God's Common Grace

[James Hosie]

No man knoweth either love or hatred by outward mercy or misery; for all things come alike to all, to the righteous and to the unrighteous, to the good and to the bad, to the clean and to the unclean. The sun of prosperity shines as well upon brambles of the wilderness as upon fruit-trees of the orchard; the snow and hail of adversity lights upon the best garden as well as upon the stinking dunghill or the wild waste.

Thomas Brooks - Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

That's not common grace. Its God's indiscriminate providence. And that is a BIG difference. Grace is not "in things", grace is ONLY in Christ.

 

[timfost]

Sounds like common grace to me...

Thanks for sharing!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

There is nothing common about grace.

Westminster was careful on this.

In a committee looking at this question they asked:

Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ?

A. Although from Christ some common favors redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible Church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation but only such as are members of the Church invisible.

Common favors, i.e. indiscriminate providence. Not grace. Grace is only found in Christ unless one is advocating Arminianism, Semi Pelagianism or Amyraldianism.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The doctrine or rather the branch of the doctrine we left at, was (and it is exclusive) that Christ’s death is only intended to be a price for the sins of God’s elect people and was laid down with respect to them. His death and sufferings are to be looked upon and considered only as a price and satisfaction for their sins and for the sins of none other. Or thus: Jesus Christ in His suffering and in the laying down of His life, had a respect to the elect and intended the removing of the sins and transgressions of God’s elect people
only and of none other.

We know nothing that we can make of these words, nor of the prophet’s scope in them, but this; who as he has been describing Christ’s sufferings in all other respects, so does he in this, to wit, in respect of the persons for whom He suffered and of the meritorious cause and end of His sufferings; for says the text, For the transgressions of my people, that is, of God’s elect people, was he stricken.

This branch of the doctrine is of great weight and concernment in the whole strain of grace; for if this march-stone [boundary stone] be lifted and removed, grace becomes common and as some call it, universal, and so to be in effect no grace at all. For grace has a peculiar channel of its own, wherein it runs towards a certain select number and not towards all. I do not mean of grace taken in a large sense, for so all men as they are partakers of any mercy or of common favors, may be said to have grace extended to them; but I mean God’s special grace, favor and good-will, which is extended only to the elect, for whose sins Christ suffered. The right bounding of which doctrine shows forth both God’s sovereignty in the dispensing of grace and the freeness thereof in communicating and manifesting of it to whom He will; and which, thus considered, is especially engaging of the hearts of them on whom He pleases to manifest it.​

James Durham, Sermon 33 on Isaiah 53:8, Collected Sermons
of James Durham, Christ Crucified: or, The Marrow of the Gospel
in Seventy-Two Sermons on the Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), 404-405.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

That's not common grace. Its God's indiscriminate providence. And that is a BIG difference. Grace is not "in things", grace is ONLY in Christ.

I first learned about this from A.W. Pink in the Attributes of God. He pointed out that grace is only in reference to the elect, while kindness is something God shows to all people.

 

[timfost]

Westminster divine Robert Harris:

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

 

[timfost]

Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford:

"But, as the seed and the growing tree differ not gradually only, but in nature and specifically; as a thing without life, is not of that same nature and essence, with a creature that hath a vegetative life and growth; so the preparatory good affections of desire, hunger, sorrow, humiliation, going before conversion, differ specifically from those renewed affections which follow after; the former being acts of grace, but not of saving grace..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=PONCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq="growing+tree+differ+not+gradually"&source=bl&ots=UMizLQE-Aa&sig=voMyMqy7LMCaSV6R7ybVqIuOkYg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi08--Ar8fXAhUMJiYKHTceBWEQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22growing%20tree%20differ%20not%20gradually%22&f=false

 

[timfost]

John Owen:

"Concerning grace itself, it is either common or special. Common or geneal grace consisteth in the external revelation of the will of God by his word, with some illumination of the mind to perceive it, and correction of the affections not too much to contemn it; and this, in some degree or other, to some more, to some less, is common to all that are called. Special grace is the grace of regeneration, comprehending the former, adding more spiritual acts, but especially presupposing the purpose of God, on which its efficacy doth chiefly depend."

 

[TylerRay]

In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.

The people who argue against using the term common grace do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term grace to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?

Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?

 

[OPC'n]

In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.

The people who argue against using the term common grace do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term grace to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?

Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?

Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have

 

[earl40]

Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have

Understood, though when one dispels of God giving favor to all (grace) one has to use words like "indiscriminate providence" which makes God giving good things based on what exactly? in my opinion this takes away the thought that God can love all men in some sense.

 

[Parakaleo]

One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.

We who prefer not to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".

I say all this also knowing there are plenty of people who use the words "common grace" without straying into those tendencies.

 

[TylerRay]

Because when you start giving grace any old definition you want then the doctrine of grace is diminished or even changed. The doctrine of grace is the most important doctrine we have

Not so. The difference is merely terminological. The sharp distinction between saving graces and common graces is maintained.

 

[timfost]

In my opinion, the debate over common grace among Presbyterians (I am excluding Protestant Reformed folks here--they hold a different view) is pointless. Both teach that God is kind to all. One calls this common grace, another says that it should be called general kindness or benevolence. Their doctrine only differs in name.

The people who argue against using the term common grace do so on the basis that the Scriptures do not use the term grace to refer to common benefits; but are we bound to use the very language of the Scriptures in our doctrinal formulations? We don't mind using non-Scriptural language in other areas of doctrine--why make a big deal of it here?

Why not just admit that we are confessing the same thing, albeit with different language, and bear with one another in our various preferences?

Well said, brother.

I quoted some divines only to prove that some of them used grace in this way. I should have started with the clarification you made.

Thanks!

 

[TylerRay]

We who prefer not to use the label "common grace" are wary of Kuyperian tendencies to want to redeem sinful culture and "plunder the Egyptians" by retaining that which is "good", owing to "common grace".

I say all this also knowing there are plenty of people who use the words "common grace" without straying into those tendencies.

Right. That's why clear definitions must be put forward. When I use the term, I only mean to say that God is good to all. Personally, though, I have no strong preference for either manner of speaking--my concern is that right doctrine be maintained and that charity be extended.

 

[TylerRay]

Well said, brother.

I quoted some divines only to prove that some of them used grace in this way. I should have started with the clarification you made.

Thanks!

The quotations you provided were very helpful, brother. They show that at least some of the eminent divines of the past used this kind of language.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

All of this, again, is about God's intention.

What does God intend to the reprobate when he gives them apples, families, rain, sunshine and such things?

There is no "grace" in this.

Does God intend good to the reprobate in being "merciful" or "gracious" to them? (Those terms should be reserved for grace in Christ.) It would be a contradiction otherwise based on the manner in which Scripture uses the terms "grace" and "mercy." Or is his indiscriminate providence, something which intends them something else. (i.e. in light of the goodness of God leading them to repentance... and such Scriptural ideas.)

It's not simply semantics. It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp. (Which is the reason my 800 page Ph.D. dissertation was on this subject and surveyed Calvin, Perkins, Turretin, Augustine, Owen, Edwards, Greenhill and Bunyan on these ideas, as well as how they preached the Gospel.)

Turretin and Edwards (and yes Calvin) say it best in view of the reprobate's ultimate demise and God's intention for them.

Turretin: "Rather the question is whether the disparity of the event does not prove a disparity of intention in the caller. Or whether all are called with the intention and purpose that they should partake of salvation. This they assert; we deny." (i.e. the Reformed deny.) Turretin, F. Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2) 505. He says the difficulty of dealing faithfully (i.e. Scripturally) with common grace is an Arminian idea which flows into the question of justification and faith, "This question about the difference between temporary and justifying faith was raised by the Remonstrants." Turretin, F. (n.d.). Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2). 589.

Edwards: The filling up of men’s sins is the direct result of the decree of God’s good pleasure. He has ordained a certain and set limit to their sin and when that sin reaches that limit, they are judged. John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are being fed for the slaughter. (McMahon, C. M. (n.d.). THE TWO WILLS OF GOD: Does God Really Have Two Wills?)

And this is also where responsibility must be made with thinking about hermeneutics, or the compound and divided sense.

 

[TylerRay]

All of this, again, is about God's intention.

What does God intend to the reprobate when he gives them apples, families, rain, sunshine and such things?

There is no "grace" in this.

Does God intend good to the reprobate in being "merciful" or "gracious" to them? (Those terms should be reserved for grace in Christ.) It would be a contradiction otherwise based on the manner in which Scripture uses the terms "grace" and "mercy." Or is his indiscriminate providence, something which intends them something else. (i.e. in light of the goodness of God leading them to repentance... and such Scriptural ideas.)

It's not simply semantics. It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp. (Which is the reason my 800 page Ph.D. dissertation was on this subject and surveyed Calvin, Perkins, Turretin, Augustine, Owen, Edwards, Greenhill and Bunyan on these ideas, as well as how they preached the Gospel.)

Turretin and Edwards (and yes Calvin) say it best in view of the reprobate's ultimate demise and God's intention for them.

Turretin: "Rather the question is whether the disparity of the event does not prove a disparity of intention in the caller. Or whether all are called with the intention and purpose that they should partake of salvation. This they assert; we deny." (i.e. the Reformed deny.) Turretin, F. Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2) 505. He says the difficulty of dealing faithfully (i.e. Scripturally) with common grace is an Arminian idea which flows into the question of justification and faith, "This question about the difference between temporary and justifying faith was raised by the Remonstrants." Turretin, F. (n.d.). Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2). 589.

Edwards: The filling up of men’s sins is the direct result of the decree of God’s good pleasure. He has ordained a certain and set limit to their sin and when that sin reaches that limit, they are judged. John Gerstner quotes and explains Edwards on this when he says, “Edwards preached that all that happens to the wicked in this “world prepares ‘em” for the pit (Isaiah 30:33). In his “improvement” of the sermon on Proverbs 29:25, Edwards warns his people that while they rejoice in their prosperity, they do not all know but that they are being fed for the slaughter. (McMahon, C. M. (n.d.). THE TWO WILLS OF GOD: Does God Really Have Two Wills?)

And this is also where responsibility must be made with thinking about hermeneutics, or the compound and divided sense.

Dr. McMahon,

I think your doctrine is a tinge unbalanced here. God's goodness to all his creatures is explicated well by Calvin in his comment on Psalm 145:9:

[God] is good to all without discrimination, as he makes his sun to rise upon the good and upon the wicked. (Matthew 5:45.) Forgiveness of sin is a treasure from which the wicked are excluded, but their sin and depravity does not prevent God from showering down his goodness upon them, which they appropriate without being at all sensible of it. Meanwhile believers, and they only, know what it is to enjoy a reconciled God.

God deals in kindness toward even the reprobate. While their lack of gratitude for his kindness does, indeed, increase their guilt, it is still kindness that God shows to them. That is not to say that God doesn't intend their ultimate damnation--it simply means that even the reprobate have the opportunity to "taste and see that God is good." Indeed, it is because God gives them the opportunity to taste of his goodness that their guilt is increased by their lack of gratitude.

 

[timfost]

It is the line of thought and where that line goes, which is right into the Arminian and Amyraldian camp.

Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???

Turretin

Here's Turretin:

"The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (kataprothesin), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God."

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:588.

Rev. Matthew, I say this respectfully. I think you are blowing this one way out of proportion. It's fine you don't like the term common grace, but please don't repeal history.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dr. McMahon,

I think your doctrine is a tinge unbalanced here. God's goodness to all his creatures is explicated well by Calvin in his comment on Psalm 145:9:


God deals in kindness toward even the reprobate. While their lack of gratitude for his kindness does, indeed, increase their guilt, it is still kindness that God shows to them. That is not to say that God doesn't intend their ultimate damnation--it simply means that even the reprobate have the opportunity to "taste and see that God is good." Indeed, it is because God gives them the opportunity to taste of his goodness that their guilt is increased by their lack of gratitude.

So it does damn them further or it doesn't damn them further? Which is better?

(This is the question that Edwards in the corpus of all his preaching and writing wrestles with. What I'm pointing out is that is not by far not as cut and dry as you are making it seem. Again, the disparity of the event proves the intention of God. Does God intended them good, or does he intend them further judgment and damnation?).

Is Calvin speaking in the compound sense or divided sense? And why does that matter?

"Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???"
If they hadn't explained in the fullness of their writings and preaching what they meant, it could very well have been that they were. But they did not, (knowing this after having read all their works. We don't want to proof text the Puritans and such. Keep them in their overall context).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Were Harris, Rutherford and Owen leaning towards Amyraldianism???



Here's Turretin:

"The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (kataprothesin), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God."

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:588.

Rev. Matthew, I say this respectfully. I think you are blowing this one way out of proportion. It's fine you don't like the term common grace, but please don't repeal history.

I'm not. It's the use of proper language and proper theological constructs, as well as a matter of heremeneutics. No, I don't like term. It's sloppy language the bible never uses in the same way. But Turretin takes a very long time and lots of pages to explain what he means. It's not set in a single paragraph. And, he takes considerable time explain this in the compound and divided sense, which in this thread and the other thread its not even being considered.

I'll ask here what I asked elsewhere....

Does God intend to do the reprobate good in common grace?
What is that good?
Do they receive that good?
Does God actually get what he desires?

 

[timfost]

Does God intend to do the reprobate good in common grace?

Would we expect any less from the fountain of all good?

Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Would we expect any less from the fountain of all good?

Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?

I would prefer sticking to what Scripture teaches based on understanding it and not twisting it to fit illogical or unbiblical ideas.

So, clarify, God intends them good, but doesn't get what he intends.

"Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?" This is the scriptural doctrine of reprobation.

(Keep in mind, all of this (in both threads) is why preaching today is terrible by most preachers who don't know how to preach the Gospel. They misunderstand what God's intends, or desires, etc., and therefore ruin Theology Proper and the supremacy of God in preaching. All this has PROFOUND practical application.)

 

[timfost]

"Would you prefer that He is fattening them for the slaughter?" This is the scriptural doctrine of reprobation.

No, this is hyper-Calvinism. You don't seem to have a Puritan's mind on this...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

No, this is hyper-Calvinism. You don't seem to have a Puritan's mind on this...

Ad hominem. Great work.

Keep in mind, you are charging an ordained minister of the Gospel in this, with your false and poorly thought out assertion, (which is against not a few commandments and instructions). Tread more carefully (moderators O moderators where art thou?); I'm not holding that against you. Your threads have become more emotional than theological. And I do understand that having spoken with a myriad of people who believe what you have been trying to say.) As a matter of history, the reason I wrote Two Wills was sparked by a reformed baptist group of ministers preaching what you have been saying, but with a Murry / Dabney twist (go figure that) - they said - we don't really know how all this works, but we are still going to tell people that God intends things he doesn't get and desires things he never has fulfilled, like the salvation of souls. I'm not being facetious here. A friend of mine and I, while sitting in the pew, listen to them rattle off on this for weeks, and we finally sat with them, for over a month, and they just didn't want to change that idea. They wanted it to be thrown into the box of mystery, a la Dabney and Murray. Really, its the box of illogicity and contradiction. It was a forthright denial of things we know to be true in Theology Proper and with God's decrees of election and reprobation. (It was about 20 years ago).

In any case, so, now you are showing you may not understand either God's decree, and certainly have a wrong view of what the false teaching of hyper Calvinism is. That's not helpful in the overall discussion when you are giving advice to other people. (This is part of the problem of simply winging ideas out over the intenet.) Honestly, I have to say, without being disrespectful, I beleived at some point you would go there. And what it comes down to is a fundamental flaw in understanding the attributes and intentions of God, i.e. Theology Proper (which others have already pointed out to you).

As I said in the other thread, and I don't have time to untwist all that you need untwisted on this - its just too much to do in typing it all out. I've already typed it all out in Two Wills. Check there if you are really searching for the truth of this hermeneutical question. The implications you haven't thought through are in fact staggering to me and saddening, but not surprising in the church today; even in that your now accusing a minister of what you believe is hyper Calvinism (which the doctrine of reprobation is not a hyper-Calvinist doctrine - keep in mind, when you asked the question back to me, you were QUOTING EDWARDS. Its not hyper-calvinism, which is complete nonsense, (and I think to many reading the thread. No disrespect intended.)

(Listen to some of my recent sermons and tell me if they are hyper-Calvinist. Could it be that you may just be misunderstanding some important foundational principles in theology and hermeneutics?)

 

[Parmenas]

Quotes on God's Uncommon Grace (incl. words from Thomas Watson, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, John Calvin, and Francis Turretin).

 

[timfost]

Quotes on God's Uncommon Grace (incl. words from Thomas Watson, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, John Calvin, and Francis Turretin).

Wyatt,

We all agree that saving faith is not common.

 

[Parmenas]

Wyatt,

We all agree that saving faith is not common.

Mr. Foster, I am most glad that we do. We are Christian brethren. However, that is not what these quotations address.

 

[TylerRay]

So it does damn them further or it doesn't damn them further? Which is better?

Yes, it absolutely does. I tried to make that clear. However, the acts, in themselves, are acts of kindness. God gives the reprobate things that are inherently good.

(This is the question that Edwards in the corpus of all his preaching and writing wrestles with. What I'm pointing out is that is not by far not as cut and dry as you are making it seem. Again, the disparity of the event proves the intention of God. Does God intended them good, or does he intend them further judgment and damnation?).

I confess that I am not as well studied as you are. I haven't read Edwards. However, I see no problem with saying that God intends them to have some temporal good, and ultimate damnation.

Is Calvin speaking in the compound sense or divided sense? And why does that matter?

I'm not sure just what you mean by "the compound sense or divided sense." Would you enlighten me?

My understanding of the "two wills" is this:
1. God's will, in the proper sense of the term, is a single creative act by which he decrees all things. This is sometimes called God's decretive will.

2. God, in his condescension to man, reveals certain principles about his character in terms of volition. In this sense, we may speak of God "wanting" man to obey this or that commandment--when he may or may not have decreed it to come to pass. This, sometimes called God's revealed will, is actually a figurative use of the language of volition, and implies no act of volition in God.

I really don't like the language of "two wills." Like I said above, God only has one will, in the proper sense. However, he is so kind as to allow for the figurative use of volitional language, when it really isn't descriptive of his actual will any more than anthropomorphisms are descriptive of an actual body.