Common Grace or "Common Grace"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
How do those of us Calvinists who deny the doctrine of Common Grace, account for the relative "good" that unsaved (and reprobate) men do?

Do you believe

(a) That fallen and totally depraved (and reprobate) human beings can do relative good without any non-salvific help from the Holy Spirit?

or

(b) That fallen and totally depraved (and reprobate) human beings do good with non-salvific help from the Holy Spirit, but that it should be called something else other than common grace?

If (b) what is it called?
 
Who denies common grace?

There is a reason it is called "common grace" as differentiated with "salvific grace".

Remember that Total Depravity does not mean that man is as bad as he possibly can be, but it means that sin has depraved (affected) every aspect of us... that is why some call it "Radical Corruption" because some have wrongly believe that Total Depravity meant people were as bas as they possibly could be but that doesn't make sense because we see people that are not saved can do "good" things (though they are not truly good cause they are not done in faith and for God's glory)

"whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" - Romans 14:23
 
I agree, Josh. I know what most people mean by "common grace", but I much prefer the terminology "providence", as is used in the WCF (ch. 5).

I think 5.6 (among many places) makes clear the distinctive meaning that the term "grace" held for the divines.

As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings and wrought upon in their hearts...​
 
"providence",

There might be better terminology for the common operations of the Spirit within the souls of unsaved/reprobate men.

Then we have a distinction between the operations of the Spirit in the unsaved elect and in the reprobate.
 
"providence",

There might be better terminology for the common operations of the Spirit within the souls of unsaved/reprobate men.

Then we have a distinction between the operations of the Spirit in the unsaved elect and in the reprobate.

Sure. In their given contexts I wouldn't want to confuse the terms "providence" - which is something that "reaches all creatures" (5.7) - and "common operations of the Spirit" - which is something that even unregenerate members of the visible church may "have" (10.4).
 
Last edited:
Not to recall the Synod of Kalamazoo from 1924 or Abraham's Kuyper optimistic view of cultural progress due to Common Grace,

I quote James Montgomery Boice, it is a good balanced view on the matter.

Altough like Joshua wrote above, one can choose to bound Grace to the Redemptive Economy of God, and in that sense the terminology changes.

Maybe that is what made men like Hoeksema or Schilder to reject Kalamazoo.

Boice though, finds it a good term to use, so did many other post reformation confessional theologians. quote:

I want you to awaken to God's goodness. I want you to see that all you are and all you have are a result of God's common grace to you.

Let me explain it from God's perspective. God does not owe you anything. He does not even owe you a chance at salvation. When Adam and Eve first sinned against him in Eden, God could have judged them harshly and have sent them to hell at once; and if he had done that, He would have been absolutely just in his actions. Adam and Eve would have received nothing more than their proper desserts. If, acting in a different fashion, God had instead allowed them to live and produce offspring until there were literally millions of their descendants spread out over the entire earth to occupy it and pollute it by their abundant acts of idolatry, theft, fornication, hatred, greed, and other forms of sin, and then had brushed them all into eternal torment, God would nevertheless still have been just. No one could fault him. The righteous angels in heaven would still be able to cry out, as they do even today, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3).

God owes us nothing. Yet, as we well know, God did not immediately banish Adam and Eve to hell, nor did he later suddenly consign the masses of mankind to torment. On the contrary, though there is a judgment to come, God has continually poured out his blessings on men and women.

You have received such blessings. Donald Grey Barnhouse writes correctly, "You are not a believer in Christ and yet you are still out of hell. That is the grace of God. You are not in hell, but you are on earth in good health and prosperity. That is the common grace of God. The vast majority of those who read these words are living in comfortable homes or apartments. That is common grace. You are not fleeing as refugees along the highways of a country desolated by war. That is common grace. You come home from your job and your child runs to meet you in good health and spirits. That is common grace. You are able to put your hand in your pocket and give the child a quarter or a half dollar for an allowance. It is common grace that you have such abundance. You go into your house and sit down to a good meal. That is common grace. On the day that you read these words there are more than a billion and a half members of the human race who will go to sleep without enough to satisfy their hunger, The fact that you have enough is common grace. You do not deserve it. And if you think that you do deserve anything at all from God beyond the wrath which you have so richly earned, you merely show your ignorance of spiritual principles."

Romans 2:4 puts the matter of God's common grace to you and others as a question: "Do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience?" The answer is, of course, you do--unless you have repented of your sin and turned back toward God through faith in Jesus Christ. By nature human beings are ungrateful. By nature you show "contempt" for God's kindness. Yet it is precisely this kindness that God is using to bring you to repentance.

I quote Barnhouse again: "To despise the riches of God's grace is the blackest of all sins. It far outweighs the sins that are a violation of righteousness. Fallen man has a fallen nature. That is why the Lord seemed to overlook the outbreaks of the flesh, knowing man's frame and remembering that he is but dust (Psalm 103:14). You who boast, perhaps, that you are not guilty of the great fleshly sins should realize that the despising of God's goodness is a sin that far transcends an act that might be called a crime under human law.

"Why is God so good toward the lost? He declares that the purpose of the riches of his goodness, forbearance and longsuffering is to lead man to repentance; and he further declares that man does not know the object of God's goodness. Is this not a further picture of the state of man by nature? Can it not be seen that the dark ignorance of unbelief has brought a further fruit of ignorance of the grace of God? You are in good health? Why does God permit it? The answer is that he wants you to turn to him and acknowledge his goodness and accept the riches that he has for you. You have other blessings that come from the common grace of God. The purpose of such riches is to cause you to turn about-face and come to Him for further blessing." (Donald Grey Barnhouse, "God's Wrath," The Book of the Revelation, vol. 2 Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1953)

God's Love Commended

I have spoken of "common grace" in the sense that God's genuine affection has been poured out upon all persons regardless of who they are or what wrongs they may have done. As Jesus said, God "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). Common grace? Yes! But in another sense, it is not at all common. It is most uncommon. It is extraordinary, and it leads us to the most uncommon or extraordinary love of all. We find it in Romans 5:6-8: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
 
Last edited:
Here is, I think, the best article I've read on "Common Grace" so far:
EPC Australia

Just in case you're not inclined to read the whole thing, here's an excerpt:
We understand that at times the use of the term "common grace" was used in classical Reformed theology. This, however, ought to be sharply distinguished from modern usage of the term. It was used by some to express God's good and perfect dealings with fallen mankind in providence. God's goodness is indeed clearly set forth before all men in providence as He executes His eternal decree of election and reprobation in time. The term "grace" was often used to express the fact that.in His providential dealings with men, the God of pure goodness does good in relation to the undeserving and rebellious creature. God's good providence of course is over all creation; minerals, plants, animals, mankind and all spirits. So it was that the term "common grace", when carefully qualified so as to distinguish it clearly from saving grace, was thought to be a suitable term to describe God's dealing with the creature by some Reformed fathers whom we hold in high regard. They taught, however, that God's good works of providence (common grace) implied no favourable attitude of God toward the reprobate. We believe that in the current theological climate, the term "common grace" becomes confusing and even dangerous, and ought not to be used to describe God's good dealings with all men in His works of providence.
 
As for the works of the reprobate, they will ultimately result in greater condemnation and will stand as testimonies against them in judgment.

Yes, although at the same time,

...Their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God. (WCF 16.7)​
 
"Why is God so good toward the lost? He declares that the purpose of the riches of his goodness, forbearance and longsuffering is to lead man to repentance; and he further declares that man does not know the object of God's goodness. Is this not a further picture of the state of man by nature? Can it not be seen that the dark ignorance of unbelief has brought a further fruit of ignorance of the grace of God? You are in good health? Why does God permit it? The answer is that he wants you to turn to him and acknowledge his goodness and accept the riches that he has for you. You have other blessings that come from the common grace of God. The purpose of such riches is to cause you to turn about-face and come to Him for further blessing." (Donald Grey Barnhouse, "God's Wrath," The Book of the Revelation, vol. 2 Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1953)

I wonder when a preacher gives a sermon as Dr. Barnhouse did here did he have in the back of his mind that what he said would only apply to the elect? If so I am not sure this would be really "helpful" in that many would believe that "I am in God's favor because He is good to me". Of course I am sure Dr. Barnhouse predicated his talk that one must believe in Jesus to what he said was true because we all know that the "common grace" he spoke of was for the elect and not the reprobate "22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" In other words, how can "common" grace do something as to save the elect unto salvation. Or to put it another way, can God's good providence lead a man unto salvation? From all I read and believe is that there is no such thing as "common" grace or ultimate good providence, for all good gifts from God to the unelect only fatten the calf for the wrath to come.
 
"I am in God's favor because He is good to me"

They may well think, I am not in God's favour because He is good to me but I despise His goodness. The fact that the reprobate despise and abuse God's good gifts does not mean that they are not genuinely good gifts.
 
I would think the term Charis used in the Greek world had a meaning other than Christian distinctives.

Harpers Bible Dictionary
grace; The English translation of a Greek word meaning concretely, "that wihch brings delight, joy , happiness, or good fortune." Grace in classical Greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to good fortune, kindness and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds.

Something we tend to do as Christians is forget that words have meaning in the secular realm also. The word Jusification does also. When I use to teach on justification I would ask students what the word meant. I would say 99% of the time they would give the strict Christian Theological definition without really answering my question. We do tend to do that.
 
"I am in God's favor because He is good to me"

They may well think, I am not in God's favour because He is good to me but I despise His goodness. The fact that the reprobate despise and abuse God's good gifts does not mean that they are not genuinely good gifts.

I agree they are indeed temporally good.

And the result of them despising those good gifts in the judgment?...Not good for them but good for God. Right?
 
And the result of them despising those good gifts in the judgment?...Not good for them but good for God. Right?

Yes, but the secondary means of their will despising God's good gifts interposes. It's all part of God's plan. I believe we should avoid the notion that these gifts simply come to the reprobate in God's hatred of them.

The reprobate won't be able to take comfort in the fact that they were reprobated from all eternity, therefore God's good gift of sending the Gospel to them wasn't a real good gift but merely in order to condemn them , therefore they were not responsible for what they did with it.

Their despite of God's really good gifts will be their regret.

Does the message of the Gospel come from God to the reprobate in love or hate?
 
Does the message of the Gospel come from God to the reprobate in love or hate?

Good question, I am looking forward to others answer to this question...and if I may I follow..... Does it please Him to ordain that they would not believe in Him? If it did please Him to ordain their unbelief, was it the love or hate of God that ordained them to not believe?

For I believe their is little doubt that we are ordained to believe because He loves us.
 
Last edited:
ps 73:

17Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
18Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.
19How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Is 6:
9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 11Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

Rom 9:

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


What do we read there about common grace and God's attitude toward the wicked? A fattening for the day of slaughter?
 
It is my belief that all God's grace is founded in His unconditional election and predetermined will to save a remnant of humanity from their sins, and that any tolerance or long-suffering of God towards the wicked reprobate of this world, is the result of this aim.

In other words,'s, God has preserved the human race, not for any reward or blessing to the human offspring of Adam, but solely to provide life for His elect people.

God sanctified the entire nation of Israel, in order to ensure the survival of the "seed" of the promised Messiah. Israel's providential and earthly sanctification by the hand of God was not their salvation. God's salvation according to His predetermined grace, was meant for the elect remnant amongst the nation of Israel alone. The eventual birth of Christ being God's sole purpose of any tolerance, patience, etc.

No . . . grace is not common to all men. Grace is found only within Jesus Christ, and is bestowed efficaciously to the elect of God alone, who were chosen by the Father in Him, alone.
 
Maurice Roberts on Common Grace, with a restrospective view of the doctrine since Calvin

SermonAudio.com - Common Grace

It is really worth hearing, as it would be expected from Roberts, who even affirms from Psalm 73 and Job

quote: " God often gives much more Common Grace to those who hate Him and whom He hates" end quote.

Roberts explains also the difference between Common Grace and Saving Grace, and he actually deals a bit with the controversy following the

Synod of the CRC in Kalamazoo in 1924 and the departure of Herman Hoeksema to form the PRC.

I've been reading James D. Bratt - Calvinism in America, a Dutch Subculture - quite an appropriate reading for me personanlly

since I arrived to stay here 5 months in the US coming from Holland, and he explains quite deeply the historical facts sorrounding the controversy.

I didn't bring with me Common Grace and the Gospel by Cornelius Van Til, but it is a must reading on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Ronda
No . . . grace is not common to all men. Grace is found only within Jesus Christ, and is bestowed efficaciously to the elect of God alone, who were chosen by the Father in Him, alone.

What about God's good gifts and spiritual-working in the elect before they are saved. Is that grace?

Cesar
Maurice Roberts on Common Grace, with a restrospective view of the doctrine since Calvin

Thanks for the link. I'll listen to that DV.

---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

I would think the term Charis used in the Greek world had a meaning other than Christian distinctives.

Harpers Bible Dictionary
grace; The English translation of a Greek word meaning concretely, "that wihch brings delight, joy , happiness, or good fortune." Grace in classical Greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to good fortune, kindness and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds.

Something we tend to do as Christians is forget that words have meaning in the secular realm also. The word Jusification does also. When I use to teach on justification I would ask students what the word meant. I would say 99% of the time they would give the strict Christian Theological definition without really answering my question. We do tend to do that.

Good point. We must study the biblical theological and systematic theological use of the term, which may be different.
 
Ronda
No . . . grace is not common to all men. Grace is found only within Jesus Christ, and is bestowed efficaciously to the elect of God alone, who were chosen by the Father in Him, alone.

What about God's good gifts and spiritual-working in the elect before they are saved. Is that grace?

Yes. For these good gifts and workings are part of God's drawing and calling the elect to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

(Romans 8:28-30)
 
Though we can distinguish between common and saving grace, we shouldn't forget that in a sovereign sense ALL things work together for the elects' greatest good, that is, salvation. And thus, ALL things are within saving grace. For the elect, there is nothing but saving grace. Praise God!
 
Though we can distinguish between common and saving grace, we shouldn't forget that in a sovereign sense ALL things work together for the elects' greatest good, that is, salvation. And thus, ALL things are within saving grace. For the elect, there is nothing but saving grace. Praise God!

Samuel, Special Grace or Redemptive or Saving Grace and Common Grace are not mutually exclusive for the Elect. Unless we believe in Eternal Justification (Kuyper did, but I don’t and most Reformed Theologians think it is quite unbiblical) there was a time when we were in enmity with God.

And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works. Colossians 1:21

With many other passages, we know by God’s Grace the elect passes from death to life, from the power of darkness to the Kingdom of His beloved Son, from being naturally in Adam to be supernaturally united to Christ.

Yet we being totally depraved we were not manifesting all our sinfulness in our acts, God’s common Grace was restraining us as is continuing to restrain the reprobate form the horrible potential of total depravity.

I heard Paul Washer saying something quite amazing, that when you take away a toy from a young child (2 years old for example) and he gets furious, if he had strength enough he would kill you right at the spot. It may be closer to truth than we imagine, I’ve seen pretty nasty kids kicking their parents quite violently for not buying them something or so, so Washer may not be far from truth.

Well, moral education, a society with moral principles, and all sorts of good civil systems to help the poor, the orphan, the widow, that doesn’t come from morally depraved man alone, it comes from God working in and through man. This may raise the question of natural law and morality, but I believe there is a lot of God’s Common Grace working in our societies.

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 1 Timothy 2:1-2

Would we expect the enemies of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:6-8) to spare the servants of Christ?
Unless God restrains the hearts of men our leaders would just become worse than Hitler, Stalin or Mao, and like these, the Church would be the first to suffer.

Much good is being done by the reprobate and not even a small portion of the evil that could be done. It's not in them to do one and not the other, that can only be because of God's work in them, not unto salvation, but never the less, it is by God's Grace.

How about 3 hero's joining forces on the topic:

Calvin on Common Grace by Herman Bavinck, translated by his friend Gerhaardus Vos

PDF 18 pages

http://www.contra-mundum.org/books/Calvin.pdf
 
Thanks for all these interesting links Cesar. I'll get round to reading them.

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

Ronda
No . . . grace is not common to all men. Grace is found only within Jesus Christ, and is bestowed efficaciously to the elect of God alone, who were chosen by the Father in Him, alone.

What about God's good gifts and spiritual-working in the elect before they are saved. Is that grace?

Yes. For these good gifts and workings are part of God's drawing and calling the elect to saving faith in Christ Jesus.

(Romans 8:28-30)

There must yet be a distinction between saving/irresistible grace and non-saving grace even in the elect otherwise we are falling into Arminianism. God sometimes draws and calls the non-elect in His own mysterious sovereign purposes, and yet doesn't do a saving work in their hearts.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV)
 
There must yet be a distinction between saving/irresistible grace and non-saving grace even in the elect otherwise we are falling into Arminianism.

There is no distinction to make for I do not believe there is a "non-saving grace" to begin with. Such is the teaching of Arminians.

The grace of God is always irresistible and efficacious for it is bestowed upon the elect chosen in Christ, alone.

God sometimes draws and calls the non-elect in His own mysterious sovereign purposes, and yet doesn't do a saving work in their hearts.

Well, with all due respect, I simply disagree. If you mean "non-elect" as being unregenerated elect, God's calling and drawing always results in justification and glory. (Romans 8:28-30) If you mean "non-elect" as being reprobates, God's good blessings are merely residual.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV)

This speaks of unsaved people who are in the midst of the elect in the visible churches. These are hypocrites who sit under the preaching of the gospel, deluding themselves that they are part of the kingdom of God, but who prove to be reprobate by falling away. These were never called nor anointed with the Holy Spirit of God and thus are unregenerate tares amongst the wheat. I John 2:18-20
 
I heard Paul Washer saying something quite amazing, that when you take away a toy from a young child (2 years old for example) and he gets furious, if he had strength enough he would kill you right at the spot. It may be closer to truth than we imagine, I’ve seen pretty nasty kids kicking their parents quite violently for not buying them something or so, so Washer may not be far from truth.

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all. Besides, even we, in our sanctified state, would kill anyone (no matter how close to us) at any moment hatred ignites in our hearts. Now listen. The reason we very rarely do in fact kill someone is a matter of circumstances - we are too rational beings to ignore the consequences. But there are irrational people who do kill people. There are even people who are totally aware of the consequences, but fail to deliberate the pleasure and relief of killing and the consequences truthfully, due to which they end up killing the one they hate. This shouldn't surprise any of us. I always try to imagine a most ideal situation for killing somebody, such as you seeing a person you hate at the edge of a rock, totally helpless, no witnesses around, no-one will ever know this person's cause of death if you drop him - a situation where there are no consequences. Realize that quaranteed killing requires only two things: hatred and zero consequences - that's where you kill even your best friend, your mother or father, doesn't matter who it is. I've come to realize that it's one thing to admit you're a murderer according to God's law and quite another to actually conclude it by searching your own heart. This is a humbling truth, Brothers and Sisters. We are true murderers.
 
There must yet be a distinction between saving/irresistible grace and non-saving grace even in the elect otherwise we are falling into Arminianism.

There is no distinction to make for I do not believe there is a "non-saving grace" to begin with. Such is the teaching of Arminians.

The grace of God is always irresistible and efficacious for it is bestowed upon the elect chosen in Christ, alone.

God sometimes draws and calls the non-elect in His own mysterious sovereign purposes, and yet doesn't do a saving work in their hearts.

Well, with all due respect, I simply disagree. If you mean "non-elect" as being unregenerated elect, God's calling and drawing always results in justification and glory. (Romans 8:28-30) If you mean "non-elect" as being reprobates, God's good blessings are merely residual.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV)

This speaks of unsaved people who are in the midst of the elect in the visible churches. These are hypocrites who sit under the preaching of the gospel, deluding themselves that they are part of the kingdom of God, but who prove to be reprobate by falling away. These were never called nor anointed with the Holy Spirit of God and thus are unregenerate tares amongst the wheat. I John 2:18-20

Ronda, I believe the problem with your position is that you are allowing the Decree and Election to fill the entire spectrum of Special Revelation, so, you are trying to see from God’s perspective but that is actually something we cannot do and He doesn’t want us to do.

Of course the teleological effect of God's operation is absolutely different from those He reprobated to those He elected to be saved, but only God knows the end from the beginning.

Scripture tells us otherwise concerning God's dealing with men, that is the point Richard made concerning resistible Grace, well that can't be Saving Grace.

But there is some Grace for those legally in the Covenant, yet we know some may saddly become Covenant Breakers. It is not Saving Grace, but it is none the less Grace, for instance the Grace to hear the Gospel - that is when Common Grace comes linked with another quite debated doctrine - the Well Meant Offer of the Gospel :stirpot: :)

Louis Berkhof deals, In my humble opinion very well, with your objection, quote:

"Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realization of His reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories. 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 are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7. Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36. And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature children of wrath even as the rest”? Eph. 2:3. Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God´s love. And if they who are the objects of God´s redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35: ROM 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God´s revelation is not dependable on this subject."
 
There must yet be a distinction between saving/irresistible grace and non-saving grace even in the elect otherwise we are falling into Arminianism.

There is no distinction to make for I do not believe there is a "non-saving grace" to begin with. Such is the teaching of Arminians.

The grace of God is always irresistible and efficacious for it is bestowed upon the elect chosen in Christ, alone.

(I agree more with your signature than I do Berkhof!)

God sometimes draws and calls the non-elect in His own mysterious sovereign purposes, and yet doesn't do a saving work in their hearts.

Well, with all due respect, I simply disagree. If you mean "non-elect" as being unregenerated elect, God's calling and drawing always results in justification and glory. (Romans 8:28-30) If you mean "non-elect" as being reprobates, God's good blessings are merely residual.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, ESV)

This speaks of unsaved people who are in the midst of the elect in the visible churches. These are hypocrites who sit under the preaching of the gospel, deluding themselves that they are part of the kingdom of God, but who prove to be reprobate by falling away. These were never called nor anointed with the Holy Spirit of God and thus are unregenerate tares amongst the wheat. I John 2:18-20

Ronda, I believe the problem with your position is that you are allowing the Decree and Election to fill the entire spectrum of Special Revelation, so, you are trying to see from God’s perspective but that is actually something we cannot do and He doesn’t want us to do.

Of course the teleological effect of God's operation is absolutely different from those He reprobated to those He elected to be saved, but only God knows the end from the beginning.

Scripture tells us otherwise concerning God's dealing with men, that is the point Richard made concerning resistible Grace, well that can't be Saving Grace.

But there is some Grace for those legally in the Covenant, yet we know some may saddly become Covenant Breakers. It is not Saving Grace, but it is none the less Grace, for instance the Grace to hear the Gospel - that is when Common Grace comes linked with another quite debated doctrine - the Well Meant Offer of the Gospel :stirpot: :)

Louis Berkhof deals, In my humble opinion very well, with your objection, quote:

"Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realization of His reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories. 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 are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7. Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36. And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature children of wrath even as the rest”? Eph. 2:3. Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God´s love. And if they who are the objects of God´s redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35: ROM 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God´s revelation is not dependable on this subject."

To deny that God's grace is common to mankind, is not to deny the compassion, pity, and favorable disposition of God towards His creatures. (e.g. Ezekiel 33:11)

I believe in the gracious and kind nature of God, but I do not believe the Scriptures that speak of His long-suffering with the wicked, define Godly grace. (Romans 9:21-23) Nor do I believe hearing the gospel preached is always the calling of grace. The gospel message, being the Word of God, is a two-edged sword; working grace in the souls of the elect, but executing judgment against all unbelief and lack of saving response by the wicked. (John 3:18)

I think clear distinction always should be kept between Justice executed and Grace achieved . . . versus attempts to mingle (confuse?) definitions of Godly grace.

All men, created under the Law, prove to be depraved covenant-breakers who deserve only the wrath of God, but the elect sons of God alone are ransomed from this destructive wrath, by the mercy and grace of God, alone. The sovereign withholding of grace from the wicked (e.g. Isaiah 6:9-10), reveals divine justice executed; therefore, there can be no fault found IN God or WITH God.

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

(Your signature says it better than Berkhof, in my opinion!)
 
To deny that God's grace is common to mankind, is not to deny the compassion, pity, and favorable disposition of God towards His creatures. (e.g. Ezekiel 33:11)

I believe in the gracious and kind nature of God, but I do not believe the Scriptures that speak of His long-suffering with the wicked, define Godly grace. (Romans 9:21-23)

I think clear distinction always should be kept between Justice executed and Grace achieved . . . versus attempts to mingle (confuse?) definitions of Godly grace.

All men, created under the Law, prove to be depraved covenant-breakers who deserve only the wrath of God, but the elect sons of God alone are ransomed from this destructive wrath, by the mercy and grace of God, alone. The sovereign withholding of grace from the wicked (e.g. Isaiah 6:9-10), reveals divine justice executed; therefore, there can be no fault found IN God or WITH God.

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

(Your signature says it better than Berkhof, in my opinion!)

Ronda, ok we can agree to disagree, but make sure you are not thinking of Prevenient Grace - I say this because you mention my quote from Calvin,

Common Grace is not part of our Reformed Ordo Salutis neither is of course Preceding or Prevenient Grace, well on this we both agree :)
 
Cesar,

I just wanted to make sure I understand you. Am I correct in concluding that you believe that God's passive hardening of us or letting us fall in sin cannot ultimately work for our good? Or that before our conversion God doesn't work ALL things for our good, if anything at all? I mean, there is a reason why the Bible says "all things work TOGETHER" for our good, that is, not individually.

Also, I'm not suggesting common and saving grace are mutually exclusive. I'm saying ALL things, from ALL times and ALL places, before we even existed, ultimately worked and will continue to work for our good/salvation. And that's why I said for the elect ALL, including (not exclusing) God's common grace, is saving grace.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top