# Question [re: Common Grace]



## Reformingstudent (Jul 6, 2008)

Concerning those who do not believe in the doctrine of common Grace. 
What I would like to know is this, are all those who do not believe in the doctrine of common grace to be thought of as hyper-Calvinist and if so are they to be considered as apostates? I am trying to understand both sides of the issue but am not sure at this time where I stand. I believe that there are a lot of good God fearing men on both sides of the issue and both sides make a good point to some degree. If I find that I can no longer hold to the idea of common grace, would that in and of itself make me a hyper-Calvinist? Not sure who or what to believe as this is a complicated issue especially for someone who is not well educated in theology. I am learning as I go and want to find out as much as I can from both sides. My main concern is that I don't come away with any faulty ideas or misconceptions from either side. Any help would be appreciated here. 
Not looking to open a  

Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 6, 2008)

FYI. I added a description to your Question; also, you might search for older threads on this topic as there have been a few.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 6, 2008)

We have good solid people on both sides of this issue on the PB.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jul 6, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> We have good solid people on both sides of this issue on the PB.



Well I guess I had better walk a straight line in between as I don't wish to offend anyone here. 
If the Mod thinks it best to delete this thread before it starts into another debate that's fine. I can look at the other posts on the subject and fine what I need I think. Mostly was wondering if non-belief in Common Grace was a step toward apostasy. I don't want to start something that may cause any grief to anyone. I have a too much respect for everyone here to do that.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 6, 2008)

The problem with Hyper-Calvinism is that there is no dictionary definition as to some extent it is a term of abuse, it is hard to imagine anyone claiming to be a hyper-calvinist.

The problem of common grace is that it tends to be a catch all concept to justify all sorts of positions, some of which may not otherwise be sustainable. I suppose the best definition of common grace is to say that God has a non-salvic love for the reprobate, I do not however accept that a denial of this position is hyper-calvinism.

Hyper-calvinism in my mind is a denial that the gospel should be preached to the non-elect. This denail is an unbiblical position and is hetrodox. A denial of commmon grace or that the offer of the gospel is "well meant" has powerful biblical support and at heart is often an argument about definitions. 

I cannot understand why such a position warrants the label of being apostate, but perhaps this thread will provide enlightenment.

I like Engelsma's book Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, it suffers from a desire to defend his denomination rather than to simply present the issues but it makes a clear powerful case, even if the English can be a bit tortuous at times. I feel that some are so wedded to the doctrine of common grace (because it underpins much of what Kuyper propounded and most forms of Theonomy) that it is not given a fair hearing. Engelsma's book on common grace revisited is also excellent.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 6, 2008)

Hello Tom,

Generally, I would say that if someone does not believe in "common grace" then their spiritual status would depend on what is meant by "common grace." As others have pointed out, this is ultimately a question of definition.

I my estimation, the term grace / favor in Scripture can be used in different senses. When man is invisioned as a rebel against God's Law, grace is used to describe God's disposition toward such in calling them into His family, and rescuing them from their sin.

However, grace can also be used to describe an award given for the achievement of some goal, or general "likeableness" or even of something given without regard to the worthiness of the recipient. For instance, Paul tells us that Christ was "_*given *_the Name above every name" (Phil 2:9). Clearly, in context, Christ was rewarded with this Name because He did not grasp at His Divine glory, but emptied Himself, took on the form of a servant, became obedient to God's commands, even though those commands included His cross-death! Clearly it is a reward based on merit. And yet, Paul says that God has "given" or graced Him with a Name above all other names.

All that to say, common _grace_ can refer to non-elect being saved (in a heretical sense), or it can merely refer to God showing kindness to those who don't deserve it. I take it in the latter sense, and am not concerned about the term "grace", since (as all words) it has a range of meaning, or (as they say) a semantic range.

Cheers,

Adam






Reformingstudent said:


> Concerning those who do not believe in the doctrine of common Grace.
> What I would like to know is this, are all those who do not believe in the doctrine of common grace to be thought of as hyper-Calvinist and if so are they to be considered as apostates? I am trying to understand both sides of the issue but am not sure at this time where I stand. I believe that there are a lot of good God fearing men on both sides of the issue and both sides make a good point to some degree. If I find that I can no longer hold to the idea of common grace, would that in and of itself make me a hyper-Calvinist? Not sure who or what to believe as this is a complicated issue especially for someone who is not well educated in theology. I am learning as I go and want to find out as much as I can from both sides. My main concern is that I don't come away with any faulty ideas or misconceptions from either side. Any help would be appreciated here.
> Not looking to open a
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Jul 6, 2008)

> The problem with Hyper-Calvinism is that there is no dictionary definition


A true statement. I may not be able to define hyper-Calvinism, but I can certainly identify some of it's attributes. Hyper-Calvinism tends towards an elitist view of its own associations, even above other Christian fellowships. Hyper-Calvinism permeates a passive-aggressive arrogance that can almost be felt. They'll never quite vocalize their superiority complex, but if you hang around them long enough it will be visible in everything they do. Hyper-Calvinist's hate the lost and do so with what they consider to be godly sanction. Only the elect will be saved so God is is justified in condemning the ungodly. Therefore the labors of the hyper-Calvinist are invested in their private club of elect individuals. Hyper-Calvinists tend to be pompous, which fits in with their elitism. They will give lip service to grace, but somewhere in the back of their minds they meet up with Arminianism and Pelagianism. Go far enough away from the truth and you will cross paths with the very thing you claim to revile.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 6, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> > The problem with Hyper-Calvinism is that there is no dictionary definition
> 
> 
> A true statement. I may not be able to define hyper-Calvinism, but I can certainly identify some of it's attributes. Hyper-Calvinism tends towards an elitist view of its own associations, even above other Christian fellowships. Hyper-Calvinism permeates a passive-aggressive arrogance that can almost be felt. They'll never quite vocalize their superiority complex, but if you hang around them long enough it will be visible in everything they do. Hyper-Calvinist's hate the lost and do so with what they consider to be godly sanction. Only the elect will be saved so God is is justified in condemning the ungodly. Therefore the labors of the hyper-Calvinist are invested in their private club of elect individuals. Hyper-Calvinists tend to be pompous, which fits in with their elitism. They will give lip service to grace, but somewhere in the back of their minds they meet up with Arminianism and Pelagianism. Go far enough away from the truth and you will cross paths with the very thing you claim to revile.



Hyper-Calvinsim is often traced back to the UK with the stablsihment of the Gospel Standard Baptists who held that:

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe... we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God....

XXIX While we believe that the gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world.... we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.

XXXII We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely- different circumstances...

XXXIII Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

It is the horror of preaching the Gospel to mixed congragations which is in my view both theologically indefensible and damaging to the Church and for this reason I think that it is best to limit hyper-calvinism to this aspect, any wider and it looses its meaning.


----------



## Dawie (Jul 6, 2008)

Just in case someone doesn't have Dr. Curt Daniel's Calvinism lectures.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 6, 2008)

I liked Dr. Daniel's lectures a great deal. He put things into perspective for me. Just realize that he has a soft spot for low Calvinism (he would consider it moderate), has good things to say about Amyraldianism, and is quite impatient with hyper-Calvinism. I guess if you spent that many years at Edinburgh writing a dissertation on the subject, you might get a little cranky.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 7, 2008)

I don't believe in Common Grace as defined by the Christian Reformed Church in their dispute with Hoeksema. Not only are there several definitions of hypercalvinism; there are also several definitions of common grace. 
I am more concerned with the way some append their concept of a free well meant offer of the Gospel to their doctrine of Common Grace.
Does that make me hypercalvinist? If it does then John H Gerstner was also a hypercalvinist.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 7, 2008)

joshua said:


> Reformingstudent said:
> 
> 
> > If I find that I can no longer hold to the idea of common grace, would that in and of itself make me a hyper-Calvinist?
> ...





Hippo said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > > The problem with Hyper-Calvinism is that there is no dictionary definition
> ...





What is this "horror" that you speak of addressing the lost? Is this the view of Hypercalvinism or are you adovcating that this is a horror? Please explain.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 7, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> What is this "horror" that you speak of addressing the lost? Is this the view of Hypercalvinism or are you adovcating that this is a horror? Please explain.




Perg, he's not advocating the horror. 

I took it to mean that those who have such a horror (afraid to preach the gospel to a mixed congregation) are the ones who are theologically ungrounded.


----------



## Hippo (Jul 7, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What is this "horror" that you speak of addressing the lost? Is this the view of Hypercalvinism or are you adovcating that this is a horror? Please explain.
> ...



What he said.


----------



## Don Kistler (Jul 7, 2008)

Rather than the term "common grace," we could refer to God's universal benevolence or kindness, even to the non-elect. That rain does fall and that sun does shine on all people.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 8, 2008)

Links and Downloads Manager - Theological Links - Calvin and Common Grace - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Theological Links - John Murray on Common Grace - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Theological Links - Louis Berkhof on Common Grace - The PuritanBoard

Links and Downloads Manager - Calvinism & the Doctrines of Grace - Treatise on Grace -- Jonathan Edwards - The PuritanBoard


----------



## cih1355 (Jul 15, 2008)

Is the difference between those who affirm common grace and those who deny common grace, the idea of whether or not God's grace has only to do with salvation?


----------



## Confessor (Jul 15, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Is the difference between those who affirm common grace and those who deny common grace, the idea of whether or not God's grace has only to do with salvation?



The difference is whether or not the providential blessings received by the reprobate (anything other than immediate hellfire for their sins, which would be an act of justice) is done out of some lesser love for them, or for another purpose.

I am of the latter camp, believing as John Gill said that God's treatment of the reprobate is akin to "fattening cattle for the slaughter."


----------

