In my series on The “free” (i.e. genuine) offer of the Gospel, I pointed out in this post Berkhof’s reply to a hypercalvinist that Berkhof believes that the justified, can, in this life, also be in some sense under God’s wrath. I wrote,
it is well worth asking how we are to interpret the destructive forces of nature, but such a question cannot reduce the plain meaning of Jesus’ words to absurdity, unless God can be guilty of absurdity, which is blasphemous to contemplate. Perhaps we need to ask if we have not created more trouble than necessary by absolutizing the distinction between God’s “Fatherly displeasure” and His “wrath,” between “discipline” and “chastisement” on the one hand, and “punishment” on the other. As Louis Berkhof asks rhetorically: “Are the elect in this life the objects of God’s love only, and never in any sense the objects of His wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: ‘For we are consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath we are troubled’? Psa 90.7.”[Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941), p. 445.] It is a profound truth and great comfort that all things, including sufferings, work ultimately to our good as Christians. The question is whether that fact necessitates that all things are alike and in the same way to be considered “good” simply because of the future result in glory.
In context, Berkhof can only be talking about the elect after they are converted. So, in reply to Hoeksema, Berkhof thought it was possible to look at the Bible and see that these justified people were also, in some sense, under God’s wrath. Perhaps we should always use scare-quotes for “wrath,” in this case, like the actor I saw who re-enacted the Gospel of Luke (which was actually a pastiche that included John) and made quotation marks with his fingers while he played Jesus saying that his flesh was true “bread.”
But there are no scare quotes in Psalm 90.7. And if it is possible for God to be angry and wrathful with the justified in some way, it seems equally plausible to say that unregenerate professing believers are, until they manifest their hard hearts in rebellion, in some sense relatively right with God compared to those who refuse to respond to the Gospel.
The question is does God always speak in terms of the teleological, or does he at times speak in medias res?
Being outside of all time, He is of course free to do both or neither.
Ah, now I see where you’ve gotten it from.
Here’s the problem. If I say “in some sense, X”, that’s essentially a concession that “I don’t know how to describe in what sense X.”
So while Berkhof’s comment might “in some sense” be true, I cannot discern “in what sense” that sense is.
Further, in some sense, Berkhof’s comment is False: in the sense that believers are delivered from God’s wrath (as per Rom 5). Thus, a hurricane hitting my home is *not* an indication that God is wrathful towards me. In fact, it may well be the case that God is wrathful towards someone else, and I’m just living in a ‘bad neighborhood.’
So…while I appreciate that Berkhof might wish to blur some of the artificially hard lines created by Hoeksema (esp. wrt common grace), I don’t find his statement here particularly helpful here in the sense that he doesn’t explain what sense he means.
And therefore, I can’t tell whether your extension (that NECMs might in some sense be delivered from God’s wrath) is correct or not.
Jeff Cagle
Hey Jeff
You say:
Here’s the problem. If I say “in some sense, X”, that’s essentially a concession that “I don’t know how to describe in what sense X.”
David: Why? I could easily say, in some sense, X is true/possible and go on to explain in what sense that is, to know what sense that is.
Jeff:
So while Berkhof’s comment might “in some sense” be true, I cannot discern “in what sense” that sense is.
David: So you have this problem. 🙂
Jeff: Further, in some sense, Berkhof’s comment is False: in the sense that believers are delivered from God’s wrath (as per Rom 5). Thus, a hurricane hitting my home is *not* an indication that God is wrathful towards me. In fact, it may well be the case that God is wrathful towards someone else, and I’m just living in a ‘bad neighborhood.’
David: That is a better argument. It gets into the tricky question of punishment which is for penal satisfaction or for disciplinary correction. I know what Hebrews says on this, but is it possible that in this case the punishment was not a simple disciplinary discipline, either for Moses or for the Dathan and the crowd?
I always wondered about Berkhof’s citation of Moses there. The real issue, I think he was trying to make, is that under the hoeksemian schema, its meaningless to say that God is really really really angry (which is the point of the biblical passage). The Hoeksemian view of God’s attributes is the apple pie model. This piece is love, and only love. This piece is hatred and only hatred. You get this one, but he gets that one. Berkhof shows that the same object can be the recipient of hate and love, in diffenent senses. And yes, I can know what those senses are. Berkhof gives one example, but which may not be the best. Hos 9:15 is a better.
Jeff:
So…while I appreciate that Berkhof might wish to blur some of the artificially hard lines created by Hoeksema (esp. wrt common grace), I don’t find his statement here particularly helpful here in the sense that he doesn’t explain what sense he means.
David: Sure, I can see that.
take care,
David
David, yes, what I mean is that I, the reader, have that problem in reading. But since this an obvious question for the reader, the author is essentially obligated to explain in what sense, if he can.
You may have noticed that I deliberately used a couple of “in a sense”s in my own argument. 🙂
Let’s agree up front that Hoeksema draws lines that the Scripture does not permit.
JRC
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming you were not coming from the Hoeksemian angle, but I still went into hyper-analytical mode. Thanks for the kind reply, too.
Thanks
David