Common Grace Purchased By Christ

[TheOldCourse]

Turretin is instructive, as always on the distinction between fruits and occasion of Christ's death and the particular common benefits of Christ's death:

2. We do not inquire, respecting the fruits and efficacy of Christ's death, whether all will actually be partakers of these? which was anciently held by Puccius and Huberiis. Our opponents extend these to believers only. But the question refers to the design of God in sending his Son into the world and the purpose of Christ in his death. Were these such that Christ, by substituting himself in the room of each and every man, made satisfaction and obtained the pardon of sin and salvation for them all; or was his work designed for the elect only? Our opponents say the former, we say the latter.

3. We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even to reprobates. Because it is in consequence of the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to all nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been abolished, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by the word of God, that multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the Church, unless Christ had died. The question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were by the will of God and purpose of Christ destined for every individual of Adam's posterity as our opponents teach or for the elect only as we maintain

On the Atonement of Christ

The remainder of common grace he addresses under the subject of the relationship of creator to creature:

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follow creatures, called "love of the creature" (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called "love of man" (philoanthropia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called "the love of the elect" (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroen) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

Institutes

à Brakel is also good on the latter:

The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Psa. 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God's eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence. This finds expression in the following texts, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16); "As Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25)

The Christian's Reasonable Service

 

[timfost]

We hold that God is supremely just and supremely merciful. No place do we see this more clearly than the cross. Justice was not undercut when God showed us the mercy in the gospel. Both were completely reconciled in God through Christ.

Here's the problem as I see it: if our system if doctrine allows God to show temporal mercy to the reprobate, was it at the expense if justice? If we attribute common grace as one of the products of the cross, again both justice and mercy are reconciled without necessitating that God shows the reprobate mercy at the (temporary) expense of justice.

Col. 1:20 in context is difficult to reconcile if we deny Christ's death in some sense directly benefiting all of creation. I've seen many commentators squirming as they come up with creative solutions to a problem of their own making with this passage.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Both were completely reconciled in God through Christ...

Col. 1:20 in context is difficult to reconcile if we deny Christ's death in some sense directly benefiting all of creation.

Tim, I think the “all things” Paul speaks of needs to be understood in the usual context where Paul speaks, for example, of all men being saved, etc. Christ’s death doesn’t benefit Satan or the fallen angels, which are part of the all things in heaven and earth if we take your apparent interpretation.

Christ’s conciliatory reconciliation is for the elect. All, Jew and Gentile, out of every nation. He also brings about God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Any temporal good to the reprobate is due to his patience and goodness to his elect, otherwise he would destroy the world as it now exists and someday will.

 

[timfost]

Tim, I think the “all things” Paul speaks of needs to be understood in the usual context where Paul speaks, for example, of all men being saved, etc. Christ’s death doesn’t benefit Satan or the fallen angels, which are part of the all things in heaven and earth if we take your apparent interpretation.

Christ’s conciliatory reconciliation is for the elect. All, Jew and Gentile, out of every nation. He also brings about God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Any temporal good to the reprobate is due to his patience and goodness to his elect, otherwise he would destroy the world as it now exists and someday will.

Did Christ create "all things" (1:16)? Do "all things" consist in Him (v. 17)? Is He preeminent in "all things" (v. 18)? I agree, context is important. If I'm not mistaken, you are trying to put things in a broader theological systematic context, but it would be helpful to look at this specific context. I believe it is crystal clear that "all things" is completely comprehensive in this context.

 

[TheOldCourse]

We hold that God is supremely just and supremely merciful. No place do we see this more clearly than the cross. Justice was not undercut when God showed us the mercy in the gospel. Both were completely reconciled in God through Christ.

Here's the problem as I see it: if our system if doctrine allows God to show temporal mercy to the reprobate, was it at the expense if justice? If we attribute common grace as one of the products of the cross, again both justice and mercy are reconciled without necessitating that God shows the reprobate mercy at the (temporary) expense of justice.

Col. 1:20 in context is difficult to reconcile if we deny Christ's death in some sense directly benefiting all of creation. I've seen many commentators squirming as they come up with creative solutions to a problem of their own making with this passage.

I'm not certain how you propose to solve your own problem. If God most holy cannot show temporal goodness to the reprobate, then what is their status after the cross? Are they no longer reprobate? No longer considered as lawbreakers? Surely not--or we would be universalists and not even hypothetically. Christ does not give himself by half measures, as the Papists would have him dispense diversely of a store of merit.

While God must judge wickedness, he is not necessitated to do so immediately. He is free to judge in his good timing according to his unsearchable wisdom.

To be sure, Christ's life and death has some benefit towards all creation (though I don't believe that is what Col 1:20 is saying--if you insist on all meaning the same thing throughout the passage, do you insist on reconciled meaning the same thing in 1:20 and 1:21?), in that as the consummation of history all of creation and providence is oriented towards it. Providence is not secured by it properly, as a merit or purchase, however.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The title of this thread makes no sense to me.

By what conceivable metric does Christ "purchase"--which language suggests to me an exchange, which in connection to Christ seems unavoidably to land on his sacrificial death--a gift for the undifferentiated human race?

God has given, from the beginning, unstintingly to a world more-or-less filled with ungrateful rebels and despisers of those gifts. Christ's death did not "purchase" those gifts or the power to give them. What specifically is he supposed to have bought the world (all men without exception) in common gift/grace by donation of his Son?

It seems to me the notion of a common-grace purchase in the death of Christ must trend inexorably to universalism of some kind: universal salvation, universal atonement, hypothetical universalism--in some sense, the sacrifice of Christ is rendered the foundation for something upraised upon it.

So, if that's not what's in view (and I don't recommend it), then I can make nothing of the concept.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If memory serves me correctly (though it may not), Richard Baxter made an argument similar to the OP in his Richard Baxter, True Christianity; or, Christ’s Absolute Dominion, and Man’s Necessary Self-Resignation and Subjection. In Two Assize Sermons, Preached before the Honourable Judge of Assize, at Worcester, August 2, 1654 (reprinted in volume 3 of his Practical Works).

If Baxter did make that argument, it would make sense for him to do so on the basis of his hypothetical universalism. I am not saying that all HUers go as far as that, but I can see why it would add up. What I cannot get my head around is how a strict particularist could possibly make this argument. As a strict particularist, I have to agree with Bruce: the whole argument makes zero sense to me.

 

[Ben Chomp]

The title of this thread makes no sense to me.

By what conceivable metric does Christ "purchase"--which language suggests to me an exchange, which in connection to Christ seems unavoidably to land on his sacrificial death--a gift for the undifferentiated human race?

God has given, from the beginning, unstintingly to a world more-or-less filled with ungrateful rebels and despisers of those gifts. Christ's death did not "purchase" those gifts or the power to give them. What specifically is he supposed to have bought the world (all men without exception) in common gift/grace by donation of his Son?

It seems to me the notion of a common-grace purchase in the death of Christ must trend inexorably to universalism of some kind: universal salvation, universal atonement, hypothetical universalism--in some sense, the sacrifice of Christ is rendered the foundation for something upraised upon it.

So, if that's not what's in view (and I don't recommend it), then I can make nothing of the concept.

What do you make of the Berkhof quote?

 

[Ben Chomp]

An interesting quote from Bavinck -

"And also his work has value for all, even for those who have not believed and will never believe in Him. For though it is true that Christ did not, strictly speaking, acquire the natural life by his suffering and death, yet the human race was spared on account of the fact that Christ would come to save it. Christ is not the head of all human beings, not the prophet, priest, and king of everyone, for He is the head of the church and has been anointed king over Zion. Yet all human beings owe a great deal to Christ. The light shines in the darkness and illumines every person coming into the world. The world was made through him and remains so, though it did not recognize him. Also as the Christ, He gives to unbelievers many benefits: the call of the gospel, the warning to repent, historical faith, a virtuous life, a variety of gifts and powers, offices and ministries within the church, such as, for example, even the office of an apostle in the case of Judas. “Without Jesus Christ the world would not exist, for it would necessarily either be destroyed or be a hell” (Pascal). Even hanging from the cross, He still prays for forgiveness for the appalling sin being committed by the Jews at that very moment."​

 

[Ben Chomp]

Here is Geerhardus Vos -

"The Bible gives us no right to say that Christ in His atoning work acted as the legal substitute of every individual human being. But certainly neither does it require us to assert that for the non-elect the atonement is void of all benefit or significance. Every man is indebted for great privileges to the cross of Christ. The continued existence of the race in spite of sin, but for it [the cross of Christ], would have been impossible."​

 

[User20004000]

Why didn't Christ need to die in order for us to know that 2+2=4?

For one thing, it was known before he died.

Anyway, Christ being the Savior of all men, especially the Savior of all who believe, could be taken to mean that he is the only Savior among men, through whom we must be saved.

As for the common blessings of the cross, surely there are many. Accordingly, we needn’t avoid that interpretation.At the very least, the world in all its facets is a better place because of the redeemed. The unregenerate benefit from the church who was purchased by the blood of the Lamb.

 

[timfost]

Hi Chris,

Always a pleasure speaking with you!

I'm not certain how you propose to solve your own problem. If God most holy cannot show temporal goodness to the reprobate, then what is their status after the cross? Are they no longer reprobate? No longer considered as lawbreakers?

Not sure how this is a problem I need to solve. Simply put, the cross is how God shows any mercy to sinners. Otherwise, justice is compromised. Not even sure how you came up with the idea that this doctrine necessitates a change in their status.

Surely not--or we would be universalists and not even hypothetically. Christ does not give himself by half measures, as the Papists would have him dispense diversely of a store of merit.

Not a half measure, rather a different purpose. It accomplishes exactly what God intended, just as we affirm about the efficacy of His satisfaction in relation to the salvation of the elect-- His purposes were accomplished as intended.

While God must judge wickedness, he is not necessitated to do so immediately. He is free to judge in his good timing according to his unsearchable wisdom.

I agree. I believe the means by which He does this without compromising justice is through the death if Christ. Could God have declared believers forgiven without the death of Christ, being free to do as He pleased in His good timing? No, since the cross was the means by which God fully satisfied justice.

To be sure, Christ's life and death has some benefit towards all creation (though I don't believe that is what Col 1:20 is saying--if you insist on all meaning the same thing throughout the passage, do you insist on reconciled meaning the same thing in 1:20 and 1:21?), in that as the consummation of history all of creation and providence is oriented towards it. Providence is not secured by it properly, as a merit or purchase, however.

Verses 17-18 are instructive:

"(17) And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (18) And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

Verse 17 moves from the general and comprehensive nature of Christ's preeminence to the special relationship with the church (v. 18). Certainly "all things" could include the church, but Paul is setting up a pattern of general to special. Again in v. 20 we have the general and comprehensive reconciliation of Christ's death being displayed followed by the special reconcilation of the church. Similarly, as has already been discussed, Christ is the Savior of all men as their preserver, but the Savior of believers in a special sense (1 Tim. 4:10).

Whether or not you can agree with this, I believe it addresses what you consider to be inconsistencies in this line of reasoning.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[timfost]

It seems to me the notion of a common-grace purchase in the death of Christ must trend inexorably to universalism of some kind: universal salvation, universal atonement, hypothetical universalism--in some sense, the sacrifice of Christ is rendered the foundation for something upraised upon it.

I'm always a little baffled how the leap is made to this point...

 

[TheOldCourse]

Hi Chris,

Always a pleasure speaking with you!



Not sure how this is a problem I need to solve. Simply put, the cross is how God shows any mercy to sinners. Otherwise, justice is compromised. Not even sure how you came up with the idea that this doctrine necessitates a change in their status.



Not a half measure, rather a different purpose. It accomplishes exactly what God intended, just as we affirm about the efficacy of His satisfaction in relation to the salvation of the elect-- His purposes were accomplished as intended.



I agree. I believe the means by which He does this without compromising justice is through the death if Christ. Could God have declared believers forgiven without the death of Christ, being free to do as He pleased in His good timing? No, since the cross was the means by which God fully satisfied justice.



Verses 17-18 are instructive:

"(17) And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (18) And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

Verse 17 moves from the general and comprehensive nature of Christ's preeminence to the special relationship with the church (v. 18). Certainly "all things" could include the church, but Paul is setting up a pattern of general to special. Again in v. 20 we have the general and comprehensive reconciliation of Christ's death being displayed followed by the special reconcilation of the church. Similarly, as has already been discussed, Christ is the Savior of all men as their preserver, but the Savior of believers in a special sense (1 Tim. 4:10).

Whether or not you can agree with this, I believe it addresses what you consider to be inconsistencies in this line of reasoning.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

Tim, perhaps I missed or misunderstood your point, but it appears that you felt the need to ground common grace in the cross because you believe it unmeet for God to show any goodness to the reprobate absent the atonement. That, to me, appears to be the problem you find with the older formulation:

"Here's the problem as I see it: if our system if doctrine allows God to show temporal mercy to the reprobate, was it at the expense if justice? If we attribute common grace as one of the products of the cross, again both justice and mercy are reconciled without necessitating that God shows the reprobate mercy at the (temporary) expense of justice."

This is the statement where I can't quite wrap my head around your reasoning. You claim that the cross reconciles justice and mercy with respect to common grace, but don't unpack how this is so. With special grace, mercy and justice meet at the cross through covenantal union. God can show his grace to the sinner in that respect without compromising his holiness by virtue of the sinner's change in status. This is where I get the status concern from: justice and mercy aren't reconciled at the cross abstractly but covenantally. An analogous concern for the reconciling of justice and mercy in common grace would seem to require an analogous solution. You later again make reference to the necessity of the cross for procuring forgiveness for sins of the elect as an analogous concern--that God could not, consistent with his justice, forgive sin absent satisfaction. But how, exactly, is that concern resolved in the cross? Covenantally!

But we acknowledge no such change in status in the reprobate. There is no "great transfer." Reconciliation, however, by definition, implies a change in status. They are enemies of God prior to the cross and remain enemies of God after the cross--they are not reconciled. Indeed, the cross and their rejection of the offer of Christ only heightens their guilt. Arminians would ground such goodness in a true universalism and prevenient grace, that all men are restored to something approximating a prelapsarian status through the atonement. I don't see how a consistent Calvinist--even a hypothetical universalist--can do the same.

 

[timfost]

With special grace, mercy and justice meet at the cross through covenantal union.

Before I can fully reply to your last response, I would appreciate some clarification on the point above. I'm not sure if I follow. Is it mercy and justice that are in covenantal union or Christ and the elect? Something else? Honestly I'm not entirely sure the relevance...

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Ben Chomp]

A believer receives grace in this life. We ask: "on what grounds does the believing sinner receive grace?" The answer is the merits of Christ.

An unbeliever receives common grace in this life. We ask: "on what grounds does the unbelieving sinner receive grace?" If the answer is not "Christ", then why is Christ necessary for the believer?

 

[User20004000]

Tim,

I’m confused by all this.

Neither grace nor the covenant of grace was administered under the older economy as it is today. While the Son had not yet come, there was neither a divine mediator nor any vicarious merit upon which to base grace. That seems pretty straight forward.

Notwithstanding, apart from the cross, (i) God dispensed particular favor toward his elect. (ii) That particular grace spilled over from the lives of the saints both to the unconverted elect and the non-elect. (iii) God extended goodness to those he had passed over in his electing decree.

If your paradigm is sound, I would think it should pass the muster of the Old Testament, which was the dispensation prior to the merits of Christ.

Thx

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q.57. What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?
A. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all other benefits of the covenant of grace.

Remember that the same catechism teaches that the covenant of grace was made "with Christ, as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." (31) The theory that Christ has purchased common grace benefits for the non-elect seems to be extra-confessional at best.

 

[User20004000]

Here's the problem as I see it: if our system if doctrine allows God to show temporal mercy to the reprobate, was it at the expense if justice?​

It’s not temporary mercy. Think of it as postponed justice as the non-elect continues to serve God’s eternal purpose. (As the murderer awaits his execution, he’s not receiving temporary mercy.)

If we attribute common grace as one of the products of the cross, again both justice and mercy are reconciled without necessitating that God shows the reprobate mercy at the (temporary) expense of justice.​

It’s not at the “expense of justice.” For it’s appointed for a man once to die and then the judgment.

​

 

[timfost]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments. Hope this helps.

Neither grace nor the covenant of grace was administered under the older economy as it is today. While the Son had not yet come, there was neither a divine mediator nor any vicarious merit upon which to base grace. That seems pretty straight forward.

Abraham was justified by the means of faith well before Christ died. Was he justified by the merits of Christ? If so, the benefits of Christ are not bound by time.

Notwithstanding, apart from the cross, (i) God dispensed particular favor toward his elect. (ii) That particular grace spilled over from the lives of the saints both to the unconverted elect and the non-elect. (iii) God extended goodness to those he had passed over in his electing decree.

Were the elect prior to Christ making satisfaction ever the recipients of God's favor apart from Christ? Again, I would say no, since the benefits of the cross are not bound by time.

If your paradigm is sound, I would think it should pass the muster of the Old Testament, which was the dispensation prior to the merits of Christ.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think your line of reasoning does not account for how OT saints were justified. If Christ's satisfaction is not limited by when it took place in time, I don't see the issue.

I hope this helps!

 

[timfost]

Here's the problem as I see it: if our system if doctrine allows God to show temporal mercy to the reprobate, was it at the expense if justice?​

It’s not temporary mercy. Think of it as postponed justice as the non-elect continues to serve God’s eternal purpose. (As the murderer awaits his execution, he’s not receiving temporary mercy.)

I think you're making a distinction without a difference. To postpone justice is to show mercy. Are you saying that God does not show mercy to the reprobate since they will receive judgment? Paul faults those with a "debased mind" (Rom. 1:28) with not giving thanks to God (v. 21). Thanks for what? Without doubt for His gifts and kindnesses-- His mercy.

If we attribute common grace as one of the products of the cross, again both justice and mercy are reconciled without necessitating that God shows the reprobate mercy at the (temporary) expense of justice.

It’s not at the “expense of justice.” For it’s appointed for a man once to die and then the judgment.

Since the death does not happen immediately, God is demonstrating that He is merciful even to those who never believe.

 

[timfost]

Charles Hodge puts it well (as usual):

"It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them."

 

[User20004000]

Brother Tim,

Although Abraham was justified through faith, it’s simply false that all the benefits of Christ were not bound by time. Since your position rests on that premise, that’s where I’ll focus.

There’s a relevant and significant difference between pardon based upon future redemption and meritorious-redemption accomplished once and for all. All we have to consider is that the soul of Abraham could not be made perfect - nor enter into heaven, because the blood of bulls and goats could never provide expiation, satisfaction and propitiation. God’s wrath wasn’t placated until Calvary. Sin had not yet been covered.

Indeed, Calvary fulfilled the blood of bulls and goats but that’s only because the levitical sacrifices were patterned after the heavenly mercy seat. Notwithstanding, Abraham had not yet received the reconciliation and that’s because redemption had not yet been accomplished.

It was fitting that the divine mediator, who could both be tempted and die, become man so that he might be tempted and die. God (who can’t be tempted nor die) could not redeem us apart from the incarnation, which took place in time, after Abraham’s time. So, it’s surely false that the benefits of Christ were not bound by time. There was no divine mediator between God and man before Jesus. The necessary condition(s) had not yet been met. Christ had not yet entered into heaven to appear on behalf of Abraham before God. Heaven had not yet been purified by the blood of the Lamb.

“To postpone justice is to show mercy.”

Now we get to the real point. At best that’s equivocal. God will have mercy upon whom he’ll have mercy, correct? Well, if God has mercy upon whom he chooses, then that presupposes some will receive no mercy, (which your thesis denies).

But if that weren’t enough, please consider that those who do not receive mercy actually store up even more wrath for that dreadful day. How merciful is that?! The longer they live the more they’ll suffer in hell for rejecting the light of nature, if not the gospel should they be so unfortunate to hear it. Is that merciful? To suggest that vessels of wrath are somehow receiving temporal mercy while storing up additional wrath seems a bit preposterous to me. At best it’s to equivocate on what mercy means and at worst you’re being governed by a paradigm that’s leading you into contradiction. Mercy entails escaping punishment, not earning more of it while your punishment awaits.

Are you saying that God does not show mercy to the reprobate since they will receive judgment?

Yes.

Paul faults those with a "debased mind" (Rom. 1:28) with not giving thanks to God (v. 21). Thanks for what? Without doubt for His gifts and kindnesses-- His mercy.

They didn’t give thanks to God for who he is and for his good provision. Had they been the recipients of his mercy, they’d be converted! Why? Well, because mercy isn’t offered. Christ is offered. Mercy is effectual and, therefore, received by its intended recipients.

But regardless, by your standards those souls in hell that await their bodies being cast into hell are receiving mercy based upon the delay of the final torment.

 

[User20004000]

“It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings...” Charles Hodge

“Simply put, the cross is how God shows any mercy to sinners.” Tim Fost

Tim,

I hope you can see the difference. No one denies that the cross which redeems the church is the occasion for innumerable blessings in the world. The redeemed are salt and light, a blessing to the nations. But that’s a far cry from the cross being the source of any and all mercy to the non-elect.

As for temporal mercy, how does the cross impact one Muslim’s mercy to another?

 

[timfost]

“It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings...” Charles Hodge

“Simply put, the cross is how God shows any mercy to sinners.” Tim Fost

Tim,

I hope you can see the difference. No one denies that the cross which redeems the church is the occasion for innumerable blessings in the world. The redeemed are salt and light, a blessing to the nations. But that’s a far cry from the cross being the source of any and all mercy to the non-elect.

As for temporal mercy, how does the cross impact one Muslim’s mercy to another?

Hi Ron,

Could you clarify a few things for me so I can respond appropriately? Thanks in advance!

1. Did Abraham go to heaven when he died or did he have to wait until Christ came?

2. Do you categorically deny the doctrine of common grace?

3. In Matt. 5:43-48, is Christ describing God as being merciful to evil men or simply giving them good things?

Thanks!

 

[Joshua]

This is the problem with the term Common Grace. Yes, I'm aware that many of the Puritans used this terminology, but I do not believe they filled it up with the same meaning as many do today. Usually it was either in the sense of Common Operations of the Spirit, or common in the sense, common good toward all men, ultimately for the elect's sake, which -truly ultimately- is for the glory of Christ, all the elect in Him being His seed (as has been aforereferenced). Grace, biblically defined, is not common. It is special, it is precious, and those to Whom it has been given, it is effectual. A denial of the above, is not a denial of the passages with regard to God's kindness to all His creation, generally considered, nor any other passages of Scripture that speak to our duty. It is a denial that such things are Grace, biblically understood. It is not grace for the Lord to withhold his wrath for a time, in order that the "iniquity of the Amorites" would be filled up, such that God would execute His wrath upon them in His due time, at His good pleasure (Gen. 15). It does not accord with His anger and hatred of the wicked (Ps. 7, Ps. 11), to whom He says there is no peace (Isa. 57.19-21). It is with reference to, and in context of, these clear and explicit passages of God's hatred for sin and the wicked, that the passages of Him showing kindness to all men in general should be interpreted.

 

[User20004000]

Hi Ron,

Could you clarify a few things for me so I can respond appropriately? Thanks in advance!

1. Did Abraham go to heaven when he died or did he have to wait until Christ came?

2. Do you categorically deny the doctrine of common grace?

3. In Matt. 5:43-48, is Christ describing God as being merciful to evil men or simply giving them good things?

Thanks!

Could you clarify a few things for me so I can respond appropriately? Thanks in advance!

Tim,

With mix feelings, I’m responding to you. I do want you to see the glaring conclusion of your premises but at the same time, I think it has been adequately shown by myself and others already.

1. Did Abraham go to heaven when he died or did he have to wait until Christ came?

OT saints along with the lost went to Sheol (Hades). Obviously, they experienced different things, but they hadn’t yet come to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of angels, the general assembly – to the spirits of just men made perfect – to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant through the blood of sprinkling.

The point is, it’s not so much that the OT saints were transported from one place to another, though indeed Christ led captivity captive! But even more than that, today they are “with me” (Jesus the Christ) in paradise. The OT saints never received what was promised, the heavenly Jerusalem whose architect is God. They were not yet souls made perfect because the one – single – sacrifice for sin had not be offered up to God. Christ himself passed through the heavens and led captivity captive. It’s not as though they were awaiting Him in the Holy of Holies. He brought them into the very presence of God in a manner not yet experienced.

2. Do you categorically deny the doctrine of common grace?

I think common goodness is a happier term but without reservation I embrace the teaching. (That you would even ask suggests to me a misunderstanding of the doctrine.) God in his providence tends to his creation in order that he might consummate the church. He preserves the world (Noahic covenant), so that he might save the world (Abrahamic covenant). He restrains sin and gives sun and rain to the wicked and the good. Yes, there's common grace, properly understood.

But again, your position is that postponed justice reduces to mercy being presently obtained until justice is finally meted out. For one thing, justice cannot possibly be meted out until all the sin God has ordained for the non-elect comes to God's designed end. Yet your position suggests that those who currently heap upon themselves even more judgment, as they perpetually rebel in this life, are simultaneously and perpetually receiving mercy for their sin while they continue to acquire even more demerit. (I call that madness, frankly.) What I find doubly strange is that you would index this esoteric view of mercy for the non-elect to the cross that redeems only the elect, which, as I also pointed out, fails you in another sense because it doesn't pass the OT sniff test; the mercy you want to attribute to the OT reprobate precedes the cross, which also undermines your thesis. But the ultimate reductio of such an axiom is that those in hell awaiting the Lake of Fire are, by your standards, being shown mercy because a future judgment still awaits (and consequently is being postponed). I would think that conclusions like that should cause one to go back and examine first principles.

3. In Matt. 5:43-48, is Christ describing God as being merciful to evil men or simply giving them good things?

Neither. Jesus was commanding fallen creatures to do good to the wicked. That God gives sun and rain to the wicked is not mercy – in fact, for the reprobate it’ll end in greater condemnation, which is contra-mercy.

 

[timfost]

Hi Ron,

Well, there's a lot here to deal with. I'll try to be succinct.

1. Did Abraham go to heaven when he died or did he have to wait until Christ came?

OT saints along with the lost went to Sheol (Hades). Obviously, they experienced different things, but they hadn’t yet come to mount Sion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of angels, the general assembly – to the spirits of just men made perfect – to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant through the blood of sprinkling.

How could Abraham have gone to Sheol when he was justified? If God reckoned his believing for righteousness (Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4), what could have kept him from the heavenly kingdom? God pronouncing Abraham righteous was not a future event, but a present reality.

Gen. 15:6 "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted [past tense] it to him for righteousness."

The tense is confirmed in Romans 4. Likewise, Paul also desribes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness, picking up the teaching of David (Rom. 4:6-8). Now if OT saints had imputed righteousness in time and prior to the incarnation, I have to ask, "who's rightoeusness was imputed to them in that time?" If it was not Christ's righteousness, was it their own? I fear the logical conclusion of your argument would be a Papist delight! No, they were justified by the righteousness of Christ. There is no need to go to Sheol (as you define it), but being covered in Christ's righteousness, they could come into the very presence of God when they died!

2 Kings 2:11: "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Did God then tell him to go down to Sheol after the whirlwind took him into heaven? Did Elijah appear at the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:3) from Sheol since Christ did not yet suffer on the cross?

The point is, it’s not so much that the OT saints were transported from one place to another, though indeed Christ led captivity captive! But even more than that, today they are “with me” (Jesus the Christ) in paradise. The OT saints never received what was promised, the heavenly Jerusalem whose architect is God. They were not yet souls made perfect because the one – single – sacrifice for sin had not be offered up to God. Christ himself passed through the heavens and led captivity captive. It’s not as though they were awaiting Him in the Holy of Holies. He brought them into the very presence of God in a manner not yet experienced.

I think I gave substantial evidence that Christ's merits were applied in the OT. This appeal to Eph. 4 and Heb. 12 is speculative and does not at all confirm the doctrine to which you espouse.

I think common goodness is a happier term but without reservation I embrace the teaching. (That you would even ask suggests to me a misunderstanding of the doctrine.)

I'm not dogmatic that these terms must be used. I ask because you are distinguishing between Hodge's "innumerable blessings" and my use of (common) mercy. If there is a substantial difference between the terms grace and mercy, please enlighten me.

God in his providence tends to his creation in order that he might consummate the church. He preserves the world (Noahic covenant), so that he might save the world (Abrahamic covenant). He restrains sin and gives sun and rain to the wicked and the good. Yes, there's common grace, properly understood.

I agree, though would want to be careful that we don't have an anthrocentric approach to seeing God's dealings with the world. God is bringing glory to Himself in all of His creation, so in the preserving of the world until the elect are all brought in, He is also displaying His power in all things. I want to be careful to emphasize multiple purposes in God's dealings with this creation that all bring glory to His name. Again, I don't think you would disagree with this point.

But again, your position is that postponed justice reduces to mercy being presently obtained until justice is finally meted out. For one thing, justice cannot possibly be meted out until all the sin God has ordained for the non-elect comes to God's designed end.

We need to be careful here. Your language is mutually exclusive when I believe the true biblical doctrine is mutually inclusive. Even though the reprobate will suffer God's eternal wrath, this does not mean that everything up to that point is for the sole purpose of getting them there. God can have multiple purposes accomplished according to His decree. Could God purpose to demonstrate His mercy to those who reject it? Absolutely! He reveals to creation who He is and all of creation has experienced the kindness and mercy of God in temporal blessings (Psalm 145).

Yet your position suggests that those who currently heap upon themselves even more judgment, as they perpetually rebel in this life, are simultaneously and perpetually receiving mercy for their sin while they continue to acquire even more demerit. (I call that madness, frankly.)

I'm sorry you feel this way. "Perpetually" is a strong word, because all along I've said these mercies were "temporal." Further, I never have said they receive "mercy for their sin." They receive mercy in spite of their sin. If my position is unclear to you, I'd appreciate if you could ask more questions rather than assert what I'm saying when I do not say such things.

What I find doubly strange is that you would index this esoteric view of mercy for the non-elect to the cross that redeems only the elect, which, as I also pointed out, fails you in another sense because it doesn't pass the OT sniff test; the mercy you want to attribute to the OT reprobate precedes the cross, which also undermines your thesis.

This point only has validity if I accept your premise that Christ's merits could not be applied until after the crucifixion. Since I do not accept this premise, the perceived problem in my reasoning is moot.

But the ultimate reductio of such an axiom is that those in hell awaiting the Lake of Fire are, by your standards, being shown mercy because a future judgment still awaits (and consequently is being postponed). I would think that conclusions like that should cause one to go back and examine first principles.

The fact that they do not currently have bodies in hell does not mean that they currently receive mercy.

3. In Matt. 5:43-48, is Christ describing God as being merciful to evil men or simply giving them good things?

Neither. Jesus was commanding fallen creatures to do good to the wicked. That God gives sun and rain to the wicked is not mercy – in fact, for the reprobate it’ll end in greater condemnation, which is contra-mercy.

Paul says: "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness..." (Rom. 2:4-5a)

Please see Calvin's commentary on this point.

Further, you are making distinctions contrary to Scripture. When Christ teaches in Luke 6 (similar passage to Matt. 5), He says:

"But hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36)

Is the point here substantually different from Matt 5:48, when Christ says "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

Ron, I think the distinctions you are promoting help your theological position, but are not faithfully representing the Word of God. Please reconsider.

Respectfully,

Tim

 

[RamistThomist]

How could Abraham have gone to Sheol when he was justified?

Sheol isn't hell. It's the realm of the dead. It's not permanent. Those who were in Sheol (before Christ) experienced it differently. The demon kings of the underworld, the Shedim and Rephaim, no doubt had a worse go of it than Job.

 

[RamistThomist]

2 Kings 2:11: "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Sheol isn't the same thing as "heaven," nor did Elijah "die." In any case, your objections hinge on Sheol = bad place, which it clearly isn't.