Common grace due to love (not merely God giving reprobates more sticks for burning)

[Pergamum]

I am looking for quotes to illustrate that common grace does, in fact, stem from the love of God. It is God meaning them well, rather than merely a vengeful God with the intention of giving the reprobate more rope by which they hang themselves (though this be the result).

It is God's true kindness...not a trap. God's disposition is to bless his creatures, not fatten them up for the slaughter. Now, there are some verses that speak in an ironic tone of how the wicked set a trap for others and God leads them into it (they dig a pit but themselves fall in). Yet, these verses do not seem to contradict God's general kindness towards all.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

You might find Matthew McMahons discussion of common of grace in his "Two wills of God" helpful, though he does not like the term common grace. He argues that grace in its true sense is only given to the elect. But you might find discussions in the book helpful for your question.

 

[earl40]

"Our God is allowed and does give temporal mercies without giving eternal ones. The former is based on His love of His creatures as His creation the latter is based on the love through His Son."

 

[MW]

Thomas Watson: “Wicked men have mercies by Providence, not by virtue of a covenant; with God’s leave, not with his love. But such as are in covenant have their mercies sweetened with God’s love, and they swim to them in the blood of Christ.” A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), pp. 107, 110.

Thomas Manton: “we can draw no argument of love or hatred from outward things. Many ungodly men may prosper in this world; they cannot say therefore that God loves them. Prisoners have an allowance till the time of their execution, so have carnal men; God in the bounty of his providence gives them a great many comforts and mercies in the present life.” (Works, 14:382.)

 

[Pergamum]

Thomas Watson: “Wicked men have mercies by Providence, not by virtue of a covenant; with God’s leave, not with his love. But such as are in covenant have their mercies sweetened with God’s love, and they swim to them in the blood of Christ.” A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), pp. 107, 110.

Thomas Manton: “we can draw no argument of love or hatred from outward things. Many ungodly men may prosper in this world; they cannot say therefore that God loves them. Prisoners have an allowance till the time of their execution, so have carnal men; God in the bounty of his providence gives them a great many comforts and mercies in the present life.” (Works, 14:382.)

Thank you. Those are good quotes.

 

[Cymro]

Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.

 

[KMK]

Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.

If all of the elect were translated to heaven at the same time, leaving the reprobate alone on earth, would God's grace toward earthly creatures continue? It seems to me your answer to this question will determine whether you believe in common grace.

 

[ZackF]

Both Luther and Calvin have some but I don't know where.

 

[Cymro]

Your hypothesis maybe reversed and state, that if all the reprobates were consigned to hell and the elect left on earth then His true grace would continue. The facts are,"the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty Angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: When He shall come to be glorified in His saints."

 

[earl40]

Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.

If all of the elect were translated to heaven at the same time, leaving the reprobate alone on earth, would God's grace toward earthly creatures continue? It seems to me your answer to this question will determine whether you believe in common grace.

Of course that "if" happens at the consummation of the earthly ministry of Jesus. For what happens is that those who are who are not changed shall not receive any more common "grace" for "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

As one who had a problem accepting common "grace" at one time I now understand Our God does indeed treat the reprobate kindly according to a love that is temporal according to His mercy toward those that are His creatures. Maybe we ought to spell that type of grace with a small g and the saving Grace the elect receive with a capitol G.

 

[KMK]

My point is simply that any good that befalls the reprobate should not be called 'grace' at all.

LBC Chapter 5

Paragraph 6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin does blind and harden;17 from them He not only withholds His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts;18 but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,19 and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;20 and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan,21 whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God uses for the softening of others.22

A better word might be 'providence'.

Paragraph 7. As the providence of God does in general reach to all creatures, so after a more special manner it takes care of His church, and disposes of all things to the good thereof.23

 

[mvdm]

Fascinating that Calvin Seminary professor John Bolt has recently reassessed "common grace", suggesting Hoeksema got it right and the CRC got in wrong in 1924:

http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/hoeksema-and-1924-reappraised-2

 

[rickclayfan]

Another quote by Manton: "It they [the wicked] receive anything, they cannot look upon it as coming by promise, or as a return of prayers. When the children are fed, the dogs may have crumbs: all their comforts are but the spillings and overflowings of God's bounty" (Works, 4:53).

 

[earl40]

My point is simply that any good that befalls the reprobate should not be called 'grace' at all.

LBC Chapter 5

Paragraph 6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin does blind and harden;17 from them He not only withholds His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding, and wrought upon their hearts;18 but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had,19 and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;20 and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan,21 whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, under those means which God uses for the softening of others.22

A better word might be 'providence'.

Paragraph 7. As the providence of God does in general reach to all creatures, so after a more special manner it takes care of His church, and disposes of all things to the good thereof.23

I also rather use the words "good providence" though the line of thinking that Our Lord is good over all His creation in my mind speaks loudly that He is gracious to that creation. No doubt many can take this too far and without our Lord restraining evil I cannot imagine how hot the lake of fire would have been to the impenitent.

 

[timfost]

Today we hear a lot about common grace,whereas in former days they spoke of God's benevolence and goodness displayed to all through His providential dealings with mankind. To my mind there is only saving grace, and that bestowed upon the subjects of His everlasting love.

Westminster divine Robert Harris:

There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us.

 

[Reformed Dutchman]

See also the first article in in the November 2015 PRCA Theological Journal: "The Unfinished Business of 1924," by John Bolt. The article is the adaptation of a speech he delivered at the Protestant Reformed Seminary last year. In his speech Bolt not only asserts that Hoeksema may have been treated unfairly, but he also provides a revision of the 3 Points of Common Grace that he believes 1)better represent what the CRC meant to say and 2)Hoeksema would have been okay with. In essence, his revision shifts the focus from an operation of grace by the Holy Spirit to an operation of providential care by the Father.

http://www.prca.org/Seminary/PRTJournal/Nov2015-49-1.pdf

 

[mvdm]

See also the first article in in the November 2015 PRCA Theological Journal: "The Unfinished Business of 1924," by John Bolt. The article is the adaptation of a speech he delivered at the Protestant Reformed Seminary last year. In his speech Bolt not only asserts that Hoeksema may have been treated unfairly, but he also provides a revision of the 3 Points of Common Grace that he believes 1)better represent what the CRC meant to say and 2)Hoeksema would have been okay with. In essence, his revision shifts the focus from an operation of grace by the Holy Spirit to an operation of providential care by the Father.

http://www.prca.org/Seminary/PRTJournal/Nov2015-49-1.pdf

Thank you, Bryce.

 

[Cymro]

There is a tendency to confuse the universal Goodness of God, and misinterpret is as universal common grace. There is no grace outside of Christ. But it is God's Goodness that is over all His works. God as Creator rules by His Goodness, and through His Providence bestows temporal blessings to all men and creatures. All things temporal manifest His Goodness. Even His judgments on men are Good.
But the rule of God as Saviour, reveals His love and grace to His elect, and all things are ordered for their good. Goodness displayed to all, grace and love to His elect through the blood of the everlasting covenant. David Dickson on Ps73, "Whence learn,to the wicked, God for His own holy ends useth to give health of body, long life, little sickness and a quiet death,-yet God doth not love them, nor approve any whit more of them." And Plumer wrote, unsanctified prosperity is a curse.

 

[timfost]

There is a tendency to confuse the universal Goodness of God, and misinterpret is as universal common grace. There is no grace outside of Christ.

I'm not overly concerned about the exact terminology used. Do we interpret the Hebrew hesed as grace, mercy or kindness? The LXX translates hesed twice as grace, although mercy more commonly. Luther translated hesed as gnade, the German word for grace.

If common grace becomes a distraction in a conversation, I think I could do without it, but it seems difficult to separate God's goodness from His grace, since it is all unmerited.

 

[Toasty]

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.

 

[timfost]

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.

Shedd from Calvinism, Pure and Mixed Ch. 4:

The number of those to whom the offer of salvation is made is unlimited; of those to whom the promise of the Spirit to “make them willing” is made, is limited by “ordination to life” or election. It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call. His desire that sinners would hear his universal call to repentance may be, and is unlimited; but his purpose to overcome their unwillingness and incline them to repentance may be, and is limited. God offers Christ’s sacrifice to every man, without exception, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be saved, and gives him common grace to help and encourage him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every man’s aversion to believe and repent and his resistance of common grace. Election and preterition have no reference to the offer of salvation or to common grace. They relate only to special grace and the effectual application of Christ’s sacrifice. The universal offer of mercy taught in this section evinces the universality of God’s compassion towards sinners.

I know that a number on this board wouldn't agree with this quote, but it is interesting to contrast this branch of reformed thought with that of the Arminian, since the Arminian believes that though God may have the power and authority to change the will, He does not.

According to the Arminian, God leaves man to his own (sinful) will. According to reformed theology, such language of leaving one to his own will is called preterition, with which the Arminian really can't disagree. But somehow preterition is supposedly unjust under the reformed system but not the Arminian system.

I propose that a God who not only offers Himself but effectively changes the will of some surpasses in mercy any construction that the Arminian can create!

I say this not to start a debate, but to represent one branch of reformed thought in contrast to Arminianism.

 

[MW]

It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call.

Only the call is not as "common" as "common grace" by those who maintain this strain of teaching because the call is not sent to every one at one time whereas His mercies are over all His works. By not sending the call to some sinners is God manifesting a desire not to save those particular people? Of course not; He may yet call them. Once again, connecting desire with only one side of God's dealings with men compromises the powerful grace of the gospel with weak human sentimentality.

 

[timfost]

It is clear that God may desire that to be done by man under the influence of his common grace in the common call, which he may not decide and purpose to make him do by the operation of his special grace in the effectual call.

Only the call is not as "common" as "common grace" by those who maintain this strain of teaching because the call is not sent to every one at one time whereas His mercies are over all His works. By not sending the call to some sinners is God manifesting a desire not to save those particular people? Of course not; He may yet call them. Once again, connecting desire with only one side of God's dealings with men compromises the powerful grace of the gospel with weak human sentimentality.

Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:

27. That they might seek God. This sentence hath two members; to wit, that it is man's duty to seek God; secondly, that God himself cometh forth to meet us, and doth show himself by such manifest tokens, that we can have no excuse for our ignorance. Therefore, let us remember that those men do wickedly abuse this life, and that they be unworthy to dwell upon earth, which do not apply their studies to seek him; as if every kind of brute beasts should fall from that inclination which they have naturally, which should for good causes be called monstrous. And, surely, nothing is more absurd, than that men should be ignorant of their Author, who are endued with understanding principally for this use. And we must especially note the goodness of God, in that he doth so familiarly insinuate himself, that even the blind may grope after him. For which cause the blindness of men is more shameful and intolerable, who, in so manifest and evident a manifestation, are touched with no feeling of God's presence. Whithersoever they cast their eyes upward or downward, they must needs light upon lively and also infinite images of God's power, wisdom, and goodness. For God hath not darkly shadowed his glory in the creation of the world, but he hath everywhere engraven such manifest marks, that even blind men may know them by groping. Whence we gather that men are not only blind but blockish, when, being helped by such excellent testimonies, they profit nothing. Yet here ariseth a question, whether men can naturally come unto the true and merciful knowledge of God. For Paul doth give us to understand, that their own sluggishness is the cause that they cannot perceive that God is present; because, though they shut their eyes, yet may they grope after him. I answer, that their ignorance and blockishness is mixed with such frowardness, that being void of right judgment, they pass over without understanding all such signs of God's glory as appear manifestly both in heaven and earth. Yea, seeing that the true knowledge of God is a singular gift of his, and faith (by which alone he is rightly known) cometh only from the illumination of the Spirit, it followeth that our minds cannot pierce so far, having nature only for our guide. Neither doth Paul intreat in this place of the ability of men, but he doth only show that they be without excuse, when as they be so blind in such clear light, as he saith in the first chapter to the Romans, (Romans 1:20.) Therefore, though men's sensesfail them in seeking out God, yet have they no cloak for their fault, because, though he offer himself to be handled and groped, they continue, notwithstanding, in a quandary; concerning which thing we have spoken more in the fourteenth chapter, (Acts 14:17).

 

[MW]

Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:

You have jumped from Shedd saying "the offer of salvation is ... unlimited," to Calvin referring to natural revelation. Surely you don't think the offer of salvation is made in natural revelation. Read Calvin's eternal predestination and you will have numerous references to quote in response to Shedd's "unlimited" offer.

 

[Peairtach]

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.

When the Gospel comes to the reprobate and the Spirit strives with them is it in love or hate?

Or are these things beyond our understanding?


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[timfost]

Calvin commentary on Acts 17:27:

You have jumped from Shedd saying "the offer of salvation is ... unlimited," to Calvin referring to natural revelation. Surely you don't think the offer of salvation is made in natural revelation. Read Calvin's eternal predestination and you will have numerous references to quote in response to Shedd's "unlimited" offer.

Understood. Although isn't there a relationship? If faith and repentance are presupposed in the law which is written in our hearts, in this way is there a universal call to repentance? I'll try to explain my thinking below in brief statements.

1. In short, God actually commands all men to repent, though mercy and remission of sin are promised in the gospel, which you correctly point out does not reach the ears of every man.

2. Natural revelation should make every man look for the remedy offered in the gospel.

3. Even though the promise of remission of sins is not revealed by natural revelation, it does not therefore follow that God is not ready to pardon man's sin in the call to repent in natural revelation. God is always ready to pardon the sin of the repenting sinner, though this is only revealed in the gospel.

4. Though the gospel does not reach every man, natural revelation and God's provision in common grace should lead them to God, though special revelation is necessary due to their sinful condition and perversion of God as revealed in nature.

5. Natural revelation therefore can only condemn man as his conscience communicates his guilt. It calls man to faith and repentance as components of the law alone which adds to the wrath felt by their consciences.

6. Faith and repentance are not understood to be the instrumental cause of justification under natural revelation since mercy belongs to and is revealed in the gospel.

Is this agreeable to you at all? If not, with what would you agree and disagree?

I'm thinking out loud here. I've edited the post a number of times as I try to wrap my head around it.

Thanks!

____________________

Shedd's book for those interested (ch. 4 on p. 24):
https://archive.org/details/calvinismpuremix00shed

 

[Toasty]

Jerry Walls, an Arminian professor at a Christian university, believes that if God did not elect someone to salvation, then God does not have any kind of love towards that person. Walls thinks that for God to give someone food, clothing, and shelter, but not salvation, is not really love.

When the Gospel comes to the reprobate and the Spirit strives with them is it in love or hate?

Or are these things beyond our understanding?


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Walls thinks it would be hate. I don't agree with Walls. I think it is love.

 

[MW]

If not, with what would you agree and disagree?

Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point. It is basically Socianianism dressed up in Calvinist attire.

The whole scheme is missing the one thing necessary -- Christ! I can go as far as to say that natural revelation serves a preparatory function to a limited extent. It makes men feel after God. But salvation is a matter of special revelation. It is only accomplished by Christ and it is only revealed in Christ, and is therefore the exclusive domain of the gospel. The very mention of repentance and forgiveness without the Saviour should put us on our guard.

As with a previous thread, the law commands repentance, but this is legal repentance and always leads to death. The gospel uses the law to require repentance but also promises to give what is required. This is evangelical repentance, i.e., repentance unto life.

 

[Peairtach]

Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point. It is basically Socianianism dressed up in Calvinist attire.

Yes. I was surprsed at Banner republishing it. Maybe something was said about his errors as opposed to his good points in a preface. I can't remember.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[timfost]

Shedd taught some men among pagan nations may be saved by the work of the Spirit without the gospel. Please beware of his errors on this point.

Agreed, he went beyond scripture on this.

As with a previous thread, the law commands repentance, but this is legal repentance and always leads to death. The gospel uses the law to require repentance but also promises to give what is required. This is evangelical repentance, i.e., repentance unto life.

Calvin discusses legal and evangelical repentance (Institutes 3.3.4) but 1) seems to apply it differently than you just did and 2) didn't seem to favor such terminology (3.3.5). That's not necessarily bad, I'm just not sure I understand exactly how you are defining it.

Would you say that when proclaiming the gospel we call every individual to evangelical repentance or legal repentance? Or do we omit the adjectives and cover both indefinitely? Or is it the law that calls people to legal repentance through natural revelation and the gospel that calls people to evangelical repentance through the preaching of the Word? Something completely different?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up for me.