I’m not sure if we can draw as clear-cut lines between “common” and “saving” grace in the way you’ve suggested. Please let me know know if I’ve misunderstood you in any way. Here are my thoughts:
The distinction between common grace and saving grace in my thinking is the difference between temporal blessings and eternal blessings and how each grace serves the end purpose of our Lord.
Although I agree with the general thrust of what you said above, I think we also need to see the relationship between common grace and saving grace. For example, we are justified by the means of faith in God. This
trust is demonstrated by believers
not only in depending on Christ for salvation, but depending on God for everything, even the temporal (think fourth petition “give us this day our daily bread”). Therefore what we may characterize as a “common grace” is very related to the demonstration of our faith in Christ unto salvation (“saving grace”).
Take for instance a baker who makes bread for his fellow man. He sells, or gives, this bread to a person to eat and that would be the common grace of God benefiting that person in the temporal sense. Now take that same piece of bread and serve it this Sunday at church. That would be a saving grace that the pastor serves to the congregation for the salvation of their souls, which is eternal. Now of course it must be taken in faith to be effectual but the person who is unelect also eats the bread, and that bread they partake in would simply be common grace that only serves as a temporal benefit to him or her.
Honestly, the above makes me feel a little uneasy, at least in the wording you used. The elements in communion, as I understand them, are not “saving graces” but “means of grace” (WLC 161). The bread, for example, is the sign of the grace, not the grace itself. The Spirit uses that bread to seal/assure the elect that the reality of the grace signified in the bread is indeed real and applied. But in no way is the bread itself a saving grace. I think you would agree with this.
Is the bread a
common grace to the unregenerate or reprobate? “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:29). I’m not sure if I’d want to classify this as a common grace even though the ungodly receive common grace from God for sure.
The bread that the baker sells in the market is within the creation mandate to be fruitful which is common to all men. The bread the pastor serves is a saving grace to the elect which was procured by Jesus by His life, death, and resurrection.
I’m not sure that we call the creation mandates
themselves (1. marriage/procreation, 2. Sabbath rest and 3. work) graces. Strictly speaking, a mandate itself is not a grace.
In other words, the type of grace God gives (saving or common) is based on His type of love. One type of love is based on who that creature is (a person created in His image which would be also a common love) the other type of grace would be a special love for his children which is based on Jesus and His work.
Although I would agree with you that God has both a common love for all of mankind and a special electing love for His people, I think we should be careful not to reduce common grace as only belonging to the reprobate as I have explained above. Also, Calvin beautifully speaks about Christ offering Himself to all, which could very well be understood as an offer of saving grace (though admittedly He does not permit the Spirit to work faith and apply that grace in all). From Calvin’s commentary on John 12:47:
After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately -- as it were -- reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious, for it is as if he had said, "Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined." No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself.
I know that the sincere offer is hotly debated here on PB, but I wanted to do my best to speak about the overlap of common and saving grace as I understand it. Even if you would disagree with my last point as it relates to the sincere offer, I think the rest of it should be agreeable even if we disagree on the sincerity of Christ’s offer of salvation.
Hope that helps...
