Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 5

 Hijacking Christian Mercy 

One interesting idea of North is Satan’s use of an ‘inside man’. This kind of person has been raised in a church (or Christianized community) and he then uses the things he learned there to work for the devil.1  He mentions Judas as example; this disciple did not follow Jesus wholeheartedly. Apparently, he was attracted to Jesus for his personal benefits.2  While he seemed to care most for the poor, he actually stole from the ‘deaconal fund’ for his own benefit. And, when it became quite clear that Jesus’ kingdom was not going to give him any status or privilege (as minister of finance, for instance), he decided to share inside information with the enemies, which sought to destroy him. The enemies of God effectively rebel against Christianity by borrowing from it.3  They do not realize or they refuse to see the great inconsistency in their approach. Gandhi became familiar with the teachings of Jesus when he studied in Britain. While Britain -as a country and culture- no longer embraced the Word of God, its citizens were yet appalled to learn about the violent attack on peacefully protesting Indians under the direction of Gandhi. The Word of God had given great blessings to the British, yet these were also abused through the idolatry of greed and pride. Then the lingering morality was instrumental to undo the blessings: dominion was lost and the British Empire began to fall apart. 

Why are Social Justice warriors, the Whiteness-haters, and the pushers for the gender rainbow so strong in Western countries and not in South East Asia? Why do we hear demands of restitution about black slavery by whites in America while we never hear about similar demands for white slavery by blacks in North Africa in earlier times. Pre-Christian societies have no mercy for the oppressed, like women, slaves, the sickly, or the handicapped. They ‘know’ that caring for the weak makes the whole nation weaker, so nobody endorses such silly notions. That’s why Jesus’ way of achieving power and dominion through humility and weakness was rejected by Jews and Greeks alike. Although the historian Tom Holland is not a Christian, he acknowledges that without Christianity the world would be much worse than it is. 

Why would the Communists care for the peasants or the factory workers? Because they wanted to mobilize them for the revolution against the successful groups, which were called ‘oppressive’. And then, after the revolution, they lost interest in those whom they used for their own advancement, and they themselves became the oppressors. They lied, by suggesting that they acted from love, for they acted out of jealousy, hatred, and revenge. 

So, why is the West becoming Woke? Because it is a post-Christian culture. Like Tom Holland, they rejected God and the Truth, yet they cling to the biblical idea of caring for the oppressed. And, because they left the faith, they now turn against God, his Word, and his church, by jumping onto the bandwagon of so-called ‘Social Justice’. The God-given privileges for the nations that respected the Bible are now seen as oppressive, white, and evil. The blessings of God in a day of rest, in morality, in sexuality, marriages, and discipline are now seen as the root of all evil.   

And so, the biblical model for ‘the last will be first’ is hijacked by the Social Justice warriors and their allies to destroy the source of all blessings. And, many of their greatest allies are liberal churches and their members. They no longer want to make disciples of Jesus, who submit to his teaching. Rather, they only want to show ‘warm-fuzzy’ love which supports people of other religions in their idolatries, not believing this will lead to greater judgment. And so, they have become a major catalyst of moral, cultural, and economic destruction. If the sun will continue to set on the west, the moment of truth will come when the world will realize the lie. For it is then that people will realize and acknowledge that ‘caring for the oppressed’ was a Christian idea that should have been rejected in the first place. Perhaps then the end will come.

1 Dominion, p.220.

2 He was not the only one who thought like this. Matthew 20:20-28, Mark 10:35-45.

3 Dominion, p.219.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 4

Postmillennialism

As newcomer into Gary North’s thinking, I know fairly little about Postmillennialism and I had never heard of the Dominion Covenant. I grew up in a mostly amillennial church climate that took the Cultural Mandate seriously made serious attempts to bring the Christian worldview to bear on all areas of life. 

Looking at Bible history and church history I see a series of waves with times of (spiritual) growth as well as times of (spiritual) decline. In different geographic regions, such waves are usually not synchronized, although waves in some areas often trigger later waves in others. 

Matthew 1 seems to show Israel’s history on a macro-scale as one major wave, representing the rise and fall of God’s Kingdom, followed by a time of anticipation for a whole new beginning with the coming of the Christ. Within this macro-wave, we find many secondary waves, more limited in space and/or time. The book of Judges, for instance, reveals a series of relatively short waves, where God refused to let his Kingdom deconstruct all the way. Every successive judge brought a revival, even though these were often local and certainly short-lived. 

Possibly, the flow of Church history has a similar pattern. As the Gospel spread across the world, it was followed by blessings in many areas of life. The secular world refuses to acknowledge this, but men like Vishal Mangalwadi have tried to set the record straight on this.1

Now large parts of the human world are turning against their Provider-God, his Word, and his Church, two things can happen. Either God will let them give a taste of life without (the blessings of) God, so that there will be a reformation and revival. Or, God has decided that the end has come altogether, that is: the end of Satan’s resistance. In that case we should expect that God would intervene in a decisive way to bring judgment and full and permanent restoration of his Kingdom. 

Certainly, there are certain theories, built on selective passages, that argue for an overarching trend of (spiritual) growth or decline, but I do not see how we can have absolute certainty that the model of our preference must be the only true or permissible perspective. So, I am not convinced that God’s elect will be on-masse raptured from this wicked world or that there is or will be a literal thousand-year period where Christ and his followers will rule the world, while evil perhaps continues to spoil the earth. 

Will the ultimate victory, with or without a physical presence of the returning Christ, happen before the end of times? Postmillenials seem to be convinced of this. In Gary North’s book I have not found much if any substantial evidence for this scenario. 

North refers to passages from prophecies, parable, and proverbs to underscore his thesis. Are all prophecies, like Isaiah 65:17-20, referring to literal truth in historical times? Are parables illustrating a specific point, or may we derive all kinds of ‘truths’ from them? Regarding the parable of the wheat and tares,2 North writes, “We must deal with the historical development of the wheat and tares.” We must see that this process leads to … Christian victory in history.3  ‘We must see’? Is that really so evident from this parable, or only so for those who look with postmillennial eyes? 

Progress and Dominion 

North insists that “Christians will someday possess cultural, economic, and political power through their adherence to biblical law.”4  Where did God promise this or Jesus teach this? We are warned for persecution and called to suffering! Jesus says, “Take up your cross”, not “Take up your scepter”. 

North claims that “Only a fool or a heretic would deny theological progress.”5  Elsewhere, he argues that “Christianity’s influence is spreading and beginning to affect every area of life. Why should it be spreading? Because more Christians are living more consistently (in their walk and talk) with the biblical principles of dominion.” 6

It may have convinced the churches in 1987, but does this convince the church today, when many of not most churches are more concerned about the oppression of women, people of color, fat folks, handicapped people, and the alphabet groups, particularly by Christians and orthodox churches? 

If Christians were to rule the earth, as North suggests, would this be a blessing for all? In my experience, North is too optimistic. First, because sacrificially loving Christians will be mixed with self-serving Christians, and hypocrites are an ever-present danger for the church on earth. Second, because greater power leads to greater corruption, even among the believers and in churches. I have worked for Christian school boards and public-school boards, and in my experience most secular schools treated me with greater fairness than Christian schools. Third, when Christians rule they will disagree with each other whether or not to give equal freedom to Jews, Hindus, or Muslims and whether or not all citizens should be forced to keep the Sabbath Day at all, on Sundays or on Saturdays. Are we, as Christians really called to take dominion in every area of life? How did the early church do this under the rule of evil emperors? How does the church do this today in countries like Iran, China or Afghanistan? 

Sure, there are passages in the Old Testament that suggests that obedience to God results in material blessings. In the case of Jabez, prosperity came as God’s response to his prayer. Judah’s offspring had fallen so far, but Jabez -in his fear of the curse of pain- cried out to God, and he received mercy. 

Yet, the general truth that obedience results in prosperity is not a guarantee or promise for all. Job learned the hard way that general truths are not guarantees for life. Throughout history, many faithful servants lived in pain and poverty. The desire for material wealth is spiritually destructive. Paul calls it the root of all kinds of evil and Jesus said that it is particularly difficult for wealthy men to enter the Kingdom of God. The failure of Solomon, though he was a wise man, is just one obvious example. 

Sure, on a larger scale we can recognize the blessings from obedience. As Vishal Mangalwadi and others demonstrated, when the Gospel spread into Europe, it resulted in improved health and wealth, better legislation and greater liberty, better education and technology. Yet, just as Israel experienced God’s curse when they turned away from their Provider, so today “the sun is setting on the West.” Indeed, it appears that God is allowing Western culture, education, science, and economy to collapse to show what the world is actually wishing for. Will the rebels wake up from their own woke illusions?

1 Vishal Mangalwadi: The Book that made your world- How the Bible created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nelson, 2011, This Book Changed Everything- The Bible's Amazing Impact on our World. Sought After Media, 2019.

2 Matthew 13:24-30.

3 Dominion, p. 68.

4 Dominion, p. 97, 98.

5 Dominion, p. 101

6 Dominion, p. 219.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 3

Truths in Tension 

The Bible clearly teaches the Sovereignty of God. Yet, throughout the Bible it is also clear that every human is responsible to respond to his/her God-given gifts. And, there cannot be a real responsibility without a real choice. This freedom to choose, however, does not mean that the one who must choose has the power to make the right choice. Nobody will or can seek God without the re-creating work of the Holy Spirit. 

The difficulty comes with trying to keep God’s Sovereignty and the human responsibility together. It’s like trying to create a flat map from a spherical globe; you must resort to some stretching or cutting to make it work. The human mind frame is too small to keep some apparently contradictory truths together. Or, it’s like juggling two balls -like a blue and an orange ball- with one hand. If we focus our attention mostly on the blue ball, we can easily drop the orange one and vice versa. Unless we insist on balance, we may well end up holding on to our favorite ball, while we lose sight of the other one. 

Consequently, theologians frequently focus mostly on human responsibility (as in Arminianism) and freedom or put the primary focus on the Sovereignty of God. 

The first approach invariably results in the chipping away from the Sovereignty of God. Philip Yancey, for instance, argues that God took a risk when he left the final decision (for obedience and faith) totally and only up to human beings. R.C. Sproul argued that this cannot be. Even if there were one atom in the whole universe outside of God’s control, there could not be a guarantee that God’s Kingdom would ever be restored. In this (Arminian) camp, consistent reasoning can lead to the heresy of Pelagius or the Open Theism of Clark Pinnock. 

The second approach tends to view humanity and people in a static way as either elect or reprobate; there is no real well-meant offer for all people, for God cannot ‘mean well’ or show mercy to the reprobates. If Arminianism thrives in the more liberal churches, forms of Hyper-Calvinism are not uncommon in Reformed churches. Personally, I have heard and fought church leaders argue that ‘It is totally wrong to talk about ‘accepting’ Christ as only He can accept us. Or, that you cannot sing “I have decided to follow Jesus”, for it was only God’s decision to make us follow him. Once I was challenged in a church council meeting because I hold that ‘faith’ is not only a gift of God, it is just as much the work of the regenerated person. Another time, a former Protestant Reformed member argued I could not teach the young people since I had written that the Holy Spirit also works in the unregenerate. 1

This approach typically leads to the presumption or assumption that all church members are true believers so that there rarely or never is a call to real self-examination. Some thereby equate covenant and election, believing that in infant baptism the Holy Spirit guarantees the babies and their parents that he will dwell in them and sanctify them so that they will live with God forever. Others warn their congregants, who outwardly live like Christians not to partake of the communion unless they have received a personal revelation to assure them that they are elect. Sadly, many are thus prevented to embrace the promises of God, which are also for them and come to real faith. Thank God, the men who started The Gospel Coalition have grasped these ‘truths in tension’. I would recommend Don Carson’s ‘Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility’2  and his ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God’3

Reasoning from a Predestination Perspective 

Although ultimately God’s sovereignty must imply predestination, this cannot be our primary perspective of evaluating human beings. In daily life it does not work for us, for the man who is known as a wonderful servant of God may yet end up in hell, and the one whom we see as the greatest of all sinners may actually be saved by the powerful re-creative work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, even if we know that predestination is a fact, we cannot use this perspective in practical ministry. 

Neither does the Bible approach people from an eternal-decree perspective. Rather, it sees people as recipients of God’s good gifts and at each level there are those who receive the gifts in loving thankfulness and voluntary service and others, who do not do so and refuse to seek their gracious Father-King. 

North likes the Protestant Reformed view, expressed and promoted by Herman Hoeksema. This starts with God’s sovereignty -and therefore with predestination, whereby there is little or no room left for a well-meant Gospel offer 4 or a love for a demon-possessed pagan girl. If God just loves some and hates the others, why did he show compassion with or look with pity on the Samaritan woman at the well or the multitude in Nineveh?5  North argues that ‘The perfect love of God necessarily involves the perfect hatred of God’s enemies.’ Jonah could only see the wicked city as ‘God’s enemies’, but God taught him that his thinking is too simplistic, for God still showed pity as he looked upon his ‘children’ there. Did God love or hate King Saul? The end of the story shows him as a reprobate, but does that mean that God did not love him when he blessed him in his younger years? Samuel, the man of God, loved Saul, but he also had to adjust his views to see that Saul actually hated God. How could Jesus love to gather the prophet-killing ‘Jerusalem’?6  If we see people only in an absolute love-hate division, we have not grasped the difficult doctrine of the love of God. 

North refers to Romans 12:20, where Paul quotes Proverbs 25:21-22, as the best revelation on God’s attitude to the Romans’ enemies. Although the image of ‘burning coals’ to be piled on the sinner’s head refers to judgment, it must also serve to bring him to repentance and faith. We, too, must love our enemies in the realization that also we were at one time God’s enemies and while we were in that state, God lavished his love on us. How do we know whether our display of love towards others may be used by the Spirit to make sinners turn to the Source of love!? God does want us to proclaim the Good News (!) to all, and he wants its recipients, the hearers, to accept the Word and be reconciled with (their true Father) God! 

The Difficult Doctrine 

According to Gary North, God has and shows no love for those whom he did not elect for his ‘effective grace’. Klaas Schilder agreed with Herman Hoeksema that ‘common grace’ was merely a postponement of judgment, and therefore he did not want to talk of common ‘grace’. Yet, when the Protestant Reformed churches made this approach a doctrinal prerequisite in their 1951 ‘Brief Declaration of Principles’, Schilder no longer recommended the Liberated Reformed emigrants to Canada to join this denomination. 

He wrote a series of articles, later published as a brochure, called ‘Extra-scriptural Binding- a New Danger’.7  Gary North suggests that the gifts for the reprobates are undeserved, thus gracious gifts, but finds that ‘favor’ implies sympathy or love. And, if God hates the reprobates with perfect hatred, there cannot be any room for love. And yet, North does speak about God’s love for the reprobate,8 but this ‘love’ is defined as negative in its emotional attachment, and also judicial. Instead of blessings, there are only wrathful curses. 

To some degree this can be an issue of semantics, but -as I suggested before- North’s concept of the love of God is too simplistic. It follows from human reasoning, which grabs hold of God’s Sovereignty and predestination, and thereby must limit God’s love for his children, whom have not (yet) turned to Him. 

For support, North refers to Romans 9:13, where God is quoted through Malachi’s prophecy, “Esau I have hated”, but what would happen if he did the same thing with Luke 14:26, where Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple”? Allow me to give some very relevant and insightful quotes from D.A. Carson’s booklet ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.’ 

In the first chapter, Carson describes five different kinds of ‘love of God’. The third one refers to the fallen world. John 3:16: God so loved the world that he sacrificed his Son. 

“I know that some try to take KOSMOS (“world”) here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John’s Gospel is against the suggestion”… In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God’s love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired … because it is extended to such a bad thing, … to such wicked people.9   To rebels the sovereign Lord calls out, “As surely as I live…I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?” 10

 “It is easy to see what will happen if any of these five biblical ways of talking about the love of God is absolutized and made exclusive, or made the controlling grid by which the other ways of talking about the love of God are relativized.” “If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion; stripped of complementary biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel.” 11

1 Stephen, for instance, warns the unreopentant Jews to stop resisting the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51.

2 D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility- Biblical perspectives in tension. Baker Books, 1994. 

3 D.A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Crossway, 1999.

4 https://www.amazon.com/Well-Meant-Gospel-Offer-H-Hoeksema-Schilder/dp/B000ZEXJXG, and The Covenant of Grace Revisited

5 Jonah 5:11.

6 Matthew 23:37.

7 Inheritance Publications, 1996.

8 Dominion, p. 205.

9 D.A. The Difficult Doctrine, p. 17.

10 Ezekiel 33:11; Carson, p.18.

11 Carson, p. 21, 22.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 2

Common Grace

The Thesis What is ‘common grace’? (167) North states that, 

“The thesis of this book is that the best way to explain common grace is by comparing it to the crumbs that fall to sinners who sit under the table of the Lord. The key question with respect to the timing of God’s judgment against sinners is this: When do they attempt to destroy the table of the Lord? In other words, when do they do their ethically best to kill, remove, or persecute God’s church?” 

The picture of the front cover shows one end of this table covered with fairly large plates with chunks of fairly dry, white bread. Some crumbs have fallen off, and a little naked girl seems to reach out to the largest of these crumbs. 

Apparently, North sees the crumb-crawlers as the reprobates, that is: those who are hated by God and therefore destined for their well-deserved damnation. Nevertheless, they are still recipients of a ‘trickle-down effect’ from the blessings for God’s only loved ones even though they will never be thankful and repentant. To the contrary, they will use God’s lesser gifts in order to rebel against the gracious Giver. And when they finally attack, trying to grab the better blessings, the table will fall on them in judgment. 

Gary North apparently suggests that ‘common grace’ is only for ‘sinners’ under the table. Supposedly, those truly loved by God are seated at the banquet table, while all others are mere crumb-crawlers. I assume he defines ‘sinners’ here as those whose minds and lives are dominated by sin,1  but can we equate this with the reprobates? Apparently, this is implied in Gary’s exposition. 

Nevertheless, Paul reasons with the Romans that ‘God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ In other words, those Christians in Rome used to be sinners, but -by God’s grace- they have now been saved and invited at the Master’s table. Once a sinner does not imply: always a sinner! The Good News is that there is hope for sinners. And, what about those, seated at the banquet table (yet, missing in the picture)? Are they not included in the recipients of ‘common grace’? We will discuss this in a later paragraph. 

 The Canaanite Woman 

North’s metaphor seems to relate to the Bible story of Jesus, when he meets a Canaanite woman. We read this in Matthew 15: 21-28. In preceding and following stories Jesus feeds thousands of people, who apparently came to seek healing. And right in the middle there is just one pagan woman, who seeks the blessing of healing for her daughter, who is demon-possessed. 

That the picture shows a naked girl seems to confirm that this is the demon-possessed girl. Jesus appears to dismiss her (and her mother) as they do not belong to the covenant people of Israel, being of Canaanite background. But is that really his intent, or does the Teacher pursue the popular rhetoric in order to create an opportunity for her ‘great faith’ to be revealed? For, when the mother continues her pleas in spite of Jesus’ (apparent) dismissal, he then praises her for her great faith. Concerning the thousands that were healed and fed before and afterwards, we find no such commendation from the Lord. Yet, for this one Canaanite woman, who loved her daughter and trusted in the power and mercy of the rabbi Jesus, we find surprising faith, which brings out God’s amazing grace. Perhaps the story of the Canaanite woman fits in Jesus’ story line when he ‘preached’ in his home town: 

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” 2

So, the Canaanite woman and her daughter may well be another sign and evidence of the coming Kingdom restoration. Many last ones, like a demon-possessed pagan girl, will end up as the first! In the end, she gets offered much more than crumbs! 

How can North be sure that she and her mother are reprobates, who cannot come to saving faith? I think we should not see those who live in sin as reprobates but as not-yet-believers, with the understanding that they, too, are invited to come to the Table by true faith. Even though the Good News turns out bad news for those who reject it, is therefore not a good message for all who hear it? 

As we read in Genesis 9:1-17, God made a covenant with all the earth, all its creatures,3  and especially all people.4  All people -yes, all earthly creatures- are included in the post-flood covenant. God reveals himself as their Creator (like sons, they were created in his image), Savior (through the Flood) Provider (of rain and sunshine),5  and Sustainer. This refers to all humankind, for all are recipients of this ‘common grace’; therefore, the Noahic covenant can be seen as the first dimension in God’s covenant of grace.6 

This is how Paul addresses the atheist and pantheist philosophers in Athens.7  As Paul insists, these gracious gifts imply obligations. The recipients are warned to seek this God and to live in thankfulness and expectation with this Father-God. Just because Israel received greater blessings (as well as obligations), this does not mean that they no longer receive this common grace. Later, with Jesus’ coming, and particularly after Pentecost (his return by his Spirit), all nations are reminded of their relationship with and obligation to their creator-provider God. That’s why Paul, when the Spirit brings him to the Areopagus, argues that the God he proclaims is not a foreign God for them; he has provided and guided them all along, and now they are called to seek their Creator-God and Father-Provider to be reconciled to him. And, indeed, if they refuse to do so, there will be judgment in the end. 

From this perspective then, common grace refers to God’s gifts to all humanity. The greater gifts of the covenant with Abraham-Israel are not more of the same; they are much richer. If ‘common grace’ is bread, then the grace in God’s Word and the communion of God’s people, which experiences the mighty acts of their God is perhaps butter and cheese. Do not despise the bread of the basic blessings. God cares for all of creation, and he sent his Son to restore it fully as his Kingdom.

1 Occasionally, the term ‘sinner’ is used in the Bible to refer to people who regularly fall into sin, even if their lives are no longer under the rule of sin but under the rule of the Spirit. So, their genuine desire is to love God and to hate sin.

2 Luke 4:25-27.

3 It makes no sense to apply the Covenant of Grace to Satan. He is no eartly creature and there is no biblical indication that Satan could be reconciled.

4 in other words: Noah and his offspring, i.e. all humanity since the Flood

5 as in Psalm 104:27.

6 See 'The Covenant of Grace revisited 1 in Praying for Rain, blogger

7 Acts 17: 22-31.

Dominion and Common Grace - Reviewing Gary North's publication 1

 DOMINION AND COMMON GRACE 1

Summary

Two months ago, my friend Don gave me a copy of this book ‘with much appreciation for (your) Kingdom vision. Although Gary North’s style first irritated me, I also realized that I may have had a similar tendency of making enemies. Since I have battled hyper-Calvinism several times in my life, I am genuinely bothered by North’s view of humanity around us as just elect or reprobate, even if in the final analysis, at the final judgment this will prove correct. Related to this is, of course, his restricted view of the Love of God. While North refers us to Chilton’s books for the better argumentation in favor of Postmillennialism, the line of arguments used in this book failed to convince me. Although I can cooperate well with Millennialists of different persuasion, I prefer to keep at arm’s length those who claim to know exactly how the latter days will unfold. I do appreciate the book and the insights shared by its author. There are many thought-provoking ideas that help me to adjust and fine-tune my own understanding and it is a wonderful thing to meet companions, who love to study and debate the Word of God and its implications for culture trends and practical church life. 

Appreciation

Let’s start with some ‘applause moments’ during my studying of the book After he quotes Romans 9:18,2 North comments, “If this bothers you in any way, let me issue a warning: you are thinking humanistically.”3  I like this, because in today’s setting we need such reminders on a regular basis. Don Carson warned church leaders to stop saying things like, “Now, we come to a topic I would rather avoid, but since the Bible talks about hell, I am obligated to talk about it, too”. Carson then adds: “Do you pretend to be more merciful or righteous than Almighty God?” 

When, two pages further, North quotes Timothy 4:10, which states that “…the living God … is the Savior of all men…”, he agrees that just as there is a common grace for all and a special grace for some, there is also -to some extent- a universal salvation for all even though the eternal salvation is reserved for the elect. As I have argued elsewhere, God’s covenant of grace was -in its most basic form- extended to all earthly creatures, as God had saved them all from the great flood. 

Several times Gary North reminds us that the recipients of God’s greater gifts also have a greater responsibility to respond in grateful thanksgiving.5  Again, in today’s age of ‘equality worship’ it is important to stress that God does not give equal gifts to all persons.6  Yet, he does demand more from those who received more and will issue greater punishment for those who received much, while they continue in their rebellion against the giver of all good things! 7

In my experience, deconstructing Christians and liberal churches today focus especially on ‘doing good’ and ‘being nice’ to others, like Muslim immigrants. Yet, they show no love or Christian faith if they do not seek to bring these people into loving relationship with the ultimate Giver of all good things. So, in their humanistic ‘love’ they end up piling coals of fire on the ones they claim to love, leading to their greater judgment. North recognizes that, although ‘evil man can do good things’,8  such good things are only good in a limited sense. In fact, all things that do not give glory to God, are essentially evil.

1 Gary North, Dominion & Common Grace, the biblical basis of progress, Dominion Press, 1987.

2 God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

3 Dominion, p.20.

4 The Covenant of Grace Revisited I, in Praying for Rain blogger

5 e.g. Domion, p.29, 97.

6 Even many 'Christians today would argue that God is not fair or righteous! :(

7 Matthew 11:20-24.

8 Dominion, p.53.