common grace???

[Ivan]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I wish to reiterate my recommendation of Herman Kuiper's book Calvin on Common Grace. There is no better analysis of what Calvin had to say on the subject of common grace that I know of. Calvin is a wonderful fountain of insights into the Reformed doctrine of common grace, followed in my opinion only by Kuyper, both of whom acknowledge the important distinction between God's common grace towards all men and God's saving grace toward the elect.

I really do need to make more money in order to buy more books!

 

[The Lamb]

The problem using the Rain and Sun verse to support common grace is that are we suppose to believe that those who receive more rain and sun are receving more grace?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by The Lamb
The problem using the Rain and Sun verse to support common grace is that are we suppose to believe that those who receive more rain and sun are receving more grace?

Ahhh...nope. Case in point: the Flood. Nevertheless, God is gracious to all men (grace = unmerited favor, benevolence), and to the elect in a saving way.

 

[yeutter]

As I followed the debate on this thread I noticed that most of the ardent defenders of Common Grace follow Abraham Kuyper in rejecting natural law. That is not a hard and fast rule since Herman Hoeksema was in the Kuyper tradition and rejected both Common Grace and natural law.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by The Lamb
The problem using the Rain and Sun verse to support common grace is that are we suppose to believe that those who receive more rain and sun are receving more grace?

Ahhh...nope. Case in point: the Flood. Nevertheless, God is gracious to all men (grace = unmerited favor, benevolence), and to the elect in a saving way.

That is why I winked Andrew.

Grace can never be confused with providence. Benevolence is a long stretch to equate with grace.

All is for His glory, even his hatred of the reprobate.

That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

In His Name


Joseph

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by yeutter
As I followed the debate on this thread I noticed that most of the ardent defenders of Common Grace follow Abraham Kuyper in rejecting natural law. That is not a hard and fast rule since Herman Hoeksema was in the Kuyper tradition and rejected both Common Grace and natural law.

I believe Kuyper is painted wrongly in this case. He never would have proposed common grace as it is proposed by some today.


It also depends on what your classify as natural law.


Joseph

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by The Lamb
That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by The Lamb
That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

Sorry to hear that.

Please do not be sorry. To think that for one second God shows grace to the reprobate in love makes Him schizophrenic.

God does not love all equally. Calvin said this is a dreadful doctrine and I agree.

I believe He cares for all of His creation, but to equate that with grace is not exactly correct.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by The Lamb
That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

Sorry to hear that.

Please do not be sorry. To think that for one second God shows grace to the reprobate in love makes Him schizophrenic.

God does not love all equally. Calvin said this is a dreadful doctrine and I agree.

I believe He cares for all of His creation, but to equate that with grace is not exactly correct.

Nobody said God loves everyone equally. If you think this is the doctrine of common grace, you are mistaken.

I would encourage you, if you have not done so and are interested in learing what Calvin said about common grace, to read Herman Kuiper's book Calvin on Common Grace.

 

[Arch2k]

The problem with "common grace" is that it is not grace. Grace is unmerited favor. The wicked are under the covenant of works and therfore everything they get is merited. "Favor" has to do with intention. God does not use his indiscriminate providence for the betterment of the reprobate, but to fill up the measure of their sins. Psalm 92:7 says "When the wicked spring up like grass, and all the workers of iniquity flourish, it is only that they may be destroyed forever."

In the same sense that we can agree with Romans 8:28, that all things work together for good for the elect, we can say that all things work together for destruction for the rebrobate.

Matt's new book on the Two Wills in God does a good job of dealing with this topic.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The denial of common grace is related to the doctrine of hyper-Calvinism, which I view as great cause for concern.

4. The denial of common grace. The Protestant Reformed Churches (see #3 above) grew out of a controversy between Herman Hoeksema and the Christian Reformed Churches over the issue of common grace. Hoeksema denied that there is any such thing as common grace, and in the midst of the controversy, the PRC was founded.

The idea of common grace is implicit throughout Scripture. "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works" (Ps. 145:9). "He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:18-19). "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45).

The distinction between common grace and special grace closely parallels the distinction between the general call and the effectual call. Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God's goodness to humanity in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin's destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people's behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike. God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). That is common grace.

The doctrine of common grace has a long history that goes all the way back to Calvin and even Augustine. But type-4 hyper-Calvinism denies the concept, insisting that God has no true goodwill toward the non-elect and therefore shows them no favor or "grace" of any kind.

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Berkhof's treatment of common grace is worth reading.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by The Lamb
That is why I deny the traditional understandign of common grace.

Sorry to hear that.

Please do not be sorry. To think that for one second God shows grace to the reprobate in love makes Him schizophrenic.

God does not love all equally. Calvin said this is a dreadful doctrine and I agree.

I believe He cares for all of His creation, but to equate that with grace is not exactly correct.

Nobody said God loves everyone equally. If you think this is the doctrine of common grace, you are mistaken.

I would encourage you, if you have not done so and are interested in learing what Calvin said about common grace, to read Herman Kuiper's book Calvin on Common Grace.

I have read it and disagree. When read in context, I do not believe you can ally with Calvin.

Let me present clear definitions right from the horses who fought this dreadful disease.


http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_55.html


Now please do not call me hyper this or hyper that. I have denied common grace before I even knew what it claims to be.


And people have referred me to Berkhoff and Calvin on common grace 100times. I have read them and disagree.

There is a doctrine of "common grace" that teaches a form of benevolence from God to all creation, in that He provides a world in which mankind can survive and benefits such as animals and plants for food, heat and light from the sun and rain to provide water for life. However, this is not the type of "common grace" that is spoken of here and by others.

whatever disposition God has toward the non-elect, it cannot be properly termed grace! To me, that is the most important point. If you presently believe that calling it 'love' is appropriate, I will not be upset. However, I do challenge even this notion today.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Joseph,

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Joseph,

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

'
May God bless you Andrew and If I am wrong may He bring me to repentance swiftly.

Let me just say I am in no way saying God is not good and perfect in all He does. I am stating that this goodness does not equal grace or Love.

I have struggled with the possiblity of different levels of love, and am still entertaining that thought. But as of now I state that God in no way loves the non elect.


Joseph

[Edited on 3-23-2005 by The Lamb]

 

[pastorway]

TO EVERYONE IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Grace is "favor." That is what the word means. So any person who gets any favor from God gets grace. Not all grace saves. So a person who gets favor from God (even if they are not saved) has received "common grace."

Who has received favor from God? Anyone who has not gotten exactly and immediately what they deserve from Him in His perfect justice and wrath.

Who would that be? ALL of us. Every human being who for one split second does not get WRATH and JUDGMENT is receiving common grace. Because they are getting something they do NOT deserve - favor.....GRACE!

As has been demonstrated on this board through a multitude of threads, posts, quotes, links, etc, on the topic.....a denial of common grace is hyper-calvinisnist. Period. Fact.

Phil Johnson on Hyper-Calvinism: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Matt McMahon on Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Critique of Hyper-Calvinism

See also: Hypercalvinism at The Threshold (Monergism.com)

Everyone in the debate or searching for answers about common grace should read all of the links provided in this discussion and then we can talk about it. For now, we are done here.

Phillip

[edited to clarify the intended recipient of this post.....ie. EVERYONE]

[Edited on 3-24-05 by pastorway]