I'm hoping that you realize the
importance of our studies now. And keep in mind that what we
are now presenting from this pulpit does not agree with a
great majority of the commentaries and things that you will read.
And as I said this morning, and I will repeat it again, I do
not quote men who believe as I'm presenting it in order to
bolster me up. I do not quote men with whom
I disagree. just in order to expose them.
I seek to present both sides and hope that you're studious
enough and have a desire to know the truth and you'll weigh the
evidence that is presented. So please keep that in mind.
I do not quote individuals to just bolster me up that agree
with me or with whom I agree. Neither do I quote those with
whom I disagree just to expose them, but I believe to be honest
we have to present all sides of any issue. There are three points that we're
discussing today, and I hope that I'll be able to finish these
three major points tonight. But if not, we'll just take up
where we will leave off this evening. We're continuing the
study of the subject entitled the free offer controversy. And this morning we sought to
define the meaning of free offer. We gave the definition as it
is given in the confessions And we gave some other statements
relative to those statements found in the various confessions.
And then we had six questions that we raised and we sought
to answer each thing point by point. And I'm only going to
mention the definition again and then stress what I said this
morning before we move on to the second point. And the second
point, the basic premise of the free offer controversy, And then
the third point that we will be discussing, let us consider
together, common grace and the free offer connection. Common
grace and free offer connection. The Westminster Confession of
Faith states that God offers unto sinners life and salvation
by Jesus Christ requiring of them faith that they might be
saved. And then we gave another quotation
this morning. We're trying to keep this as concise as possible
because I've given to you in the past a great number of confessions
and their statements. A statement made by William Payne,
and he is one of the contributing editors to this particular magazine,
and I like to read all sides. William Payne, made this statement
in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2, 13 and 14, and he made reference
to the various aspects of salvation, he said, are nowhere expressed
more delightfully than in 2 Thessalonians 2, verses 13 and 14. And he gave
a brief outline of his various aspects of salvation by saying
the root cause is God's purpose or his election, two, the means,
the gospel of Christ, and three, the purpose and means to accomplish
it are laid side by side. Now, the thing that I want to
review with you is two things. Number one, we gave to you the
dictionary meaning of both the word offer and invite. Now there are some who make no
distinction between offering and inviting. There is a distinction. Now if you pick up the average
dictionary, you may not see this, you may not find this, but I
told you this morning I have the latest and I have the latest
dictionary on synonyms. And when I gave to you this morning
the meaning of the word offer, And then the meaning of the word
invite, you can see how it harmonizes with the very thing that I have
been bringing for the last several weeks. And I'll continue until
we have brought all the evidence that I've been able to bring
together as a result of my research work on this subject. And it's
been a great joy to my own heart. And I'm sure it could not be
to you. You haven't spent the time in
investigating, and you haven't laid these things out side by
side, as I have sought to do in the last several weeks, trying
to arrive at the basic truth of God's Word. And to me, I'm
not concerned about those who disagree or agree. My main concern
is what the Bible teaches, and I want to follow what the Word
of God plainly sets forth. Now, offer, once again, offer
implies a putting before one something which may be accepted
or rejected to make a show of willingness to perform or give. That's why I do not believe that
it is our prerogative to offer salvation in the sense of regeneration. Now, invite. in its ordinary
and usual sense, implies a courteous request to go somewhere, do something,
or give some assistance which it is assumed will be agreeable
are at least not disagreeable to the person invited. Now there's
a basic difference, and you can see why, that these terms are
not synonymous, and one is not the synonym of the other, according
to the English language. Now, after having said that,
I'll illustrate it in a very simple way. Those who thirst
for the grace of salvation, are individuals who have been made
thirsty by the grace of God in regeneration. I said this morning,
and I repeat again, I believe if we understand the distinction
between regeneration and conversion, we will not be confused when
we read various opinions concerning this subject. And then I gave
several illustrations, and I repeat them. The person who is asked
to reason, Isaiah 118, has been made reasonable by the grace
of God. Secondly, the person who thirsts
for the water of life is an individual who has been made thirsty by
the grace of God. So the invitation is restricted
to the thirsty. Ho everyone that thirsteth come. So it's restricted. And the same
thing is found in John 7, 37, Revelation 22, 17. And the person
who hungers for the Word of God has been made hungry by the grace
of God wrought in his heart in regeneration. We use Cornelius
as an example, and that cannot be refuted by Scripture. And lastly, we use another illustration,
the person who hears the effectual call of God He hears because
his ear has been circumcised by the grace of God in regeneration. And that brings us to our second
point tonight. The basic principle of the free offer. I'm going
to break it down into two parts. I'm going to quote, first of
all, Stephen Charnot. Secondly, I'm going to quote
John Murray. And you'll see why I'm quoting both of these. The
gospel is the means of regeneration in the opinion of many people. And some of the great writers
of the past believe that. In fact, even John Gill himself
makes that statement. Charnock, John Oyl, and many
others. And I'm not saying that to criticize
those men. They were preaching and giving
the light that had been revealed to them. I've already made this statement,
that the reason for this belief and this controversy, and the
thing that I have observed is this, and very simply stated,
those who believe in, quote, the free offer theory, either
believe in gospel regeneration or they make no distinction between
regeneration and the effectual call. Now I've read to you, or
I'm going to read to you rather, a statement by Stephen Charnock.
The gospel is the instrument whereby God brings the soul forth
in a new birth. It is through the word he begets
us, and through the word he quickens us. Now, you remember several
weeks ago, I gave you 20 different quotations from 20 different
men, and only five of those 20 I agreed with. Arthur W. Peake was one. Shad was another. A man by the name of Sorrows
was another. And Birkhoff was another. There are four, and
I have forgotten, for the time being, the fifth. But I gave
to you a great host of quotations on this very subject. And you
remember, I had told you to look at Pink's work on the Holy Spirit. I said it was page 51, I think,
at that time, but it's page 54. I made a mistake. On page 54,
Pink makes the statement that he had believed in gospel regeneration. He didn't use that term. But
he said, at that time I did not understand the teaching of James
1.18. And by the way, we're going to
bring a message, an entire message on that one text. We're going
to bring another message on the text found in 1 Peter 1.23. I'm not afraid of either one.
But Pink said, at that time I did not understand. The teaching
on those two verses, and he changed his view. Why? Because he studied
the subject, he didn't discontinue the study, he continued the study
of God's Word. He wasn't like Oliver Green who
said that he hadn't changed his mind one bit since he first started
preaching. I'll tell you something, that
means he never did study. That's exactly what it means.
And I want to say to you tonight, if your opinion is the same now
as it was when you were first saved, you don't have very much.
I don't believe we could get along very well. I don't believe
we have much in common. I don't believe we could have
too much fellowship together. If you don't know any more now
than when you were first converted, then you don't know very much.
You can see the importance of that statement. Now John Murray,
let me give a quotation from his work. Redemption accomplished
and applied showing that he doesn't make any distinction between
regeneration and the effectual call I quote From page 88 of
his work. There are good reasons for believing
that the application of Redemption begins with God's effectual call
to sinners who are dead in trespasses and in sins Now we're going to
answer the basic premise of the free offer theory and So once
again, I have several points to share with you tonight. Number
one, in logic, the word premise is a proposition supporting or
helping to support a conclusion. Do you remember a statement I
made last Sunday morning? I want to give it again because
of its importance. If you haven't written it down,
please do so. It is a false exegesis or interpretation to reason from
a hypothetical premise and draw an absolute conclusion. Will you please remember that?
It is a false interpretation or exegesis to reason from a
hypothetical premise and draw an absolute conclusion. Beloved,
I could preach messages on that particular point, but I want
you to keep that in mind. Now, we're talking about the
word premise. Premise is a proposition, supporting or helping to support,
a conclusion. It is necessary, therefore, to
assume the gospel is the means of regeneration. You notice what
I said? It is necessary, therefore, to
assume The gospel is the means of regeneration since the conclusion
is the free offer of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact of scripture is this,
man can neither offer, now I'm summing up what I said this morning,
man can neither offer or invite anyone to be regenerated. But he can invite, not offer. He can invite those who have
a disposition of heart for spiritual things to the Lord Jesus Christ
who is revealed in the gospel for a conversion experience. Now that's putting it all together
in a few words. Now listen to that statement
again. Personally, I don't believe it
can be refuted. You say, well you speak with such dogmatism
when you've studied. I intend to. I intend to. And when I say I've been wrong,
I'll be just as dogmatic in saying I've been wrong. But listen to
this now. The fact of Scripture is this. Man can neither offer nor invite
anyone to be regenerated, but he can invite, not offer. Those who have a disposition
of heart for spiritual things to come to Christ who is represented
in the gospel for a conversion experience. Will that harmonize
with scripture? I believe it will. I don't know
of a verse of scripture that could be used to disprove that
statement. Now, number two. The man of God
does not try to make the gospel relative. I get so sick and tired
of these men today who say they're trying to make the gospel relative. Beloved, the gospel is relative. It's always been relative. It
always will be relative. All it needs is proclaiming.
So preach the gospel, preach Christ. That's the command of
the Lord, that's the commission that is given by Jesus Christ
to his church, and given only to his church. Only to his church. Number three, the man of God
does not assist the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The man of God
does not assist the Holy Spirit in regeneration. He never exploits
the gift of God. I came across that statement
the other day, and I rejoiced in it when I read it. I love
to give credit to a person when he says something worth repeating.
And listen to that last part. That's a borrowed statement.
The man of God never exploits the gift of God. I like that. And what do we see on Everhand
today? What do we hear? men who are supposed to be representatives
of the Lord and they're exploiting what they believe to be the gift
of God. The motive of the man of God
is to please God and not to exploit God. Oh, I like that when I read
it. And I like the verses of Scripture
that are used. So turn with me, if you will,
to 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2. 1 Thessalonians chapter 2, and
you'll see why he made that statement. We will read verses 4 through
6. But as we were allowed of God
to be put in trust with the gospel, beloved, I realize, and it scares
me to death, to think that God has put the
gospel in my hands. Paul said, as we were allowed
of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak
not as pleasing men, but God which trieth our hearts, or God
who trieth our hearts. Verse 5, for neither at any time
use we flattering words, as ye know Nor a cloak of covetousness,
God is witness. Beloved, I enjoy the monetary
things I have now. I enjoy them, but I want you
to know I can do without them. And I'd still rejoice in the
things of God. Nor a cloak of covetousness,
God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither
of you nor yet of others, when we might
have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. I like that confession
by Paul, don't you? Now you can see why the man said,
The man of God never exploits the gift of God. His motive is
to please God and not to exploit God. And then he quoted these
verses. Number four, from the standpoint
of the preacher, the invitation is nothing more than a general
call. That's all it is, just a general
call. General call. The preacher cannot
call effectually. There's just a general call when
he preaches. The Holy Spirit makes it effectual
in the hearts of those who have a disposition for it. The Holy Spirit makes the call
effectual. Then I like this statement that
I read, on the emotions of people. That
doesn't mean that I'm not an emotional person. I am. Maybe
you're not as emotional as I am. I get excited, and I know that's
a word that's used too much today, but I get enthused in the study
of the Scriptures. And I can't preach in a monotone.
Others might be able to, but I can't do it. And if they can,
and they do it, that's their business. I can't do it. Just
not my nature. Never has been. If I believe
something, I believe it. But yet the preacher does not
play on the emotions of people in order to get decisions. As
this man said, there's no soft music played at the end of the
sermon and the lights turned down low and dim to try to create,
get this, an atmosphere for easy decisions. And yet that is done
today. in the average church and in
the average evangelistic campaign. The man of God does not exploit
the gift of God. He just simply preaches the Word
of God and looks to the Holy Spirit to make it applicable
in the lives of those for whom it is intended. It's just a general
call that goes forth from the mouth of the preacher. Number five, And I'm going to
read you a statement by William E. Payne, after I give the point. The preacher
cannot compel people to come in, in the sense of Luke 14, 23.
The word compel is used in your King James Version in that verse.
Here's a statement by William E. Payne, an advocate of the
free offer of the gospel. He said, and I quote, our preaching
needs to be of the kind that compel them to come in, end of
quote. How many of you remember, I want
to test your memory now, most of you have read The Sovereignty
of God by Arthur W. Pink. How many of you remember,
and it's been more than 20 years since I've read it, maybe 30, But I remember this. Do you remember
the distinction he makes in that book between the account given
in Matthew 14, I mean the account given in Matthew chapter 22 about
the marriage, feast, and those who went out and asked them to
come, and the same account that is given us by Luke in the Gospel
according to Luke chapter 14? You remember the distinction
he makes? In Matthew they went out bidding
people to come. And I used that word this morning,
you remember? That was used even in the dictionary. And I gave
you the meaning of the word bid. It's the word kaleo, to call.
The word compel, author W. Fink said, and he was right,
still is. Still right. It's the truth. The word compel,
no person can compel. Man cannot compel. He cannot
constrain an unregenerate person. That's the work of the sovereign
spirit. Do you remember that? I remember
that distinctly. He made that distinction. Now
listen to this man. He says our preaching needs to
be of the kind that compels them to come in. Beloved, I can't
do that. I'll tell you something else,
no other preacher can do it. That is not within the ability
of the preacher. Only the Spirit of God Himself
can do that. So let's look for a moment. The
word for compel, in Luke chapter 14, verse 23, is the word, the
Greek word, anagkazo. Anagkazo. Now what does the verb
anagkazo mean? I'll give it to you. To compel. to constrain, to urge, and it's
also used in some places in the sense of to force. That word
is used nine times, and I won't give you all the references tonight,
but I have them, I've looked at them. That word is used nine
times. Only the Holy Spirit of God can,
what, constrain, can urge the individual to come in. to the preacher, it's just a
general call. Only the Spirit can urge them,
constrain them to come in. Now, many have been constrained
to make decisions, but they're not saved. They have made decisions,
but yet there was no work of regeneration that preceded, and
therefore, their so-called conversion experience didn't last long. And it never does last long.
And that's why many give lip service sometimes to the great
truths of the Bible. They go to church for a while
and they cease to go. And some people think, now here's
a person who was saved but he lost his salvation. He was never
saved to begin with in the sense of being regenerated. Mr. Payne goes on to make another
statement. He also stated that the atonement was not limited
in its sufficiency. Now you remember last week, we
gave a distinction between sufficiency and efficiency, and that's an
old distinction that's been used, and is even used by a lot of
Arminians. Now you remember last week, we gave a distinction between
sufficiency and efficiency, and that's an old distinction that's
been used, and is even used by a lot of Arminians. Now, we've
already stated from the standpoint of the dignity of the redemptive
work of Jesus Christ, it is sufficient to redeem every human being that
was ever born, ever shall be born, if it were God's will to
do so. Nothing wrong with the dignity.
Nothing wrong with the sufficiency of it. He gave His all. He could
not have given more. He died as much, and He paid
as much for the price of one as for all. Because he couldn't
give any more. So he's talking about the sufficiency.
And then he uses an illustration. Now listen to this illustration.
Some illustrations are fine. Some are atrocious. Some analogies
are good. Some are terrible. So we need
to be careful about the illustrations we use. We need to be very careful
about the analogies we use. Now listen to this. He stated
that the atonement was not limited in its sufficiency, and then
gave the illustration of a man sitting in a burning building
because he was not sure that God had decreed that he should
survive. I laughed when I read that one.
Now I want you to get the picture. I want you to get the picture
tonight. Now this was his so-called way of proving his point. Here
is a person in a burning building. and the fireman rushed to the
building. There the man sits in the burning building. They
go in, they try to get him to get out. He sits there, because
he's not too sure whether he survived or not. Now I want you to think about
that illustration. I can't help but laugh, because that's a really, that's
an illustration that's really laughable. Now, what difference
is there, follow me now, between a man sitting in a burning house
and a person who is unregenerate. You see the difference? I want
you to see the difference between physical safety and spiritual
safety. I believe any person in his right
mind, I don't care what he's heard, if he's in a burning building,
he's going to do his best to get out of it. He isn't going to sit there and
reason with himself, I wonder if God has decreed that I should
perish with this building. That's idiotic! Now let's, can you use an analogy
like that when it comes to spiritual things? Now here's a person who
does not have the grace of God. He does not know his condition. He does not realize the seriousness
of his condition. And he never will realize the
seriousness of his condition. until his heart has been touched
with grace. What an analogy. I'll give you
some worse than that in a few minutes. So the basic premise of the free
offer is what? that persons who embrace this
theory either believe that the gospel is the means of regeneration
or they make no distinction between regeneration and the effectual
call. Now if you believe that the effectual call is the same
as regeneration, it's a synonymous term with regeneration, you can
see why that persons who believe either one of these two things,
he believes in the free offer of the gospel. I want to go back in our notes
for just a moment. I don't want to preach this because I have
seven points that I intended to preach. In fact, I've already
outlined it. It's way in the future. But I
want to draw on it because my mind went to it this afternoon
as I was thinking about this particular point that we're now
discussing and the basic premise of the free offer theory. And I deal with the basic arguments
of those who embrace gospel regeneration. Now, I've reduced them all to
seven. I could not take them all. I've
come across so many, but I thought I could put them in different
categories and come up with about seven major ones. Now, there's
one that I want to relate at this point. And it's number five,
and I'll be giving this and expanding on it later. Spiritual life according
to the teaching of God's Word, is a faith union with God through
Christ. Now, what is the answer to that?
Spiritual life, according to the gospel regeneration theory,
is a faith union with God through Christ. Now, here's my answer.
This is answered in several different ways, but I want us to To even
go a little further now hyper Calvinist and they're always
accusing anyone who believes as I do in Spirit regeneration
as being a hyper Calvinist and I gave you something on that
last week Everyone is a hyper Calvinist in some sense but they're
always saying that hyper Calvinist make spiritual life a sort of
spiritual deposit And then this person in his argument said,
I prefer to call it biological, since it has none of the fruits
of the Spirit in it. They, talking about hyper-Calvinists,
teach that a heathen, if he is elect, does not have to learn
of Christ or know Christ, for he will be made alive by the
Spirit. Now you see the reasoning of
these men. Now what's the answer? Listen carefully. No distinction
is made between life and conscious life. Do you see the failure
of the person? According to the argument that
I've just given by the gospel regenerationist, no fetus, and
I could never think about this this afternoon, no fetus has
life until birth. Now will you think about that
for a moment? Those who believe in gospel regeneration, they
could believe in abortion right up to just two or three days
before the baby's born and be alright. According to their own belief,
really. Now think about the analogy. I'm using their own statements.
So my answer to that, no fetus has life until birth. I'm going
to answer it. Furthermore, the newly born infant
does not have life until it becomes consciously aware of father and
mother according to the gospel regenerationist. No minister
of grace denies the use of means. I don't. Why do you think I'm
preaching? Why do you think I'm teaching? No minister of grace
denies the use of means for the purpose of conversion but denies
the use of means in the creative act of regeneration. The spirit quickens the dead
in trespasses and sins before he bears witness of Jesus Christ
to the person whom he quickened. Please observe the order. Conception
and then birth. Conception and then birth. So you see the fallacy. of the
gospel regeneration view. Now that doesn't mean these men
are heretics. Arthur W. Pink was a saved man by God's
grace when he embraced that, but he hadn't studied enough.
And in the early days of my ministry, in fact, until about 15 years
ago, I believed and taught the same thing until I got into a
new study all over again of the subject of regeneration and conversion. And I was happy to read Pink's
work, because in the Gospel of John by Arthur W. Pink, in John
6 you'll find, in John 3, he plainly states that he believes
that regeneration is by the Word of God. But he admitted his error. I've admitted mine. It hasn't
bothered me to do it. Now let's look at the last view.
I'll have time to more or less begin this one. I won't have
time to complete it. Do you know what common grace
means? Do you know what the expression common grace means? You may not. I've used it a number
of times, but I don't know that I've ever really dealt with this
subject. I've studied it through the years. Some things about
it I'm not thoroughly convinced as yet. Now, Mr. Halsey, in his work,
believes that there is a vital connection between the free offer
and common grace. In his booklet entitled, The
Free Offer, an Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation
of the Gospel, Errol Halsey said, and I quote, I have a number
of quotations taken from this book, Brother Huber has it, that
God effectually saves the elect through Jesus Christ and by the
power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification is clear.
But does God exercise grace towards the non-elect? Apart from saving
our effectual grace, is there a grace of God which is common
to all men? Now before I go any further,
I remember years ago I studied, there was quite a debate between
the Christian Reformed and the Protestant Reformed. And the
split, in case you do not know about it, happened over this
very subject called common grace. I think Brother Pennington has
a book that deals with this, don't you, Brother Pennington? And
so they split, and some of them went one direction and some another.
Well, that's a tragic thing, but that happened. Now listen
to another quotation. In another place, Paul says,
quote, the connection between common grace and the free offer
of the gospel, we have noticed that the goodness of God extends
to fallen mankind as a whole, not only in the provision of
fruitful seasons, food, and gladness, but in a multiplicity of benefits. But does God wish the very highest
good for all men? Now, the reason I'm presenting
this tonight, this leads us into the next step of our study. is
I'm going to just introduce the next step of our study tonight.
And those of you who have read the little book that I've recommended
highly by Long, Gary Long, on substitutionary work of Christ,
he deals with this very thing, and he does an excellent job
with it. But you can see in a moment how this leads into it, and it's
the result of having read Mr. Halsey and Gary Long that I could
see, and I put this together and you'll see my steps. the
way I enjoy studying. Now listen to this. Does God
wish the very highest good for men, the highest blessing being
eternal salvation? Halsey said yes. Yes, the quotation
just made from Acts 17, that is, he gives life and breath
to all, that's what he's talking about, shows that common grace
finds its fullest expression in the provision of a gospel
to be addressed to all without exception. Because he has provided
a gospel, God now commands all men everywhere to repent. Now
we'll deal with the commands of God in a subsequent lesson.
But does he desire or wish salvation for all? We answer, yes. I'm quoting Hulsey. He declares
his feelings in unmistakable terms. He has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked, quoting from Ezekiel 18, verse 11, and
I assure you we will be studying those verses later. Listen to
this statement. Common grace, then, finds its
highest expression in that desire and will of God not only for
fallen man's temporal well-being, but for his soul's salvation
and eternal happiness. Another statement, as the general
call is made to many, Those who are chosen are born again through
the Word. Now this is the statement I was
looking for this morning, couldn't find it in all my notes. You
ought to see my Bible sometime. I couldn't locate it, so I had
to give another one. But I was wanting to quote the one by Halsey.
Listen to it again. As a general call is made to
many, those who are chosen are born again through the Word. What does he believe in? Gospel
regeneration, The means are essential, he says.
He that sows bountifully shall reap bountifully, end of quotation. And then he has four different
categories of scriptures. And I've taken them all down.
I've investigated a number of them. They're easy to answer.
He has one category called or entitled Invitation, another
Command, another Reasoning, and another Entreating. Now, I'm
trying to give you enough on this point to bring you up to
where we will be studying now for the next couple of services.
Let us answer now what common grace is. What is common grace? You'll want to know, so I'll
give you the answer. I'm going to quote Burkoff and
Charles Hodge. Burkoff gives the history of
the common grace theory. And Charles Haught adds a lot
to it in his systematic work of theology. First of all, I
want to quote Burkoff. The subject of common grace was
occasioned by the fact that there is in the world, alongside of
the course of the Christian life, with all its blessings, a natural
course of life which is not redemptive, and yet exhibits many traces
of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Now that's Burckhaus'
definition of common grace. Now let me just break it down
in just a simple illustration. It reigns on the just and the
unjust. God gives life and breath to
all men without exception. He gives eternal life to some.
So the common grace, and I'll expand on this more, but this
is all that I'm giving at this time. I only want to define the
meaning of common grace. Now, I like Charles Hodge's comment
on common grace. In fact, he has given about 30
or 40 pages to this subject in his work on systematic theology.
Listen to a brief statement by him. Quote, By common grace,
therefore, is meant that influence of the Spirit, which in a greater
or less measure is granted to all who hear the truth. End of
quote. Listen to a brief statement by
him. Quote, "...by common grace, therefore, is meant that influence
of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure is granted to
all who hear the truth." End of quote. Now, he would refer,
of course, to Genesis 6-3. My spirit shall not always strive
with man. Or like in Acts chapter 7 when
Stephen preached and the people stuck their fingers in their
ears and they gnashed upon him and they resisted his message. It says they resisted the Holy
Spirit. In what sense did they resist the Holy Spirit? You would
say, well now, wait a minute. I didn't think that the Holy
Spirit could be resisted. See, you have to study. And what
is he talking about? I don't have time to go into
that tonight. I only wanted to illustrate Charles Hodge's view.
Now listen to this. Hodge mentions efficacious grace,
producing regeneration. He talks about cooperating grace,
that is the influence of the Spirit that aids the child of
God in his Christian life. Another one. Habitual grace,
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And he gives some other things.
It's an interesting study. So he talks about efficacious
grace, cooperating grace, habitual grace. I could add one to it.
Preventing grace. or as the old-timers call it,
prevenient grace. Do you remember my preaching
on that subject in the past? Prevenient grace. How that God
protects everyone whom the Father gave to Him before the foundation
of the world. Do I have to worry about Him
dying before He is regenerated and converted? Prevenient grace. And Jude, verse 1, teaches that
very principle. Now, number 2. What is the difference
between the Reformed and Arminian view of common grace? Listen to a brief statement by
him. Quote, By common grace, therefore, is meant that influence
of the Spirit, which in a greater or less measure is granted to
all who hear the truth. End of quote. Now, He would refer,
of course, to Genesis 6-3. My spirit shall not always strive
with man. Or like in Acts chapter 7 when
Stephen preached and the people stuck their fingers in their
ears and they gnashed upon him and they resisted his message. It says they resisted the Holy
Spirit. In what sense did they resist the Holy Spirit? You would
say, well now, wait a minute. I didn't think that the Holy
Spirit could be resisted. See, you have to study. And what
is he talking about? I don't have time to go into
that tonight. I only wanted to illustrate Charles Hodge's view.
Now listen to this. Hodge mentions efficacious grace
producing regeneration. He talks about cooperating grace,
that is the influence of the Spirit that aids the child of
God in his Christian life. Another one. Habitual grace,
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And he gives some other things.
It's an interesting study. So he talks about efficacious
grace, cooperating grace, habitual grace. I could add one to it.
Preventing grace. Or as the old-timers called it,
prevenient grace. Do you remember my preaching
on that subject in the past? Prevenient grace. How that God
protects everyone whom the Father gave to Him before the foundation
of the world. Do I have to worry about Him
dying before He is regenerated and converted? Prevenient grace. And Jude verse 1 teaches that
very principle. Now, number two, what is the
difference between the Reformed and Arminian view of common grace? Listen to this. The Arminian believes common
grace enables every person, without distinction, to perform a measure
of spiritual good, such as faith and repentance, and thus to accept
Christ as Savior. That's whatever Arminian believes.
I have their own works. I give it again. I want to show
you the difference now between the Arminian view of common grace
and the Reformed view of common grace. The Arminian believes
common grace enables every person, without distinction, to perform
a measure of spiritual good, such as faith and repentance,
and thus to accept Christ as Savior. That's the theory of
John R. Rice. That's the theory of almost all
Baptists, and all Methodism, and many, many others that I
could mention. Beloved, I believe in dealing
with facts, don't you? Now, what about the Reformed
view? The Reformed view of this is quite different from the Arminian
view. Reformed theology insists on the essential difference between
common and special grace. Special grace to the Reformed
theologian is supernatural and spiritual, whereas common grace
is natural and works only in the natural sphere. Special grace works only in the
spiritual sphere. Now, we're not making a detailed
study of common grace in this lesson. We're merely stating
what the subject of common grace is and the different views which
are held by Arminian theology and reform theology. But let me say this now before
we leave this point. The Arminian believes that common grace and
special grace are both soteriological. There must be both. But the Reformed theologian denies
that. He believes that special grace
works only in the spiritual sphere, whereas common grace works in
the natural sphere. You see what a difference there
is? And I accept that. I accept that. Now, coming to
this. Does common grace, here's a question,
find its highest good in God's desire for the salvation of all
mankind. I say to you, beloved, that this
subject demands the study of the will of God. And now go with
me, please, to 1 Timothy, and I'll introduce our subject for
next Sunday. Go with me to 1 Timothy, chapter
2. 1 Timothy 2. I'm not afraid of any truth in
God's Word. I don't understand them all,
but I'm not afraid of them. I'm not afraid to make some investigation.
I'd like for us to read beginning with verse 1. Next Sunday morning,
the Lord willing, I'll give to you four different views of verse
4. And my last view will be what
I believe the Scriptures teach. I exhort, therefore, that first
of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of
thanks be made for all men. Will you put a circle around
the word all in that verse? And I'm going to get you to link
up some things here. For all men. Verse 2, for kings,
for all. Put a circle around that word
and connect them. That are in authority. That we may lead a
quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who
will have all men." Now look at the word will here. The Greek
word here is phthalo. Phthalo. Now in 2 Peter 3, verse 9, it
is not God's will that any should perish. The Greek verb there
is not phthalo, it's bulimia. Bula me now is there a real difference
between Bula me and phalo That's the controversy and I'll tell
you what Gary long does a splendid job. He's a good Greek student
He does a splendid job of that in his little work and I I challenge
you to read it Does an excellent work in fact about the best I've
ever read by anybody on it But I'm studying it now I'm trying
to study the difference. I'm studying phalo and I'm studying
Bula me and And they're found quite a few times. In fact, Philo
is found way over a hundred times in the New Testament. But I'll
go into this next week. Look at this now, verse 4. Who
will have all men? All men. Now some have interpreted
it, desire or wish. Those who believe in the free
offer of the gospel interpret it as meaning desire or wish. It is God's wish that all men
be saved. And they talk about the benevolence
of God. Benevolence of God. Is there really any distinction
between Phalo and Bulim? Who will have all men to be saved
and to come under the knowledge of the truth. I'm not through
reading, I want to go on through verse 6. For there is one God
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. Connect the word all in verse
1, verse 2, verse 4, verse 6. Now will you please give some
time to the study of this subject? Can you now see why it is necessary
for us to get into the study like we are? Does common grace,
listen to my question, and this man raised it, does common grace
find its highest good in God's desire, God's wish, God's will
for the salvation of all mankind? All mankind. As a general call is made to
many, the person who believes in the
free offer of the gospel theory says, those who are chosen are
born again through the Word. The means are essential. He that
sows bountifully shall reap bountifully. Common grace then finds its highest
expression in the desire and will of God, not only for fallen
man's temporal well-being, but for his soul's salvation and
eternal happiness. Does God will? Does God decree
the salvation of all men? Does the word will here, does
it mean in the sense of God's benevolence, or God's wishing,
or God's desire, short of decreeing the salvation
of all mankind? You're going to have to answer
it. You're going to have to answer it. I'm going to have to answer
it. What does the Bible teach on
this subject? You say, oh, I'm confused. Good. Then we're in
for a treat and study if you have a desire to study. And there
are four different views of this one passage. Is there any real
difference? I was reading one Arminian the
other day. He was trying to show the difference between God wishing
and God decreeing. God wishes the salvation of all,
but He decrees the salvation of some. And he failed to get
into the real meaning of either phalo or boulome. Two different Greek words. What do you think about 2 Peter
3, verse 9? It is not God's, he's not willing
that any should perish. Is that his will of purpose or
decree? Or does it refer to, as some
would say, his benevolence? You don't have to answer it.
Does the Bible answer it? Sure it does. That'll be our
next study. Ask the brethren to come for
the observance of the Lord's Supper.