Common Grace or "Common Grace"

[discipulo]

Cesar,
I just wanted to make sure I understand you. Am I correct in concluding that you believe that God's passive hardening of us or letting us fall in sin cannot ultimately work for our good? Or that before our conversion God doesn't work ALL things for our good, if anything at all? I mean, there is a reason why the Bible says "all things work TOGETHER" for our good, that is, not individually.
Also, I'm not suggesting common and saving grace are mutually exclusive. I'm saying ALL things, from ALL times and ALL places, before we even existed, ultimately worked and will continue to work for our good/salvation. And that's why I said for the elect ALL, including (not exclusing) God's common grace, is saving grace.

Samuel, in an interesting way you are closer to what the founder of my Reformed Denomination – GKv – Professor Klaas Schilder understood to be the Doctrine of Common Grace, and he didn’t subscribe it.

He was not supralapsarian like Hoeksema who denied such doctrine, or for that matter Kuyper, a strong proponent of the doctrine, but pretty much like Hoeskema (on this but not on the Covenant per se) he allowed Redemptive Economy to swallow God’s providence. I will try to explain.

For Schilder God’s providence was almost only the ground (in his own words) for God to operate His redemptive plan, bringing the elect to glory and the reprobate to condemnation, in an infallible way. That is true but it is not the whole that is revealed in Scripture.

Romans 8 is clear, yes, God does that, all things work for the good of the Elect, but is it all that God is doing?

God is not only occupied with Redemption, Accomplished and being Applied (to use the words of another reformed defender of Common Grace – John Murray), He is active in History, He is sustaining creation, he is feeding His creatures, and in His providence He bestows blessings, temporal that they may be, but still undeserved - Gracious blessings to mankind.

You may read, as you will see in these passages God did not have to do this, people actually all deserved Him to judge them with His wrath immediately, yet He still gives them good things.

You may call it merely a favor, ok, as it is absolutely undeserved favor, so the word Grace is appropriate, but not salvific Grace but never the less Grace.
That is in my opinion Common Grace, God's working in and through His creation for purposes that are not Soteriological.

Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23

2 other points briefly, in my opinion, may be well and necessarily infered from Scripture:

God also restrains sinfulness that total depravity won’t be absolute depravity and He in a certain sense allows men to do civic good – not good works only able to those who believe by God’s power – but never the less morally good for society like feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and so on.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Cesar,
I just wanted to make sure I understand you. Am I correct in concluding that you believe that God's passive hardening of us or letting us fall in sin cannot ultimately work for our good? Or that before our conversion God doesn't work ALL things for our good, if anything at all? I mean, there is a reason why the Bible says "all things work TOGETHER" for our good, that is, not individually.
Also, I'm not suggesting common and saving grace are mutually exclusive. I'm saying ALL things, from ALL times and ALL places, before we even existed, ultimately worked and will continue to work for our good/salvation. And that's why I said for the elect ALL, including (not exclusing) God's common grace, is saving grace.

Samuel, in an interesting way you are closer to what the founder of my Reformed Denomination – GKv – Professor Klaas Schilder understood to be the Doctrine of Common Grace, and he didn’t subscribe it.

He was not supralapsarian like Hoeksema who denied such doctrine, or for that matter Kuyper, a strong proponent of the doctrine, but pretty much like Hoeskema (on this but not on the Covenant per se) he allowed Redemptive Economy to swallow God’s providence. I will try to explain.

For Schilder God’s providence was almost only the ground (in his own words) for God to operate His redemptive plan, bringing the elect to glory and the reprobate to condemnation, in an infallible way. That is true but it is not the whole that is revealed in Scripture.

Romans 8 is clear, yes, God does that, all things work for the good of the Elect, but is it all that God is doing?

God is not only occupied with Redemption, Accomplished and being Applied (to use the words of another reformed defender of Common Grace – John Murray), He is active in History, He is sustaining creation, he is feeding His creatures, and in His providence He bestows blessings, temporal that they may be, but still undeserved - Gracious blessings to mankind.

You may read, as you will see in these passages God did not have to do this, people actually all deserved Him to judge them with His wrath immediately, yet He still gives them good things.

You may call it merely a favor, ok, as it is absolutely undeserved favor, so the word Grace is appropriate, but not salvific Grace but never the less Grace.
That is in my opinion Common Grace, God's working in and through His creation for purposes that are not Soteriological.

Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23

2 other points briefly, in my opinion, may be well and necessarily infered from Scripture:

God also restrains sinfulness that total depravity won’t be absolute depravity and He in a certain sense allows men to do civic good – not good works only able to those who believe by God’s power – but never the less morally good for society like feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and so on.

Please, understand that I'm not trying to ADD common grace or anything else to the Ordo Salutis - it is perfect as it stands. Those things alone are required for our salvation. But realize that not all of those events -- like repentance and conversion -- are worked immediately by God in us. They are first and most importantly through the Word of God, but secondly there are other things that contribute to these salvific events. For instance, God may let us fall in a heinous sin to convict us of our wickedness. Why else would God still occasionally withdraw his grace from us? We are all witnesses of this. But as a bottom line, not all the things (Ordo Salutis) that are required for our salvation are immediate, but rather work "together"/by means of ALL things. This is beyond our comprehension, yes.

 

[Peairtach]

ps 73:

17Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
18Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.
19How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Is 6:
9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 11Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

Rom 9:

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


What do we read there about common grace and God's attitude toward the wicked? A fattening for the day of slaughter?

Well if we view things only from the perspective of the divine decree to reprobate some, it is difficult to call things like sunshine, rain, the work of the Spirit in the unregenerate convicting them of sin and motivating them to do outward good, etc, etc, as grace or even as good gifts, but just as curses from God.

It is the wicked response of the reprobate to God's genuine goodness and blessings, that turns blessings into curses. Of course this is all in God's mysterious providence for the reprobate.

But there is a simplistic and rationalistic way of expressing these things which would effectively deny God's goodness to the reprobate.

 

[BertMulder]

Well if we view things only from the perspective of the divine decree to reprobate some, it is difficult to call things like sunshine, rain, the work of the Spirit in the unregenerate convicting them of sin and motivating them to do outward good, etc, etc, as grace or even as good gifts, but just as curses from God.

It is the wicked response of the reprobate to God's genuine goodness and blessings, that turns blessings into curses. Of course this is all in God's mysterious providence for the reprobate.

But there is a simplistic and rationalistic way of expressing these things which would effectively deny God's goodness to the reprobate.

It is true that God is good to everyone. He gives all men much more than anyone deserves...

 

[MW]

Thomas Watson (Body of Divinity):

All your temporal mercies are fruits of the covenant. 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.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I'm just wondering how many of you would agree with the following distinction:

Grace is that God gives us what we don't deserve.
Mercy is that God doesn't give us what we deserve.

I've always thought this is a Biblical way to distinguish between those two terms. Yet, I've seen the Westminster Catechisms use them rather differently.

 

[discipulo]

Thomas Watson (Body of Divinity):

All your temporal mercies are fruits of the covenant. 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.

Thank you Rev. Winzer, this touches several important points, and I was not very clear above, Covenant Mercies, even to those who may not become believers,

are within God's Covenant Administration.

I must say that the way the divines wrote has made me think of common versus special grace, eventually you may want to add further clarification on this.


WCF 10

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.

Richard above already wrote clearly about this concerning Hebrews 6.

I also have in mind the way Bavinck, in the article The Sacrifice of Praise, formulates it

Our children do not enter the covenant, because we dedicate them to the Lord. Much less, because by any virtue or merit they made themselves worthy. They are in the covenant by virtue of God's promise. They are in the covenant from the time of their birth, not by nature, but by grace, while God has committed Himself to be the God of believers and their seed.
The same law that rules in the spiritual realm, rules in the natural realm. All of us received a natural life that through our parents we received from God, the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. It is not by our merits that we possess life. We did not give it to ourselves, did not merit it, we even forfeited it by our guilt. It is God's gift in a complete sense, not of His particular grace, but of His common grace.

 

[earl40]

WCF 10

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.
[/B]

I do believe they left out the word grace for a reason.

 

[BertMulder]

WCF 10

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.
[/B]

I do believe they left out the word grace for a reason.

Just like this is the only use of the term 'common grace' in the Canons of Dordt:

V. Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion. For the experience of all ages and the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue. "He showeth his Word unto Jacob, his statues and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his ordinances they have not known them," Psalm 147:19, 20. "Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way," Acts 14:16. And: "And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit suffered them not," Acts 16:6, 7.

in a negative sense, in the rejection of errors.

 

[discipulo]

WCF 10

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.
[/B]

I do believe they left out the word grace for a reason.

Just like this is the only use of the term 'common grace' in the Canons of Dordt:

V. Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion. For the experience of all ages and the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue. "He showeth his Word unto Jacob, his statues and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his ordinances they have not known them," Psalm 147:19, 20. "Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way," Acts 14:16. And: "And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit suffered them not," Acts 16:6, 7.

in a negative sense, in the rejection of errors.

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy?

The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation.

The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures.

Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23

Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

 

[BertMulder]

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy? The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation. The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures. Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23 Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

 

[discipulo]

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy? The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation. The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures. Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23 Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

So, Mulder for the sake of clarity please answer me the following questions.

God’s Covenant with the Adam before the fall, the Covenant of Life, was it a Legal Covenant – a Covenant of Works - or was it a Gracious Covenant – a Covenant of Grace?

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, disagreeing on this particular matter (as in the matter of Common Grace) with many theologians from my denomination like Klaas Schilder, S G de Graaf or J. Kamphuis, is that the Pre Lapsarian Covenant with Adam was a Covenant of works.

Are Baptized members of the visible church that are not Elect (children of believers or hypocrites) truly within the administration of the Covenant of Grace?

Or when later by not coming to faith and fall into apostasy (because they are not God’s elected unto salvation) you, Mulder, would state that those were never in the Covenant of Grace.

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, now actually agreeing with my church teaching on the Covenant, is that all the children of believers being baptized and those who make a profession of faith convincing of true conversion and are baptized are truly in the Covenant of Grace so they partake of the Grace of the Covenant, although some may not partake of Saving Particular Special Grace.

My belief is that the Covenant of Grace and Election are not the same in scope, Election is within the Hidden Decree of God, we don’t know who God chose in His Sovereign Election, Election has its covenantal scope in the Covenant of Redemption.

You may say that we shouldn’t use Common Grace to certain benefits and favor of God towards His creation but alone use the word Providence.

My point in this matter is how do we understand the scope of the Covenant of Grace with only Special Saving Grace?

That is when the Decree exhausts our understanding of the Covenant of Grace.

But is precisely Election that the Apostle Paul has in context when writing:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. ( …)in order that God’s purpose in election might stand.
Romans 9:6-7, 11

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:28-29

all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 1 Corinthians 10:1-5

So I repeat Bavinck on this:

Our children do not enter the covenant, because we dedicate them to the Lord. Much less, because by any virtue or merit they made themselves worthy. They are in the covenant by virtue of God's promise. They are in the covenant from the time of their birth, not by nature, but by grace, while God has committed Himself to be the God of believers and their seed.
The same law that rules in the spiritual realm, rules in the natural realm. All of us received a natural life that through our parents we received from God, the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. It is not by our merits that we possess life. We did not give it to ourselves, did not merit it, we even forfeited it by our guilt. It is God's gift in a complete sense, not of His particular grace, but of His common grace.

Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

I think we should be careful not to throw stones like the epithet (semi) arminian towards our Confessional Reformed brethren.

In Holland we say: don’t throw stones because you may have glass on your roof.

I will use a bit of mild irony with you on this:

Sure! We all know that Cornelius Van Til would accept (semi) arminian theological formulations.

 

[earl40]

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy? The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation. The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures. Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23 Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

So, Mulder for the sake of clarity please answer me the following questions.

God’s Covenant with the Adam before the fall, the Covenant of Life, was it a Legal Covenant – a Covenant of Works - or was it a Gracious Covenant – a Covenant of Grace?

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, disagreeing on this particular matter (as in the matter of Common Grace) with many theologians from my denomination like Klaas Schilder, S G de Graaf or J. Kamphuis, is that the Pre Lapsarian Covenant with Adam was a Covenant of works.

Are Baptized members of the visible church that are not Elect (children of believers or hypocrites) truly within the administration of the Covenant of Grace?

Or when later by not coming to faith and fall into apostasy (because they are not God’s elected unto salvation) you, Mulder, would state that those were never in the Covenant of Grace.

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, now actually agreeing with my church teaching on the Covenant, is that all the children of believers being baptized and those who make a profession of faith convincing of true conversion and are baptized are truly in the Covenant of Grace so they partake of the Grace of the Covenant, although some may not partake of Saving Particular Special Grace.

My belief is that the Covenant of Grace and Election are not the same in scope, Election is within the Hidden Decree of God, we don’t know who God chose in His Sovereign Election, Election has its covenantal scope in the Covenant of Redemption.

You may say that we shouldn’t use Common Grace to certain benefits and favor of God towards His creation but alone use the word Providence.

My point in this matter is how do we understand the scope of the Covenant of Grace with only Special Saving Grace?

That is when the Decree exhausts our understanding of the Covenant of Grace.

But is precisely Election that the Apostle Paul has in context when writing:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. ( …)in order that God’s purpose in election might stand.
Romans 9:6-7, 11

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:28-29

all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 1 Corinthians 10:1-5

So I repeat Bavinck on this:

Our children do not enter the covenant, because we dedicate them to the Lord. Much less, because by any virtue or merit they made themselves worthy. They are in the covenant by virtue of God's promise. They are in the covenant from the time of their birth, not by nature, but by grace, while God has committed Himself to be the God of believers and their seed.
The same law that rules in the spiritual realm, rules in the natural realm. All of us received a natural life that through our parents we received from God, the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. It is not by our merits that we possess life. We did not give it to ourselves, did not merit it, we even forfeited it by our guilt. It is God's gift in a complete sense, not of His particular grace, but of His common grace.

Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

I think we should be careful not to throw stones like the epithet (semi) arminian towards our Confessional Reformed brethren.

In Holland we say: don’t throw stones because you may have glass on your roof.

I will use a bit of mild irony with you on this:

Sure! We all know that Cornelius Van Til would accept (semi) arminian theological formulations.

Cesar after reading your exchange between yourself and Bert I understand that his statement that using the word grace instead of providence should not be used, because ANYBODY who reads this thread would soon get lost in all the qualifications being made.

Why use even use the word grace if we have to redefine the it to mean providence. Of course if you think that God giving good temporal benefits is really Him being gracious then maybe we really don't agree on what grace is. If not this only reinforces my first statement on using a word which should not be used (grace) for the other (providence) is sufficient and readily understandable.

 

[BertMulder]

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy? The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation. The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures. Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23 Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

So, Mulder for the sake of clarity please answer me the following questions.

God’s Covenant with the Adam before the fall, the Covenant of Life, was it a Legal Covenant – a Covenant of Works - or was it a Gracious Covenant – a Covenant of Grace?

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, disagreeing on this particular matter (as in the matter of Common Grace) with many theologians from my denomination like Klaas Schilder, S G de Graaf or J. Kamphuis, is that the Pre Lapsarian Covenant with Adam was a Covenant of works.

Are Baptized members of the visible church that are not Elect (children of believers or hypocrites) truly within the administration of the Covenant of Grace?

Or when later by not coming to faith and fall into apostasy (because they are not God’s elected unto salvation) you, Mulder, would state that those were never in the Covenant of Grace.

That that won’t be any doubts, my belief, now actually agreeing with my church teaching on the Covenant, is that all the children of believers being baptized and those who make a profession of faith convincing of true conversion and are baptized are truly in the Covenant of Grace so they partake of the Grace of the Covenant, although some may not partake of Saving Particular Special Grace.

My belief is that the Covenant of Grace and Election are not the same in scope, Election is within the Hidden Decree of God, we don’t know who God chose in His Sovereign Election, Election has its covenantal scope in the Covenant of Redemption.

You may say that we shouldn’t use Common Grace to certain benefits and favor of God towards His creation but alone use the word Providence.

My point in this matter is how do we understand the scope of the Covenant of Grace with only Special Saving Grace?

That is when the Decree exhausts our understanding of the Covenant of Grace.

But is precisely Election that the Apostle Paul has in context when writing:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. ( …)in order that God’s purpose in election might stand.
Romans 9:6-7, 11

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:28-29

all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 1 Corinthians 10:1-5

So I repeat Bavinck on this:

Our children do not enter the covenant, because we dedicate them to the Lord. Much less, because by any virtue or merit they made themselves worthy. They are in the covenant by virtue of God's promise. They are in the covenant from the time of their birth, not by nature, but by grace, while God has committed Himself to be the God of believers and their seed.
The same law that rules in the spiritual realm, rules in the natural realm. All of us received a natural life that through our parents we received from God, the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. It is not by our merits that we possess life. We did not give it to ourselves, did not merit it, we even forfeited it by our guilt. It is God's gift in a complete sense, not of His particular grace, but of His common grace.

Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

I think we should be careful not to throw stones like the epithet (semi) arminian towards our Confessional Reformed brethren.

In Holland we say: don’t throw stones because you may have glass on your roof.

I will use a bit of mild irony with you on this:

Sure! We all know that Cornelius Van Til would accept (semi) arminian theological formulations.

What did I say to warrant this flood of verbiage? This is a thread regarding common grace, not regarding covenant theology. But, if you want to familiarize yourself with my covenant view, I suggest you read 'Believers and their seed' by H. Hoeksema, as well as Covenant of God and children of believers, by D. Engelsma.

 

[discipulo]

What did I say to warrant this flood of verbiage? This is a thread regarding common grace, not regarding covenant theology. But, if you want to familiarize yourself with my covenant view, I suggest you read 'Believers and their seed' by H. Hoeksema, as well as Covenant of God and children of believers, by D. Engelsma.

Although you didn’t give me a straight answer you answer indirectly, that’s ok.

So I will make my point concerning Common Grace, yes I must go trough Covenant Theology but we are discussing God’s relationship to His creatures.

Since you mentioned them as your implied answer, For what it's worth the late Herman Hoeksema and Professor Engelsma affirm that the Covenant between God and Adam before the Fall was not a Covenant of Works but a Covenant of Grace.

So my questions concerning this are:

How can Grace concern Only God’s Redemptive Economy (like you answered above) if God relates with Adam in Adam’s perfect and yet sinless state through a Covenant of Grace?

Condescension? Eventually, but is it Special Grace in the sense of Saving Grace?

God was covenanting by Grace with Adam, so was God relating to Adam before Adam’s sin through Saving Grace

Can you explain?

Quote from David Engelsma, the Covenant Creation with Adam

In keeping with this understanding of the covenant with Adam,many Reformed theologians called it a covenant of works. The chief characteristic of that covenant was human works, indeed,meritorious human works. (…) Opposed to this explanation of the covenant with Adam, virtually alone, was the Protestant Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema.
Hoeksema’s formulation of the covenant (both before and after the fall) as a gracious bond of friendship explains the biblical data, excludes all human merit and preserves the absolute sovereignty of God.

Quote from Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics.

From the very first moment of his existence … and by virtue of his being created after the image of God, Adam stood in [a] covenant relation to God and was conscious of that living fellowship and friendship … He knew God and loved Him and was conscious of God’s love to him. He enjoyed the favour of God. He received the Word of God, walked with God and talked with Him; and he dwelled in the house of God in paradise the first.

Bert, I am familiar with some of the Theologians from the PRC, like Hanko, Hoeksema or Engelsma, actually have 2 Engelsma’s works that I have read at least twice: Covenant of God and children of believers and Hyper Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel.

To those that may not be familiar with this name, Herman Hoeksema, was a brilliant theologian, a godly man, who stood within the boundaries of Confessional Orthodoxy, who fought the good fight for Reforming the Church, this is not just mine or I’m sure Bert’s opinion, this is the opinion of many reformed authorities, although not necessarily agreeing with all his views, like Klaas Schilder, G C Berkouwer or Joel Beeke.

And I believe this (minor?) inconsistency between affirming a Pre Lapsarian Covenant with Adam as being a Covenant of Grace and denying Common Grace, is In my humble opinion, also made, as I wrote above, by theologians from my denomination, S G de Graaf, Klaas Schilder, Kamphuis, etc

John Murray in that sense is much more consistent, since while he saw God's relation with Adam before the fall as being Covenantally by Grace, he went on affirming quite deeply Common Grace.

With all my verbiage, as you say, I am just trying to be fair and understand that is important and sound to read the doctrine of Common Grace in Scripture in the way that good sound reformed confessional theologians did.

Cesar after reading your exchange between yourself and Bert I understand that his statement that using the word grace instead of providence should not be used, because ANYBODY who reads this thread would soon get lost in all the qualifications being made.
Why use even use the word grace if we have to redefine the it to mean providence. Of course if you think that God giving good temporal benefits is really Him being gracious then maybe we really don't agree on what grace is. If not this only reinforces my first statement on using a word which should not be used (grace) for the other (providence) is sufficient and readily understandable.

Earl, I appreciate your concern to prevent confusion in terminology and / or an unnecessary tense debate.
I hope I have managed to keep the debate in an irenic spirit and I try with my own limitations to be as clear and sourced as I can.

Please know that I distinguish in a great way Theological Differences from un-Confessional views that may be error, here in the PB we debate, by God’s Grace,for the best within the boundaries of Confessional Reformed Orthodoxy.

We may disagree theologically but we all strive to remain faithful to the Doctrine of Scriptures as Summarized in the Reformed Confessions.

And yes, in a certain way, Common Grace is part of Providence, of course Providence is everything, whatsoever comes to pass, the sustaining and ordering of all creation.

I personally also see :

Common Grace in the narrower sense of the Covenant Gracious Benefits to those within the Covenant that may be or not elect, as only Special Grace Alone operates irresistibly for the regeneration and salvation Sola Fide Sola Gratia Solus Christus of those who are God’s Elect.

Common Grace as the Grace God operates to restrain total depravity from fully expressing its sinfulness - from becoming Absolute Depravity as Maurice Roberts wisely says it in his sermon– that was Richard Tallach question in the first place.

Common Grace as God’s gracious non saving temporal gifts, but never the less good gifts, towards all His creatures and mankind in general.

Common Grace as the way God enables non believers to do good in society, to do things that please the Lord like feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, taking care of the sick, performing civic good for the good of society.

Because we believe in Total Depravity but we still don’t see Absolute Depravity in mankind, actually we see a lot of temporary good being made by non believers

So when God diminishes His restraining on men’s sinfulness there are consequences, and that hardening or giving men to his own fallen condition in a fuller expression is of course also Providence.

Check:
Ps. 81:11-12; Gen. 6:3; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24-28; Rom 9:17-18, Exod 8:32, etc

For instance G. H Kersten, the founder of the Gereformeerde Gemeente in Nederland (Netherland Reformed Congregations) who, like Hoeksema and the PRC, had a narrower sense of the Covenant of Grace as being between God and His elect alone, still affirmed the Covenant with Adam or the Covenant of Life as a Covenant of Works and saw virtues in formulating Common Grace.

Quotes from G. H. Kersten (I highly recommend Dominee Kersten’s Reformed Dogmatics translated by Joel Beeke)

There is therefore no objection to speaking of common grace, provided that we insist against all those that hold the doctrine of universal redemption, that the blood of Christ was shed only for the elect, and the application of it given only to the elect. The reprobates are not given any temporal or spiritual benefits through the merits of Christ's atonement.

By nature we are prone to hate God and our neighbor. Only common grace still restrains Adam’s race from breaking out into sin altogether, otherwise the world could not stand any longer. And the world must remain until the last of the elect is gathered in (Neth. Conf. Art. 15; Heid. Cat. Quest. 5-8; Canons of Dort III, IV).

Scripture also speaks of the covenant of day and night, and of the covenant with Noah, but these covenants do not concern the eternal state of man. “Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break My covenant of the day, and My covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season.” (Jer. 33:20) “Thus saith the LORD: If My covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth.” (Jer. 33:25) “And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you: and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark to every beast of the earth.” (Gen. 9:9, 10)

These texts clearly show that even the ordinances are placed by God as by way of a covenant, and also that in the Noachian Covenant God has sworn to the whole world, “Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Gen. 9:11; Isa. 54:9) Here we have no promise of grace unto salvation but only of common grace; here nothing is said of election as it is in the Covenant of Grace because the grace promised here concerns all men, indeed, even the cattle and the grass of the field and the ordinances of heaven. Hence we are not considering these covenants; they do not concern man’s eternal state, and thus differ from the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.

Please notice how Kersten while distinguishing the sphere of the Covenant of Grace, relates in a very consistent way Covenant, namely the Noachian Covenant, the Covenant of - or with - Creation, and Common Grace.

To those who may think that Common Grace is a XX century theological novelty, altough I still couldn't find Voetius and Witsius on this, I know they also wrote on this matter,

I quote Whilelmus a Brakel , The Christians Reasonable Service:

Gratia gratis data (grace as a gracious receipt), relates to the received benefits themselves. This is true for common grace of which unconverted persons are the recipients to which Jude re ferred, “ Ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lascivi ousness” ( Jude 4).

(…) God, by His common grace and in certain situations, bestows external blessings upon the ungodly. This we readily admit,for, “The LORD is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all His works”(Ps. 145:9).

I hope this contributes to an edifying and illuminating debate.

 

[BertMulder]

I hope this contributes to an edifying and illuminating debate.

Thank you for your reply. Sorry for my previous response, was not sure where this was headed...

Would reply more elaborately right now, but I am rather busy, me being an accountant and it being tax season...

 

[TeachingTulip]

What did I say to warrant this flood of verbiage? This is a thread regarding common grace, not regarding covenant theology. But, if you want to familiarize yourself with my covenant view, I suggest you read 'Believers and their seed' by H. Hoeksema, as well as Covenant of God and children of believers, by D. Engelsma.

Although you didn’t give me a straight answer you answer indirectly, that’s ok.

So I will make my point concerning Common Grace, yes I must go trough Covenant Theology but we are discussing God’s relationship to His creatures.

Since you mentioned them as your implied answer, For what it's worth the late Herman Hoeksema and Professor Engelsma affirm that the Covenant between God and Adam before the Fall was not a Covenant of Works but a Covenant of Grace.

So my questions concerning this are:

How can Grace concern Only God’s Redemptive Economy (like you answered above) if God relates with Adam in Adam’s perfect and yet sinless state through a Covenant of Grace?

Condescension? Eventually, but is it Special Grace in the sense of Saving Grace?

God was covenanting by Grace with Adam, so was God relating to Adam before Adam’s sin through Saving Grace

Can you explain?

Quote from David Engelsma, the Covenant Creation with Adam

In keeping with this understanding of the covenant with Adam,many Reformed theologians called it a covenant of works. The chief characteristic of that covenant was human works, indeed,meritorious human works. (…) Opposed to this explanation of the covenant with Adam, virtually alone, was the Protestant Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema.
Hoeksema’s formulation of the covenant (both before and after the fall) as a gracious bond of friendship explains the biblical data, excludes all human merit and preserves the absolute sovereignty of God.

Hoeksema titles the original covenant between God and man, not using the term "Covenant of Works" (which frankly I consider an error), but as a "Covenant of Fellowship."

You, sir, are misrepresenting Hoeksema's words, by rewording his views to translate into calling the original covenant between God and man, a "Covenant of Grace."

In essence, you are confusing God's attributes of "graciousness" towards his created beings, with His decree to establish a new Covenant of Grace, with sinners, chosen for redemption in Jesus Christ. In other words,'s, the relationship between God and Adam prior to the fall (whether one calls it a Covenant of Fellowship or a Covenant of Works) was a conditional relationship, dependent upon the creature submitting his will to the sovereign will of God.

Neither of these covenants describe the Covenant of Grace, which is unconditional and not dependent upon the actions of the creature in the slightest.

I apologize if my comments are out of order or an intrusion between you fine men, but misrepresentations of beliefs, really bother me. And I believe Hoeksema, as well as the entire RPCA belief system has been misrepresented, by your posts.

No visible church has fought against the erroneous doctrinal adoption of a supposed "common grace" as effectively as the spiritual and church offspring of Hoeksema, and the current church brethren of Brother Mulder.

 

[BertMulder]

I apologize if my comments are out of order or an intrusion between you fine men, but misrepresentations of beliefs, really bother me. And I believe Hoeksema, as well as the entire RPCA belief system has been misrepresented, by your posts.

Thanks[-] brother[/-] sister, this is no intrusion in the least, but a very helpful remark.

 

[discipulo]

Hoeksema titles the original covenant between God and man, not using the term "Covenant of Works" (which frankly I consider an error), but as a "Covenant of Fellowship."

You, sir, are misrepresenting Hoeksema's words, by rewording his views to translate into calling the original covenant between God and man, a "Covenant of Grace."

In essence, you are confusing God's attributes of "graciousness" towards his created beings, with His decree to establish a new Covenant of Grace, with sinners, chosen for redemption in Jesus Christ.

In other words,'s, the relationship between God and Adam prior to the fall (whether one calls it a Covenant of Fellowship or a Covenant of Works) was a conditional relationship, dependent upon the creature submitting his will to the sovereign will of God.

Neither of these covenants describe the Covenant of Grace, which is unconditional and not dependent upon the actions of the creature in the slightest.

I apologize if my comments are out of order or an intrusion between you fine men, but misrepresentations of beliefs, really bother me. And I believe Hoeksema, as well as the entire RPCA belief system has been misrepresented, by your posts.

No visible church has fought against the erroneous doctrinal adoption of a supposed "common grace" as effectively as the spiritual and church offspring of Hoeksema, and the current church brethren of Brother Mulder.

Rhonda, no need to apologize for stepping in or for your comments, you are very welcome and your comments are helpful.

That is exactly the idea that we can share and interact till we better understand each other’s positions and of those whom we feel indebted to, while understanding more what our Lord revealed in Scripture.

Actually it may be me who needs to apologize if I am, as you say, misrepresenting the position of Herman Hoeksema.

But as you noticed I made several questions to Bert about precisely that matter, one is that question that gives all the benefit of the doubt on both sides:

Can you explain?

So I am ready for Bert or you to correct me and to stand corrected on this.

And as you noticed I also presented Hoeksema in a fair honoring way, that of course he truly deserves, as I do respect his work and legacy to the church, although I may disagree with him on some points of doctrine.

Then I added some quotes from Engelsma and Hoeksema, not long quotes but they seemed to me as being clear quotes.

Rhonda you may be right that Common Grace is an error, but please notice all my quotes from different Reformed Confessional Theologians that I’ve posted so far, and we do need to extend some charity also to those mentioned.

If Common Grace is an error, it is then an error shared by many, namely the ones posted above by me, and they also fought or still fight for Reformed Confessional Orthodoxy.

While I don’t agree with denying the Covenant of Works with Adam, yet I try to understand in what way the Covenant with Adam is formulated by Hoeksema, Hanko or Engelsma.

Look I even wrote a possible foundation for an answer concerning this – Condescension.

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
WCF VII-1

Is this condescension Grace? I believe it can be truly understood as Grace, because it is God Whom in the first place decides both to create and to relate to His creature man.

With no detriment of, like the Westminster Divines understood it, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, the following article:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
WCF VII – 2

Rhonda, you say I’m misrepresenting Hoeksema's but I never said Hoeksema affirmed the Covenant with Adam was actually THE Covenant of Grace inaugurated in Gen 3:15

What I said was that I understood Hoeksema believed both that: God was in covenant with Adam and that Covenant was a Covenant by Grace.

And because of this I saw in Hoeksema (or for that matter Schilder, Kamphuis, De Graaf from my own denomination not the PRC but GKV) an inconsistency in dennying Common Grace.

So I asked Bert – and see please his answer below too! (emphasis mine)

Bert Mulder, do you understand Grace to be only within God's Redemptive Economy? The Synod of Dordrecht was rejecting natural light in its arminian concept, the semi pelagian way to say that all receive a universal - common - grace that is half way towards salvation. The Reformed Common Grace grants no salvific efficacy, is a Common - a general - Gracious Providence from God towards His creatures. Psalm 145:9; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35-36; Acts 14:16-17; I Tim. 4:10; Rom. 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 18:23 Bert Mulder, I insist on the question, does Grace for you concern only and entirely God's salvation of His elect people?

yeah

In opposition to the (semi) arminian 3 points of Kalamazoo (1924 CRC Synod)

Why not, with our fathers, simply call providence just that, instead of confusing the issue using the term common grace for that which is not grace... outside of Christ, after all, God is a consuming fire.

if Grace is ONLY saving Grace how can we qualify the Grace that allowed Adam to covenant with God?

How we qualify this that you wrote yourself ? - in your own words (emphasis mine)

God's attributes of "graciousness" towards his created beings

Maybe these are my hermeneutical glasses, but when I read your description, I read Grace and I read Common Grace.

Can you explain better what you mean and what kind of "graciousness" is this?

Is it Grace? Is it saving Grace? Is it special Grace?

Now concerning Hoeksema’s Covenant with Adam, that you say I am misrepresenting.

Well I am just taking seriously those who know his theology very well.

So that there are no doubts I post this much longer quote - emphasis mine - and with this I end this post - no further notes from me added - each may draw his own conclusions.

from Professor Herman Hanko (Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches )

After a close scrutiny of the covenant of works, Herman Hoeksema came to the conclusion that it was an erroneous view. I here summarise Hoeksema’s carefully developed analysis and arguments (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 308-312):1)

1)It finds no support in the Word of God, but is an unwarranted deduction from God’s command to Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

2) The covenant of works postulates a period of probation for Adam, at the end of which he would have received eternal and heavenly life, but this is impossible for man except through Christ (I Cor. 15:47). Also the concept of Adam’s entering eternal life in heaven has imbedded in it the idea of merit, a notion abhorrent to Reformed theology (Luke 17:10; Rom. 11:35).

3) This view raises other problems: How long was the probationary period? Would Adam have entered heaven with all his posterity? What would then happen to the earthly creation in which Adam was prophet, priest and king?

4) The covenant of works makes the covenant between God and Adam something incidental to Adam’s creation, for it was added to Adam after his creation. What was Adam’s relationship to God prior to this covenant?

5) If one looks at the whole concept from the viewpoint of God’s sovereignty and wisdom, His original intention in establishing a covenant of works with Adam ended in failure and God found it necessary to resort to another plan to accomplish salvation.

I am persuaded by these arguments and reject the idea of a covenant of works with Adam. But this does not mean that Adam did not stand in a covenant with God.

Adam was created as God’s servant, as the head of the entire creation in which he stood as prophet, priest and king. He was created in God’s image and was called to serve the Lord his God in all he did.

Adam was God’s friend, as well as His servant, standing in a relationship of fellowship with His Lord. The tree of life, from which Adam was called to eat, was the symbol of this friendship between God and Adam. In his joyful service of God in the midst of His creation, Adam experienced fellowship with God. Not only did the whole creation, formed by the Word of God, speak of His greatness and power, His majesty and glory; it also spoke of God’s goodness and love towards Adam—and, subsequently, towards Eve. Adam could hear God’s speech in the singing of the birds, the beauty of the flowers, the glory of the trees and the splendour of the stars at night.

Hearing this grand and beautiful chorus that creation sang, Adam was filled with love for God and overwhelmed with the greatness and majesty of his creator. It was a pristine creation, for sin had not yet entered, nor death to dull God’s speech. Adam responded in praise and adoration to the great God who had blessed him so richly.

There was also a special way in which God and Adam had fellowship together. In paradise, God talked directly to Adam (e.g., Gen. 1:28-30; 2:16-17). After Adam and Eve had sinned, “they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (3:8). This indicates that God’s walking and speaking in the garden was a common, perhaps daily, phenomenon. But this time Adam and Eve, instead of going to meet God, hid themselves, for they knew they had sinned (3:10).


Though not, of course, a covenant of grace in the sense that God revealed His grace through Jesus Christ to sinful post-fall Adam,

we may very well call the covenant that God established with pre-fall Adam a covenant of grace,


for God showed His unmerited favour to Adam and Eve. He had created Adam and Eve perfect—itself a great, unmerited grace.

God freely gave Adam and Eve a beautiful and wonderful creation in which to live and over which to rule. The Triune God made Adam His covenant friend, a gift than which no greater can be found.

The great and infinitely perfect God had fellowship with a creature that He Himself had made! Adam merited nothing, not even in a state of perfection.

True it is that God’s grace is revealed in a richer way when God takes sinners into His covenant through Christ, but we must not minimize the blessedness pre-fall Adam received, none of which he had earned.

Understanding this truth, we can set aside the unbiblical doctrine of a covenant of works. God’s covenant was established in the very act of creation and not mechanically added to Adam’s relationship to God. It was a covenant that was graciously established and not in any sense merited. It was a covenant in which Adam’s work was not merely an obligation, but a great privilege and joy. It was a covenant in which Adam knew and revelled in God’s friendship, favour and love. God was Adam’s friend! And Adam was God’s friend! What more could Adam have?

But it was also a covenant that would be continued only in the way of obedience. Sin broke God’s covenant and Adam and Eve were driven from the garden.

God had some better thing in store for His people: a covenant of grace revealed through Christ to sinners. A covenant in which God and His people dwell in friendship through His Son. A covenant in which God takes His people to heaven and gives them a glorified earth as their inheritance—something forever beyond Adam’s reach, even if he had not fallen. A covenant in which God is glorified in a far higher way than in the first paradise. But it is still a covenant of friendship and fellowship. A covenant in which we, wretched sinners, are the friends of God through Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, our Saviour and Lord—the second Adam (Rom. 5:14; I Cor. 15:45-47).

The covenant was established with Adam and all his posterity, for Adam was created as the head of the human race. When Adam fell, the whole human race fell in Adam. Adam was a covenant breaker and the entire human race broke God’s covenant in Adam. But God sovereignly and wisely, for the sake of the realization of His own purpose, moved Adam aside to make room for the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. In Him, God’s grace is fully revealed and the riches of God’s covenant, greater than they ever could be in the first paradise, are lavished on the elect church for whom Christ died, the head of the true human race.

Source:
Covenant Reformed News - February 2010

 

[Peairtach]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things. We may not like to call it "grace" to prevent confusion, but those who do call it "grace" distinguish between "common grace" and "saving grace" to avoid confusion.

If we say that the gifts that the reprobate receive from God are just intended to "fatten them for the day of slaughter" then we cannot even call them good gifts from God, but only judgements and curses from God.

When God deals with reprobate human beings He's not dealing with stones but with responsible creatures that abuse His genuinely good gifts - His common non-salvific grace - in His mysterious providence.

Some types of Calvinism flatten out human responsibility.

 

[earl40]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things. We may not like to call it "grace" to prevent confusion, but those who do call it "grace" distinguish between "common grace" and "saving grace" to avoid confusion.

If we say that the gifts that the reprobate receive from God are just intended to "fatten them for the day of slaughter" then we cannot even call them good gifts from God, but only judgements and curses from God.

When God deals with reprobate human beings He's not dealing with stones but with responsible creatures that abuse His genuinely good gifts - His common non-salvific grace - in His mysterious providence.

Some types of Calvinism flatten out human responsibility.

I can imagine an addition of a stipe or two being to ungrateful people who receive good providence from The Lord. I do not think that as flattening but enhancing human responsibility because fallen man has the knowledge of good and evil and they are just plain ungrateful unprofitable servants.

 

[discipulo]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things. We may not like to call it "grace" to prevent confusion, but those who do call it "grace" distinguish between "common grace" and "saving grace" to avoid confusion.

If we say that the gifts that the reprobate receive from God are just intended to "fatten them for the day of slaughter" then we cannot even call them good gifts from God, but only judgements and curses from God.

When God deals with reprobate human beings He's not dealing with stones but with responsible creatures that abuse His genuinely good gifts - His common non-salvific grace - in His mysterious providence.

Some types of Calvinism flatten out human responsibility.

I can imagine an addition of a stipe or two being to ungrateful people who receive good providence from The Lord. I do not think that as flattening but enhancing human responsibility because fallen man has the knowledge of good and evil and they are just plain ungrateful unprofitable servants.

Earl, can you elaborate a bit further? Honestly so far I can't see your point.

 

[MW]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things.

That is correct from a dogmatic point of view. But can we really define grace in this way from a biblico-theological perspective? I think theologians like Herman Hoeksema offer a valid challenge to some of the rigid dogmatic ways in which grace has come to be conceived. Without agreeing with all of his own dogmatic conclusions, there is something to be said for the definition of grace in which God is giving Himself covenantally to His people. The idea of equating grace with things of this world is somewhat materialistic. Likewise, the idea that it is to be entirely separated from this world is gnostic or dualist to some degree. But if grace is God giving Himself to His people we avoid both extremes and find ourselves in the midst of the land of promise. Such a definition, though, can only be understood on the basis that it is particular.

 

[earl40]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things. We may not like to call it "grace" to prevent confusion, but those who do call it "grace" distinguish between "common grace" and "saving grace" to avoid confusion.

If we say that the gifts that the reprobate receive from God are just intended to "fatten them for the day of slaughter" then we cannot even call them good gifts from God, but only judgements and curses from God.

When God deals with reprobate human beings He's not dealing with stones but with responsible creatures that abuse His genuinely good gifts - His common non-salvific grace - in His mysterious providence.

Some types of Calvinism flatten out human responsibility.

I can imagine an addition of a stipe or two being to ungrateful people who receive good providence from The Lord. I do not think that as flattening but enhancing human responsibility because fallen man has the knowledge of good and evil and they are just plain ungrateful unprofitable servants.

Earl, can you elaborate a bit further? Honestly so far I can't see your point.

Maybe if we take an example.

Let us assume The Lord enables a person who is unelect to give a thirsty man a drink of water. Does the person giving the water get a reward for doing such after he dies? In keeping with with the WCF on good works I believe the answer is no because the act, even though it was ordained by God, is sin and not pleasing to Him.

"VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]"

So if one sins and is unelect, as communicated above, can one expect a stripe? The answer of course is yes, even though God in His providence grants the knowledge and the ability to do what He commands the man shall receive fewer stripes than an an unelect man who neglects the good deed all together. So how can we call this "grace" if the situation is biblically based?

 

[discipulo]

If we define "grace" as God's unmerited or demerited goodness to sinners, then can we doubt that the reprobate receive such things.

That is correct from a dogmatic point of view. But can we really define grace in this way from a biblico-theological perspective? I think theologians like Herman Hoeksema offer a valid challenge to some of the rigid dogmatic ways in which grace has come to be conceived. Without agreeing with all of his own dogmatic conclusions, there is something to be said for the definition of grace in which God is giving Himself covenantally to His people. The idea of equating grace with things of this world is somewhat materialistic. Likewise, the idea that it is to be entirely separated from this world is gnostic or dualist to some degree. But if grace is God giving Himself to His people we avoid both extremes and find ourselves in the midst of the land of promise. Such a definition, though, can only be understood on the basis that it is particular.

Rev. Winzer, I do appreciate your posting, as usual you bring biblical clarity and challenge to the debate.

Although I don’t understand how you can possibly place Dogmatics against Biblical Theology, they complement each other, do they not?

I certainly don't understand the problem you raise.

Take for instance a Biblical – Theologian, par excellence, Geerhardus Vos, who seems to have no reserves on using the concept of Common Grace, actually with affinities on the 3rd point of Common Grace from the Synod of Kalamazoo of 1924

Geerhardus Vos in his Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, BofT, page 45, on the line of Cain, describes also how the:

working of common grace in the gift of invention for the advance of civilization in the sphere of nature.

As I said before I maintain with Klaas Schilder that we shouldn’t bind each other with extra biblical or extra confessional doctrinal boundaries.
And, of course Schilder and Hoeksema were on the same side on the 20’s controversy over Common Grace and the mentioned synodical decisions.

But I do believe that at least Schilder was (over?) reacting against the cultural western civilizational optimism of Kuyper embodied in his Common Grace.

That’s why Schilder’s Christ and Culture is so relevant to this debate.

While I don’t think Vos (or for that matter Bavinck or Berkhof) adopt Kuyper’s full breath concept of CG ( I admit I only know Kuyper on Gemeene Gratie / Genade aka Common Grace, through others, as his 3 volumes on this are not yet translated) it is Henry van Til (Van Til’s nephew) whom, In my humble opinion, in the Calvinistic Concept of Culture, has the right interaction with Kuyper, Schilder and Bavinck on this.
And his uncle Cornelius also makes important critiques and reformulations on Common Grace and the Gospel.

Could the CRC be too imposing on their synodical conclusions? Certainly.

Schilder was very cautious on this kind of making Dogma - rigid dogmatic ways as you well mention – after all he was also warning against Kuyper legacy that was not confessional to become synodically biding. Doctrines like presumed and dormant regeneration linked to an incipient form of sacramentalism – the thing signified ex opera operato trough the sign in order that all covenant members were actually regenerate so elect, or the pluriformity view of the church.

Considering your definition of Grace of God is giving Himself covenantally to His people

I think that if we narrow or redefine Grace in a certain way to be Particular grace alone, like you are doing (which might not be necessarily wrong of course) we will need to narrow other aspects of God’s administration, namely His administration of Redemption, through the Covenant of Grace, and of Creation through Providence.

While needing to maintain certain words like favor, condescension or goodness in order to keep the right scriptural tension on the:

Distinction Creator – creatures (specially concerning mankind - Schilder went, I believe too far in his critique, saying creatures could be also animals or demons, when the Synod of Kalamazoo had certainly mankind in mind)

Total Depravity – not less real for not yet being an over realized eschatological / teleological Absolute Depravity

Civic Good vs the Good that only regenerated men can do WCF 16:1-7

Limited Atonement – Covenant blessings

I just see it is more difficult to understand and exegete several passages of Scripture if we let go the doctrine of Common Grace altogether.

 

[Peairtach]

I would have to do further study on the subject to see if I got more light. I'll probably read some of the links provided and check monergism. Maybe I'll order Van Til's book.

I think we can sometimes seek to tie-up all the loose threads of our theology too much and stick everything in particular boxes.

It may be difficult to see how God could be gracious to the reprobate, but if we take things to their logical conclusions we shouldn't even say that God is good to the reprobate or sends them good gifts.

The rain that falls on the reprobate's head only appears to be good if we look at everything from the point of view that he's reprobate and of his end. But is that the only way we're meant to look at these things?

 

[MW]

Although I don’t understand how you can possibly place Dogmatics against Biblical Theology, they complement each other, do they not?

Cesar, yes, they complement each other, but that is because they each contribute to our understanding in different ways. Those different ways, which I call the process and product of revelation, can sometimes appear to conflict. Let's take a concept like covenant theology. In dogmatic categories, taking into account the whole of God's revealed word, it becomes necessary to distinguish works and grace as a result of the fall of man and the two Adam construct of Pauline theology. In the process of biblical revelation, however, the reality is that "covenant" is only used in a strictly formal way after the fall. And so, in biblical theology we end up with a working definition of "covenant" which appears to be different from the dogmatic definition. For example, some exegetes stress the "blood" element; but from a dogmatic perspective there can be no blood element in innocence.

I suggest the same differences are apparent in our discussion on common grace. We might speak of grace as process or grace as product and arrive at apparently diverse understandings. In biblical theology we are concerned to see how grace functions within the development of biblical thought, and I think every one would agree that it is inherently associated with the life of God's people. In dogmatic theology our concerns are different. We desire to know numerous extra-biblical questions that are more logically structured and abstract -- questions that arise as we seek to systematise what the Bible teaches. The way we classify the elect and reprobate as abstract entities is foreign to the Bible with its focus on the historical process. Hence any point we raise relative to the elect-reprobate distinction is naturally different from the way biblical theology would deal with it.

Take for instance a Biblical – Theologian, par excellence, Geerhardus Vos, who seems to have no reserves on using the concept of Common Grace, actually with affinities on the 3rd point of Common Grace from the Synod of Kalamazoo of 1924

Geerhardus Vos in his Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, BofT, page 45, on the line of Cain, describes also how the:

working of common grace in the gift of invention for the advance of civilization in the sphere of nature.

Vos is very useful in the way he explains how the biblical theology relates to the dogmatic. In this case we find he makes an useful contribution by subjecting the "common" to the purpose of the "redemptive." I would suggest that he is seeking to be faithful to the structure of the narrative in which the two family lines are integral to the final redemptive outcome. The same subordination to the the purpose of redemption is seen in his treatment of the curse following man's fall and later with the establishment of the covenant through Noah.

I think that if we narrow or redefine Grace in a certain way to be Particular grace alone, like you are doing (which might not be necessarily wrong of course) we will need to narrow other aspects of God’s administration, namely His administration of Redemption, through the Covenant of Grace, and of Creation through Providence.

Not necessarily. Redemption is particular. No reformed theologian should deny that. Creation through providence is not a neutral territory. According to the Westminster Standards that "administration" of providence is naturally under the broken covenant of works. In one way the commitment to a covenant of works undermines "gracious" notions of "common gifts."

I just see it is more difficult to understand and exegete several passages of Scripture if we let go the doctrine of Common Grace altogether.

Fair enough. I am not saying that we should do away with the concept altogether. I am saying that the challenge from an approach like Hoeksema's is valid and something which needs to be reckoned with.