# Distinction between the special grace and common grace of God



## Ben_Ives

Hi all,

I'm new on this website, but I'd appreciate a discussion on this topic to bring up further ideas of study.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of how the common grace of God and the special grace of God, 'overlap' and inter-work somewhat, for an assignment I'm doing on the same topic, in studying for a diploma of theology I'm completing. Its important to me that I feel like I have exhausted all aspects of this topic.

So far I have defined special grace as follows:

special grace is (A) the, ‘decision in eternity’, or the decision God has made in eternity to elect the Christian to become His child. God who inhabits eternity, has decided to elect a group of people and to give them eternal life (praise God I am amongst this number), coupled with (B) the changes in a person destined to be a Christian, which are solely attributable to the Holy Spirit which occur both before and after the instantaneous moment of conversion, which cannot be attributed to the Common Grace of God, which lead them to accept Christ by faith.

We know Special grace is irresistible / Common grace is not. Special Grace works to renew the nature of man to make him able to accept Christ.

An example of Common grace I would think is a Christian acting as the salt of the Earth. The drunken father after becoming converted, being kind to his kids and being a blessing to them is the common grace of God; perhaps how the common grace interrelates with special grace is where the converted father now takes his children to Sunday school which leads to his son coming to Christ and being saved. I'm not delving into the other aspects of Common grace (science / music / beauty of this world etc) as I'm specifically interested in how it interrelates with Special grace.

Does anyone else have any other ideas or possible examples please of how the 2 could interrelate? Ive got Louis Berkof as my main text. It seems like study of this subject naturally leads to a consideration of the flaws of Peliganism and the various heresies which fall under that umbrella.

Thanks to anyone / everyone in advance! I'd really appreciate anyone's feedback or ideas.


----------



## Tirian

Hi and welcome to the board. (Quick - update your signature per the signature requirements before the mods see!!) 

You've given a definition for Special Grace and the points you have given I think could easily be proof-texted. How about Common Grace? Rather than an example of what you think Common Grace is, perhaps tell us the definition of Common Grace.

I'll pretend to be theological dummy (ok, so I really don't have to pretend here) - I've just looked common grace up in my concordance and I can't find it!


----------



## Ben_Ives

Common grace is any benefit to man which he enjoys due to God besides saving grace, which flows from His Spirit. 

Examples - 

[1] Stephens speech describing the Holy Ghost being resisted by the Jews. The 'thing' (person) being resisted is the Holy Spirit's attempt to indicate to the Jews the way they should be going.
[2] The unsaved husband being sanctified by the saved wife



The Doctrine of Common Grace

The following links are useful summaries of Common Grace

http://www.christianessentialssbc.com/downloads/2008/011308.pdf

Summary of Christian Doctrine

Any Ideas?????


----------



## Matthew1344

I am sorry if my post is not up to par. I am sorry for any grammatical errors or if it is just confusing. And I could probably say what I am saying in a shorter way, but I am just not that good with words yet.
I do not consider myself a theologian. But, I do love to study! And, I am excited about this thread. 

I have never heard this definition of common grace. I have always heard of "common grace" as God's grace towards the non-elect that Jesus purchased on the cross. 

I have been reading "Death of Death in the Death of Christ:Owen". It has challenged me in my previous definition of "common grace". 

From this book I now see that:
Jesus came down for one reason. To glorify the Father. In order to that he must do one thing, secure salvation of the Fathers elect by paying for their sin, fully satisfying the wrath of God, and being the High Priest for the elect by preforming a sacrifice and making intercession for his elect. Because this was the end goal of Jesus' coming, then all of his means must have been focused on this ends. All the means were focused on accomplishing the end.

If what Owen is saying is true, and the bible does really say this about the death of Christ, then my old definition of "common grace" can't fit into. 
So, what I have come up with is that...(now if what I have already said was not confusing enough for you, this will probably be really confusing, and for this I am terribly sorry)...

The Father unconditionally chose a people to himself. Jesus died to save and secure the salvation of his elect, and to purchase every good thing for them. The Holy Spirit carries out the plan of the Father and the Son, and is the agent to apply all that the Son has accomplished on the cross. And because of the plan of the Lord, and by his sovereign decree, he chose for his elect to live their full life that he chose for them (each elect would be different) , whether it be 8 days or 800 years, and in those days/years, the Father planned the day that the Holy Spirit would come into them and create in them a new heart. And, not just that day but every thing the Holy Spirit did leading up to that and every thing afterwards. The Holy Spirit bestows on the elect every good thing the Son purchased for them.

Now... in some if not all of these good things, the reprobate plays some kind of role in them.

For an example:

-If you are reading you bible, a reprobate might have made it, or the chair you are sitting in, or maybe the building that the bible was published in, etc.

-If you are driving to a discipleship or evangelism group, I am sure that at some point in history "Ford Motor Company" had a reprobate either put your car together or had someone high up in leadership to make a decisive call to create this car that you are using to get there.

-Unreached people living on a mountain gives motivation to go proclaim the Gospel.

-Unreached people allow elect to praise God that the Gospel has been shared with them.

So, as of the past couple days, I have understood "common grace" to be grace that is given to the reprobate that allows them to live and be used by God to bless his elect. So, because Jesus' end was to glorify the father, by securing and saving his elect and purchasing all the good things inteded for them, part of his means was to purchase a temporary providence for the reprobate, so that Jesus can give the elect all the good things he purchased for them. Not that he needs reprobate (or that he needs elect for that matter, God can do just fine on his own, and does not need anyone...ever) to carry out the good things purchased for the elect, but that the Father just chose to use reprobates to help bless his elect.

So, i used to think that Jesus died for 2 reasons:
1-purchase saving grace
2-purchase a temporary grace for reprobates, just to show that he even had grace on the reprobates "common grace"

Now, i think Christ died for 1 reason:
1-(Ends) purchase saving faith for elect. (Means) use reprobate to carry out the plans that he purchased on the cross "common grace" .

And now after hearing what you said, I now see that I could still see that I have no idea what common grace is. So I am all ears and ready to learn.

Again, sorry for the post being so long. I hope things get clearer for you and I.


----------



## Cymro

There is only one form of grace, and that is saving grace. Common grace 
has been coined in the past to try and put God in a better attitude to the
unbeliever, Rather we should speak of God's goodness or benevolence.
And although He would exercise benevolence to the reprobate in bestowing
blessings upon them , because they abuse and misuse them, and consume
them on their own lusts, they really then prove to be their damnation.
It is interesting that Shedd believed that common grace could take a soul
to the gates of heaven but not get it in. Such a view really is an attack on
total depravity, that man with a little assistance of common grace can respond 
even up to the pearly gates


----------



## JM

I posted this video on YouTube finding it personally helpful. I have posted others if you are interested. 

[video=youtube;TPSG2Sxe4AQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPSG2Sxe4AQ[/video]


----------



## davdavis

It seems to me that examples of common grace would be: An author, like Kipling or Orwell, who, while not believers were able to have very correct insights it our modern plight. Someone like Albert Schweitzer, who was a heretic, but a noted humanitarian. It seems clear to me God acts to restrain evil in the world and acts even in unbelievers.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Allow me to utilize an analogy using a less controversial subject, the trinity (I say less controversial, but I really mean less disputed. I'd be very surprised if anyone could deny the existence of the trinity on this forum and not get kicked off). When I learned about the trinity, we understood that God is one indivisible essence, but that essence is in 3 persons. We also learned that, whilst this fact regarding the trinity is beyond human comprehension, it is an essential doctrine to establish and defend to avoid error. In spite of the fact it seems illogical for God to be one yet there are 3 persons in the Trinity, we need to state categorically this is the case and defend it.

The doctrine of Common grace has / had its origins in seeking to explain why it is that sin is restrained in this world - or in fact how it is. 

For those concerned that the doctrine of Common grace or the particular variety of the doctrine of Common grace is as mentioned Joshua and I quote him now:



> We also firmly reject what many have associated with common grace that is called the Well-Meant Offer, wherein God, in some sense, sincerely desires the salvation of those whom He has foreordained to dishonor and wrath.



I humbly state that the doctrine of Common grace is completely inconsistent with this. 

By suggesting or defending the doctrine of Common grace, we are being very Calvinist. Because we are making the clear distinction between Common grace and Special grace.
Special grace in itself is: God electing you and causing it to happen.

It is the Arminian argument that there is no distinction between Common grace and special grace. The doctrine of Common grace is necessary to explain that in reality, man is completely depraved and cannot choose of his own free will to become a co-heir with God.

The Arminian believes that all grace is the same. This is incorrect. The Arminian will have you believe that he is no different from his neighbor in the eyes of God. That the grace of God is universal, and although God foreknows who will be saved because He is God - in reality the Arminian would say that everyone has the same access to the grace of God which is (as I said universal) the same for everyone because, whomsoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. The ignorance of an Arminian can be quickly found out by asking them to explain, why then the rebuke of Romans 9:20 ? Why does God rebuke _anyone_ who dares to question whom He will harden and whom by His Spirit He does soften in heart - if in fact grace is Universal, or the same.. Fact is, it isn't. Gods spirit when regenerating a sinner and saving is ONLY doing this to the elect - and it isn't hit and miss as the Arminian would have you believe. In reality you don't have a choice if you are elect, because God is softening your heart.

For who hath resisted his will? 
Romans 9: 19

It is also important to understand, and I'll just quote Louis Berkof here:

The distinction between Common and Special grace is not one that applies to grace as an attribute in God. There are no 2 kinds of grace, but only one. It is that perfection of God in virtue of which He shows unmerited and even forfeited favor to man. This one grace of God manifests itself, however, in different gifts and operations.

It is a doctrine based in Calvinism. 

I think to understand the beauty and wonder of creation, just to see it. To marvel at how intricate feathers are in there ingenious design, and plant cells etc. Who made that? God of course. Who gave man the ability to invent the piano? Was it a Christian who invented the piano? (Probably was anyway). Were Beethoven / Mozart Christians? But from where did these men get their gifts to write and compose such beautiful music? What do we, or should we attribute it to? I think simply God gifted those people.

What is stopping Indonesia invading Australia and killing all the Christians here? Is it that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia is a Christian? I don't actually know to be honest if he is or isn't, but I'd say God in His grace is preventing that occurring, as well as preventing my children being harmed by terrorists in Northern Ireland right now. God influences governments, and governments prevent wars. The Australian Government is acting as a deterrant, and the existence of Government is part of the Common grace of God. 

How is God (practically speaking) doing this? How does God practically speaking influence men on earth? He does prompt people by His Holy Spirit, unsaved people 

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 

Anything Christ does on earth right now is done by the Holy Spirit - HOW ELSE IS HE DOING IT?? Ohhh ohhh ohh what?. HOW IS HE??

Come up with any explanation you want, but total depravity of man dictates that he is bent on sin. What happens in hell where there is eternal separation from God? Not much classical music getting composed down there. If God by His Holy Spirit prompts sinners who never receive Him - WHICH HE UNDENIABLY DOES, can that not be described as grace? If we are just debating terminology then that's fine, but Common grace is essentially that. It is the Common (regular) grace that every man on this planet is _exposed to_ simply because he is alive and on the planet.

My dad is not a Christian and would be dead right now if scientists hadn't cured him of prostrate cancer. The same scientists skills may have enabled a gospel preacher to recover and spend another 15 years in the pulpit and lead souls to Christ. That wonderful science is part of the Common grace - regular ordinary grace of God.

If God is just generally good to everyone, and anyone can be converted, this is wrong. The doctrine of Common grace is a doctrine the church relies on to explain the good God does in the world that is not part of saving people.

I'm now going to watch that youtube video by Jason


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

All creation of God is good _objectively_ (Genesis 1:31), but only salvificly good, if received with thanksgiving through Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 4:4). This is why the reprobate will never receive grace through earthly and temporary kindnesses of God. 

Just because the reprobate are under the same sky and its rain and sun as the elect, it does not mean God has any well-meaning toward the reprobate.

“If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.” (Malachi 2:2)


----------



## Tirian

Ben,

I don't think you'll get many people objecting to the various examples you have given of God's benevolence toward all men as demonstrating we have a great, good and gracious God. The problem comes in labelling that "Common _Grace_". There is nothing salvific about the sun & rain falling on the unelect - yet it happens. To morph that Godly benevolence into the same *root* as the operation that regenerates the elect is bow too long to draw.

Matt


----------



## Tirian

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Just because the reprobate are under the same sky and its rain and sun as the elect, it does not mean God has any well-meaning toward the reprobate.



Indeed. 

Ben - to use a North Australian analogy: When a farmer looks at his field of sugar cane he loves it and tends to it, waters and feeds it even when there are weeds, rats, toads etc throughout the precious canes. His field is his love and joy. But you can be certain he'll harvest the crop and the rest will light up the tropical sky as he burns it away to ready the field for the next crop.

So all the pests shared in the food and water, but were all consumed in fire without grace.


----------



## Cymro

God causes it to rain on one city and not on another, that is the consequence of
His providence. If it is attributed to common grace then how would a Bangaladeshee
view the repeated devastation of his country by regular overwhelming floods? It would 
not appear grace to him.
Isaiah 26:10 reads, "Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will not he learn righteousness:
in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord."
In God's providential way the reprobate is blessed with prosperity, health, the benefits of economic
national success, yet he will not acknowledge God as the bestower.
History shows, and demonstrably in the OT, that the Babylonians, the Pharoahs, Philistines etc,
experienced power, dominion and wealth, but that would not be the effects of grace. Rather they
are in providence, part and parcel of providence working all things for good to those who love God,
even the Church of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Matthew1344

Sorry for the elementary question. I am just trying to soak all this in.
And I am not real sure how to phrase my question.

But, the way that I am seeing it is there are two types of people.

1)elect
2)reprobate

The elect don't go straight to hell because *Jesus' work on the cross.*
The reprobate don't go straight to hell because of *God's providence.*
This logic makes the most sense because I know that Jesus ONLY died on the cross for the elect.

But here is where my hang-up is...

The elect are saved by grace and mercy.
*Grace*:getting what you do not deserve.
*Mercy*:not getting what you do deserve

So, isn't that some kind of *"grace"* and *"mercy"* to the reprobate?
They have life, which is something they do not deserve to have - *"grace".*
They aren't dead, which is something they do deserve - *"mercy"*

And if that be the case... Where did this grace and mercy come from? The cross? I just don't think it did... everything I see that Jesus did on the cross was for the elect only. I am just so confused. Do we just chalk up reprobate having life under "God's providence", and if so how is that still not grace and mercy?


----------



## Matthew1344

does this make any sense? am I completely missing the boat?



> So, as of the past couple days, I have understood "common grace" to be grace that is given to the reprobate that allows them to live and be used by God to bless his elect. So, because Jesus' end was to glorify the father, by securing and saving his elect and purchasing all the good things inteded for them, part of his means was to purchase a temporary providence for the reprobate, so that Jesus can give the elect all the good things he purchased for them. Not that he needs reprobate (or that he needs elect for that matter, God can do just fine on his own, and does not need anyone...ever) to carry out the good things purchased for the elect, but that the Father just chose to use reprobates to help bless his elect.
> 
> On the cross Jesus had one goal...
> 1-(Ends) purchase saving faith for elect. (Means) use reprobate to carry out the plans that he purchased on the cross "common grace" or maybe "God's Providence"


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Matthew1344 said:


> Sorry for the elementary question. I am just trying to soak all this in.
> And I am not real sure how to phrase my question.
> 
> But, the way that I am seeing it is there are two types of people.
> 
> 1)elect
> 2)reprobate
> 
> The elect don't go straight to hell because *Jesus' work on the cross.*
> The reprobate don't go straight to hell because of *God's providence.*
> This logic makes the most sense because I know that Jesus ONLY died on the cross for the elect.
> 
> But here is where my hang-up is...
> 
> The elect are saved by grace and mercy.
> *Grace*:getting what you do not deserve.
> *Mercy*:not getting what you do deserve
> 
> So, isn't that some kind of *"grace"* and *"mercy"* to the reprobate?
> They have life, which is something they do not deserve to have - *"grace".*
> They aren't dead, which is something they do deserve - *"mercy"*
> 
> And if that be the case... Where did this grace and mercy come from? The cross? I just don't think it did... everything I see that Jesus did on the cross was for the elect only. I am just so confused. Do we just chalk up reprobate having life under "God's providence", and if so how is that still not grace and mercy?



Mercy is universal, offered to all. Grace is particular, bestowed upon some. Read this.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

2 Peter 3 tells us why the reprobate don't go straight to hell.

Verse 4: They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ (the Second Coming of Christ) he promised?..."
Verse 9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

The reprobate's judgment is postponed till all God's elect have been regenerated. That's when the end comes.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Guys, I think you misunderstand me. 



> All creation of God is good objectively (Genesis 1:31), but only salvificly good, if received with thanksgiving through Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 4:4). This is why the reprobate will never receive grace through earthly and temporary kindnesses of God. - InSlaveryToChrist's



This quote from 1 Timothy 4:4 is referring to all animals can be lawfully eaten. Man is a created being and has the 'small' problem of TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Christ said there is none good but God. All of creation is afflicted by sin as per,

_ Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. _ 

Tirian, InSlaveryToChrist, and Cyrmo, sorry to apparently confuse all of you into thinking that the doctrine of Common grace has somethng to do with God acting with benevolence towards sinners. I never suggested that for a moment, I would ordinarily say, "Strawman!! strawman argument!!" except I have no doubt that you gentleman are quite sincere. Let me assure you I do not seek to explain the apparent good that men do (which are sinful acts still), such as general morality, fear of breaking the law for punishment by the police etc etc by suggesting that by supplying the world with such grace, that God is acting benevolently towards sinners.

Firstly, a notion that God is acting benevolently towards sinners is inconsistent with John 3:18, and 
_John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. _

Now consider:

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (good old Arminian bashing Romans 9)

God is acting with long-suffering towards sinners. WHY ?? Very simple answer to that question: (why would God act with long-suferring towards sinners?), very simple.

Despite ones views on the foreknowledge of God, and Gods ability to know the elect given he is the elector and the saint the 'electee', if God were to act in complete wrath now against the world...

Consider again the parable of the wheat and the tares: Matthew 13:24 - 29

_Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

Matthew 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 

Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. _

*Christ EXPLAINS THIS PARABLE*

_ Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

Matthew 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. _

Benevolence is not mentioned or inferred, any Common benefit stemming from the Common grace of God, acting to restrain sin is to prevent the destruction of the world prematurely by man. If man was left to his own devices now, due to total depravity, the world would become very much like an Apocalypse movie very quickly. There would be utter lawlessness, and total chaos. But the fact that there is not, is because of the Holy Spirit, and these benefits are due to the Holy Spirit acting generally, but in a way which does NOT CONVERT the wicked, because God has hardened their hearts.

Before I started this thread I searched Common grace in the forums and I can see it has been discussed quite a few times previously, but there was no discussion on the interelation and contrast with special grace that I could see strait away. But this word salvific keeps popping up, which I think is a red herring.

Salvific simply means, 'leading to salvation'. Common grace is not Salvific in any sense. The only thing that is salvific is the mind of God which elects people. If Common grace were salvific then you are saying that, the goodness in this world, which is Common, which all men experience, leads to salvation. I tell you that such a belief lies at the very heart of Arminianism and we ought to reject it whole-heartedly! The ONE THING, the SINGLE IDENTIFYING factor of Common grace, which distinguishes itself from special grace, is that it is not salvific.

Whoever believes that Common grace is salvific - if you could please tell me then is special grace common? The broad road which leads to destruction is Common, it is the narrow way which is NOT COMMON.


----------



## OPC'n

Ben, I can lead you to Calvin's definition of common grace and salvific grace. Those can be found in His commentary on Hebrews (chapter 6 and 10 of Hebrews) and his Institutes 2.2.17 and 2.3.4. If you don't have a copy of these they are VERY cheap on Amazon kindle books and free in other places on the net. Hope this helps you with your paper.


----------



## Matthew1344

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the elementary question. I am just trying to soak all this in.
> And I am not real sure how to phrase my question.
> 
> But, the way that I am seeing it is there are two types of people.
> 
> 1)elect
> 2)reprobate
> 
> The elect don't go straight to hell because *Jesus' work on the cross.*
> The reprobate don't go straight to hell because of *God's providence.*
> This logic makes the most sense because I know that Jesus ONLY died on the cross for the elect.
> 
> But here is where my hang-up is...
> 
> The elect are saved by grace and mercy.
> *Grace*:getting what you do not deserve.
> *Mercy*:not getting what you do deserve
> 
> So, isn't that some kind of *"grace"* and *"mercy"* to the reprobate?
> They have life, which is something they do not deserve to have - *"grace".*
> They aren't dead, which is something they do deserve - *"mercy"*
> 
> And if that be the case... Where did this grace and mercy come from? The cross? I just don't think it did... everything I see that Jesus did on the cross was for the elect only. I am just so confused. Do we just chalk up reprobate having life under "God's providence", and if so how is that still not grace and mercy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mercy is universal, offered to all. Grace is particular, bestowed upon some. Read this.
Click to expand...


What was it that happened for everyone to get mercy? Where did this universal mercy come from? Why did God give it to everyone? ... Am I asking the wrong questions


----------



## Matthew1344

> Ben,
> 
> Perhaps you've also misunderstood. *We're denying that there is such a thing as Common Grace, since Grace, biblically understood, is pertaining to that which is salvific*.. I suppose that puts us at an impasse?



I feel this way too. So, are you saying instead of "common grace" it should be called "God's Providence" ?


----------



## Tirian

Matthew1344 said:


> I feel this way too. So, are you saying instead of "common grace" it should be called "God's Providence" ?



It _is_ God's providence. There is nothing common about grace, so I suggest not using the title "common grace" however well intended.


----------



## Ben_Ives

This is just a quick reply, as I'm just at home to check something else:

'Common grace' as a term is a means to explain why there are good actions done by the wicked. If you believe in total depravity you would see this as a contradiction.

The good samaritan in his day was referring to a man from a false religion who treated the guy beaten up ion the side of the road better than the Levite. The religion of the samaritans was a false cult back when Christ walked the earth.

There is a diferrence between justice and grace. Grace is not earned. Justice is earned, you do bad and you get punished.

I think we need a better definition of grace.


----------



## Tirian

Ben_Ives said:


> understanding of how the common grace of God and the special grace of God, 'overlap'





Ben_Ives said:


> Its important to me that I feel like I have exhausted all aspects of this topic.



Ben, I hope if nothing else that we have been useful in helping you to feel like you are teasing out aspects of this topic.

Many of us tackling this assignment would firstly establish that God has not common grace - the "common grace of God" as you call it, and would then proceed to unpack how in many peoples minds, what they call the "common grace of God" is really a picture of God's providence and then proceed to discuss interactions between God's grace and providence.

As well intended as you are to demonstrate the ways in which God has withheld His righteous wrath, we will only see in that love for the elect - in that He promised not one of His sheep would be lost. Grace, as per your opening post, when used in relationship with God is always saving, always irresistible.

Do you have an alternate definition for grace - God's unmerited favour by which we are saved?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben_Ives said:


> This is just a quick reply, as I'm just at home to check something else:
> 
> 'Common grace' as a term is a means to explain why there are good actions done by the wicked. If you believe in total depravity you would see this as a contradiction.
> 
> The good samaritan in his day was referring to a man from a false religion who treated the guy beaten up ion the side of the road better than the Levite. The religion of the samaritans was a false cult back when Christ walked the earth.
> 
> There is a diferrence between justice and grace. Grace is not earned. Justice is earned, you do bad and you get punished.
> 
> I think we need a better definition of grace.



As far as Biblical language is concerned there is no grace for the reprobate. Here are the facts:

For the reprobate, Mercy is a goodness of God.

For the elect, Mercy and Grace are goodnesses AND _the favor_ of God.

For the reprobate, Mercy is the postponement of their judgment.

For the elect, Mercy is the forgiveness of their sins, and Grace is the transforming power that makes them know God more and love Him more.


This is why we can't make fancy general distinctions like:

Grace: getting what you do not deserve
Mercy: not getting what you do deserve


----------



## Ben_Ives

As far as I know, grace is the unmerited favor of God, whether that be to the just or unjust.

I'll admit I don't have a proper understanding of providence, as in I have not studied the topic fully. But that said I was under the impression that what Christians call providence, the unsaved would call a coincidence, which is clearly saying something occurred by lucky chance and is based on the presupposition that God Himself was not involved.

Can God act or do anything in this world separate from His personality? It is not God AND His personality, God's personality is a description of what He is like. 

Refusing the doctrine of Common grace as I have outlined it is a suggestion that the only time God does anything in this world, or intervenes is when He acts to save a sinner.

I have demonstrated that the doctrine of Common grace as I have described it is an explanation of how God operates in this world, by His Spirit - for there is no other way. I have also proved that by God so doing He is not acting with benevolence towards the non-elect.



> As far as Biblical language is concerned there is no grace for the reprobate. Here are the facts: - Samuel AKA InSlaveryToChrist



Yes Samuel, I agree, there is no saving grace for the reprobate. But the Bible clearly says, "the rain falls on the just and the un-just" - providence I would agree, but is receiving rain receiving favor from God? Does the reprobate deserve rain to water His crops? No he doesn't, and interestingly enough neither does the Christian. The Christian receives unmerited favour also, by having his crops rained on. Does the Christian deserve rain? Does the Christian earn rain? Was the Christian saved by the rain at some point?
Who does the Christian ask for rain from? God. Who does the Christian thank for the rain? God. Who makes and who sends the rain? God. etc etc. The food that grows because of the rain, that we all eat - a good Christian will thank God for. Rain is the UNEARNT favour or blessing of God because without it you'd be dead. This is what I am referring to when I discus Common grace.

Take roads for example, we don't deserve to have roads. No one deserves roads, but we thank God for good roads. Do you ever pray for, "traveling mercies" Samuel? Do you thank God for a safe journey? Providence is a means to describe something occurring. But it doesn't reflect on how it occurs (the event) other than saying it was God caused.

How does God operate in this world? Would it be the grace of God to you Samuel, if a reprobate unsaved airforce pilot - hell deserving ungodly etc turns his crashing plane into an office block to avoid hitting the church you are sitting in? *DOES GOD HAVE THE POWER [*TO FORCE THE UNSAVED AIRFORCE PILOT TO DO THIS YES OR NO? Would God do this by His Holy Spirit? You have to answer yes. How does God influence the ungodly without the use of His Holy Spirit? Do you deserve death yourself? Yes, and do you deserve to have the plane crash into your church and kill you? Yes you actually deserve to die (you will eventually anyway die because of sin). If God so acts to save your life, it is the unmerited favour of God to you, through the Holy Spirit, working in the life of an unbeliever in a non salvific way.

If your grandad's life was saved in a war, because his reprobate war mate jumped on a grenade and sacrificed himself for his war mates, did he earn this? No. YOU don't earn anything good, everything good hat comes from God is not earned. The only thing you deserve is death. 

Common grace is God's gracious dealings with the elect and non elect in an non salvific way. Or you are simply saying God never does anything but save people? Who on earth told you that? That's not in the Bible. 

Consider the reprobate King whom God warned in a dream to not touch Abrahams wife - unmerited favor shown to Abraham / whilst protecting the king from committing and being punished for adultery - an UNDESERVED ACT OF GOD.

You are simply saying, 'there is no common grace because there is no common grace'. That is not rational because God does move in this world in ways which no one deserves, both elect and non elect.

And yes this has been extremely helpful to my studies and I am extremely grateful to you people for this discussion. Please consider yourself my friends. God bless you


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Dear Ben,

I don't want to come off as offensive, but I would like you to slow down, read what has been already layed down in this thread as Biblical proof for not believing in "common grace" and stop with speculation / argumentation not supported by Scripture. If you really think God gives grace to the reprobate, then show us one single verse from the New Testament where the Greek word _charis_ (translated grace) is applied to the reprobate.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Samuel,

I agree God does not give saving grace (special grace) to the reprobate. I assure you I do not hold to this position. This is essential Calvinism. 

With respect, may I ask if you believe in predestination? I'm sorry if you think I am being sarcastic - I'm really not being sarcastic, its just I don't know you from Adam, and I know Wesley was a very godly man yet Arminian. I'm not sure if Arminianism is spoken against on this website, I assumed it was. So I'm just asking because predestination dictates that elect few will be converted.

You state that there is only one type of grace - saving grace. How about realizing that God not only converts but He also sanctifies. 

Consider a married couple with kids, at first both are unsaved, then after a while the wife becomes a believer. 

The wife fearing that her ungodly partner will be a bad influence on the couples' 2 children, and turns to Gods word for advice:



> 1 Corinthians 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.



Sanctification is a work done by God the Holy Spirit. 

A reprobate is being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, for the sake of children of a believer who may or may not be part of the elect. Having 1 christian parent is no guarantee that all kids will be saved.

By what force/person/influence/prompting is the unsaved husband sanctified?

Is sanctification a grace? Certainly because it is grouped as follows:



> 1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Ben:

A few things that you may wish to check out on common grace:

1. Hodge's disscussion of it (and he is representative of the Calvin/Turretin tradition) in his _Systematic Theology_, v. 2, pp. 654-675.
2. Bavinck's discussion in his _Reformed Dogmatics _(check out the index in v. 4 for the various places that he addresses it); also Abraham Kuyper, whose massive 3 vv. 
work on the subject is in process of translation. A volume on science and art has already been published--_Wisdom and Wonder._
3. Cornelius Van Til, _Common Grace and the Gospel_.

While this is, as you can see from the above replies, a matter that engenders some debate among the Reformed, there is a considerable body of Reformed theology that recognizes and affirms common grace in some fashion. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ben_Ives

please scan up to see my edited post Samuel


Dear Alan, 

Thank you very much for your reply. I do very much sincerely appreciate your assistance. 

Please scan up to my (now) edited previous remark as previously it may have seemed blunt!! Sorry if I gave this impression. Judging by Samuels position on grace, he states that it does not operate in the life of a non believer, whatsoever. So for him right now, the total depravity of man is unhindered by God's Spirit, and sorry the only thing I just cant put my finger on is how can anyone maintain such a position without believing that anyone can be saved? 

If God isn't holding back men from sinning as much as they can - why arent they or what is? Providence is not a force, it is a means of saying Gods hand is in everything. Understanding Providence doesnt negate the Holy Spirit, rather it tells you that God is responsible for events. That information itself is not a force it is a rational concept and a concept only. The Holy Spirit is more than a concept, He is God and a person and acts in the hearts of all the kings on earth to move them wherever He likes.


----------



## Ben_Ives

OPC'n said:


> Ben, I can lead you to Calvin's definition of common grace and salvific grace. Those can be found in His commentary on Hebrews (chapter 6 and 10 of Hebrews) and his Institutes 2.2.17 and 2.3.4. If you don't have a copy of these they are VERY cheap on Amazon kindle books and free in other places on the net. Hope this helps you with your paper.



Thank you very much Sarah, I do have an electronic copy of these and had not been able to find anything on Common Grace anywhere in my searches by Calvin because I think something is wrong with the computer search I do. I'll look these up.

I'd read parts of John Owen's A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Works of John Owen Part 3. He is very good and very deep.


----------



## OPC'n

Ben_Ives said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben, I can lead you to Calvin's definition of common grace and salvific grace. Those can be found in His commentary on Hebrews (chapter 6 and 10 of Hebrews) and his Institutes 2.2.17 and 2.3.4. If you don't have a copy of these they are VERY cheap on Amazon kindle books and free in other places on the net. Hope this helps you with your paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much Sarah, I do have an electronic copy of these and had not been able to find anything on Common Grace anywhere in my searches by Calvin because I think something is wrong with the computer search I do. I'll look these up.
> 
> I'd read parts of John Owen's A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Works of John Owen Part 3. He is very good and very deep.
Click to expand...


No problem. Here is a link for Calvin's commentaries. 2 Cor.8 is particularly good on this subject. Calvin's Commentariesin/commentaries.i.html]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben, let me make this my last response to you. I'm really tired and don't desire to continue on this topic anymore. See my comments in red.



Ben_Ives said:


> Samuel,
> 
> I agree God does not give saving grace (special grace) to the reprobate. That was not my point. My point was that the Greek word _charis_ is not given to the reprobate. And there is no other word in the New Testament that would imply favor of God toward the reprobate. I assure you I do not hold to this position. This is essential Calvinism.
> 
> With respect, may I ask if you believe in predestination? I'm sorry if you think I am being sarcastic - I'm really not being sarcastic, its just I don't know you from Adam, and I know Wesley was a very godly man yet Arminian. I'm not sure if Arminianism is spoken against on this website, I assumed it was. So I'm just asking because predestination dictates that elect few will be converted. Ben, this is a confessional board, where you cannot become a member until you hold to some of its Reformed confessions. I, for one, believe the Westminster confessions are in accord with Scripture. Any Reformed confession denies Arminianism.
> 
> You state that there is only one type of grace - saving grace. How about realizing that God not only converts but He also sanctifies. I have not made the implication that my view of grace denies sanctification and is limited to convertion. It includes both, thus, the whole salvation of man.
> 
> Consider a married couple with kids, at first both are unsaved, then after a while the wife becomes a believer.
> 
> The wife fearing that her ungodly partner will be a bad influence on the couples' 2 children, and turns to Gods word for advice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctification is a work done by God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> A reprobate is being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, for the sake of children of a believer who may or may not be part of the elect. Having 1 christian parent is no guarantee that all kids will be saved.
> 
> By what force/person/influence/prompting is the unsaved husband sanctified?
> 
> Is sanctification a grace? Certainly because it is grouped as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Lastly, I'd like to add something to this topic from the Old Testament, since it is the obvious place where a proponent of "common grace" will flee, when he realizes there is no favor of God to the reprobate in the New Testament.

In the Old Testament many words convey one or more aspects of the New Testament doctrine of grace. The two which most comprehensively express the NT word _charis_ are _hen_ and _hesed_. The former bears the NT sense of favor, with an undertone of meaning that the favor is undeserved. Thus Moses said to the Lord "If I have found grace in thy sight" (Ex.33:13). The word _hesed_, most often translated "loving kindness" or "mercy", has also, though not invariably, the association of the covenant that God makes with his people: "The Lord appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with have I drawn thee" (Jer.31:3); "the Lord thy God shall keep with thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers" (Deut.7:12).

There is no favor of God to the reprobate, period.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Ben:

With respect to your point about a distinction between the Spirit's work in common grace and providence, you'll appreicate Hodge's discussion (v. 2, 665-7), "The Work of the Spirit is distinct from Providential Efficiency."

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Tirian

Well Ben, all the best with your assignment!

God bless.


----------



## MW

Ben_Ives said:


> Does anyone else have any other ideas or possible examples please of how the 2 could interrelate? Ive got Louis Berkof as my main text.



The Dutch school extended the idea of common grace to include "natural" benefits (for want of a better term), and by and large that is how the term tends to be used almost exclusively now. Originally, however, it was used in the context of the means of grace and the benefits derived from membership in the visible church. There is a helpful and clear discussion of this in one of James Durham's digressions in his Commentary on Revelation.

A term is only as good as its definition. If the definition of common grace is clear that the "grace" is efficacious in its sphere of operation, it will have some use in the reformed system. If, however, it becomes confused with saving grace, and gives way to the pantheistic idea of God longing to be fulfilled by creation, it should be cast down and burned to ashes with all the other figments of men's imaginations.


----------



## Loopie

As has been mentioned in previous posts, it is important that there be a common (no pun intended) definition of grace that we can all agree upon.

For instance, it was mentioned in an earlier post that Grace = getting something you do not deserve, and that Mercy = not getting something you do deserve. If THAT is your definition, then certainly you are going to see God's 'common' grace bestowed upon the reprobate.

Personally, I do not hold to that definition of Grace. I believe that BOTH getting what you do not deserve AND not getting what you do deserve, in the context of fallen, sinful human beings, is Mercy. That is, the reprobate are not destroyed immediately, which is what they deserve, and so that is an act of mercy. Furthermore, the reprobate receive many physically good things on this earth, which I think is ALSO an act of mercy. It would be akin to giving someone a 'last wish', or 'last meal' before being executed. When the murderer on death row is given one last meal before he dies, that is not an act of favor being bestowed upon them by the guards or judges. It is an act of mercy. The prisoner does not deserve a last meal, but one is provided for them anyways.

That is why I would argue that Grace is defined as God's unmerited favor, which is bestowed only upon the Elect.

Lastly, I would point out that 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' can also be the definitions of 'injustice'. That is because we must consider the nature of the recipients, which is why I intentionally mentioned how mercy must be defined in the context of sinful human beings.

For instance, if a judge fails to uphold justice by giving freedom to an unrepentant, guilty murderer, then that is an injustice. If a business owner refuses to give fair wages to an honest, hard working man who deserves it, that is also an injustice. That is why whenever the phrase 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' is used to define terms such as 'mercy', it must be considered in the context of sinful human beings who have rebelled against a perfectly holy God.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Can I just say thank you very much to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, I really appreciate the input of everyone in taking the time to offer insight into this subject. I'm very grateful to you 

This discussion has, I think, descended into a debate / discussion based on terminology now really. I don’t think any of us really disagree on anything except that people who dislike or 'deny' there is any Common Grace dislike it mainly because it has the word grace attached to it. It's just a word. 

If you take / remove from grace the character of God from its meaning or definition, and apply grace as an act which man does to another person. e.g. “How very gracious of you to slow down and let me overtake you, your car and caravan were holding up all the traffic, how very gracious of you to pull over and let us past - you didn't have to do that.” What you get is an understanding of what grace is. Grace is not something that God alone is able to do in a literal sense.

The Bible says that God is love, if God is love does that mean that the reprobate cannot be in love? The Bible doesn't say that God has an infinite capacity to love, or that God is the perfection of all that love is - it says that God IS love. However the reprobate is able to love and be in love, as per Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite



> Genesis 34:3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.



Man can be gracious. Man can show grace, and be gracious. The reprobate can fall in love and be gracious, and can be kind and speak kindly. But wait a moment - isn't man totally depraved? how is man able to possess characteristics which are seemingly divine? 

Common grace, when understood as a term divorced from God means just regular benefits from not being dead yet. It doesn't mean that God has loved you with the unique love that only the elect receives because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to that person. The love we do receive from God as His child is not an affectionate pardoning love towards our characters, God doesn't love me for me, or for who I am. God loves me for who I am in the person of Christ. All that is in me is the flesh, i.e. all that is me, 'of me' is flesh and is carnal and corrupt and is bent on sin and God righteously hates that. God hates my sin. God doesn't pardon or overlook my sin and condone my sinful nature - alternatively He pours out His righteous wrath and anger against my sin on the person of Christ on the cross. God's love is that He sent His Son to die in my place - and I didn't deserve it. He hates my sin as I do, as we all should - we should hate our own sinful nature and only see Christs righteousness as what sets us apart from the ungodly , and it’s not because we are loved for who we are, its because Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf, that we are accepted by God into His family. And that IS love. It IS love that sent Christ to die for us because we didn't deserve it - and we still don't deserve to be saved. 

I find it a little bit obnoxious the way the reprobate has been referred to as being an enemy of God in a way that the elect aren't. I don’t think there is any place in the Church for elitism like we are a separate chosen people and super special and the reprobate are just a filthy carnal lot who righteously deserve to burn forever in hell. IF there is anything special about us that sets us apart, its not because we are set apart. We are set apart to be Holy because that’s what God wants us to be like, and in our most holy and righteous state on this earth, we are as vain and as corrupt and as pathetically unworthy as the reprobate. The only thing setting us apart is the righteousness of Christ - which is not then MY righteousness before God, it is imputed ONLY. We are NO DIFFERENT from the unGodly except God has chosen to save us. And the reason we are still on earth and not immediately glorified is because God keeps us here to live in the world, to show the reprobate how to live, how they should live. We are here as examples, we are not here to look down our nose at them, as if they are stupid and spiritually ugly in a way which we are not. We are here as salt. Sure they hate us, and sure they mock us, and sure they despise us, try to kill us often and try to ruin us, but how about our attitude? What was Christs attitude when suffering? Hold not this sin against them Lord.. Same as Stephen - forgive them Father for they know not what they do.. May God rebuke our hearts if we are proud and self righteous in any way.

My God has rules and laws, and by His laws He says I ought to die. Same as the reprobate. My God doesn't bend the rules to suit me, alternatively He sends His Son to suffer and die so He keeps His rules and law and so is consistent. Were all the children of Israel saved, in Israel, who were fed of the manna in the wilderness? Were there not damned people whom God led out of Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel? What about that family who were swallowed up by the earth? Do you think they were swallowed up by the earth and then went to heaven? Who are you kidding? Is not God showing His grace towards the ungodly by leading them out from the bondage of Egypt (even if they end up killed in the desert), the fact that they were delivered at all, fed with food from heaven, water from a rock and protected from drowning and delivered from the Egyptian armies - sorry, that's clear grace in my understanding of the word. NO NOT SAVING GRACE NO, but undeserved blessings. No one deserves the blessings of God, we all deserve to die and rot in hell, and the only reason that we don't is that a sacrifice was made for us. We still don’t deserve it any more than the reprobate, so to say, 'oh how dare anyone say that God loves a reprobate' HANG ON proud man, YOU don’t deserve it either, no one said you were any better than they are, because YOUR NOT GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE EITHER, which is death. 

How dare people suggest that they are loved by God because they are elect, no no no - you are elect, because you were loved graciously. Anything else is arrogant pride, and to fail to understand that we are living in God’s creation, which is His, and No one deserves to be here, to have their heart beat just one more time, to think that God is somehow incapable of being merciful towards reprobates in the same way as He is merciful to us redeemed is in my opinion quite vaunted. Because why? Is God so indiscriminate with his saving grace that there is no purpose in saving us elect? We aren't here just to be saved and carry on in a segregated elite, "I'm set apart from you so you’re not worthy of any benefits", can't people see that God is able to be merciful and slow to anger towards the reprobate? Doesn't anyone think God is unable to control himself? Do you think He is like some big computer that acts predictably and coldly, He is far above our understanding to be able to look into the least of His grace. God’s grace is eternal, God isn't a mechanism, He is a divine being, He is the only true God, He is infinitely above us is power and wisdom, and He is able to be long suffering towards the reprobate, and long suffering is - by definition - not getting what you deserve. If you don’t get what you deserve - it is grace, 'period'. Whether it is putting off of eternal punishment for a space of time, it is still NOT WHAT YOU DESERVE.. WHICH IS GRACE. GRACE TOWARDS THE REPROBATE.. 

The reprobate (as we all do) deserves the lake of fire forever, NOW. Not when they die, not in 6 weeks from now.. they deserve it NOW. So a delay on that is LONG SUFERRING, IT IS GRACE, it is not deserved. Grace is not exclusive to God, but God is eternally gracious. I can be gracious towards my boss at work by doing free overtime. My land lord can be gracious towards me by allowing me to delay payment of rent, and not kicking me out of my house AS I DESERVE, because my contract with him says I have to pay weekly. 

Now if anyone wants to know anymore, I'll explain my understanding of how grace and mercy are not the same thing. Mercy is always gracious, but grace is not always merciful. (As in mercy is not a necessary ingredient of grace, it can 'happen anyway' - yet grace is by definition a pre-requisite of mercy. You can get a gracious benifit without it being a judgment avoided) Grace is not warranted, it is not, "called for". Grace is unmerited favor, which can be received in situations in which mercy is not a factor. A judges death sentence shows no mercy, but delaying the death penalty for 6 weeks to enable to condemned to see his daughter get married is gracious, but not merciful. It is not a merciful thing for a judge to let a death row inmate stay alive 6 extra weeks. If the daughter cries out in the court to the judge and says, "Mercy your honour, if my father is not at my wedding my heart will be broken", the judge may be acting mercifully towards the daughter, but he is only being gracious towards the condemned man, not merciful, because he has already passed sentence upon him.

Christians don't get what they deserve in eternity, not because of the mercy of God, but because of the grace of God. God was not merciful towards His Son, and He executed all His furious anger towards His Son, on our behalf. We don't receive the mercy of God when we go to heaven, we are saved by grace. God has no mercy towards sin, and all sin requires the shedding of blood. This stems from what should be our understanding of, 'the absolute necessity of the atonement'. God was required to punish Christ because of His law, now because God IS love He wanted to save people, so He provided a sacrifice. Some might say, well why couldn't God just forgive sin without sending His Son, or God just sent His Son as the way, but he didn't really HAVE TO... No God HAD TO. God HAS TO punish sin, and HE DOES punish ALL sin. His law says he will and He must. But if He isn't doing it right away, and allowing reprobates to fall in love, to be kind to one another, to be prompted by His Holy Spirit, write symphonies, cure diseases, set up governments, and paint amazing masterpieces and design 3D television and movies like Saving Private Ryan, if that’s not gracious, and the grace of God towards the reprobate then I think people assume God is constrained by His own law in a way which is not described in the Bible. God was not constrained by His law when He fulfilled the law by sending His Son to die, He operated in perfect symmetry with His law in a powerful and gloriously majestic way that only the divine could do. God is not limited by His own promises; He is not somehow obliged to do according to His law or word.



> Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.



Christ offered Himself freely on the cross, willingly, triumphantly. Why is that an unusual concept? (To strive to do good and to be good and do good, and to act in perfect love) Because WE aren't good. We aren't like that, we are selfish most often, and anything 'good' we (we as in man, saved and reprobates alike) do is something we do which is not good as apart or distinct from God, it is only that we would display something which God is perfect at. The same as holiness - when a Christian becomes more holy, they are not achieving their own holiness, they are just becoming more like God who is the perfection of Holiness, for His very character is infinitely holy.

If anyone thinks that God is a, 'big meanie' who hates the wicked and just loves the elect because we are His little fan club, they are deluded. God has concluded all men to be sinners that He might have mercy on all. Mercy is always gracious, if God is merciful towards the reprobate which His word says He is, He is being gracious.



> Romans 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
> 
> Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
> 
> Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
> 
> Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?





> Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.



I've only inserted these scriptures at the end, but if I had the time I would provide more scriptural backing to my other arguments. Some of what I have said might have seemed very direct, but I'm writing this as I would be saying it out loud, I'm hoping that where I have placed emphasis in capitals it helps the meaning in what I've said. I'd appreciate if quoting me in what I have said above it could not be taken out of the context of the entire 2200 word thing I just wrote instead of doing invoicing which I need to try and do now, and its gone into Sunday here!! :/


----------



## Loopie

Ben,

Again, it comes down to a proper definition of 'grace'. It is true that the term 'grace' has a semantic domain. We could use it as a synonym to 'mercy' or as a synonym to 'kindness' or 'long suffering'. But the important thing is understanding how it is used in Scripture, and who is the recipient of it.

You mentioned in your post, towards the end, that grace is 'unmerited favor' from God. So, what does it mean for God to 'favor' the reprobate? Certainly there are some wicked men who are prosperous, and who think that God has truly blessed them and has shown favor upon their actions. But the Psalmist says that the reason they flourished was so that they would ultimately be destroyed.

Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB) 
5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep. 
6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this: 
7 *That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore. *
8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever. 
9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered. 

So again, when we talk about 'grace', we should be clear about how we define the term. If we wish to change the definition in the middle of our discussion, that will only cause confusion. When you speak of grace, do you mean 'unmerited favor from God' or 'getting what you do not deserve'? I recognize that there is a semantic domain, and that we might use the term 'grace' to refer to 'kindness' or 'patience', but the most important thing is how the Bible uses that term.

Lastly, you mentioned that we as believers are "no different from the ungodly except that God has chosen to save us". I just wanted to point out (and I am sure you would agree), that now that we are saved, we ARE different. We are a 'new creation' and we are putting away 'the old man'. Certainly our righteousness is imputed to us, but we are also being 'conformed' into Christ's image. 

Good discussion!

Eric


----------



## Ben_Ives

Hi Eric,

I'm concerned (not chiefly by you) that our leaning on specific terminologies leads us down the path the an educated elite who must interpret the scriptures for everyone else, such as the Roman Catholic Church sought to maintain at the end of the dark ages. That the mass was said in latin, the Bible was latin etc and if one wanted to know God it was only through the latin Bible at the time in certain sections. Not everywhere, I'm just trying to make a point.

Being super focused on the meanings of words specifically as a primary means of understanding, as opposed to reflecting on the Greek or Hebrew for assistance I think has in this example become a means to just try to win an argument as the basis for seeking the meaning.

The triune God is expressed as such in the understanding of the original Hebrew word in Genesis 1, but I've already said to you what I think grace means. I'm not expounding specific scripture, God is revealed through His word I don't think He is marginalized by His word in the way you are trying to do.

I'm very tired physically so I'm just saying this now I might more tomorrow. But its become an inane interpretation of words, I think I have explained myself clearly and I really have nothing further to add from the above. I think its all in there. Its not my doctrine, I learned it through Louis Berkoff and John Owen, and the Free Presbyterian Bible College in Northern Ireland. I'm confident from what I know and understand that I have a proper understanding of Gods grace towards the wicked. 

I don't think what I have said and argued can really be negated by changing a definition halfway through as you put it, you only spoken here at the end, I've never defined grace at the start and then changed my mind later - who says that grace is the unmerited favour of God in a salvific way? Thats not the definition, grace is not a concept unique to God, and you don't have to be a doctor of Greek and Hebew to understand this.

And I defy anyone who suggests that Greek and Hebrew interpreters have an understanding and an ability to know the mind of God that others don't. That is a return to the Catholic darkness I mentioned earlier.

I already said what grace is, this conversation has moved away from Common grace to language interpretation. When I said, 'we ned a better definition of grace' I was speaking generally, as if to gently suggest that the meaning some people have limited themselves too is - well just wrong flatly. No dictionary will tell you that grace is exclusive to the character of God. As I said I can be gracious by giving out free food.

If we are just arguing about the definitions of words now, then whats the point - its just an excuse to be contradictory.

Good night


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ben,

It is clear that you are sincere and concerned, but when the conversation starts to include "My God..this or that" as if we in this little online community are not speaking about the same God, things will rapidly deteriorate.

While I have a very good facility with the Biblical languages, I always become concerned when appeal to them becomes the singular linchpin of a debate. That said, I do not think that is what is happening in the discussion. God obviously has gifted some men with deep knowledge of the Biblical languages that we all do not possess. When we read these persons' commentaries, sermons, their authored confessions, and the specific English translations we claim to be the word of God, we are not bowing to them as do the Romanists in their "high priestly" infallibility of the church dogma. We are, however, recognizing the Reformed perspective of interpreting Scripture in community of the saints. That community includes scholarly persons whose views are to be tested and examined against the Scriptures they are expounding. But unless we want to fall into the "just me an my Bible" camp of Lone Ranger believers, we should give due personal attention to those that have come before us with more training, education (formal/informal), experience, etc. Does that mean the word of the more equipped is final? Not at all. We are not Romanists and even implying a similarity is going to rankle the best of us. But it does mean that we are duty bound to examine ourselves and test our own personal views against the views of others such as these. Now I do not for a minute, brother, think that you are simply waving off these appeals to the Biblical languages, but your polemic about the same could be misunderstood as such. So can you explain how you view the rightful place of knowledge of the Biblical languages in our interpretative efforts?


----------



## Ben_Ives

Patrick,

Sorry, my appeal in saying, "My God" was an affectionate remark only. I'm ecstatic I am a Christian and that I can refer to the LORD as my God. Any further meaning by insinuation which you have suggested is not and was not my intention, and I don't believe in "Freudian slips".

I don't intend to discuss anything on this thread besides the Common grace of God. I'm a student nothing further, I'm no expert. I do however have a friend in Northern Ireland who can speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, the Rev. John Douglas, and I'm sure if you addressed him any question he could answer it for you.

Otherwise if you wish to have a private conversation about my beliefs on the original languages and there place, further than mentioning that I hold to the KJV there is little point in having that discussion with you as I really don't know.

The Bible is the word of God and God doesn't violate common sense I don't think, one might say, well a talking snake in the Garden of Eden seems a bit unusual, but it makes perfect sense that God who created the garden would permit a snake to speak. It makes common sense to me that this is possible considering what happened and in the context of the whole story, it’s not that absurd. I think we can go a long way with common sense. That said I do believe that the word of God is perfect and unquestionable, and contains all wisdom.

Telling me how the word, 'grace' might be used in the Bible is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about the word grace as it has been used in the Bible - I'm talking about the unmerited favor of God which can be demonstrated in the Bible and is clearly evident. 

If you take your position to its natural conclusion, you could say that its ok to smoke marijuana because the Bible doesn't say its wrong. One can be, 'drunk' on marijuana, but its not wine or, 'the fruit of the grape vine - juice' or whatever. Common sense tells you that to sit in your room and smoke pot until your eyes are red and you can't stand up is pretty much exactly the same thing. Just because the Bible doesn't mention Pot / Heroin / Cocaine etc... if you take your literal approach as a rational method to understand scripture and God, I think you become unstuck.

The guy who has an avatar that looked like the, "kind advice dog meme" has this literal approach and it’s unjustified. 

To the gentleman from the USAF (my minister is a retired RAAF pilot  ), I should like to point out that whilst we become more, "Christ - like" we do not become righteous in any sense. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. The verse, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags" is not talking exclusively to unbelievers.

Obviously when compared to other humans we can be, or appear better than them or, "good" but not in the sense that God is good. Our righteousness before God is a garment we wear that we are supplied with. But yes definitely in this life we become certainly more Christ like, which should be a preferred term to righteousness, as our righteousness, is nothing other than, 'self-righteousness'. However I do believe there is a place for feeling confident that you like to do the right thing. Yet (not to be negative and diminish that, because that is certainly a good thing and it’s wonderful to have a peaceful conciseness, and to possess a good name in business and work. That is a great blessing and ought to be striven for) in terms of any personal righteousness in an acceptance before God, I would never want to appear before God in any other garment but Christs or I will be consumed by His wrath.

I don't wish anyone any harm, and if I have offended anyone or insulted anyone I'm sorry if I have seemed mean spirited, I don't intend to appear such. I utilise all forms of speech (except vulgarity) to assist in conveying meaning, and that's really all I have sought to do.

This forum has been a wonderful blessing. I am required to keep a theology journal for my studies and there is a link in the journal to this forum. My tutor who has permanent access to this journal as it is a shared online document has probably read this by now, or could have, or eventually will. I'm sure he will correct me if I have made any serious blunders.

BLESSINGS


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ben_Ives said:


> I don't intend to discuss anything on this thread besides the Common grace of God. I'm a student nothing further, I'm no expert. I do however have a friend in Northern Ireland who can speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, the Rev. John Douglas, and I'm sure if you addressed him any question he could answer it for you.


Yet you brought up the discussion of the Greek and then argued it was some movement towards Romanism, hence my question about where you see knowledge of the Biblical languages in the interpretive process, no?



Ben_Ives said:


> Telling me how the word, 'grace' might be used in the Bible is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about the word grace as it has been used in the Bible - I'm talking about the unmerited favor of God which can be demonstrated in the Bible and is clearly evident.


I would disagree. If you are not talking about how some concept is used in Scripture, then you are just talking about personal opinions. You cannot appeal to personal opinions while eschewing the very foundation of how we are to process our personal opinions.




Ben_Ives said:


> If you take your position to its natural conclusion


No, that is not a natural conclusion of my position at all.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Patrick,

Was I required to add to this sentence,



> Sorry, my appeal in saying, "My God" was an affectionate remark only. I'm ecstatic I am a Christian and that I can refer to the LORD as my God. Any further meaning by insinuation which you have suggested is not and was not my intention, and I don't believe in "Freudian slips".



that you had offended me? 



> Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
> 
> Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> 
> Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.



As a Chaplin, a lot of people would automatically assume you were an elder. I'd be very careful about the way you are treating me on here whilst calling yourself an elder as your conduct is on display for all the world including the ungodly to see.

I'm very interested to see how you respond to this.

Ben


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben and others who hold to "Common Grace",

I understand the benefit of inventing theological terms (that are not used in the Bible) to reflect what the Bible teaches (although even here we need to think with wisdom and not increase the miscommunication that already exists within Christendom due to everyone having their own terminology). What I do _not_ understand is why you would replace a word -- that is _so commonly_ used by _Bible translations_ to reflect the NT Greek word, _charis_ -- and give it a new meaning, reducing it down to a mere theological term not used in the Bible. Why not just use another term? Because of this you will have to make a distinction between these two graces each time you talk about them to strangers. Otherwise, it will just lead to miscommunication (_dangerous_ miscommunication).

Now, I don't know where this word, _grace_, originated, but I still _wonder_ if that is irrelevant due to its context of usage by most Bible translations _today_.

These are the reasons why I don't like the doctrine of "common grace", at least _today_.


----------



## Ben_Ives

I never wanted to have an argument about the correctness of the doctrine in this thread, I just wanted to know how Common grace and Special grace inter-worked. 

I'm really sorry for sparking off these side arguments.

Anyway Berkof Page 445.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben_Ives said:


> Anyway Berkof Page 445.



Ben, I was talking about the origin of the word, _grace_, not the doctrine of common grace.


----------



## Ben_Ives

Hi Samuel,

Yes I understand that. I also appreciate that you are convinced that the theological doctrine, Common grace is an error.

There is no point arguing about whether its true or not because we both are obviously very entrenched in our position. I don't think any less of you as a person for your position.

This has become extremely contentious and I don't think its beneficial going around in circles like this, unless you can convince me it is necessary?

Ben



Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben_Ives said:


> Hi Samuel,
> 
> Yes I understand that. I also appreciate that you are convinced that the theological doctrine, Common grace is an error.
> 
> There is no point arguing about whether its true or not because we both are obviously very entrenched in our position. I don't think any less of you as a person for your position.
> 
> This has become extremely contentious and I don't think its beneficial going around in circles like this, unless you can convince me it is necessary?
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk



Ben,

I'm actually sorry for pushing these questions on you, since they don't have to do with your OP. Do realize, however, that my position for denying the doctrine of common grace is not at all adamant. That is why I was "wondering" if today's language (or more importantly, the language of Bible interpretations) can make old terms irrelevant. This is a question of _wisdom_, but it is also a question of _authority_. Who/what decides which language/terms we should use?

But again, Ben, you don't have to answer to _my_ questions on your thread. Feel free to ignore them (seriously).


----------



## Ben_Ives

Samuel,

You are implying that the dictionary definition of the term grace is invalid because it doesn't limit its definition to reflect the limited use of it in the Bible, and you are saying that the meaning derived from the word when used in the Bible is limited to where the Holy Spirit has used it.

But I'm saying that the Holy Spirit has done more than inspire men to write the infallible word of God, and use the word, 'grace' in a particular way. Furthermore I'm saying that the Holy Spirit moves reprobates and causes them to bless the elect. I'm also saying that the Holy Spirit 's work in the world provides benefits to reprobates in an indirect way, not in benevolence but in complacency.

I'm saying that the benefits brought about by the Holy Spirit to the unregenerate, are blessings which the unregenerate do not deserve. However you do not believe this happens. 

I'm saying that my beliefs on 'common grace' do not contradict yours, however the rule of interpretation of a word based on understanding how the word has been used in the Bible is not relevant.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Ben_Ives said:


> Samuel,
> 
> You are implying that the dictionary definition of the term grace is invalid because it doesn't limit its definition to reflect the limited use of it in the Bible, translations, yes
> 
> and you are saying that the meaning derived from the word when used in the Bible is limited to where the Holy Spirit has used it. Yes, in other words, the meaning of the word _grace_ is only limited to the pages of Scripture. Every place it has the same meaning, _the divine favor of God_. In most popular english translations today (NLT, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, WEB) in the NT it is translated from the Greek word _charis_ (and once from _euprepeia_ in James 1:11), in the OT it is translated from the Hebrew word _chen_ (and once from _tĕchinnah_ in Ezra 9:8).
> 
> 
> But I'm saying that the Holy Spirit has done more than inspire men to write the infallible word of God, and use the word, 'grace' in a particular way. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you elaborate? Furthermore I'm saying that the Holy Spirit moves reprobates and causes them to bless the elect. I agree. I'm also saying that the Holy Spirit 's work in the world provides benefits to reprobates in an indirect way, not in benevolence but in complacency. I agree. "By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image)." - Turretin
> 
> I'm saying that the benefits brought about by the Holy Spirit to the unregenerate, are blessings which the unregenerate do not deserve. However you do not believe this happens. Why not? Please quote me, if you think I've said anything to the contrary. Btw, I know by "unregenerate" you are referring to the reprobate (they are not the same thing, obviously).
> 
> Im saying that my beliefs on 'common grace' do not contradict yours, read what you said immediately before that
> 
> however the rule of interpretation of a word based on understanding how the word has been used in the Bible is not relevant. Well, that is not quite what I said. Of course you can make grace mean anything you want it to be, but is it _wise_, since it has been used so commonly today by Bible translations to reflect the divine favor of God upon a soul? I'm not saying you are stealing and abusing a term someone else invented to mean something else (again, I don't know its origin).



Ben, my only concern is the lack of _wisdom_ behind teaching "common grace" _today_. If I were you, I would just teach common _goodness_ or common _love_ of God (with the threefold distinction), since it's the same thing, really. Using the word "grace" _today_ in reference to God's _providence_ only introduces miscommunication.


----------



## Ben_Ives

With respect, I disagree. 

Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW

When one reads a statement like Romans 5:20-21, it is very difficult to see how "grace" could be made "common" in any sense. However, granting that an analogy can be established between saving grace and the the non-saving benefits which men in general receive from God, it must be the first priority to qualify what is meant so as to preserve the high value which the New Testament places upon the concept of grace. Every analogy requires similarity and dissimilarity. It is not enough to show the similarities. What are the dissimilarities? What makes it different from saving grace? These are important questions which must not be overlooked. The failure to properly define "common grace" has the potential to lead to misunderstanding or even perversion.


----------



## OPC'n

Example of common grace for we know these brethren already had saving grace:

2 Cor 8We want you to know, brothers,[a] about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor* of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. 6 Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you this act of grace. 7 But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you[c]—see that you excel in this act of grace also.

Calvin's commentary on 2Cor: 1. I make known to you. He commends the Macedonians, but it is with the design of stimulating the Corinthians by their example, although he does not expressly say so; for the former had no need of commendation, but the latter had need of a stimulus. And that he may stir up the Corinthians the more to emulation, he ascribes it to the grace of God that the Macedonians had been so forward to give help to their brethren. For although it is acknowledged by all, that it is a commendable virtue to give help to the needy, they, nevertheless, do not reckon it to be a gain, nor do they look upon it as the grace of God Nay rather, they reckon, that it is so much of what was theirs taken from them, and lost. Paul, on the other hand, declares, that we ought to ascribe it to the grace of God, when we afford aid to our brethren, and that it ought to be desired by us as a privilege of no ordinary kind.*


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This conversation has deteriorated; thread is closed.


----------

