# Common Grace?



## BenjaminBurton (Aug 12, 2010)

This semester I'm taking Theology 3 and we are using Grudem as our text. The first chapter that was assigned for reading by my professor was Chapter 31 where Grudem develops and explains common grace. Upon reading through it and thinking over it the last few days it seems a little loose (I use this word because I'm not sure how else to describe it). I've been reading today a little of what Kuyper and Berkhof have written about the doctrine as well. 

I've always had some sort of a problem with the generally accepted view of common grace found in the church but haven't ever been able to nail down exactly what about it bothers me. Has anyone else felt this way? Can anyone give me a better explanation with Scriptural support?


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 12, 2010)

Benjamin, I wrote a brief paper on the doctrine of common grace a while back; it is posted at my blog here.

Part of the problem is that "grace" (or "favor") can be defined/used differently according according to different contexts in Scripture. We often read salvific meaning into the word, but that's not necessarily the case. "Common favor" or "common goodness" might be better names.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 12, 2010)

Is it fair to say that while a non-believer is acting upon "common favor" that grace results in a world not as bad as it could be and provides protection to believers? 

Some debate has been going on regarding common grace in reformed circles for the last century or so -- C Van Til insisted on a clear distinction between the good actions of a non-believer and the actions of a believer. That they would _appear_ the same but would come from antithetical sources. He wrote a book called _Common Grace_.


----------



## jason d (Aug 12, 2010)

I know what people mean when they say "common grace" but I think to use Biblical language it would be best to call it "common love" (taken from Matthew 5 on how God shows His love in raining on the just and the unjust... etc...).

Grace is only used in salvific ways in the Bible so I wouldn't use the term in relation to non-Christians, thus I prefer to say "common love" rather than "common grace" but I know what people generally mean when they say "common grace" so I don't squabble over it.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 12, 2010)

One thing that might be helpful to understand is that "grace" means unmerited favor.

So, God gives both the just and the unjust grace, in that they receive good things they do not deserve.

This is not the same thing as salvation. Grace does not mean only God giving salvation to unworthy sinners (though that is [incredibly] gracious)- it can mean the rain falling on the just and the unjust.

When we speak of Christ's spiritual presence at the Lord's Supper, we sometimes refer to that sacrament as "an ordinary means of grace"- meaning that God is actually doing something beneficial for us through His presence there at the Supper. It's not salvation, but actual grace is being bestowed by God upon the believer when he partakes in faith.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 12, 2010)

jason d said:


> Grace is only used in salvific ways in the Bible so I wouldn't use the term in relation to non-Christians, thus I prefer to say "common love" rather than "common grace" but I know what people generally mean when they say "common grace" so I don't squabble over it.


 
To be technical, the Hebrew _hen_ and Greek _charis_, the words which are translated "grace" in our English Bibles, are sometimes used to refer to non-salvific favor. For example, Genesis 39:4 says that Joseph found favor (hen) in the sight of Potiphar (and the Lord blessed Potiphar's household because of Joseph). Luke 2:52 states that "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor [_charis_] with God and men." Obviously, the words are not translated "grace" in our Bibles, and in the context that is probably preferable (because of the connotation of "grace"). But it is possible to see the Lord's kindness/favor being referred to in such a way.

However, I do agree completely with the point that referring to such as "grace" can be easily misinterpreted, although we may want to extend a bit of "grace" ourselves to others who use such terminology.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 13, 2010)

It seems that everyone seems to be implying that the problem is merely semantical in nature. We want to to use different words to express our meaning but we all mean the same thing. Is there really any actual sunstantial difference between the ideas involved in common grace and the words we use to describe it?


----------



## BenjaminBurton (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks for the responses. 

Grudem does do a good job of explaining the difference between the "grace" unbelievers receive and the grace that leads to salvation. But it kind of seems to me like he is being too excusing in his explanation. Maybe I'm just discontent with the term "common grace" because I'm only able to see the divine act of graciousness as leading to salvation. I understand that God permits unbelievers to live and enjoy His creation but I only see it as permission. He is obviously still angry with their sin and their judgment is impending. I guess my question is, Is it truly grace that is being bestowed upon the unbeliever or is it tolerance/permission?


----------



## KensingtonerRebbe (Aug 13, 2010)

Personally I've always been somewhat confused by the way many people talk about common grace. Indeed God does cause the rain to fall upon all, but to chalk it up to some order of grace in each-and-every case is a little much. Moreover when I read Hoeksema and other PRCA folks I come to the same conclusion, more or less. To say that by God's sending rain on the reprobate He means either to bless or to condemn comes dangerously close to interpreting providence.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 14, 2010)

KensingtonerRebbe said:


> Personally I've always been somewhat confused by the way many people talk about common grace. Indeed God does cause the rain to fall upon all, but to chalk it up to some order of grace in each-and-every case is a little much. Moreover when I read Hoeksema and other PRCA folks I come to the same conclusion, more or less. To say that by God's sending rain on the reprobate He means either to bless or to condemn comes dangerously close to interpreting providence.


 
It would seem to be providence- God is ordaining that it will happen. And, He is working out His providence, even in nature, by sending rain. Some of those who are "unjust" right now may be elect, but not yet have come to faith (been regenerated by Him).

The word "grace" certainly does get confused- sometimes it is used in a way that does not mean "free, unmerited, gift" because it is used in a context to mean it is deserved, e.g. "every person deserves a chance to be saved..."

Sometimes also, as pointed out here, it is used identically to mean salvation- but the term is not restricted to that.

One other way to look at this is that there is benefit to neighborhoods, communities, even nations, because there are believers in them. For the sake of His People, God causes certain blessings... we don't know them all, or even all their context, but we do know His People, following His Word can bring greater blessing.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Aug 24, 2010)

Tim and James are correct. Not only does the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary have a broad enough semantic value to predicate both _saving favor_ and _non-saving favor_. The semantic range of the English term "grace" is broad enough to include _saving favor and non-saving favor._ So there's no linguistic or biblical basis to stumble over the terminology or concept of "common grace." Those who argue that the term "grace" must be reserved for salvific favor commit the same fallacy as those who argue that the Greek term _agape_ refers exclusively to godly or noble love.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Aug 24, 2010)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Tim and James are correct. Not only does the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary have a broad enough semantic value to predicate both _saving favor_ and _non-saving favor_. The semantic range of the English term "grace" is broad enough to include _saving favor and non-saving favor._ So there's no linguistic or biblical basis to stumble over the terminology or concept of "common grace." Those who argue that the term "grace" must be reserved for salvific favor commit the same fallacy as those who argue that the Greek term _agape_ refers exclusively to godly or noble love.



In my humble opinion after reading several Protestant Reformed works, I do not believe that such theologians commit a fallacy similar to your example. To my knowledge, men such as Engelsma and Hoeksema are not writing under the impression that the Hebrew _hen_ and Greek _charis_ always refer to a salvific favor from God. Moreover, I do not even believe that such writers make the mistake of assuming that "grace" has such a limited semantic range in the English language.

I think these men are saying something more along these lines:
The term "grace" is normally used in Christian theological discourse in such a way that it brings to mind a salvific favor of God through Christ towards sinners who have demerited this favor. We are against the terminology of a common grace because it will cause the confusion of theological categories in an unbiblical manner.​
Other godly Reformed theologians have thought along a similar vein. For instance, Abraham Kuyper, although certainly an advocate of a common grace of God, nonetheless distinguished so sharply between common grace and particular grace that he actually used different Dutch terms for each! Michael Horton and other contemporary theologians oppose the use of "grace" to describe God's relationship to man prior to the Fall for the same reason. These men are not so ignorant as to be unaware of the semantic range of the different Hebrew, Greek, and English terms. They are rather consciously recognizing that theological discourse necessarily creates categories narrower than a term's semantic range which may prohibit otherwise linguistically legitimate use of term.

In other words, a Protestant Reformed theologian would probably acknowledge that you _could_ speak of a common "grace" if you added the qualifications that such a "grace" was no more than presently apparent to the reprobate (ultimately further damning them) and that this "grace" in no manner represented a desire within God to love/save the objects of said grace. However, is such a use of the term really prudent and wise? Protestant Reformed theologians point to the history of "common grace" in the last century and answer with a resounding "No!" I tend to agree with them.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 24, 2010)

If I recall correctly, in the last century this subject was heavily debated in Dutch Reformed circles, but it was non-controversial in Presbyterian circles. Is that correct, and if so, would anyone venture a guess as to the reason(s)?


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 24, 2010)

BenjaminBurton said:


> This semester I'm taking Theology 3 and we are using Grudem as our text. The first chapter that was assigned for reading by my professor was Chapter 31 where Grudem develops and explains common grace. Upon reading through it and thinking over it the last few days it seems a little loose (I use this word because I'm not sure how else to describe it). I've been reading today a little of what Kuyper and Berkhof have written about the doctrine as well.
> 
> I've always had some sort of a problem with the generally accepted view of common grace found in the church but haven't ever been able to nail down exactly what about it bothers me. Has anyone else felt this way? Can anyone give me a better explanation with Scriptural support?


 
The Myth of Common Grace


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Aug 24, 2010)

Dearly Bought said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Tim and James are correct. Not only does the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary have a broad enough semantic value to predicate both _saving favor_ and _non-saving favor_. The semantic range of the English term "grace" is broad enough to include _saving favor and non-saving favor._ So there's no linguistic or biblical basis to stumble over the terminology or concept of "common grace." Those who argue that the term "grace" must be reserved for salvific favor commit the same fallacy as those who argue that the Greek term _agape_ refers exclusively to godly or noble love.
> ...



Bryan,

You've made a good point. The objection has no semantic basis and is usually grounded in (1) an attempt to impose on the biblical data some grid of contemporary theological discourse and (2) some percieved theological error. To which I would respond:

(1) Let's try to develop our theological discourse in ways that are no more broad or narrow than the biblical usage of terminology. If the biblical writers attributed enough "horse sense" to their original audience to discern the difference between _agape_ (in a positive sense) and _agape_ (in a negative sense), can't we accord the people of God enough intelligence to ascertain when the Bible employs the word "love" in a virtuous sense and when it employs the term in a non-virtuous sense? Do we really think our people are so stupid that they're unable to tell the difference between Amnon "loving" (i.e., lusting after) his sister Tamar and God so "loving the world of fallen sinners" that he sent his only begotten Son? The biblical writers felt no compulsion to create different vocabulary for each, nor should we. The same holds true for the Hebrew, Greek, and English words for "grace." 

(2) I adamantly reject the notion that the Scriptures in "no manner represent a desire within God to love/save the objects of said grace." Romans 2:4 (and other texts) obliterates that hyper-Calvinistic tenant. So I suggest that we purge ourselves of the hyper-Calvinistic (and unbiblical) notions that object to the concept of "common grace" rather than objecting to what is, after all, on linguistic and biblical grounds, a true and virtuous concept. 

Your servant,


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

The distinction between common and saving grace can be accepted as valid only on the condition that "grace" is conceptually distinguished in Scripture; but where it is accepted as distinguishable it cannot cease to be divine grace, and divine grace by its very nature can never be considered as ineffective. If there were such a thing as ineffective divine grace there could be no assurance offered to any person that the grace by which they are saved shall actually save them. This would overturn the biblical doctrine of salvation.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The distinction between common and saving grace can be accepted as valid only on the condition that "grace" is conceptually distinguished in Scripture; but where it is accepted as distinguishable it cannot cease to be divine grace, and divine grace by its very nature can never be considered as ineffective. If there were such a thing as ineffective divine grace there could be no assurance offered to any person that the grace by which they are saved shall actually save them. This would overturn the biblical doctrine of salvation.



It could be ineffective if God wants it to be ineffective. 

E.g. Do the Spirit's resistable strivings with those who eventually turn out to be reprobate or elect come in love from God or hate? Do we (fully) understand what God is trying to do by striving with the reprobate? 

Is it putting God's activities into convenient labelled boxes to say that the Gospel comes to the reprobate in (pure) hate from God, and the Spirit strives with the reprobate (only) out of hatred towards them?

Dabney - a Five Point Calvinist - even believed that ''Common Grace'' could be traced to the Atonement because all of the influences of the Cross, and of the Spirit applying the Message of the Cross to both elect and reprobate, were intended by God in the Divine Decree.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Dabney - a Five Point Calvinist - even believed that ''Common Grace'' could be traced to the Atonement because all of the influences of the Cross, and of the Spirit applying the Message of the Cross to both elect and reprobate, were intended by God in the Divine Decree.


 
Richard, that is very interesting. Where does Dabney make this point?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The distinction between common and saving grace can be accepted as valid only on the condition that "grace" is conceptually distinguished in Scripture; but where it is accepted as distinguishable it cannot cease to be divine grace, and divine grace by its very nature can never be considered as ineffective. If there were such a thing as ineffective divine grace there could be no assurance offered to any person that the grace by which they are saved shall actually save them. This would overturn the biblical doctrine of salvation.



I'm not certain whether the Reverend Winzer is affirming or denying the appropriateness of using the terminology "common grace" to speak of God's non-saving favor shown to the non-elect. On the one hand, he seems to affirm its use provided that it's conceptually distinguished in Scripture. I believe the Scripture does conceptually distinguish God's saving favor to the elect from God's non-saving favor to the non-elect. This justifies, in my mind, the use of the terminology "common grace" provided that we distinguish it from "saving grace." 

On the other hand, Mr. Winzer asserts, "Divine grace by its very nature can never be considered as ineffective." I would affirm this proposition or deny it depending on what "effects" Mr. Winzer has in view. In one sense, everything God does is effective. Nothing that proceeds from the mouth of God returns to him void. Everything God ordains, including his non-saving favor to the non-elect, serves its God-intended purpose and effects the results God has decreed. 

But not every expression of God's grace or favor or kindness (the terms are interchangeable) is effective unto salvation. For example, consider the general kindness God shows even towards those who are numbered among the non-elect:Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Rom 2:4 ESV)​The Greek _chrestotes_ belongs to the same word family and semantic domain as _charis_ both of which overlap in their usage to signify a general kindness or benevolence of God which does not effect salvation in every recipient. 

Similarly, there is a particular kind of divine love that effects the salvation of its objects: "As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (Rom 9:13, ESV). This is sometimes called God's electing love. But there is another kind of divine love that has a more general focus and that does not necessarily effect the salvation of its objects: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16, ESV). God's more narrow or particular saving love operates within the context or against the backdrop of his more general non-saving love, much like God's special revelation comes to us in the context and against the backdrop of his general revelation. Similarly, God's special or saving grace operates within the sphere of God's common or non-saving grace.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 25, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Dabney - a Five Point Calvinist - even believed that ''Common Grace'' could be traced to the Atonement because all of the influences of the Cross, and of the Spirit applying the Message of the Cross to both elect and reprobate, were intended by God in the Divine Decree.
> ...



In his _Systematic Theology_ Check it out.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...


 
LOL. I figured that. I was hoping you could narrow down the search for me.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 25, 2010)

Try the section on the Atonement and its extent.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> E.g. Do the Spirit's resistable strivings with those who eventually turn out to be reprobate or elect come in love from God or hate? Do we (fully) understand what God is trying to do by striving with the reprobate?


 
Historic reformed theology taught that God in the gospel reveals the way of salvation to sinners, gives them every reason to be saved, and places the fault of not being saved entirely on themselves. Meanwhile it stressed the importance of God's effectual call in order to embrace the grace offered in the gospel (Shorter Catechism 31). If we accept the historic reformed way of dealing with the subject we are shut up to the categories of "grace offered" and "grace bestowed." On this basis God accomplishes everything He has set out to do. His grace is completely effective in each instance.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The Greek _chrestotes_ belongs to the same word family and semantic domain as _charis_ both of which overlap in their usage to signify a general kindness or benevolence of God which does not effect salvation in every recipient.


 
There is a reciprocal process involved in this kindness of God, such that any despising of it is also a treasuring up of wrath. It is impossible to extract this kindness as if it can be drunk down on its own. Where the heart is not changed by the grace of God there will necessarily be this despising of kindness on the part of the carnal mind which will not be subject to God. Thus, while there is a temporal and conditional "grace" that is exhibited to the sinner, it effectively serves for the eternal and unconditional damnation of the sinner who is not given grace to receive it. Hence, this "unsaving grace" is completely effective in serving the purpose for which it is given.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Dabney - a Five Point Calvinist - even believed that ''Common Grace'' could be traced to the Atonement because all of the influences of the Cross, and of the Spirit applying the Message of the Cross to both elect and reprobate, were intended by God in the Divine Decree.


 
We've discussed Dabney's view previously on the board. (It looks like it will take a librarian to find the threads.) While in agreement that Dabney is a "five point Calvinist," it is also clear that he was working with necessitarian categories. Thus, any condition which resulted from the death of Christ, including the sparing of the world until the day of judgment and indiscriminate proposals of mercy, are seen as necessarily flowing from the death of Christ and are therefore regarded as "fruits" of it. The older voluntarist theologians would not allow such a conclusion. Not all conditions relative to an action are fruits of the action, as the parable of the wheat and tares makes clear.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 26, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > The Greek _chrestotes_ belongs to the same word family and semantic domain as _charis_ both of which overlap in their usage to signify a general kindness or benevolence of God which does not effect salvation in every recipient.
> ...



This is quite helpful.

Some Calvinists believe that God has an unchanging and unmitigated hatred for the reprobate, and an unchanging and unmitigated love for the elect. 

I tend not to look at things so simplistically, when we have Scriptures such as Christ weeping over Jerusalem. I know that this was in His human nature, but doesn't His human nature reveal something of the divine nature.

We would also have to say that God sends the Gospel to the reprobate in hate, and the Spirit strives with the reprobate in resistible grace in hatred towards them.

This may leave some grey areas or loose ends in one's theology of grace, but some of God's ways are more clearly revealed and more easy for us to understand than others.

The main thing is to make a clear distinction between saving/irresistible grace and common/resistable grace and not to teach that that the latter shades into the former and that the latter automatically leads to, or entitles to, the former.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2010)

The weeping over Jerusalem passage (in Luke) is a sticky wicket (at least in this country) because it is often conflated with the Matthew 23 passage where Jesus is pronouncing judgment on the Jewish religious leadership and lamenting over Jerusalem (the "you were not willing" phrase is then seized upon by Arminians and used as a proof text against Calvinism). Perhaps a better example would be Mark 10:21, where says that Jesus loved the Rich Young Ruler (who I would guess we would all agree was a reprobate). Love is obviously not being used in the salvific sense in the passage.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2010)

Josh, thanks for the correction and the reminder to be more precise. There are things concerning individuals that we can know with regard to their eternal state (e.g., Judas Iscariot was a reprobate, but Abraham was one of the elect), but that is because they have been revealed in Holy Scripture. On the other hand, it is extremely probably that the RYR was reprobate considering his interaction with Jesus and no evidence to the contrary. It reminds of a sermon Joe Morecraft preached once in which he said that we don't know that Nicodemus ever became a Christian because we're not explicitly told that in Scripture. Technically, that's correct, and we do not know his eternal state one way or the other, although the Scriptures seem to indicate that his attention to Jesus at His death showed an affection for the Lord that we do not see in John 3.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2010)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I was not using "correction" in a negative way, and I truly appreciate the note to air on the side of charity in these things. You are entirely correct to point that out. I was probably lazy in my use of "reprobate" -- a word I almost never use in the course of discussion, and only used here because it was utilized in the post to which I was responding. I suppose I used the word because we have absolutely zero evidence that he ever came to faith in Christ, but I suppose that it is possible.

I am concerned, though, that too often we might qualify these things (one way or the other) because we are trying to fit them into a particular theological construct (in this case, either affirming or denying the concept of "common grace"). The text says that Jesus loved the man (in some sense), and this is someone who we have no evidence ever came to faith in Christ. That is in no way a tension as I see it, unless we read some sort of "salvific love" into the passage (which the Arminian is quick to do, but which results in a sub-standard weak and ineffectual type of love). But I have also seen Calvinists wince at this verse, and they do not need to.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2010)

I do not think you were being disrespectful at all. The use the context of the passage in question, Jesus loved the RYR enough to point out his unregenerate state to him. Godly correction and exposing of sin is an outward display of love toward the sinner. So, in your case, I would say that gentle correction is indicative of that fruit of the Spirit known as love.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 26, 2010)

I was not suggesting that _you_ personally winced at it, so please forgive me if it came across in that way. I was specifically thinking of a situation in a Reformed church where someone asked the pastor about this passage and was obviously very troubled by it. It was in the sense of "the RYR was lost; how can Jesus be said to love him?"


----------



## Calvinus (Aug 26, 2010)

Dearly Bought said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Tim and James are correct. Not only does the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary have a broad enough semantic value to predicate both _saving favor_ and _non-saving favor_. The semantic range of the English term "grace" is broad enough to include _saving favor and non-saving favor._ So there's no linguistic or biblical basis to stumble over the terminology or concept of "common grace." Those who argue that the term "grace" must be reserved for salvific favor commit the same fallacy as those who argue that the Greek term _agape_ refers exclusively to godly or noble love.
> ...


 
I find myself in substantial agreement with brother Bryan. Yes Abraham Kuyper did distinguish between gemeene gratie and genade. His book on Particular Grace, "Dat De Genade Particulier Is" is excellent and its reading should be encouraged by those who only like to quote from his work on Common Grace. Furthermore, I don't believe it is fair to trot out the Hyper Calvinism bogeyman because some of us don't buy into the claims made for Common Grace. 

One thing being restrained is Satan's attempts to limit the spread of the Gospel as far as the restraint argument goes. For those who argue that human evil is restrained, or that human being are restrained from being as evil as they can be, I only point to the horrendous war crimes committed by the Germans and Japanese as an example. I am not convinced of the restraint of evil argument. In Romans 9, Paul's use of "Esau I hated" is not some rhetorical device. 

Of course it is not our job to determine who is reprobate but we are to make a judgment as to who is unsaved. We preach the Gospel with total disregard as to who is saved or not. But no, I agree with brother Bryan, no common grace. Any apparent demonstration of God's good will to the world is because He is being gracious to His elect. When all the elect of God have been gathered, then the only restraint shown will be withdrawn and God's Judgment will proceed!


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I tend not to look at things so simplistically, when we have Scriptures such as Christ weeping over Jerusalem. I know that this was in His human nature, but doesn't His human nature reveal something of the divine nature.


 
One's Christology will be determinative. It is difficult to know what the human nature could tell us about the divine nature when the two are understood to remain distinct. I prefer Calvin's balance: "since our Lord Jesus Christ is his living image, let us not enter into over-high speculations to know what God is, but let us come to Jesus Christ, acknowledging that it is his office to bring us to God his Father" (Sermons on Ephesians, 180).


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 26, 2010)

THESE ARE WORTH LISTENING TO;
SermonAudio.com - 1. Common Grace: Is it Biblical?
SermonAudio.com - 2. Common Grace: Is it Biblical?
SermonAudio.com - 3. Common Grace: Is it Biblical?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 27, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > I tend not to look at things so simplistically, when we have Scriptures such as Christ weeping over Jerusalem. I know that this was in His human nature, but doesn't His human nature reveal something of the divine nature.
> ...



Christ's human nature must tell us some things about God, since God is supremely revealed in Christ.


----------



## MW (Aug 27, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Christ's human nature must tell us some things about God, since God is supremely revealed in Christ.



Christ our Mediator tells us all we need to know about God's purpose for us, but His human nature does not tell us anything about the divine nature. Calvin was showing the way towards genuine humility and wisdom when he stated that we should not pry into the divine nature. Raising questions as to God's dispositions inevitably leads to confusion. For example, if Christ's lamentation over Jerusalem tells us that God is compassionately disposed towards all men, what does Christ's denunciation of Jerusalem tell us? It necessarily folllows that God must be judgementally disposed towards all men. God forbid! It is God's decree which has determined how He will manifest Himself towards men. Christ Jesus manifests God's purpose to men. Outside of Christ all is condemnation; in Christ is justification and life. God is not disposed to save any person who does not believe in Jesus and He is not disposed to damn any person who believes in Jesus. The gospel preaches Christ, the wisdom of God and the power of God.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 28, 2010)

Here is a helpful article by Scott Clark (from a 2004 _Table Talk_)



> In His providence, God gives many wonderful gifts to humanity. We rejoice in the colors of autumn and the joy of music. These gifts are good in themselves, but they are universal and distinct from His particular gift of redemption in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). All humans know God as Creator and Judge (Rom. 1:18–21), but believers know Him as Redeemer. We know that in His love, He sent His Son not merely to make salvation possible, since in that case none would be saved. Rather, Jesus came to earn it for us (Phil. 2:8) by turning away God’s wrath so that, “having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1).


----------

