This is the third message in a series of two covering a public debate between Ron Hanko (speaking against common grace and maintaining that God never shows favour of any kind to any but his elect) and David Silversides (defending the doctrine of common grace; i.e. that God does show favour to the non-elect in this present life). The addresses should be listened to as a set to get the proper sense. The debate took place over two evenings on 3rd & 4th February 1995 in Belfast.
See our Bookstore page for a book entitled 'The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed' by David Silversides that contains a much-expanded version of the pro-common grace material on these tapes.. As well as dealing thoroughly with the doctrinal question, the book also contains a choice collection of quotations from the Reformers and Puritans.
Interesting Q & A! Ron Hanko's response to his first question reveals an inconsistency in his interpretive principle. David Silversides, in his first talk, quoted Psalm 145 v 9 as a 'proof text' for the doctrine of the Lord's common grace toward Mankind. Psalm 145 v 9 reads, The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. Rev Hanko, in disputing Rev Silversides position, in HIS first talk, said that 'all' in the first clause of v 9 is to be understood as meaning 'all His works' from the 2nd clause. Rev Hanko, in his first talk, said that 'all his works' referred to God's creation, something which he further defined in that talk as excluding Mankind, for no good reason that I can fathom. Verse 10 reads, All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee. So then, in this Q & A Rev Hanko now says that 'Thy works', in verse 10, is to be interpreted as meaning 'Thy saints' and, further, that v 10 supports his position in the debate. So, God's 'works' are to be defined differently in two adjoining verses? Is that a sound exegetical principle?