
Jacob, but I hated Esau”. Notice what follows. In His hatred for Esau, God says He
lays his mountains and his heritage waste to the dragons of the wilderness. And
when Edom says, “We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate
places, thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and
they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the
LORD hath indignation for ever.
Another passage Proverbs 3:33. This one is especially important. It doesn’t
actually speak of the Lord’s hatred but it speaks of His curse and I think you
understand that a curse is an expression of hatred. But it tells us that the curse of
the LORD is in the house of the wicked! Think about that for a moment. In his
house he has his family, the family that God gave him. In his house he eats the
food that God gives him, the good food that God gives him. In that house he enjoys
sleep which the Bible says also comes from the Lord. In all of those things, as he
goes about all of those things in his house; Proverbs 3:33 says the ‘curse of the
Lord’ is there! Where is grace? Where is the room for grace in that? Where is there
room for love in that? Where is there room for longsuffering in that? That curse
goes with him when he crawls under his blankets at night. That curse is with him at
the table when he eats his food. That curse is in his cupboards. That curse is with
him in all his dealings with his family. That’s what the Bible says about the Lord’s
disposition and dealing in time with those who are not elect. And notice too that
the Bible itself there makes a distinction between the just and the wicked. It divides
human beings up into two groups. God blesses the habitation of the just, the curse
of the Lord is in the house of the wicked. It remains there.

There are other passages too however which explain in somewhat more detail
God’s dealings with the wicked, explain why He gives them good things; why
there are these common operations of the Spirit; why He delays His judgment in all
of the rest. I want to call your attention especially to three:

The reason why God gives good things to the reprobate

Psalm 92:5-7 Here again notice that the wicked are the reprobate wicked who are
going to be destroyed. “O Lord” the Psalmist says, “how great are Thy works and
Thy thoughts are very deep, A brutish man knoweth not neither does a fool
understand them, When the wicked spring up as grass and when all the workers of
iniquity flourish” is it because God loves them? Because God is being gracious to
them? No!”It is that they shall be destroyed forever”.

Psalm 69:22 and following. Try to fit Common Grace in here. Even as far as good
gifts of food and drink and clothing and health and all of those things are
concerned; try to fit that in to these verses. Here Christ prays, “Let their table
become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare,
(which should have been for their welfare) let it become a trap. Let their eyes be
darkened, that they see not; make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine
indignation upon them, and let Thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their
habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. And if there is any doubt
about it that this speaking of the non-elect then you have to just read a little further
– “Add iniquity unto their iniquity” verse 27 “and let them not come into Thy
righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the living, and not be written
with the righteous”.

One more Psalm, Concentrating in the Psalms not because this is the only book of
the Bible that teaches these things, but because there are such clear passages in
some of these Psalms that’s understandable because they speak of our experiences.
Psalm 73 is the third Psalm. Here (really should but don’t have time to read the
whole Psalm this evening) Asaph’s problem was in the first part of the Psalm, that
he believed in Common Grace. He thought that the prosperity of the wicked was an
evidence that God was blessing them, and that caused him all sorts of trouble.
“How’, he says in the first part of the Psalm, “can God be good to them when I am
having all these problems and troubles”. (That’s the other side of it by the way; I
want to come back to that) If you believe that rain and sunshine are in themselves
blessings and grace, then the other side of that is that sickness and pain and
affliction are curses. You’d have to come to the same conclusion that Asaf did:
You are not prosperous; you are not receiving blessings. If you’re not in trouble as
these wicked men that Asaf was looking at then you can conclude that God is
being gracious. But what about if you are in trouble? What if you have a full cup
of suffering wrung out to you (verse 10) what you can conclude is that God isn’t
giving you blessings, doesn’t love you isn’t gracious.

So Asaf’s problem in Psalm 73 was that he believed in Common Grace. “Until” he

says in verse 17, until he went into the sanctuary of God; then he says “I
understood their end” He says I learned that you have to look at God’s dealings
with people in view of what’s going to happen to them. Surely God gives good
gifts to the wicked, but that doesn’t mean He blesses them; you have to look at
their end. And Asaf says when I understood where they are going, then I could see
that there was no grace, no blessings in these things for them. And he explains that
in verses 18 and 19. Those are for our purposes this evening the most important
verses in the Psalm. “God” he says was using that prosperity to set them in slippery
places, and to cast them down into destruction. Now you may call that grace or
mercy, but that’s the strangest kind of grace or mercy that I ever heard of. A grace
that sets people in slippery places and casts them down to destruction. When God
gives all these good things to the wicked what do they do with it? They use it to sin
all the more against Him. And the result is that they bring down upon themselves
heavier condemnation. That’s what Asaf is talking about here. “Yes” he says “now
I see that God made them prosperous but it was only to destroy them all the more
quickly; to set them in slippery places and to cast them down into destruction. And
then he understood too God’s dealings with him. He understood then that it is not
the thing itself that determines whether you are blessed or cursed. Whether you
receive rain or drought isn’t the way you determine whether you’re blessed or
cursed. But all things Asaf really says at the last part of this psalm, All things
really work together for good to those who love God. Nothing is a curse to them.
Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel and afterward receive me to glory. I am
continually with Thee, even in all of these sufferings, Thou art holding me by my
right hand.

Perhaps we can sum that all up by the words of the Prophet Malachi. You are
going to have the same problem that Asaf did, if like him (at least in the beginning
of that Psalm) you believe in a Common Grace. People of God according to
Malachi 3:15 had spoken stout words against God. They had said it is vain to serve
God and so forth. Verse 15: they had also said that the proud are happy and I
would remind you the word happy is the same as the word blessed in the Old
Testament. Happy, blessed are the same words. They called the proud blessed, and
they that work in wickedness are setup. Those were the stout words they were
speaking against God; and if you say those same words then you too are speaking
against Him. God is not a God who has pleasure in wickedness. He is a God who
hates unchangeably those whom He has determined to destruction, and reveals
His wrath against them in all his dealings with them. I’m not denying now that He
reveals His wrath also against the Elect, but with them even that revelation of
wrath is for their good, for their salvation. Just ask yourself thinking back to the
time when the Lord began to work in your heart, why did He give you such deep
apprehensions of His judgments? Was it because He hated you? No. That was the
beginning of the grace that actually brought salvation to you. The first
manifestation of the eternal and unchangeable love of God in your life; even
though you didn’t see that then.

Mr. Silversides’ Barthianism and Neo Orthodoxy!

Want to say a word too, about that idea of Mr. Silversides that God can hate and
love a person at the same time. I believe that is simply nonsense. Try telling your
wife or your husband that. “Dear, I love you. My disposition toward you is a
loving disposition, but from now on all of my actions toward you are going to be or
going to seem to you like hatred”. Or “Dear, my disposition toward you is a loving
disposition, but the words I speak are going to be full of hatred. You’ve got to
understand that; you’ve got to understand that as it is possible for God to love and
hate someone at the same time so it is for me to love and hate you at the same time.
To love you as far as my disposition is concerned or to hate you as far as my
disposition is concerned but to speak nicely to you”. Try telling your wife or
husband that you can love and hate them at the same time. Probably you won’t
have a wife or a husband very long if you do.

That teaching that God can do contradictory things is something called Neo-
Orthodoxy. Some of you may have heard of it. You may have heard of a man
named Karl Barth. He believed that kind of thing, that God can be contradictory,
that He can do contradictory things; that He can love a person and hate a person at
the same time. That’s why Barth taught that God elected Esau and then reprobated
Esau. He loved Jacob, elected Jacob and reprobated Jacob. Love him and hated
him at the same time. That’s the kind of thing (that Barthianism) that Mr.
Silversides is teaching.

To add just one more verse to all of that. (got to get on, I don’t want to keep you
too much longer). We call your attention to Ecclesiastes 1:1. If you are at all
inclined to think that rain and sunshine, food and shelter, health and all of the rest
are in themselves blessings, read Ecclesiastes 1:2, “Vanity of vanity saith the
preacher, all is vanity”. That’s what earthly things are in themselves. And the word
vanity means as you probably know: empty. They’re empty. In themselves they’re
empty. There is no blessing in them, there’s no curse in them either as they are in
themselves. It’s only the attitude of God that makes the difference. The reason
why God gives them that makes the difference. He can give the same thing to two
different people for entirely different reasons and with an entirely different
disposition. He can send sickness to His people, and send it to them in such a way
that they say, “Affliction has been for my profit”. He can send prosperity to the
wicked and set them by it in slippery places. The things in themselves are not grace
and blessing. The restraint of sin, the good gifts, and common operations of the
Spirit are not in themselves either blessings or curses. And the Scripture says as far
as the attitude of God is concerned, that God loves His people and hates the
workers of iniquity.

Psalm 145:9 correctly interpreted

What about those verses that which Mr. Silversides brought up? Probably have the
time to deal with only a couple of them. If we don’t finish this evening we’ll go on
tomorrow night. Psalm 145:9. Mr. Silversides indicated and I’ve heard him on tape
say as much, that we misuse the Scriptures; that we come to the Scriptures with all
sorts of preconceived ideas and force them on the Bible. I want you to look at
Psalm 145:9 and see that is exactly what he did. Psalm 145:9 says ‘the Lord is
good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works’. And he simply
assumed that the word ‘all’ there meant ‘all men’. I don’t know whether you
noticed that, but that was the assumption he made, that all means all men. Now
that’s a rather dangerous assumption for a Calvinist to make in any case; to assume
that the word ‘all’ in any Scripture passage means ‘all men’. John 3:16 is a good
example. But if you look at the verse, you’ll see that ‘all’ doesn’t refer to all men’.
The characteristics of the Psalms is what is called parallelism. Two statements that
explain each other, (sometimes three) but these parallel statements that explain
each other. All is explained in the second phrase by all His works. Not all men, the
Lord is not good to all men the verse doesn’t say but the Lord is good to all His
works. Oh what does that mean, that He is good to all His works and that His
tender mercies are over all His works? Well, if you look at that in the context, you
don’t even have to go out of Psalm 45, you find out what that means. All His
works here isn’t a reference to men at all. It’s a reference to all His other creatures.
Verse ten makes that clear, and the rest of the Psalm too. But verse ten separates
God’s creatures into two groups: all other things and His people.

And then the rest of the Psalm goes on to explain how He is good to all His works
and how He is good to His saints; how he is good to all His creatures and how He
is good to all His saints. It says nothing about Him being merciful to all men. Rest
of the Psalm beginning for example with verse 15, talks about how He is good to
all and how His tender mercies are over all His works. The eyes of all wait upon
Thee and Thou givest them meat in due season. Thou openest Thine hand and
satisfiest the desire of every living thing. And then the Psalm goes back to His
people and how the Lord is good to them. The Lord is righteous in all His ways,
holy in all His works, Nigh unto them that call upon Him, fulfilling the desire of
them that fear Him; hearing their cry and saving them; preserving all them that
love Him. And then David remembers that there’s a group that he hasn’t talked
about – the wicked, or as is clear from what that 20th verse says the non-elect
wicked. All the wicked will He destroy! Why? Well you can go back a little bit in
the Psalm. The Lord is righteous too in all His ways and holy in all His works. But
I want you to notice especially that Psalm 145:9 does not identify ‘all’ as ‘all men’
but all His works. If you look that word up in Scripture you’ll find that it most
often refers to His works in the creation. The beasts and the birds the trees and the
flowers, the plants the sun moon and stars in their courses. Those are what are
commonly called the ‘works’ of the Lord. That’s what psalm 145 is talking about.
He reveals His goodness and His mercy there too towards them, He also reveals it
toward His people (that’s another part of the Psalm).

Dr. Silversides and his erroneous assumptions!

Let me give you a couple of preliminary considerations (we wont go any further
than these verses, I think it’s getting too late) Just a couple of things about
Mathew 5 and Luke 6; you can come back tomorrow evening perhaps with these
things in your mind. Again, Mr. Silversides has made all sorts of assumptions
about this verse. You might notice first of all that it has nothing to do with the
overtures of grace in the gospel. If it proves anything it only proves a common
love of God or grace of God in providence. It has nothing to do with overtures of
grace. Even John Murray admits that though he goes on to use it as proof for the
‘well meant offer of the gospel’. No proof here for a love that desires the salvation
of men. Mr. Silversides assumes first of all, that the verse which says that God
makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on
the unjust means that God loves them and is gracious to them. Notice the verse
doesn’t say that. If you are going to get it out of there you are going to have to get
it out by implication. He assumes that love (and its mentioned only in connection
with us, we have to love them that love us) but he assumes that love means that
you have a loving gracious disposition towards people. But the verse doesn’t say
that either. The only kind of love that verse talks about is a love that revealed in
doing good. It doesn’t say anything about our disposition. It talks about loving in
deed as 1John says. He assumes and this is a major assumption that in order to love
our enemies, we have to love the same people that God does. We are to love all
men and that must mean that God loves all men or if we are to love our enemies
and some of them are reprobate and that means that God loves all reprobates or
some reprobates. But that is an entirely unwarranted assumption.

Again as an example: as a father I am required to love and provide for my children.

As a minister I do that and as an example in the congregation as well. Does the fact
that I am example for my children in the congregation mean that the members in
the congregation have to love the same children that I do? That’s what Mr.
Silversides says that the verse means. It doesn’t mean that at all. In fact it does not
mean as Mr. Silversides assumes that we have to love exactly the same persons. He
also assumes and that too is a major assumption, when it talks about (this is in
Luke 6 now) about God being (parallel passage) kind and merciful to His enemies,
that the text says He is kind and merciful to all His enemies. The verse doesn’t say
that. And in light of other Scripture passages, all the other passages can’t mean
that. We’ll talk more about that verse tomorrow evening, God willing. But I hope
you can see that what Mr. Silversides is going to accuse us of doing tomorrow
evening is exactly what he has been doing with these passages; making all sorts of
assumptions, because he comes to these passages with preconceived notions about
the love, mercy, grace and kindness of God. And with the exception of these
passages as I pointed out earlier there are no passages of the Word of God that use
those words in reference to the non-elect,

The doctrine of Common Grace a Lie that saddens the hearts of God’s elect!

We have to quit however. I want to leave you with a verse from the prophecy of
Ezekiel. We talked abut Psalm 73 and pointed out the fact that if temporal things
are in themselves blessings, that means that sickness, disease and suffering and
pain are curses; and that they reveal a certain hatred of God against His people.
Maybe Mr. Silversides dares to tell the members of his congregation that. I don’t!
When they come to me I would not dare to tell them that the fact that they are
suffering or sick maybe an indication of God’s hatred for them. But God’s blessing
and grace are not in that sense. That’s the whole point of Psalm 73. And it was
only when Asaf got that straightened out that he found peace with God. And that
among other things is one of the criticisms I have of the doctrine Common Grace,
that in speaking of a love and grace of God for those who are not elect; it takes
away the foundation of all comfort for God’s people. It says that it is possible for
God to love someone and that person may not be saved. It’s possible for the Lord
to be gracious to someone and he never attained to glory in heaven. It’s possible
for the Lord to show loving kindness to him and that person never even had the
hope of eternal life. And it would seem to me that the cry of every believing heart
would be that, “what about me, how can I be sure that the love of God and the
grace of God to me are real”? “How can I ever be sure then that the grace and love
which I’ve experienced will not end in the same condemnation, as it ended for
these”?

It’s in that connection that I call your attention to Ezekiel 13. Now I want you to
remember too that Mr. Silversides applies Common Grace to the gospel. God can
want the salvation of someone, God can seek the salvation of someone in the
gospel, God can earnestly desire their salvation and still go lost; even promise
them eternal life in the gospel, without them ever receiving it. In Ezekiel 13:22
both with respect to Common Grace and that whole idea of a ‘well meant offer of
grace in the gospel the Word of God says, “with lies you have made the heart of
the righteous sad”. The lie of Common Grace does that. It makes “the hearts of the
righteous sad, whom I have not made sad and strengtheneth the hands of the
wicked, that he should not turn from his wicked way, by promising him life”!