# common grace???



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

here is my question.

common grace...did christs death on the cross also purchase common grace for all mankind...if not then how can God be gracious to sinners in any way...should he not then punish them immediately?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 28, 2004)

I believe Christ alludes to common grace in the sermon on the mount, "your father, who makes the sun shine on the unrighteous." 
as such (present in the world before the cross), he is gracious to sinners.
ROmans 2:5, But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. and Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "œFor this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 

Ergo, God's delaying his punishment does not lessen his glory in anyway.
Those aer my initial thoughts


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

but does his common grace just flow forth from who he is...or was it purchased also by christs death...and if it does why then has God set up a different way for saving grace to act in the world...if death was not nec. for common grace why is it nec. for saving grace...or is it that God can be gracious in a common manner bc eventually it will end and turn to wrath for the sinner?


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

clarificatoin to my above post..i believe all grace flows forth from God but is Gods common grace at all connected to his work on the cross...if so why...if not why not..

scripture support would be great.
this is just a question i have been pondering lately


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 28, 2004)

I don't have time to comment on your specific questions, which are good, but I would refer you to some excellent sources on the important topic of common grace: 

John Murray - http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY/Modern Day Reform Teaching/John Murray/Common_Grace.htm

Louis Berkhof - http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/commongrace.htm

Herman Kuiper's _Calvin and Common Grace_ - You can get this from Curt Daniel's Good Books at http://members.aol.com/goodbooks7/

Cornelius Van Til's _Common Grace and the Gospel_ -- You can get this here: http://www.wtsbooks.com/faculty-former-faculty-cornelius-van-til.html

Abraham Kuyper's _Lectures on Calvinism_: http://www.kuyper.org/stone/preface.html

Hope this helps. God bless you!

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2004)

If you do a word study on grace, nowhere in the old or new testament is the word ever used outside of Gods people. Grace is not 'common'. The non elect do however glean secondary blessings from God.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

so these secondary blessings then are taken from Gods relationship to his people based upon the work of the cross...thus then whatever good a heathen may experience is because of the cross then.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2004)

Ryan,
Did you read the links Adam posed? The one from Berkhoff is excellent. 

Matt's new book:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/CD/TwoWillsBookCD.htm


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 28, 2004)

What we would call "common grace" is really a manifestation of God's longsuffering and patience with the wicked. It's part of His character. Scott is right. Grace is not common. But at the same time, God is using everything in this world, including the reprobate for His glory, and for the good of His people. God uses them for preserving and sanctifying His people. God uses the reprobate for the good of the elect. In order for them to do that, they need rain and sunshine, food, etc.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 28, 2004)

"Common grace" is a systematic term. Though it is true that the Bible doesn't speak of "grace" in this way, it is fine to speak of common grace, just as it is fine to speak of the Trinity.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> "Common grace" is a systematic term. Though it is true that the Bible doesn't speak of "grace" in this way, it is fine to speak of common grace, just as it is fine to speak of the Trinity.



Craig,
I agree. I just find myself qualifying the term when I use it as generally people do misunderstand the term and intentionally misuse it. In fact, I believe it is more misunderstood than something like the trinity. The term trinity is much more 'common' than 'common' grace.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

no i as of yet have not read the links but plan to read them....

i understand Gods grace is not common....its offensive to think that it is...but i used it as a term to try and speak of what i meant without having to write it all out. i understand the reprobate are for God Glory and for the good of his people..and that they have their place in Gods plan...and that in order to survive they need food, water, etc....but is this just an issue of God being longsuffering toward us and not wanting to rake up the wheat with the chaff....or is this common grace a grace that was purchased for the reprobate for his glory...

if God is longsuffering towards the reprobate then that is a grace...for it is unmerited favor...the only deserve condemnation....they dont deserve any longsuffering...and if God can be gracious outside of reference to the cross then why is the cross necessary. i know why it is necessary but am struggling with how it relates to common grace (grace that is given to men that is not salvific-and i believe any "good" such as rain that comes to any man is of grace.)i do not mean to be difficult but am just curious...i should read the links now.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 28, 2004)

ok i read most of berkhoffs article...will finish reading it but he said some things i want to comment on before i lose my train of thought. first i do not reference common grace the way some arminians do. common grace in the reprobate is not sufficient for salvific purposes...just to get that out of the way so people know where i stand.

berkhoff says...
"Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mercy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind, or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious. "

and this graciousness to the reprobate seems to me to be at least indirectly connected to the cross..as berkhoff suggests. common grace seems to be directed to all men...because of what Christ had done...because if Christ had not done his work on the cross then nothing like common grace to me would seem plausible....Christs' work on the cross was primarily for the elect but has secondary and indirect consequences to the reprobate that they as of now they enjoy however it seems to me that this common grace though it is gracious now will turn to their harm for they will as always spurn God and thus increase their guilt and punishment in Hell. 

am i close...is their clarification...my main point of question is can common grace exist without the cross...and if so how? and if not am i correct in understanding that it is a secondary indirect blessing of the work of the cross that was done for the ULTIMATE and PRIMARY purspose of Glorifying God and creating a people for his own possesion


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> if God is longsuffering towards the reprobate then that is a grace...for it is unmerited favor...the only deserve condemnation....they dont deserve any longsuffering...and if God can be gracious outside of reference to the cross then why is the cross necessary. i know why it is necessary but am struggling with how it relates to common grace (grace that is given to men that is not salvific-and i believe any "good" such as rain that comes to any man is of grace.)i do not mean to be difficult but am just curious...i should read the links now.



It's not grace just because God delay's the penalty for their sin. God will execute the penalty when he so pleases. You can't forget that God's sovereign plan includes the lives of the reprobate. How this all works is a mystery only God can understand. Common grace is not necessarily a result of the work of Christ. Perhaps you can ground it in the Noahic covenant. It is a parallel to the saving work of Christ in the elect. Many fulfillments of prophecy depended upon common grace. Notice that God's equipping Babylon and Assyria to raise them up for the purpose of punishing Israel and Judah. Notice His raising up the Roman Empire to help accomplish Christs work of redemption. And, if God removed any restraint from the evil hearts of men, then their would be complete and utter chaos and the gospel would never go forth to save the elect because all beleivers would be killed off by the extreme wickedness. There are many many more examples of this both in Scripture and history. And then you must also look at the character of God, that he is meek, kind, patient, and longsuffering even toward the vessels of His wrath.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 29, 2004)

ok...how to say this..hmmm....

Gods salvation of the elect in all points in human history is based upon the cross...for he planned this from before the salvation of the world...if they exist for any reason connected to this work then they exist because of this work...take away the work of Christ in the cross for the elect and all mankind gets is wrath-and immediately because there would be no reason for delay(no elect to save) the reason that they are not punished immediately then and experience any good is because of what GOD is doing on behalf of his Glory and the good of his people. and any good his people experience is of grace thus is of the cross. the reason it rains, and all that jazz even if only for the elect is also experienced by the reprobate...the experience a secondary grace....an indirect grace. and this grace that they experience that is on behalf of the elect stems from the cross..even if it is not a salvific grace...it is still grace...because it is something that they do not deserve...

my assumption is that all the grace that is given to the elect happens only because of the cross which is rooted in the character of God...

analogy- i eat food at the table..food that i could not purchase nor make of my own..it is freely given me by the master chef. the master does this to show me and others that he is good and because he wants to care for me...however there are some mice in the house that he has suffered to stay there. i am a little bit of a messy eater...some food falls and the floor and the mice eat it..now the master has done this for me not for them..but in order to feed me he needs a place to do it and food to serve..the mice stay in this place and eat some crumbs...these things are not directed towards them but towards me...yet he has allowed the mice to stay and thus indirectly benefit from his work toward me...

that is what i mean...since God is gracious in the cross and directly so to us. some of this grace is indirectly given to the reprobate...this graciousness to the elect is purchased by the cross..thus the indirect grace experienced by the reprobate is because of the cross-otherwise no good would ever happen. 

question-if there was no cross would there be any reason for any of this. would God be longsuffering toward anyone?


----------



## RickyReformed (Dec 29, 2004)

I tend to agree with what Patrick said. A question that I saw raised somewhere was whether hell is going to be "hotter" for the reprobate who received "undeserved favor" (grace, of the 'common' variety). For example, the Babylonian king whose kingdom grew in order to punish Israel and who probably enjoyed the good life, as opposed to those Babylonian kings who did *not* receive those blessings. Will his ingratitude for having received what he did not deserve from God merit him a greater punishment in hell? If it does, can they ultimately be called blessings? (I can see how they can be called 'temporal' blessings, though, in as much as he enjoyed them while he was on earth.)

Also, it seens like the term 'common grace' is sometimes used in different senses. Does anyone care to comment on that?


----------



## andreas (Dec 29, 2004)

One should not confuse grace with providence.God does not tolerate the ungodly,let alone shine His grace on them.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness" Romans 1:18.

Confusing providence and grace can lead to the error of universal saving grace.

andreas.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 29, 2004)

i am not in danger of thinking of common grace leading to universal saving grace..only the elect are saved...and agree that wrath is upon the reprobate....but if all the reprobate deserve is condemnation and in Gods providence they dont as of yet get it(though they certainly will) is that not at least a temporary "good" for them and thus if they receive anything but the fulness of wrath is that not a grace...even though the grace is not directed to them but to the elect...does not the reprobate get some benefits of salvific grace.

again...if no cross would there be any reason for God delaying the punishment of mankind...i say no thus my conclusion is the delay is for the Good of the elect though the reprobate get indirect blessings thus i call it grace because it is not merited...meaning they do not deserve it.

i feel i am saying the same thing over and over and hearing the same thing over and over...i do not mean to be difficult or harsh...i am just struggling with this...not in the since that it shakes any of my beliefs...i am just curious of how to understand it


----------



## andreas (Dec 29, 2004)

Common grace is contrary to Scripture, which teaches that God hates the wicked reprobates and that He uses even the things of the present time to their destruction. 

Psa. 5:5 Psa. 11:5;
Psa. 73:17-20; 
Psalm 92:5-7; 
Prov. 3:33; 
Mal. 1:2-4; 
Rom. 9:13; 
I Pet. 3:12. 

andreas.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 29, 2004)

Ryan,
When you previously said that God is 'longsuffering', I imagine you were referring to these passages:

Num 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 

Rom 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? 

Rom 9:22 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: 

As Andreas answered, in certain situations, decree and providence would alsmost make it seem as if God was utilizing longsuffering and compassion towards the reprobate. I believe Matt would call this Gods "divided" sense. In the compound sense, God hates the reprobate; in the divided, it seems as if God is being gracefult to them.

[Edited on 12-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 29, 2004)

Gods wrath rests on the reprobates...and yes i believe as such he hates them. yet grace=unmerited favor...i know that in the end they are receiving no real favor for destruction is their end...but do you not agree that at the moment they are not receiving the fullness of his wrath though they certainly will. but some measure of good. even though this good is not being directed to them per se but directed to the elect. thus they indirectly receive this good and thus will have to answer for it increasing their punishment...but until then they experience some "goodness" if you will. and this grace that is directed to the elect comes by way of the cross thus the indirect good the reprobate receive is due to the cross. thus common grace is bc of the cross.

by common grace i mean seedtime and harvest. sun, moon, rain, medical/technological advancements that the reprobate enjoy not in some salvific sense


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 29, 2004)

Rom 9:22 is quite clear.


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Rom 9:22 is quite clear.



thanks

i appreciate the thoughts...and insight.
i think i should just concentrate on the scriptures and pray

a fuller understanding will come

thanks again


----------



## Augusta (Dec 29, 2004)

Isn't the law and government, in so far as it restrains wickedness, a part of God's common grace?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Isn't the law and government, in so far as it restrains wickedness, a part of God's common grace?



Augusta,
Yes. But whom is the grace towards?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> Gods wrath rests on the reprobates...and yes i believe as such he hates them. yet grace=unmerited favor...i know that in the end they are receiving no real favor for destruction is their end



It is not grace/unmeritted favor to delay a merited punishment. If anything its a worse judgment because the reprobate is meriting even more wrath through his sinful living. Nor is it necessarily grace to recieve sun,rain, and harvest because these benefits could be used by God to in fact harden people. They are not preserved per se because of unmerited favor but because of God's sovereign plan for them as well as the elect.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> ...



As in Noah's day. Rain was not such a blessing at that moment was it?


----------



## Augusta (Dec 29, 2004)

Wouldn't it really be toward the elect but that others benefit. Like the sun shining on the just and unjust alike reference. The elect benefit from good government and law enforcement. Isn't this the same as a non-elect spouse recieving the benefits of an elect spouse.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 29, 2004)

Traci,
Matt has a book: Look at the table of contents as it may help to explain the idea......

http://www.apuritansmind.com/CD/TwoWillsBookCD.htm


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 2, 2005)

I wish to reiterate my recommendation of Herman Kuiper's book _Calvin on Common Grace_. There is no better analysis of what Calvin had to say on the subject of common grace that I know of. Calvin is a wonderful fountain of insights into the Reformed doctrine of common grace, followed in my opinion only by Kuyper, both of whom acknowledge the important distinction between God's common grace towards all men and God's saving grace toward the elect.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I wish to reiterate my recommendation of Herman Kuiper's book _Calvin on Common Grace_. There is no better analysis of what Calvin had to say on the subject of common grace that I know of. Calvin is a wonderful fountain of insights into the Reformed doctrine of common grace, followed in my opinion only by Kuyper, both of whom acknowledge the important distinction between God's common grace towards all men and God's saving grace toward the elect.



I really do need to make more money in order to buy more books!


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

The problem using the Rain and Sun verse to support common grace is that are we suppose to believe that those who receive more rain and sun are receving more grace?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The problem using the Rain and Sun verse to support common grace is that are we suppose to believe that those who receive more rain and sun are receving more grace?



Ahhh...nope. Case in point: the Flood. Nevertheless, God is gracious to all men (grace = unmerited favor, benevolence), and to the elect in a saving way.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 23, 2005)

As I followed the debate on this thread I noticed that most of the ardent defenders of Common Grace follow Abraham Kuyper in rejecting natural law. That is not a hard and fast rule since Herman Hoeksema was in the Kuyper tradition and rejected both Common Grace and natural law.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



That is why I winked Andrew.

Grace can never be confused with providence. Benevolence is a long stretch to equate with grace.

All is for His glory, even his hatred of the reprobate.

That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

In His Name


Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> As I followed the debate on this thread I noticed that most of the ardent defenders of Common Grace follow Abraham Kuyper in rejecting natural law. That is not a hard and fast rule since Herman Hoeksema was in the Kuyper tradition and rejected both Common Grace and natural law.




I believe Kuyper is painted wrongly in this case. He never would have proposed common grace as it is proposed by some today.


It also depends on what your classify as natural law.


Joseph


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.



Sorry to hear that.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



Please do not be sorry. To think that for one second God shows grace to the reprobate in love makes Him schizophrenic. 

God does not love all equally. Calvin said this is a dreadful doctrine and I agree. 

I believe He cares for all of His creation, but to equate that with grace is not exactly correct.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Nobody said God loves everyone equally. If you think this is the doctrine of common grace, you are mistaken. 

I would encourage you, if you have not done so and are interested in learing what Calvin said about common grace, to read Herman Kuiper's book _Calvin on Common Grace_.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 23, 2005)

The problem with "common grace" is that it is not grace. Grace is unmerited favor. The wicked are under the covenant of works and therfore everything they get is merited. "Favor" has to do with intention. God does not use his indiscriminate providence for the betterment of the reprobate, but to fill up the measure of their sins. Psalm 92:7 says "When the wicked spring up like grass, and all the workers of iniquity flourish, it is only that they may be destroyed forever." 

In the same sense that we can agree with Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good for the elect, we can say that all things work together for destruction for the rebrobate. 

Matt's new book on the Two Wills in God does a good job of dealing with this topic.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

The denial of common grace is related to the doctrine of hyper-Calvinism, which I view as great cause for concern.



> 4. The denial of common grace. The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.
> 
> The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

Berkhof's treatment of common grace is worth reading.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



I have read it and disagree. When read in context, I do not believe you can ally with Calvin. 

Let me present clear definitions right from the horses who fought this dreadful disease.


http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_55.html


Now please do not call me hyper this or hyper that. I have denied common grace before I even knew what it claims to be.


And people have referred me to Berkhoff and Calvin on common grace 100times. I have read them and disagree.

There is a doctrine of "common grace" that teaches a form of benevolence from God to all creation, in that He provides a world in which mankind can survive and benefits such as animals and plants for food, heat and light from the sun and rain to provide water for life. However, this is not the type of "common grace" that is spoken of here and by others.

whatever disposition God has toward the non-elect, it cannot be properly termed grace! To me, that is the most important point. If you presently believe that calling it 'love' is appropriate, I will not be upset. However, I do challenge even this notion today.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2005)

Joseph, 

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Joseph,
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.


'
May God bless you Andrew and If I am wrong may He bring me to repentance swiftly.

Let me just say I am in no way saying God is not good and perfect in all He does. I am stating that this goodness does not equal grace or Love.

I have struggled with the possiblity of different levels of love, and am still entertaining that thought. But as of now I state that God in no way loves the non elect.


Joseph

[Edited on 3-23-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 23, 2005)

TO EVERYONE IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Grace is "favor." That is what the word means. So any person who gets any favor from God gets grace. Not all grace saves. So a person who gets favor from God (even if they are not saved) has received "common grace." 

Who has received favor from God? Anyone who has *not* gotten *exactly and immediately what they deserve* from Him in His perfect justice and wrath.

Who would that be? ALL of us. Every human being who for one split second does not get WRATH and JUDGMENT is receiving common grace. Because they are getting something they do NOT deserve - favor.....GRACE!

As has been demonstrated on this board through a multitude of threads, posts, quotes, links, etc, on the topic.....*a denial of common grace is hyper-calvinisnist. Period. Fact*.

Phil Johnson on Hyper-Calvinism: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Matt McMahon on Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Critique of Hyper-Calvinism

See also: Hypercalvinism at The Threshold (Monergism.com)

Everyone in the debate or searching for answers about common grace should read all of the links provided in this discussion and then we can talk about it. For now, we are done here.

Phillip

[edited to clarify the intended recipient of this post.....ie. EVERYONE]

[Edited on 3-24-05 by pastorway]


----------

