Dominion and Common Grace, the Biblical Basis of Progress
by Gary North [Tyler, Texas: Institutefor Christian Economics, 1987]
I find this book fascinating because he is defining Common Grace in a way that is at odds with how the Christian Reformed Church defined it in 1924. He also disagrees with VanTil's definition of Common Grace.
North is troubled by definitions of Common Grace that teach God gives gifts to the reprobate wicked out of an attitude of favour toward them.
For North, God gives good gifts to the wicked with the goal of building his Kingdom. God's attitude of favour is directed toward the elect who will benefit from these gifts indirectly.
I have difficulty understanding where the common unmerited favor or mercy is in North's thinking.
I have suggested before that more then one definition of Common Grace is floating around. Some seem talk about Common Grace the same way I speak of Natural Law. Some Christian Reformers use the term Common Grace in a way that I can not reconcile with historic Reformed doctrine or the confessions. They end up getting it tied up with the free well meant offer of the Gospel. Schilder did not seem to teach Common Grace but still taught the free offer.. VanTil takes a slightly different position. Now I find North takes another position.
Those who think the denial of Common Grace is ipso fact hyper Calvinism need to tell us which of the definitions of hypercalvinism is acceptable
by Gary North [Tyler, Texas: Institutefor Christian Economics, 1987]
I find this book fascinating because he is defining Common Grace in a way that is at odds with how the Christian Reformed Church defined it in 1924. He also disagrees with VanTil's definition of Common Grace.
North is troubled by definitions of Common Grace that teach God gives gifts to the reprobate wicked out of an attitude of favour toward them.
For North, God gives good gifts to the wicked with the goal of building his Kingdom. God's attitude of favour is directed toward the elect who will benefit from these gifts indirectly.
I have difficulty understanding where the common unmerited favor or mercy is in North's thinking.
I have suggested before that more then one definition of Common Grace is floating around. Some seem talk about Common Grace the same way I speak of Natural Law. Some Christian Reformers use the term Common Grace in a way that I can not reconcile with historic Reformed doctrine or the confessions. They end up getting it tied up with the free well meant offer of the Gospel. Schilder did not seem to teach Common Grace but still taught the free offer.. VanTil takes a slightly different position. Now I find North takes another position.
Those who think the denial of Common Grace is ipso fact hyper Calvinism need to tell us which of the definitions of hypercalvinism is acceptable
