# Common Grace



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

Is there such a thing ? ?

My take:

Everything this side of hell is grace. There are different degrees of it though. The traditional definition being, "God's unmerited favor", does not work for my understanding of scripture. There are many people who find favor in the eyes of the Lord, to be sure, but what is the goodness God providentially grants to those who openly and actively hate Him and oppose His laws ? ?

Common grace then is the rain that falls on the unjust. Since man is totally depraved, grace that is common, would be anything God grants that man does not deserve. Since fallen man, without Christ, deserves only hell, even the breath in his lungs and the heart pumping in his chest, is a measure of God's kindness.

Also, the heathen are blessed even by association with Christians. Look how Sodom was spared atfirst because of Lot.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 11, 2005)

Another aspect of common grace is general revelation, as expressed well by WCF 1.1 when it speaks of how "the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable."


----------



## Saiph (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree. Jeff Bartel has said he does not agree with it. Are there others ? And what would you call God's kindness to the heathen then ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 12, 2005)

You are correct that common grace is not really grace in the strict sense. That only applies to the elect. I prefer to think of common grace more as the benevolent nature of God toward His creatures. He does not repay evil for evil, but is longsuffering and kind. Though He fully executes his justice when He so pleases, He still treats His creatures in accordance with His humble nature, until their sentence is executed.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 12, 2005)




----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

A simple word study on the term 'grace' will reveal it's relationship w/ Gods people alone.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JWJ (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> A simple word study on the term 'grace' will reveal it's relatinship w/ Gods people alone.



 Common grace is really a trojan horse in the Reformed camp. 

Jim


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 12, 2005)

I do not believe "common grace" is a scriptural concept. While it is true that the non-elect do partake of many undeserved benefits in this world, I do not think it is correct to refer to this as "grace". Nowhere in the Bible is grace used to refer to God's attitude toward the non-elect. It is used only in relation to God's dealings with His own chosen people in Christ.

"Grace", properly speaking, does not hinge on the nature of the good things of which undeserving people partake, but on the attitude of the One bestowing such things, whether it is directed towards those people in an attitude of favour or not. God is not bestowing anything on the non-elect with an attitude of favour. The non-elect are merely partaking of benefits which are in fact given by God in favour only for the good of the elect, and their stealing of these benefits without giving thanks to God for them will only be to their condemnation in the day of judgment. In that sense, since all the benefits they partake of are only heaping judgments upon their heads, I cannot see how such benefits could properly be termed "grace".


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> A simple word study on the term 'grace' will reveal it's relationship w/ Gods people alone.
> 
> [Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree. Jeff Bartel has said he does not agree with it.



I've been ratted out!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

Maybe the english word "grace" from the french I think is just a broader term than *cariV* ?

I suppose in a very strict sense, by the way you are defining the word soteriologically, I would tend agree with you. But, I really do not know what word I would use in place of it. 

Longsuffering ?



[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Maybe the english word "grace" from the french I think is just a broader term than *cariV* ?
> 
> I suppose in a very strict sense, by the way you are defining the word soteriologically, I would tend agree with you. But, I really do not know what word I would use in place of it.
> ...



Mark,
Is He longsuffering _really_? Was God longsuffering towards those in the days of Noah? How about Sodom?

Nineveh comes to mind; however, the majority there were ultimately Gods elect.

Jon 4:2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? 

600,000 repentee's?




[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 12, 2005)

Common grace is a Biblical doctrine (Ps. 36.6-7, etc.) and has a long and good Reformed pedigree. The denial of it is an element of hypercalvinism. Grace means "unmerited favor." Saving grace, of course, has reference to salvation, which God only gives to the elect. But God bestows unmerited favor upon all men. The term "common" which many have a problem with does not mean "vulgar" in the modern sense but it does mean "general" (Calvin used the term "general grace" -- with reference to the unsaved -- frequently in the Institutes and elsewhere). See this thread for more info.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

I'm gonna quote jeff Bartell from that thread Andrew:



> "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."


----------



## Here2learn (Oct 12, 2005)

Let me say in advance I am a newbie.

I had a discussion with a man who did not believe in common grace and he was telling me we should hate the non elect. He stated God does. I asked him who is the non elect. He told me non believers. I stated to him some time ago I was a non believer too. He would not hear any of it. He said we were mandated to hate the non believers.
My question is the Grace The Lord bestowed on me before He called me would that be common, general grace. How about others who too soon will be called to faith?
Sorry if my question is grade school of sorts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, 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; 
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus called Judas 'friend'.

Mat 26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. 
Mat 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. 
Mat 26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 

God assuredly hates the reprobate; I see this as the compound sense. In the divided, we have Jesus.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

Psalm 92:7 is really a key verse.



> That when the wicked sprouted up like grass. And all who did iniquity flourished, *It was only* that they might be destroyed forevermore.



People who advocate the term "common grace" use examples such as God sending rain to the elect and reprobate alike. The problem with such an example is that rain (while in and of itself can be a good thing) is not always used to build people up, or for their benefit. I don't think the reprobate during the great flood thought they were receiving God's grace. 

The same can be said for just about all of God's provisions. God uses his Word for the benefit of the elect, but to harden the reprobate. Surely the Word of God is a good thing, but if used to damn somebody for eternity in the unquenchable fires of hell, it suddenly doesn't sound like grace anymore...and that is because it is not. 

Grace is the opposite of justice. Some people get grace, others justice. The elect has the justice of their sins placed upon Christ, and this is the ONLY way we can receive grace. The reprobate do not have this, and therefore they are left with justice.

How are good things in this life "justice"? A BMW to a reprobate person is certainly not to build them up, and convert them, but to make them love the things of this world even more. They will harden themselves to the things of God, and replace it with material goods. Their God is this world.

All this being said, I think it important to explain that just because people deny the term "common grace" does not mean they deny the substance of the doctrine (more or less anyway). I wholeheartedly believe that God gives the reprobate and elect good things. He reserves his wrath until the day of judgment. Until then, he builds people up, either for destruction, or eternal life. I prefer the term "common bounty."

The denial of common grace has been dubbed by some as "hypercalvinism." This is simply not true. This may be cause to start a new thread on the definition of hypercalvinism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Andrew,
You mention Psalm 36:

Psa 36:5 Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds. 
Psa 36:6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, *thou preservest man* and beast. 
Psa 36:7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the *children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.* 
Psa 36:8 They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. 
Psa 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light. 
Psa 36:10 *O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart.*

I see the reference _men_ to coincide with the same treatment of the word _world_/Kosmos.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have *tasted the heavenly gift*, and have *shared in the Holy Spirit*, and have *tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come*, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. 

Checkmate !


General grace described in the same way Judas experienced it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 12, 2005)

I'll just add a few more resources for the record and let it suffice at that. 

Common grace was taught by Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Van Til, Murray, Bavinck, and Berkhof, among others. 

Everything that men have -- whether elect or non-elect -- is a blessing from God. It is not merited favor, but unmerited. Those are the choices. Blessing = favor; grace = unmerited. All men are blessed. They receive favor from God. It is the sinful response to God's unmerited favor that heaps condemnation upon themselves. If God does not show favor to the non-elect, ie., does not bless them with unmerited gifts, then there is no cause to blame them when they respond ungratefully to his blessings. Common grace takes into account that God is favorable to all but allows that this favor is reserved in a saving way only for his elect, who will benefit from the unmerited goodness and benevolence that he shows to all. God's goodness towards all men is never merited, it is unmerited; hence, no matter how men respond to God's general grace, that does not change the fact that God blesses all men, and consequently, the historic Reformed understanding of this concept has been described as "general" or "common grace". 

From the Scottish Metrical Psalter, Ps. 36.6-7: Lord, thou preservest man and beast./7 How precious is thy grace!

God is said to preserve both man and beast. Presumably, God preserves both non-elect and elect men, and non-elect and elect beasts (said tongue-in-cheek!). 

John Murray:


> In this field of inquiry no name deserves more credit than /p. 2/ that of the renowned reformer, John Calvin.2 No one was more deeply persuaded of the complete depravation of human nature by sin and of the consequent inability of unaided human nature to bring forth anything good, and so he explained the existence of good outside the sphere of God's special and saving grace by the presence of a grace that is common to all yet enjoyed by some in special degree. "œThe most certain and easy solution of this question, however, is, that those virtues are not the common properties of nature, but the peculiar graces of God, which he dispenses in great variety, and in a certain degree to men that are otherwise profane."3 The elect alone are sanctified by the Spirit; they alone are healed of sin; they alone are created anew. But all creatures by the energy of the same Spirit are replenished, actuated and quickened "œaccording to the property of each species which he has given it by the law of creation".4



and provides this definition:


> "is every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God"



Charles Hodge defines common grace thus:


> "the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, of holiness, and of life in all its forms, is present with every human mind, enforcing truth, restraining from evil, exciting to good, and imparting wisdom or strength, when, where, and in what measure seemeth to Him good. . . . This is what in theology is called common grace"



Abraham Kuyper defines it here:


> "'that act of God by which negatively He curbs the operations of Satan, death, and sin, and by which positively He creates an intermediate state for this cosmos, as well as for our human race, which is and continues to be deeply and radically sinful, but in which sin cannot work out its end"



Hypercalvinism includes the denial of common grace as one of its elements, as Pastor Way has rightly affirmed, and the Protestant Reformed Church's system of theology is a prime example of this.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)




----------



## JWJ (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'll just add a few more resources for the record and let it suffice at that.
> 
> Common grace was taught by Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Van Til, Murray, Bavinck, and Berkhof, among others.
> ...



Though I have limited time to discuss this matter allow me a few comments. Firstly, with all due respect, your use of these quotes does nothing to prove your point. As a matter of fact it is a type of straw-man approach that has been dealt with by others including the PRC. 

Secondly, to claim that a denial of common grace justifies the charge of hyper-Calvinism is just as true as the claim that to uphold common grace justifies the charge of hypo-calvinism. 

This brings me to the third and most important point. The whole issue of "common grace" is more than just semantics. Rather the issue is on what is both denied and affirmed by the use of the term. Most of what you said about God being good towards both elect and reprobate no one would argue (Even the PRC would agree with this). However, many, including myself, refuse to use this term because in today's usage of intent it implicitly denies that God is only saving the elect; that God uses these material "blessings" to further harden the hearts of the reprobate, that the gospel "offer" is only effectual towards His elect; and that God is not sincerely trying to save every person (i.e., desiring their salvation) by the gospel "offer". 

Therefore we in the reformed camp should drop the term common grace just as we should drop the term free will.

Jim


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

Here are some verses to meditate on:

Genesis 15:16


> But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."



Job 21:30


> For the wicked are reserved for the day of doom; They shall be brought out on the day of wrath.



Ps 73:17-20


> Until I went into the sanctuary of God; Then I understood their end. Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction. Oh, how they are brought to desolation, as in a moment! They are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awakes,
> So, Lord, when You awake, You shall despise their image.



Psalm 92:7


> That when the wicked sprouted up like grass. And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.



Ecc 2:26


> For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.



Nah 1:2


> God is jealous, and the LORD avenges; The LORD avenges and is furious. The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies; The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit the wicked.



Matt 23:31


> Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers´ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?



John 15:22-24


> If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, "˜They hated Me without a cause.´


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

I agree with those scriptures Jeff. I suppose the difference AGAIN, similar to the God created evil thread, would be that blessings from God to the reprobate would be the efficient and material causes, whereas, God's glory being manifested by deepening their guilt, and eternal destruction, is the formal and final cause.

General or common grace, is from a temporal perspective.

Your take is from eternity looking down.


[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Calvibaptist (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Common grace is a Biblical doctrine (Ps. 36.6-7, etc.) and has a long and good Reformed pedigree.



It may have a long and good Reformed pedigree, but the verses you list say nothing about grace (charis). In the Hebrew, the word used here is "hesed" and the LXX uses the Greek word "eleos". Both of these words refer to mercy or lovingkindness. I think the problem people have is with the specific used of the word "grace." In the NT, the only usages of "charis" involve the elect.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

> In the NT, the only usages of "charis" involve the elect.



As long as we define what we mean that way, I agree with the no-common grace stance.

We are specifying a theological concept to a generic english word though.
So we should not attack someone for using the term "common grace". We just need to ask what they mean by it, and offer something better like "temporal blessings". We do a similar thing when we hear a Christian use the word "luck" right ? We say, "you mean providence".

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I agree with those scriptures Jeff. I suppose the difference AGAIN, similar to the God created evil thread, would be that blessings from God to the reprobate would be the efficient and material causes, whereas, God's glory being manifested by deepening their guilt, and eternal destruction, is the formal and final cause.
> 
> General or common grace, is from a temporal perspective.
> ...



I agree that my take is from eternity looking down. That's the problem with using the term "grace" is that it is inherantly looking from eternity down. Grace is a term from the perspective of God, not man. That is why we can only use that sense, and not the sense from man's side.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Everything that men have -- whether elect or non-elect -- is a blessing from God. It is not merited favor, but unmerited.



This is the thinking that leads to common grace for sure. I find it to be wanting though. 

Is rain grace? What is grace to a farmer in the time of draught is hell to the drowning reprobate in the great flood.

What is the difference? The difference is intention on the part of the giver. 

If I give you a candybar (grace), but secretly give it so that you will choke on it, that isn't very gracious of me, is it?

Not everything men have is grace. Grace has a purpose, and that is the betterment of the recepient.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2005)

James Durham had this to say in his 33rd Sermon on Isaiah 53 which may touch upon the idea of "˜common grace.´ See attachment for a PDF of this sermon and more comment.


> Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ´s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ´s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy, and that Christ´s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at.
> "¦
> For (1) It [the view that Christ suffered and died for all] makes grace a common thing; a man that is in hell to be as much obliged to Christ, as one that is in heaven. And though it plausibly pretends to give grace a broad and large extent, yet it takes away the power of it. For if grace be thus largely extended, it is not grace that makes the application of grace, but the free-will of the creature. For grace, according to this opinion, leaves men to be saved or not as they please, and leaves itself to be overcome by man´s will. And therefore these errors divide not, but go together hand in hand. For where grace is made so large, free-will is made to have a dominion over it, and thus the weight of grace and of election are laid upon it.



[Edited on 10-12-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2005)

Wouldn't take my PDF attachment though it was only 137KB. Any ideas what went wrong?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

*cariV* is from the perspective of heaven down. "Grace" is an english word, which in the context of this thread is being defined as *cariV* exclusively. Now, I do not think the reformers and puritans mentioned in this thread always used it in that exclusive sense. They used in the sense of "temporal blessings" from the hand of God's providence. So, I agree with you, but we have to read these guys in context and within the language of their time.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 12, 2005)

Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us. 

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.
> 
> [Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]



Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 12, 2005)

Here is the full Sermon 33 in PDF from Durham's sermons on Isa 53 quoted previously (thanks to Fred for fixing that attachment limit thing). This work is presently out of print; large format hard back, 704 pp. Pick one up if you find it on the used market.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 12, 2005)

How do those who deny the existence of common grace reconcile that with the fact that there are reprobates with true membership and participation in the Covenant of Grace (as contrasted with the Covenant of Redemption) or its external aspect (as contrasted with its internal aspect)?


----------



## crhoades (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> How do those who deny the existence of common grace reconcile that with the fact that there are reprobates with true membership and participation in the Covenant of Grace (as contrasted with the Covenant of Redemption) or its external aspect (as contrasted with its internal aspect)?



I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 12, 2005)

> I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?



Exactly.




> For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been *enlightened*, who have *tasted the heavenly gift*, and have *shared in the Holy Spirit*, and have *tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come*, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?
> ...



Mark, I think Chris' point was that for unbelievers in the Covenant of Grace, the sacraments would only confer judgment, thus _not_ in fact conferring grace in any sense. If that is what you meant, Chris, I see some of your point with regard to the sacraments. What of the preached Word, however? Though the Law aspect is only bad news for the unbeliever in the Covenant of Grace, what of the Gospel aspect and the free offer of such?

Furthermore, a key question in this discussion is whether the means of grace's lack of salvific efficacy for a certain person necessarily negates their conferring of actual grace in any sense. I would say it does not, and I could go into explaining myself why I see it as such, but Michael Horton stated how I see it far more concisely and effectively than I can:



> Does Baptism actually save, then, if so many who are baptized fail to believe? If the sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word"”that is, if they are means of grace"”then we can ask the same question of the Word: Does the preached Word actually save, if so many fail to believe? Most of us have no hesitation in answering, "[Of course.] God offers eternal life"”but if we reject it, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we accept it, we have no one to praise but God." The same is true of baptism. If God offers eternal life to everyone, even to those outside the covenant of grace, then how much more will he hold us responsible for rejecting his saving grace sealed to us by his Spirit through the Word and baptism?



(from page 221 of _In the Face of God_)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

I would not consider the grace that is conferred via covenant community membership 'common'. I connect the term w/ the unregenerate world whom has no relationship to God, His people or His church.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I would not consider the grace that is conferred via covenant community membership 'common'. I connect the term w/ the unregenerate world whom has no relationship to God, His people or His church.



So you would agree then that God does in fact bestow grace upon non-elect persons, but would just disagree with the notion of that ever happening outside of the visible covenant community?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Chris,
The term today is used to describe _all men_; that the rain and sunshine is a form of Gods _common_ graces. Gods grace is not common; it is preseved for his people, it is salvific and refining; secondarily (in the divided sense) the unregenerate are partakers of even the crumbs that fall from the masters table. However(in the compound sense), they were not intended for the unregenerate in the least.

So, yes, I believe that the members of the Covenant community partake, else the holiness God promises to our children and spouses would not be.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?

Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Thanks for the detailed answer.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Sorry dan. I'm still a tad bit anesthesized from yesterday.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Sorry dan. I'm still a tad bit anesthesized from yesterday.



I'm joking friend. I was fairly sure I understand the original post rightly but your unamibiguous and succint answer made it all clear. 

Do you feel better now?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Yes
<yuk yuk yuk>

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Poimen (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Yes
> <yuk yuk yuk>
> 
> [Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]



How did I know that you were going to say that?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 12, 2005)




----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I don't think it's that simple. Christ is both God and man. And He is not schizonphrenic. Yes God hates his enemies, but he loves them at the same time. He demonstrates this by not returning evil for evil, but in being good and kind to them despite their rebellion. Again, Jesus is the ultimate picture of this on the Cross, not reviling His enemies.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?
> Thanks.



The compound and divided sense are Turretin's terms for two ways of looking at God's will. 

The compound sense is God's will _from his persepective._ In this sense, God cannot repent, has no body parts, no emotions, but is a spirit, infinite eternal and unchangable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. (A little of the WSC for ya...  )

The divided sense is God's will _from our perspective_, but more than that how God reveals it to us in this manner. He "dumbs it down" for us. He stoops down to our level in order to reveal his infinite majesty and attributes. In this sense, the Bible says that God does repent, has wings, eyes, etc. etc.

This view is in contrast to the Two wills of God view which says that God has one will (revealed) and another (secret). It is really not two wills, but one will, but viewed at from different angles.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

*Some excerpts from The Two Wills of God by Matthew MacMahon*



> Grace is not common, it is particular. IT is not found generally, but specially. It is not found in the common arena of nature, but in the special covenant pact men may have in Jesus Christ alone.
> p. 111





> It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that men may find grace. But it is not something given to all men, rather, only some men. It is particular, not common. There is not a sub-section within grace that could be deemed a lesser grace called "œcommon grace."
> p. 111





> I do believe God grants good gifts to the wicked. I do believe the wicked possess all that they do, including the air they breathe, as something which comes from the hand of God´s indiscriminate providence. But I do not believe that it is an intentionally gracious act of God towards those people, not even in the divided sense. I believe God certainly is commonly bountiful with all men, giving them good gifts. However, the term "œcommon grace" is too loosely utilized, "œcommon bounty" would be better. I think this because the Bible does not allow us to define grace that way, nor does it allow us the implicit liberty to do so as I hope to show. I had said in the beginning of this book that I believed in "œcommon grace." Yes, I do, but the term is not helpful. I want to explain a more helpful term that does not do injustice to the will or desires of God.
> 
> Let me restate Berkhof´s definition of common grace before continuing: "œthose general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or, those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him." In breaking down this definition, it is import to see that Berkhof is ascribing this to a form of "œgrace" which I believe is unwarranted. In either the compound or divided sense I do not believe that any of these things which he mentions constitutes what the Bible would consider "œgrace." Some like to define "œgrace" generically as "œGod´s unmerited favor." Even this definition, given what we know about the doctrine of reprobation, could not fit as a kind of "œgrace" to the wicked. Berkhof says that this common grace is actually part of the same grace which resides in God. He says, "œThere are not two kinds of grace in God, but only one." Here I agree. Favor is not grace; only grace is grace. Berkhof states, "œIt is that perfection of God in virtue of which He shows unmerited and even forfeited favour to men." Where does grace come from but Jesus Christ? How could there be a lesser aspect of the same grace which Berkhof states "œresides" in God? This is a mix-up of the attributes of God and failure to see the two sense of the biblical record.
> p. 112-113





> Common grace is not really grace at all, it´s a term used to demonstrate God´s goodness to the wicked. It does not refer to conferring any "œgrace" that would necessarily come from Jesus Christ or is associated with his death and resurrection. In the compound sense, God never has given real grace to the reprobate. Such ideologies of grace do not exist. Turretin states, "œThat there is no such will or purpose in God we prove: 1) from the decree of election and reprobation. Because the Scriptures make the purpose of having mercy particular, not universal (since it testifies that God had mercy upon some certain persons only, loves them and inscribes them in the book of life, but hates, hardens, appoints to wrath and ordains to condemnation others, Romans 9:11, 12, 13, 18, 22; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 1 Peter 2:8)" Grace is not general, nor can we generalize it unless we radically change definitions the Bible ascribes to it as it uses the term.
> p. 113-114





> We see the case is far otherwise when Paul continues through the discourse and has laid out the reason-that if works are added to grace in any way, grace ceases to be grace. He assert in Romans 11:6, "œAnd if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then its it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
> p. 125





> There is no "œin between" when applying grace. The Bible does not create a non-electing grace which may be applied to all men. Grace is particular. Love in Christ is particular. All of it is particular and special. Grace cannot be grace (or be particular), unless God´s eternal election of some men to heaven, and eternal reprobation of others to hell, is a result of His good pleasure alone.
> p. 125



My hand is tired.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

Yea, like I said, it's the crumbs that fall from the masters table that the dogs eat.

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Yea, like I said, it's the crumbs that fall from the masters table that the dogs eat.
> 
> Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
> Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.



Scott,

If I understand that passage correctly, the crumbs referred to are real grace given to people outside the Jewish nation.

Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 

I don't think this deals with common grace, but a grace that was previously strange to the Gentiles, but now was being manifested in "crumb" form.

Matthew Henry:



> 3. The turn she gave to this word of Christ, which made against her, and her improvement of it, to make for her, Mar_7:28. She said, "œYes, Lord, I own it is true that the children's bread ought not to be cast to the dogs; but they were never denied the crumbs of that bread, nay it belongs to them, and they are allowed a place under the table, that they may be ready to receive them. I ask not for a loaf, no, nor for a morsel, only for a crumb; do not refuse me that." This she speaks, not as undervaluing the mercy, or making light of it in itself, but magnifying the abundance or miraculous cures with which she heard the Jews were feasted, in comparison with which a single cure was but as a crumb. Gentiles do not come in crowds, as the Jews do; I come alone. Perhaps she had heard of Christ's feeding five thousand lately at once, after which, even when they had gathered up the fragments, there could not but be some crumbs left for the dogs.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I understand that Jeff. However, at that given moment, they were not part of that present plan; even Christ tells her, "Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled:". In the same way, Christ tells his disciples to only go to the children of Israel. 

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 

Dogs are compared to swine........


Keep in mind, a dog is a dog and the children of the kingdom are NOT dogs. So, the terminology used is specific. In this case, this dog was elect. A dog in the OT was a filthy animal; scorned. It ate and touched dead things, something that the Jew was forbidden.

Exo 22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. 

1Ki 14:11 Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat;

1Ki 21:23 And of Jezebel also spake the LORD, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel. 

Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 

Isa 56:11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. 

Phi 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 


[Edited on 10-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Hey that's good stuff!!


----------



## yeutter (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I am all for dropping the term Common Grace and talking instead about the providential goodness of God. That is what most people mean when they use the term.

The Hodge quote fascinates me. I always assumed the common grace thing was a dutch introduction. It would be interesting to know the context in which Hodge said this.

One problem with Common Grace is it is not always defined the same way. The Christian Reformed Church definition of this doctrine in 1924 is very troubling.


----------



## Peter (Oct 25, 2005)

Yes. One needs to remember the other aspect of common grace is God arresting the effects of sin in unregenerate so that the world doesnt break into utter riot.


----------

