A God In Conflict With Himself

A god in conflict with himself. Such is the god of Robert Gonzales Jr., the editors of the Founders Ministries who commend his article, and indeed, Richard Baxter whose teachings they imbibe.^[1]

On May 3, 2024, an article written by Gonzales appeared on the Founders Ministries website entitled, “The Saving Design Of God’s Common Grace”. 

He begins by rightly distinguishing between a saving grace and common grace, but before ending the first paragraph swerves from the truth making shipwreck of the faith. He writes,

“Saving grace is, as its designation suggests, efficacious in effecting the redemption of those to whom it is given. Common grace, on the other hand, does not guarantee the salvation of its recipients. Nevertheless, God’s common grace is saving in its design. That is, God sincerely intends the kindness and patience he shows to all sinners (whether elect or non-elect) to lead them unto saving repentance.”

That there is a common grace unto creation, extending to the elect and non-elect alike, cannot be denied, for God causes the rain to fall and the sun to rise upon both. However, to add a saving design to common grace is to reject the damning design of reprobation, the saving design of the Covenant of Grace (Redemption)^[2] and pits God’s decree from eternity against His desires in time. 

For certain it is, if there be a common grace unto salvation, then God has not decreed the reprobation of the non-elect, for then He could not possibly nurture desires for their salvation if He has already fitted them to destruction. But fitted them to destruction He has—Romans 9:21-23: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory…”

Again, if there be a common grace unto salvation, then what is the purpose for God restricting the Covenant of Grace (Redemption) to save the elect only? Gonzales believes God decrees one thing from eternity (Particular Redemption), but desires a different thing in time (Universal Atonement). However, Jesus taught—John 6:37-40: ”All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Again, to pit the decree of God from eternity against His desires in time is to depict the Lord as a vacillating sovereign with one foot here and the other there. If a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, then what of Gonzales’ double minded god? A god divided against himself cannot stand. Such is not the God revealed in the Scriptures, for we read in Isaiah 46:9-11: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”

Again, Gonzales takes the view that while there is a common grace unto salvation, yet it “does not guarantee the salvation of its recipients”. I ask, does this common grace unto salvation ever result in the salvation of its recipients? If so, then they are saved apart from the Covenant of Grace (Redemption) designed only for the elect, which is an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. (2 Sam 23:5) If not, then the only reason for a common grace unto salvation is to give the preacher a theological framework to make free offers of the gospel. This has nothing to do with the saving desires of God towards the non-elect, but rather, the saving desires of the preacher towards them. Gonzales desires to save the non-elect, not God. 

Now, Gonzales does put forward his case for a common grace unto salvation based upon the teachings of Romans 2:4: ”Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” However, after writing a great deal about the terms of the text and their meaning within his  presuppositional framework, Gonzales produces very little substance on the topic at hand. It is like watching a child play with lego blocks, fitting together the bricks until they resemble a house. The most substantive part of his thesis is found in his conclusion, where he writes,

“The larger implication of Romans 2:4 is the fact that we cannot limit God’s desire for human compliance with the terms of the law and the gospel to the elect alone.”

God’s desire for human compliance is determined by the covenant under which members of the human race are subject to Him. God desires unregenerate sinners to perfectly obey the law inscribed upon their hearts; He desires regenerate sinners to savingly believe on Christ. Romans 2:4 can only imply (large or small) what the parameters of God’s decree and covenants permit. Gonzales envisions a god who desires the non-elect to be elected, redeemed and born again, but will not elect, redeem or regenerate them, yet still calls his god good and gracious to all. What a pitiful and inept god who desires the salvation of certain sinners, but cannot effectuate their deliverance. But he continues,

“Yet we fear that a strain of “High-Calvinism” does this very thing.”

Excellent! He now turns to the Hyper-Calvinists. Let us consider what they say on the matter. This would include stalwarts of the faith such as Crisp, Hussey, Skepp, Keach, Dutton, Brine, Hervey, Ryland, Toplady, Button, Huntington, Hawker, Warburton, Mason, Nunn, Gadbsy, Irons, Krause, Kershaw, Hardy, Hewlett,  Philpot, Doudney, Bulteel, Foreman, Hazelton and of course, the renown John Gill, to whom Gonzales refers. He continues,

“Constrained by a “substance metaphysics” assumption that one cannot predicate non-actualized potency of God, i.e., unfulfilled wishes or desires, these theologians make every effort to avoid the force of such texts as Romans 2:4.”

Gonzales is here opposing the idea that God’s decree from eternity is aligned with His desire in time. The Hyper-Calvinist believes God has, in His decree, elected some to salvation and reprobated the others to damnation—that is His desire for each of the two groups—and therefore in time He never desires the salvation of those whom He has reprobated from eternity. Gonzales, however, seems to dismiss the doctrine of reprobation, viewing his god as having a desire to elect some unto salvation from eternity, with another desire to elect the others in time, pleading for their salvation, if only they will accept his offers of grace. He continues,

“Thus, John Gill admits that “the providential goodness of God has a tendency to lead persons to repentance.” However, Gill is shackled to the unbiblical notion that God can only desire what he decrees. Since God evidently did not decree the salvation of the person(s) envisioned in this text, Gill must find a way to “reinterpret” it to fit his system.”

If the decree of God includes all things that come to pass in time, inclusive of His desire to save some and damn others, then how can Gonzales envision a god who absolutely decrees all things, only to desire something different when His decree is unfolded throughout the course of history? In any case, Gonzales condemns Gill for “reinterpreting” a passage of Scripture to fit his system, whereas he himself is guilty of this very charge. His article begins with a set of unbiblical presuppositions from which he proceeds to rip apart the text of Scripture and impose his interpretations to fit his system. Yes, Gill also had his system and he interpreted the Scriptures accordingly. He understood the simplicity and immutability of God’s nature; the certainty and comprehensiveness of God’s decree; the design and purpose of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (Redemption); and therefore when coming to Romans 2:4, he interpreted the text in accordance with these things. 

In fairness to Gill, here are his complete comments on Romans 2:4:

“Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, etc..]” The apostle anticipates an objection against what he had said, taken from the prosperity of these persons; who might conclude from thence, that they were not so wicked as he had represented them; and that they should escape the judgment of God, otherwise they would have been punished by God in this life, and not have prospered as they did; which objection is removed by observing, that it was not their innocence, but “the riches of ”divine“goodness, and longsuffering and forbearance”, which were the causes of their prosperity: by “the riches of God’s goodness”, are not meant the riches of his special, spiritual, and eternal goodness, which his own people are only partakers of: but the general riches of his temporal and providential goodness, which the men of the world have commonly the greatest share of; they have it in great plenty, which is signified by “riches”: and by his “longsuffering and forbearance” are designed, not his forbearance of his chosen ones and his longsuffering to them, which issue in their salvation; but his forbearance of sinners, and longsuffering towards them, in not as yet pouring down his wrath and displeasure on them; all which are “despised” by them; the riches of his goodness, when he is not glorified for his providential mercies, and in them, and when these are abused to the lusts of men. The forbearance of God is despised, when men on account of it harden themselves in sin; and his longsuffering, when they deny his concern in Providence, or a future judgment, and promise themselves impunity. Moreover, the apostle obviates the above objection by asserting that God’s end in his goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, was not to testify to their innocence, as they imagined, but to lead them to repentance, of which they were ignorant;

“not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance. This is to be understood not of a spiritual and evangelical repentance, which is a free grace gift, and which none but the Spirit of God can lead, or bring persons to; but of a natural and legal repentance, which lies in an external sorrow for sin, and in an outward cessation from it, and reformation of life and manners, which the goodness of God to the Jews should have led them to; who had a large share of the good things of life, a land flowing with milk and honey, and many outward privileges which other nations had not, as the giving of the law, the covenant and promises, the word and ordinances; and repentance here chiefly designs, as it may respect the Gentiles, a change of mind and practice in them relating to idolatry and superstition Now the providential goodness of God has a tendency to lead persons to repentance on this account; but of this end of divine goodness the Gentiles were ignorant; nor was this end answered thereby; which shows the wretched depravity of human nature; (Acts 14:15-17).”

Gill’s theological framework and biblical conclusions have far more consistency than those of Gonzales’ scribbles. So do the teachings of the Apostle Paul, for if Gonzales set aside his prejudices and submitted himself to the Word of God, he would have found Paul’s own interpretation of chapter 2 verse 4 in Romans 9:21-23: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory…” 

In closing, I wish to point out Gonzales has taken this view of a common grace unto salvation, because without it there can be no free offers of the gospel. And that is something he and the editors of the Founders Ministries cannot give up. In this they join hand in hand with the Arminians and the free will religionists. They would rather cut off both arms and a foot, than relinquish their precious offers of grace. Henceforth, they embrace systems of theology shared with Arminians and Free-willers, thereby misinterpreting the Scriptures, all in an effort to legitimize and defend their free offer marketings. What a monstrosity they have made of God and His gospel of sovereign grace! 

Conversely, the Hyper-Calvinists preach a full and free gospel to all sinners, setting forth the terms and promises of both Covenants (Works and Grace), inviting those who have ears to hear, eyes to see and a thirst to drink, to come freely unto Christ and find rest unto their souls. This, my dear friends, is called evangelism and it is the biblical mandate given by Christ to His church. That which is done by Gonzales and those in his camp is called proselyting and it is an abominable practice borrowed from free will religionists. A common grace unto salvation, with God desiring the election, redemption and regeneration of those that He has fitted to destruction, is a heresy created by  proselyting enthusiasts to support their free offer efforts. If God won’t save the non-elect, they think they can!^[3]

——————————-
[1] The teachings set forth by Gonzales are aligned with Baxterianism—“So called from the learned and pious Mr. Richard Baxter, who was born in the year 1615. His design was to reconcile Calvin and Arminius: for this purpose he formed a middle scheme between their systems. He taught that God had elected some, whom he is determined to save, without any foresight of their good works; and that others to whom the Gospel is preached have common grace, which if they improve, they shall obtain saving grace, according to the doctrine of Arminius. This denomination own, with Calvin, that the merits of Christ’s death are to be applied to believers only; but they also assert that all men are in a state capable of salvation…The conditional new covenant does equally give Christ, pardon, and life to all mankind, on condition of acceptance. The conditional grant is universal: Whosoever believeth shall be saved. It is not to the elect only, but to all mankind, that Christ has commanded his ministers to proclaim his Gospel, and offer the benefits of his procuring.” (Charles Buck, “Theological Dictionary”)
[2] I reject a conditional covenant of grace God makes with sinners in time, as proposed by the 1689 Confession, believing there to be only the Covenant of Redemption, with all conditions of salvation assumed by the Father’s electing love, the Son’s redeeming grace and the Spirit’s regenerating power.
[3] “We are led to notice the crafty way in which Baxterians disguise their real sentiments from the fact that they wish to keep rank among the old writers who held particular redemption. They profess, indeed, to believe in all the five points, while they in effect deny each of them, and have struck out for themselves a middle path if such a thing might be. They will not say that Christ died equally for every man, as the General Baptists do, neither will they boldly say Christ died only for the elect, and designed to save them and no more…But the covertly (secret) ones come still nearer home to us, and steer between Baxterianism and Calvinism. These also are neither the one nor the other, but are more dangerous in the true churches; inasmuch as there is much truth in their words, and they more easily gain authority among lovers of the doctrines of free grace. It is the worst kind of this teaching which lies more in the spirit of it than in the letter of it. Beware, therefore, dear readers, of this enemy to your peace…Baxterianism is an attempt to blend together the gospel of the grace of God and Arminianism; which is to make God a liar, who has said, “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (Rom. 11:7.) There are only two characters, “the elect,” and “the rest” who are blinded; the former under the covenant of grace, and the latter under the covenant of works. All these universal exhortationists are working hard to blend grace and works together.” (Gospel Standard)