# Definitions of common grace, please.



## Nate (Mar 25, 2010)

Could I get a few of you to weigh in with your most concise definition(s) of common grace? I've searched the PB archives to get a general feel for what's out there. I think it would help me even more with my understanding of the subject if I could get an easy-to-understand sentance or two from anyone who cares to contribute.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 25, 2010)

God not punishing people the moment they violate His law.

edit: Actually that's only half of it. The other half is "and giving them certain blessings." Including rain, food, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 25, 2010)

God restraining, influencing, and granting everyday mercies like rain, sunshine, and the care of his creation on a daily basis. 

God rains upon the just and unjust.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Mar 25, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> Could I get a few of you to weigh in with your most concise definition(s) of common grace? I've searched the PB archives to get a general feel for what's out there. I think it would help me even more with my understanding of the subject if I could get an easy-to-understand sentance or two from anyone who cares to contribute.



It is my belief that God's grace is not "common" to mankind.

A recent discussion regarding common vs Irresistible Grace can be found here: 

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

There you will find example of the prevalent take on common grace, these days:

That being, God favors and loves all "the world," desiring that none should perish (thereby denying Unconditional Election!)


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2010)

I prefer the term collateral grace.


----------



## Nate (Mar 25, 2010)

Could I get a definition for


Southern Presbyterian said:


> collateral grace


 then?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2010)

The objects of God's grace are His elect. Those outside the covenant receive collateral blessing, not simply because they are in the right place at the right time, but because it coincides with the blessings intended for the elect.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 25, 2010)

In this connection, read Ps 73

Fattening up for the day of slaughter is NOT grace...


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 26, 2010)

I can appreciate the desire to reserve a word of such theological import for a specialized use. But it seems to me that kindness, forbearance and patience extended broadly (even if this is for the purpose of showing grace narrowly to the elect) when just desserts would be quite the opposite of kindness, forbearance and patience, legitimately falls within the semantic domain of "grace". And if so, the modifier common is only intended to indicate the breadth of that forbearance, kindness and patience, specifically that it extends beyond the covenant community to all men. So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.

So, for the OP, Common grace is blessing in the face of demerit and extended indiscriminately. 

In other words,, I don't see how continued existence and provision for life, when immediate death is deserved, necessarily falls short of the term grace.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 26, 2010)

A neat aspect of common grace that Van Til touched was it's epistomological aspect. He said that unbeleivers, in principle, supress the truth in unritousness, Romans 1:18. The reason, or part of it, that they can still function in the world is by God's common grace in restraining them from completly denying all truth.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 26, 2010)

The grace that God gives to both Israel and the reprobate.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 26, 2010)

I note that no one has provided the extreme definition of common grace set forth in the Christian Reformed Churches 3 points of 1924.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

I wonder if the problem of Common Grace is a peculiar problem to the Dutch Reformed Churches that stand in the Kuyper/Bavinck tradition. The scholastic Reformed tradition historically have described God's providential care for all of creation including the reprobate in terms of natural law, and have not historically talked about common grace.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Mar 26, 2010)

yeutter said:


> I note that no one has provided the extreme definition of common grace set forth in the Christian Reformed Churches 3 points of 1924.




Here is one informative link:

Common Grace


----------



## py3ak (Mar 26, 2010)

This post sets out the issues very clearly and gives valuable pointers for further investigation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 26, 2010)

Ruben, I am just going to copy and paste it here. Rev. Winzer does such a good job. 



armourbearer said:


> We should observe the way terminology changes in different contexts. Andrew has referenced Durham's excursus in his commentary on Revelation in which he deals with saving and common grace. It is a MUST read. The concern is with the grace of God as given through the Word and sacraments. There is undoubtedly a participation in the "outward grace." Hence it is quite appropriate to speak of it as common grace, that is, common to all who partake of the hearing of the Word and administration of the sacraments.
> 
> This is what the Westminster divines were referring to when they spoke of "the common operations of the Spirit" in relation to the general call and as distinguished from the effectual call. Whatever benefits one might receive in terms of understanding or temporary commitment to the things of God, these are undoubtedly a result of the operation of the Spirit working in a non-saving way upon the person through the ordinary means of grace.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for pointing this out Ruben.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 27, 2010)

The term "common grace" certainly does have a distinguished pedigree among the Reformed, as is indicated by this statement of Durham's that Baxter "...doth otherwise express the Doctrine of the difference and trial of saving and common Grace, than what hath been usually rested in among practical Divines...." The implication is clear, that this was an ordinary discussion for practical divines.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Mar 27, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> Could I get a few of you to weigh in with your most concise definition(s) of common grace? I've searched the PB archives to get a general feel for what's out there. I think it would help me even more with my understanding of the subject if I could get an easy-to-understand sentance or two from anyone who cares to contribute.




Nate,

Have a good Lord's day.




> The Belgic Confession of Faith
> _Article 36:_ Of Magistrates.
> 
> We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency.






> . . . common grace is not merited by Christ; it does not flow from the atoning merits of Christ; but that God sustains the world, and is also good to all men is a work of Gods providence, which consists of preservation, cooperation and government. This is the personal work of the father, as well as the creation.
> 
> Kersten


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.


Are you saying that not being alone in your opinion is a dangerous place to be when doing theology? Or have I misunderstood you and you are simply saying that being alone in one's opinion is the dangerous place?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 27, 2010)

*Three Points of Synod Kalamazoo 1924*

Three Points of Kalamazoo

The Three Points of Kalamazoo on Common Grace, 1924 The debate concerning Common Grace in the Christian Reformed Church during the 1920s resulted in the following Synodical decision. The text is taken from Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (1955), p. 424-428; As given in The Banner (June 1, 1939, pp. 508 II.) The reference the editior in the text (K) was the editor of The Banner at the time, Henry J. Kuiper:

 Synod, having considered that part of the Advice of the Committee in General which is found in point III under the head: Treatment of the Three Points, comes to the following conclusions:

The First Point

Concerning the first point, touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general, and not alone toward the elect, Synod declares that it is certain, according to Scripture and the Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen to eternal life, also a certain favor or grace of God which he shows to his creatures in general. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dort, II, 5, and III and IV, 8 and 9, where the general offer of the gospel is discussed; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

Note of the editor: The following Scripture passages are given as proof: Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezek. 33:11; Ezek. 18:23. We need not print these texts since the readers can easily look them up. They can also find the passages of the Canons of Dort referred to in their copy of the Psalter Hymnal. However, inasmuch as they have no access to the declarations of the Reformed fathers, we should translate these; but since that will take considerable space we shall omit a sentence here and there, where this can be done without obscuring the thought.

Calvin: Book II, ch. II, 16: “Yet let us not forget that these are most excellent gifts of the Divine Spirit, which for the com¬mon benefit of mankind he dispenses to whomsoever he pleases. . . Nor is there any reason for inquiring what intercourse with the Spirit is enjoyed by the impious who are entirely alienated from God. For when the Spirit of God is said to dwell only in the faithful, that is to be understood of the Spirit of sanctification, by whom we are consecrated as temples to God himself. Yet it is equally by the energy of the same Spirit that God replenishes, actuates, and quickens all creatures, and that according to the property of each species which he has given it by the law of creation. . .”

Calvin: Book III, ch. 14:2: “We see how he confers many blessings of the present life on those who practice virtue among men. Not that this external resemblance of virtue merits the least favor from him; but he is pleased to discover (reveal—K.) his great esteem of true righteousness by not permitting that which is external and hypocritical to remain without a temporal reward. Whence it follows, as we have just acknowledged, that these virtues, whatever they may be, or rather images of virtue, are the gift of God; since there is nothing in any respect laudable which does not proceed from him.”

Van Mastricht, First Part, p. 439: “Now from this proceeds a threefold love of God toward the creatures: a general, Psalms 104:31 and 145:9, whereby he has created, preserves, and rules all things, Psalms 36:7 and 147:9; a common, directed to human beings in particular, not indeed to all and to each, but neverthe¬less to all kinds, without exception, the reprobate as well as the elect, of what sort or race they may be, to which he communi¬cates his blessings; which are mentioned in Heb. 6:4, 5; I Cor. 3:1, 2.”

Note: the third kind of divine love (toward believers) is not mentioned in this quotation since there is no disagreement regarding it.

The Second Point

Concerning the second point, touching the restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession, there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Belgic Confession, article 13 and 36, where it is taught that God through the general operations of his Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains sin in its unhindered break¬ing forth, as a result of which human society has remained possible; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

Note of the editor: The following Scripture passages are referred to: Gen. 6:3; Ps. 81:11, 12; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; II Thess. 2:6, 7. The same Reformed writers are quoted as under the first point:

Calvin, Institutes, Book II, ch. III, 3: “For in all ages there have been some persons who, from the mere dictates of nature, have devoted their whole lives to the pursuit of virtue. And though many errors might perhaps be discovered in their conduct, yet by their pursuit of virtue they afforded a proof that there was some degree of purity in their nature. . . . These examples, then, seem to teach us that we should not consider human nature to be totally corrupted; since, from its instinctive bias, some men have not only been eminent for noble actions, but have uniformly conducted themselves in a most virtuous manner through the whole course of their lives. But here we ought to remember that amidst this corruption of nature there is some room for Divine grace, not to purify it but internally to restrain its operations (we italicize—K.). For should the Lord permit the minds of all men to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there certainly would not be an individual in the world, whose actions would not evince all the crimes for which Paul condemns human nature in general, to be most truly applicable to him. . . . In his elect the Lord heals these maladies by a method which we shall hereafter describe. In others he restrains them, only to prevent their ebullitions so far as he sees to be necessary for the preservation of the universe.”

Van Mastricht, II, p. 330: “God however moderates the severity of this spiritual death and bondage: (a) internally by means of some remnants of the image of God and of original righteousness . . to which things is added an internal restrain¬ing grace. . . . (b) Externally, through all kinds of means (“hulpmiddelen”) of State, Church, Family, and Schools, by which the freedom and dissoluteness of sin is checked and re¬strained, and to which even an incentive to practice what is V honorable is added.”

The Third Point

Concerning the third point, touching the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good (Canons of Dort, III, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dort, III, IV, 4, and the Belgic Confession, where it is taught that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers have from 
of old championed this view.

Note: The Scripture passages quoted are: II Kings 10:29, 30; II Kings 12:2 (compare II Chron. 24:17-25); II Kings 14:3 (compare II Chron. 25:2 and vss. 14-16, 20, 27); Luke 6:33; Rom. 2:14 (compare vs. 13. Also Rom. 10:5 and Gal. 3:12). Note: Again, we translate Synod’s quotations from the writings of Reformed fathers:

Ursinus, Schatboek; on Lord’s Day III: “Concerning an unconverted person it is said that he is so corrupt that he is totally incapable of any good. To understand this one must know what kind of good and what sort of incapability is spoken of here. There is a threefold good: (1) Natural (good), as eating, drinking, walking, standing, sitting; (2) Civic (good), as buying, selling, doing justice, some knowledge or skill, and more of such, which promote our temporal welfare. (3) There is also a spiritual and supernatural good, which is absolutely necessary for inheriting eternal life. It consists in this that one turns to God from the heart and believes in Christ. The last is meant here; in the other an unconverted man can even far excel a regenerated person although he has these (as a common gift) from God. See II Cor. 3:5; James 1:17; Ex. 31:2; Prov. 16:1.”

Van Mastricht I, p. 458: “Reformed (scholars) acknowledge indeed that the unregenerate person, apart from saving grace, is able .., but they add to this that even these things are not done only through the exercise of the free will but through God’s common grace working in the unregenerate all the moral good which is in them or which is produced by them. For example, all the natural art which was in Bezalel, Ex. 31:2, 3, and all the moral good in those of whom it is said that they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, Heb. 6:4, 5.”

Van Mastricht, II, p. 330: “. . . There is a natural good, for example, eating, drinking, reasoning; there is a civic good as polite and friendly association with the neighbor, and offending no one; there is a moral or ecclesiastical good, as attending worship diligently, saying prayers, refraining from gross misdeeds, Luke 18:11, 12; and a spiritual good, for example, faith, hope, etc. . . . in the state of sin the free will is indeed able to do a thing that is a natural, civic, or moral good, but not a spiritual good, which accompanies salvation.”


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 27, 2010)

*A Brief Answer to Common Grace*

*Rev. Robert Harbach*

_*Brief answer to the First Point of Common Grace:*_
In the first point, the Christian Reformed Church adopted two dogmas:
The first we may call the dogma of _Common Grace. _It teaches that God is gracious to all men in bestowing upon them the things of this present time, such as rain and sunshine, and all earthly things. This is what Synod meant when it spoke of a grace of God to "all creatures."
The second we may call the dogma of _Universal Grace. _According to it, God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel to all that hear. This is what Synod meant when it referred to Canons II:5 and III-IV:8 and 9, and the "general offer" of the Gospel.

As to the dogma of _Common Grace:_
The Confessions do not express themselves on this point, although they do attribute the term "common grace" to the Arminians in Canons III-IV:5.
It is, however, contrary to Scripture, which plainly teaches that God hates the wicked reprobates and that He uses even the things of the present time to their destruction. See the following: 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.
The truth is that grace is not in things. All things are but means which God uses to the salvation of the righteous (elect) while He uses them to the destruction and damnation of the wicked (reprobate). And, because men also use these means as rational, moral creatures, they are responsible. Things are certainly common but grace is never common.

As to the theory of _Universal Grace:_
This is surely not proven by the passages from the Confession to which the Synod of 1924 referred. Canons II:5 merely teaches the general preaching of the gospel that is particular in contents. Canons III-IV:8 teaches that what God proclaims in the Gospel is unfeigned, that it is pleasing to Him that the called should come to Him and that He promises eternal life to them that come (the elect). Canons III-IV:9 emphasizes that the guilt of not coming is wholly the sinner's.
Nor is this proven by the texts Synod quoted. Romans 2:4 merely teaches that the wicked despise the goodness of God that leads man to repentance. And Ezekiel 33:11 teaches that God has pleasure in the wicked _that repents_, and that is always the elect.
The doctrine that God is gracious in the preaching of the Gospel to all that hear the preaching of it is, however:
Contrary to the Reformed Confessions which plainly teach that God is gracious to the elect only: See Canons 1:6; II:8; III-IV:10; V:8, and Rejection of Errors II:6.
Contrary to Scripture: Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:13; Romans 9:16; II Cor. 2:15-16; Mark 4:11-12; Matth. 11:25-26; John 12:39-40.



_*Brief Answer to the Second Point of Common Grace:*_
The meaning of the Second Point:
The second point of 1924 does not teach that God holds the _sinner_ in His power, so that he cannot do anything against the will and providence of God. This is plainly taught in the Bible and in the Belgic Confession, Art. 13.
But the second point teaches:
That there is a _gracious _operation of the Holy Spirit which is not regenerating on the heart and mind and will of the sinner.
That this operation commenced immediately after the fall and continues all through history.
That as a result there is in man a remnant of his original goodness, so that he is not as depraved as he would be without this operation.
That, because of this operation, the natural man is able to live a relatively good life in this life, and do good in the sphere of the world.


Objection to the Second Point:
The proof adduced by Synod for this point does not hold:
From Scripture the Synod quoted the following passages: Gen. 6:3; Psa. 81:11-12; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; II Thess. 2:6-7; Concerning these passages we note:
Only one speaks of the Holy Spirit at all, namely, Gen. 6:3. However, the text does not speak of a restraining by the Spirit, but of a striving. This took place through the Word of God by the prophets.
None of them speak of a restraint of _sin._
Three of them speak of the very opposite of restraint, namely, of a delivering over into sin by the wrath of God. See: Psa. 81:11-12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; Acts 7:42.
II Thess. 2:6-7 does not refer to the Holy Spirit as is plain from the text itself.

As to the proof adduced from the Confessions:
Belgic Conf., Art. 13, does not speak of an influence of the Holy Spirit, but of the Providential power of God; nor of an inward restraint of sin, but the restraint of sinners and devils.
Art. 36 does not speak of an influence of the Spirit but of the power of the police or magistrate.


The Second Point itself is contrary to Scripture and the Confessions:
To Scripture:
It postulates a remnant of good in natural man, which is contrary to all those passages of Holy Writ that speak of the depravity of the natural man. For these, see the discussion under Point III.
Scripture teaches directly the opposite from the main tenant of the Second Point when it declares that God delivers men over into ever greater corruption by His wrath. See: Rom. 1:24-28; Psalm 51:5.

To the Confessions: Canons III-IV:4 speaks of "remnants of natural light." These remnants are not due to an operation of Common Grace. Even with these remnants, however, the natural man is still wholly depraved and incapable of doing any good even in things natural and civil.



_*Brief Answer to the Third Point:*_
The meaning of the third point:
The meaning of the third point of 1924 is _not:_
That the natural man through the remnants of natural light that are left in him after the fall is able to distinguish between good and evil; has some knowledge of God and of things natural.
That the natural man is able to see that the law of God is good for himself, and that, therefore, there is on his part an attempt to live in outward conformity with that law.
That the third point does not intend to express this is evident from:
The fact that the deposed ministers taught exactly this before 1924. It was this view which Synod _condemned._
The fact that no special influence of the grace of God is necessary to explain these things in the natural man. The confessions explain them as remnants of natural light. Synod, however, speaks of an influence of God on the natural man, whereby he is able to do civil righteousness.
From the evident connection between the second and third points.


But the third point teaches:
That there is an influence of God, of the Holy Spirit, on the mind and will of the natural man, which is not regenerating, but improves him.
That because of this influence, he is able to live a relatively good life in this world, and his works are not always sinful before God.


Objections to the third point:
It is contrary to the Reformed Confessions:
The proof from the confessions to which Synod referred does not hold:
Canons III-IV:4:
Speaks of a remnant of natural light and not of an influence of God on the natural man.
It emphasizes that even in things natural and civil the natural man wholly pollutes this natural light and holds it in unrighteousness.

Netherlands Confession, Art. 36:
Does not speak of any good that the natural man can do, but of a good order and decency which God establishes among men.
Nor does it refer to an influence of God on the natural man, but to the power of the magistrates.


For proof from the confessions to the contrary, see: Heidelberg Catechism, L.D. III,Q. 8; L.D. 33, Q. 91; Belgic Confession, Art. 14; Canons III-IV:1-4.

It is contrary to Scripture:
Synod tried to sustain the Third Point by the following passages:
II Kings 10:29-30. (But Jehu saw in God's commandment a means to satisfy his own ambition, and very well executes the command--but becomes blood- guilty in doing so, and does not depart from the ways of Jeroboam (See Hosea l).
II Kings 12:2 and 14:3. (At best the examples of Jehoash and Amaziah prove an attempt to live in outward conformity to the law. In the case of Jehoash this was under the influence of a godly priest.)
Luke 6:33. (a proof that sinners do no good and have no reward.)
Romans 2:14. (The _work _of the law in the hearts of the Gentiles--not the law itself.)

For proof to the contrary, that is, for positive proof from Scripture that the unregenerate _cannot _do good, see: Psalm 14:1-3; Matt. 7:16-20; Romans 1:28- 32; and Romans 3:9-18.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Mar 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> I can appreciate the desire to reserve a word of such theological import for a specialized use. But it seems to me that kindness, forbearance and patience extended broadly (even if this is for the purpose of showing grace narrowly to the elect) when just desserts would be quite the opposite of kindness, forbearance and patience, legitimately falls within the semantic domain of "grace". And if so, the modifier common is only intended to indicate the breadth of that forbearance, kindness and patience, specifically that it extends beyond the covenant community to all men. So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.
> 
> So, for the OP, Common grace is blessing in the face of demerit and extended indiscriminately.
> 
> In other words,, I don't see how continued existence and provision for life, when immediate death is deserved, necessarily falls short of the term grace.



Pastor Brooking,

in my opinion opinion, the subject of whether there is a "common grace" from God amongst the world at large or not, confuses a general divine providence and_ influence_, with the very Mediatorship of Jesus Christ. The office of Mediator is given to the Son of God; not to the Holy Spirit and not found in the Father. It is the Mediatorship of Christ alone that works grace in this world with the sole purpose of gathering the elect church into union with the Son. The rest of the doings of mankind, even when morally influenced by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the temporal purposes of God, do not compare with the eternal and Godly goal of building a heavenly kingdom. Thus, anything achieved outside of Jesus Christ is only temporary. But grace, bestowed through the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ works eternal results.

As staunch defenders who are committed to standing for the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) in this world, we are aware that much of the controversy regarding these matters begins as debate over mere semantics, but mere and careless semantics can lead to theological error and ultimately divisions within the Protestant churches.

The teaching that God's grace is "common" actually threatens the doctrine of Total Depravity (as well as the other four doctrinal points of TULIP).

How? Because if it is believed that God has provided grace to enable any and all sinners to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the implication is that there is a virtue and spark of faith still existant in fallen men, whereby they can utilize God's grace unto their own salvation. Of course, this denial of Total Depravity, total unfaithfulness, and total inability of sinners to respond to God in any fashion, can lead to Semi-Pelagianism beliefs (Arminianism).

Or, if it is seriously taught that God loves all men and Jesus died for all men to make grace and salvation possible for all men, then the doctrine of Limited Atonement is denigrated or lost. There are many who claim to be Reformed, who hold to all the points of TULIP except the doctrine of Limited Atonement, in order to hold to the view that God's grace is common to all humanity. This leads to the error of Amyraldianism.

In other words,'s, we know the dangers, and desire to safeguard the Doctrines of Grace without succumbing to the terminology of "Common Grace" and "Well Meant Offer of the Gospel" in order to retain sound teaching and a true gospel message, and not be lured onto a slippery slope into error.

For indeed, this slippery slope has historically effected the Protestant Churches.


----------



## Herald (Mar 27, 2010)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I prefer the term collateral grace.



Or....grace happens; which it does!


----------



## Herald (Mar 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> I can appreciate the desire to reserve a word of such theological import for a specialized use. But it seems to me that kindness, forbearance and patience extended broadly (even if this is for the purpose of showing grace narrowly to the elect) when just desserts would be quite the opposite of kindness, forbearance and patience, legitimately falls within the semantic domain of "grace". And if so, the modifier common is only intended to indicate the breadth of that forbearance, kindness and patience, specifically that it extends beyond the covenant community to all men. So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.
> 
> So, for the OP, Common grace is blessing in the face of demerit and extended indiscriminately.
> 
> In other words,, I don't see how continued existence and provision for life, when immediate death is deserved, necessarily falls short of the term grace.



Clark,

"Can anything good come out of Howard County?"


----------



## Herald (Mar 27, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> I can appreciate the desire to reserve a word of such theological import for a specialized use. But it seems to me that kindness, forbearance and patience extended broadly (even if this is for the purpose of showing grace narrowly to the elect) when just desserts would be quite the opposite of kindness, forbearance and patience, legitimately falls within the semantic domain of "grace". And if so, the modifier common is only intended to indicate the breadth of that forbearance, kindness and patience, specifically that it extends beyond the covenant community to all men. So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.
> 
> So, for the OP, Common grace is blessing in the face of demerit and extended indiscriminately.
> 
> In other words,, I don't see how continued existence and provision for life, when immediate death is deserved, necessarily falls short of the term grace.



I concur completely. Salvific grace is not of less import if we view God's "kindness, forbearance, and patience" as legitimate extensions, "within the semantic domain of "grace."" I think we can define terms with too sharp a knife at times.


----------



## Reformed Rush (Mar 27, 2010)

Herald said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the term collateral grace.
> ...



It does?

I always thought it required blood shed.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 27, 2010)

timmopussycat said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> > So I don't think "Common Grace" is a problematic term at all, and since it has a significant pedigree, I know I'm not alone -- which is a dangerous place to be when doing theology.
> ...


 
I'm saying that, IF I FIND MYSELF ALONE, then I have reason to worry. I'm simply not that smart. 

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------




Reformed Rush said:


> Because if it is believed that God has provided grace to enable any and all sinners to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ


 
I am maintaining no such thing. And my comment didn't even touch on the "well-meant offer" issue.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------




Herald said:


> Clark,
> 
> "Can anything good come out of Howard County?"


 
There's a remnant here too


----------



## Herald (Mar 27, 2010)

Reformed Rush said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Presbyterian said:
> ...



You're missing the humor.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2010)

Herald said:


> I think we can define terms with too sharp a knife at times.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 30, 2010)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > I think we can define terms with too sharp a knife at times.


 Agreed, we can define terms too sharply. I do not think this is the case when it comes to common grace.
Common Grace is used differently by different Reformed theologians. The term common grace is used by some, [not all], in Christian Reformed circles and by some followers of Dooyeweerd to defend rank liberalism. Common Grace is also used by some who argue for the free well meant offer of the Gospel. It is therefore important that we are precise as to how we define Common Grace.


----------



## chbrooking (Mar 30, 2010)

Agreed. And when it comes to the well-meant offer, for instance, this and other terms and ideas get muddled. But I refuse to stop using "common grace" simply because some hijack the term to mean what it need not mean.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 5, 2010)

*"Common Grace" in 1988 revision of 1689 London Baptist Confession*

I realize the OP asked for a simple definition. But for anyone interested in the topic of common grace, here are several paragraphs that constituted part of a proposed revision to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. These were appended to chapter 6 "Of the fall of man ..." 
_[6. Although the original creation, through human sin, was subjected to vanity, ruined and slated for destruction, and even though no sinful man merits any good thing from the Lord but only deserves judgment and eternal damnation,[1] nevertheless, the good Lord is pleased to demonstrate his general benevolence and favor,[2] usually called his common grace, both to man and beast alike,[3] to the righteous and wicked alike,[4] in this life until death, [5] according to his own good pleasure[6]]_
_
__[7. The Lord's common grace consists of every expression of his good will and favor, of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation from sin, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world receives from the hand of God; but it is primarily expressed by the perpetuation and abundant multiplication of human life,[7] by the restraint of his curse upon the earth,[8] by his provision for the sustenance, protection and enjoyment of life,[9] by his restraint of sin through government, conscience and providence,[10] and by his postponement of the final judgment;[11] and its ultimate expression is his sincere and benevolent offer of mercy and salvation from sin through Jesus Christ, made to sinners indiscriminately, to elect and reprobate sinners alike, through the Gospel.[12]]__
_
_[8. This common grace flows out of the Lord's kindness, goodness, benevolence, forbearance, and mercy,[13] even to unthankful and evil men, [14] so that God's genuine and stated purpose for showing this favor to his enemies is a benevolent one, to lead them to repent and seek after God;[15] nevertheless, this divine favor often tragically results, through the carnal presumption of sinners and their despising of his goodness,[16] in their increased culpability, hardening and ruin,[17] which result God also purposed and decreed;[18] whence arises an apparent (but not real) contradiction in the will and purpose of God, between reprobation and common grace,[19] irreconcilable in and through human logic, but to be embraced and confessed through humble submission to and faith in all that God has revealed in his Word.[20]]__
_
_[9. God's common grace is ordered, certified, and increased through his covenants,[21] complements and furthers his saving grace,[22] and will continue to be shown until the day of judgment, for as long as the earth remains.[23]]__
_
_[10. This doctrine of common grace, though it involves us in mystery, tension, and apparent contradiction, nevertheless is most important and necessary to our holiness; since it calls us to imitate the kindness of God and guards against ungodly harshness towards our enemies,[24] since it teaches us to attribute any common decency in sinful men to God's grace and power and guards against carnal pride in human virtue and achievements,[25] and since it sanctifies all the good gifts which God gives us richly to enjoy and guards against a morbid and ascetic outlook on life.[26]]_


_[1]__ Rom. 8:20; Gen. 3:17-19; Ps. 130:3; Rom. 3:9-20._
_[2]__ Gen. 6:8,19; Gen. 9:1,8-10._
_[3]__ Gen. 6:19; Gen. 9:8-10; Ps. 145:15,16; Matt. 6:26._
_[4]__ Matt. 5:44,45; Luke 6:35,36._
_[5]__ Heb. 9:27; Luke 16:25._
_[6]__ Ps. 115:3; Ps. 135:6; Dan. 4:32,35; Eph. 1:11._
_[7]__ Gen. 9:1,7; Acts 17:25._
_[8]__ Gen. 8:21; Gen. 9:2._
_[9]__ Gen. 9:3,4; Ps. 145:15,16; Acts 14:17._
_[10]__ Gen. 9:5,6; Rom. 13:1,4; Rom. 2:14,15; Gen. 20:6._
_[11]__ Gen. 8:22; Gen. 9:8-17; 2 Pet. 3:7-12._
_[12]__ Matt. 11:28-30; John 5:34; Ezek. 18:23; Ezek. 33:11; Rom. 3:21-24; Rev. 22:17._
_[13]__ Matt. 5:44,45; Luke 6:35,36; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:4._
_[14]__ Matt 5:45; Luke 6:35._
_[15]__ Acts 17:25-27; Rom. 2:4; John 5:34._
_[16]__ Eccles. 8:11-13; Rom. 2:4._
_[17]__ Eccles. 8:11; Matt. 11:20-24._
_[18]__ Matt. 11:25,26; Rom. 9:17,18; Eph. 1:11._
_[19]__ Rom 9:14,19,20._
_[20]__ Rom. 11:33-36; Deut. 29:29._
_[21]__ Gen. 9:1-17; Gen. 15:15-20; Heb. 6:4-6._
_[22]__ 1Tim. 2:2-4._
_[23]__ Gen. 8:22; 2 Pet. 3:7-12._
_[24]__ Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36._
_[25]__ Rom. 1:24,26,28; Rom. 2:14,15; Gen. 4:6; Jer. 17:5,9._
_[26] Eccles. 2:24; Eccles. 3:11-15; Eccles. 5:18-20; Eccles. 9:7-10; Eccles. 11:6-8; Acts14:17; Col. 2:20-23; 1 Tim. 4:1-5_.​


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2010)

Common grace or kindness is God allowing my heart to keep beating.


----------

