# Must Grace By Definition Be Particular



## KMK (Sep 15, 2007)

I am not so much interested in the Biblical teaching on particular grace but whether, from a logical standpoint, grace must be limited in scope to even be grace at all. In other words,, if God's grace was common to all, could it even be called grace? Grace is commonly defined as 'unmerited favor'. Well, doesn't the word 'favor' imply some kind of partiality or advantage? If grace is partial or advantageous then mustn't it also be 'particular'?


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 15, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am not so much interested in the Biblical teaching on particular grace but whether, from a logical standpoint, grace must be limited in scope to even be grace at all. In other words,, if God's grace was common to all, could it even be called grace? Grace is commonly defined as 'unmerited favor'. Well, doesn't the word 'favor' imply some kind of partiality or advantage? If grace is partial or advantageous then mustn't it also be 'particular'?



Grace is limited to the covenant of grace, all grace flows through that covenant and only members of the covenant of grace are recipients of grace.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I am not so much interested in the Biblical teaching on particular grace but whether, from a logical standpoint, grace must be limited in scope to even be grace at all. In other words,, if God's grace was common to all, could it even be called grace? Grace is commonly defined as 'unmerited favor'. Well, doesn't the word 'favor' imply some kind of partiality or advantage? If grace is partial or advantageous then mustn't it also be 'particular'?
> ...



Yes, but that's not what Ken was asking.

I see no reason why grace must mean favoring one party over another. Grace has to do with whether the party receiving it deserves the results of that grace being shown them. Whether or not that means that there are parties that DON'T receive that grace is, I think, irrelevant. The definition of whether it's grace or not has to do with the giver and the status of the receiver as deserving or not, not how many parties receive it from the giver.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 15, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Yes, but that's not what Ken was asking.



True but the question is then shown to be pointless in that grace cannot be common unless the covenant of grace is common. It removes the hypothetical from the question thereby making the question null and void.

*Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: *The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2007)

> Grace has to do with whether the party receiving it deserves the results of that grace being shown them.



Todd - help me out here. If grace (or its benefits) are deserved, doesn't that nullify grace in light of Romans 11:6:



> Romans 11:6 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.



I'm sure you meant something different.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 15, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> > Grace has to do with whether the party receiving it deserves the results of that grace being shown them.
> 
> 
> 
> Todd - help me out here. If grace (or its benefits) are deserved, doesn't that nullify grace in light of Romans 11:6:



I think perhaps you missed my point. I'm not talking about definitions of what
is grace or not (on that point I am certain we agree) 

The point is what defines something as an act of grace is whether the 
receiver of the act deserved it (or earned it). When an act done to/for a 
person is something they manifestly did NOT deserve, then one can say 
it's an act of grace. What was at the core of the discussion was the 
extent of grace, and whether or not an act that is (hypothetically of course)
for all men could be considered an act of grace. Ken's question was whether
by nature grace is required to be particular, logically speaking, and in terms
of the definition of grace. His question hinged on the understanding that
grace is undeserved favor. His thought was that favor implies preferential
treatment - and that is the key point on which I disagreed.

My reason for entering the discussion with Ken is that logic does not dictate
whether grace can be common, or must be particular. Grace could, in principle, be 
universal, presuming whatever was done in the name of grace was done despite the 
lack of deserving it. Nobody deserves or merits salvation. It would still be proper
to call it an act of grace if God chose to save every single individual - since none
deserves it. Now SCRIPTURE says that such saving grace is NOT universal - but that's not
a matter of logical deduction from the nature of grace, but is a matter of deductions
concerning saving grace from Scriptural teaching instead.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 15, 2007)

This is a question that concerned me for some time. I found my answer in Romans 9:14-24, and in particular vs. 22-24 22 "_What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"_ 

God is patient with the wicked for the sake of the "vessels of mercy", the elect. It is what I have heard some call God's common grace. Perhaps one of you more scholarly people could elaborate on this?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 15, 2007)

This is a hermeneutical question before it is a theological one.

One must decide whether God is gracious, in any sense, to the reprobate; or whether, as Jonathan Edwards rightly said, that God "prepares 'em for the pit."

How one lands on thier understanding of this determines thier Theology Proper.


----------



## KMK (Sep 16, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> What was at the core of the discussion was the
> extent of grace, and whether or not an act that is (hypothetically of course)
> for all men could be considered an act of grace. *Ken's question was whether
> by nature grace is required to be particular, logically speaking, and in terms
> ...



That's exactly what I am asking. Here was what led me to this question.

In studying Rom 9 I came to the realization that because the condition of fallen man, logically, election *requires* grace. And vice versa, because of the condition of fallen man, logically, grace *requires* election. But must grace, logically, be particular. I think that the Biblical difinition of grace does because whenever grace is mentioned in the Bible it has to do with some 'advantage' or 'partiality' that is bestowed upon some but not all. Creation was a gift bestowed upon 'all' undeserving creatures, but it is never referred to, that I can think of, as 'grace'.


----------



## jacobiloved (Sep 20, 2007)

Define 'grace' and you will have your answer .........


----------



## KMK (Sep 20, 2007)

As I mentioned before, I cannot find a Biblical instance of 'grace' that was not particular. Therefore, the Biblical definition of 'grace' would be particular. There seems to be blessings that are common to all but they are not referred to as 'grace'.

Therefore, for someone to argue that grace is common, there would have to be a redefinition of the word 'grace'. They are not really talking about biblical grace any longer but some kind of universal blessing like creation or something.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 20, 2007)

We don't have to redefine grace, we only need to recognize that the word takes on different meanings within it's context.

Like 'faith'. We are justified through faith. By faith do we mean the body of our confessions and creeds or do we mean the external gift of God connecting to the elect.

Grace can be defined as ANY dealing that God has toward mankind in which he doesn't anihilate, kill or eternally punish him. God is giving man time, food, bliss, and other mercies he doesn't deserve.

"Grace" is defined by it's context. I hope I haven't fallen out of your good graces by gracing this post with an inadequate use of 'grace'. Please be gracious if I have. Grace and peace to you.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 20, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> "Grace" is defined by it's context. I hope I haven't fallen out of your good graces by gracing this post with an inadequate use of 'grace'. Please be gracious if I have. Grace and peace to you.



Just make sure you say grace before you eat. Good night, Gracie.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 20, 2007)

Seriously, back to the OP. Does grace necessitate that it is particular in order to be grace. Honestly, God is gracious even to the reprobate in that he allows them to breath and enjoy life. I suppose you could call this common grace, a term the Bible doesn't use. But it is grace none-the-less, because no one deserves to live 1 second, let alone 80 years.

But, even common grace in some sense of the word is particular in that God determines who He is going to allow to live. It is not as if God just has an indiscriminate amount of grace stored up in heaven that he, every-once-in-a-while, let's overflow the "grace-bin" and flop down on whoever might be standing under it at the time.


----------



## jacobiloved (Sep 20, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Seriously, back to the OP. Does grace necessitate that it is particular in order to be grace. Honestly, God is gracious even to the reprobate in that he allows them to breath and enjoy life. I suppose you could call this common grace, a term the Bible doesn't use. But it is grace none-the-less, because no one deserves to live 1 second, let alone 80 years.
> 
> But, even common grace in some sense of the word is particular in that God determines who He is going to allow to live. It is not as if God just has an indiscriminate amount of grace stored up in heaven that he, every-once-in-a-while, let's overflow the "grace-bin" and flop down on whoever might be standing under it at the time.



i AGREE , that's why I said define grace , you have , and God's grace is not exclusively salvivic.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 20, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Seriously, back to the OP. Does grace necessitate that it is particular in order to be grace. Honestly, God is gracious even to the reprobate in that he allows them to breath and enjoy life. I suppose you could call this common grace, a term the Bible doesn't use. But it is grace none-the-less, because no one deserves to live 1 second, let alone 80 years.





jacobiloved said:


> i AGREE , that's why I said define grace , you have , and God's grace is not exclusively salvivic.



Or, as Dr. McMahon mentioned, could we turn the hermeneutic around and say that God is keeping the reprobate around even longer, allowing them to heap judgment on themselves and incur even more of his wrath, which would mean that his allowing them to breath is punitive rather than gracious? 

And this is actually something I hadn't considered until Dr. McMahon mentioned it.


----------



## KMK (Sep 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, back to the OP. Does grace necessitate that it is particular in order to be grace. Honestly, God is gracious even to the reprobate in that he allows them to breath and enjoy life. I suppose you could call this common grace, a term the Bible doesn't use. But it is grace none-the-less, because no one deserves to live 1 second, let alone 80 years.
> ...



Hi David, I haven't read a post by you in a while. (We are probably reading different threads) You bring up a point that is often debated on PB and might be relevent in the discussion. One's view of the particular nature of 'grace' might have to do with your view of God's dealings with the nonelect.


----------

