The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Richard Tallach · #**174** (**permalink**) 07-05-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

I've been looking at some NT passages that use the word grace (charis). It seems clear that there is a grace/grace according to the NT that falls short of saving grace.

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

This passage is particularly interesting in that it explicitly mentions reprobation. Yet it still calls God's goodness to these men "grace" and says that it was their fault and responsibility for turning grace into lasciviousness.

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; (Heb. 12:15)

In the KJV margin we have "lest any man fall from grace", so it is clearly not saving grace. So we must call it something else, and Reformed people call it "common grace"

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29)

This shows that common grace extends further than outward things such as milk and honey/food and clothes and also includes the actings, warmings, convictings and drawings of the Spirit of God, short of salvation itself. These things are portrayed as good spiritual gifts and the God the Holy Spirit is characterised as acting in His capacity as "the Spirit of grace". It is because such influences are gracious gifts that the sin is so wicked and the punishment will be even sorer.

More later.........

-----Added 7/4/2009 at 02:20:08 EST-----

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4)

The grace that these Galatians had experienced must have been short of saving grace otherwise they could not have abandoned the faith. Paul doesn't offer the backsliding of truly saved Christians here.

Continuing backwards through the NT...

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal 2:21)

Paul speaks of a grace that can be frustrated. Clearly it cannot be the irresistible saving grace.

We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (II Cor 6:1)

Paul speaks of a grace that can be received in vain. Clearly not salvation, which when received cannot be lost.

Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow from the premises. What you have done is a good example of eisegesis, that is reading your conclusion into the texts of Scripture rather than demonstrating that your conclusion is a good and necessary consequence of the texts.

In each example you have cited, the word grace can refer to the full extent of saving grace when the term is meant doctrinally rather than experientially. It is the doctrine of saving grace that is twisted to derive lascivious conclusions about Christian practice (Jude); the true doctrine can be professed with the lips but not believed in the heart by a false professor (Hebrews 12) or disavower (Heb. 10, Galatians 5, 2 Cor 6) as the result. Since the subject of Gal 2. is the Apostle Paul referring to something he is not doing with reference to true saving grace, that Scripture is not relevant to a discussion of whether common grace exists or not; in fact none of these passages speak to the question of common grace.

The idea behind "grace" is that its giver gives something given to someone who doesn't deserve it, or to someone who deserves the contrary of what is received. If the reprobate (as a class) receive anything from God which they do not deserve, or anything from God that is contrary to what they deserve, than they have received, some form of a "grace" from God.

What all sinners deserve to receive from God is death (Gen 2:17, Rom 6:23a) and that immediately (Gen 2:17). If God allows the reprobate to experience anything other then immediate death for sin commited, he is giving them something they do not deserve and, in fact contrary to what they deserve.

Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.

Dear Timmo,

I stand corrected, but I would dispute whether none of these passages indicate undeserved goodness on the part of God to the reprobate and even the resistable strivings of the Holy Spirit with the reprobate which fall short of regeneration (e.g. Acts 7:51)

In Jude 4, it was a grace of God that these men heard the Gospel message of grace, even if they responded by using it as an excuse for sin.

Hebrews 12:15, indicates that they had to look to themselves and their ostensible brothers to make sure that their faith was not spurious. These people had heard the Gospel by grace, if not had influences of the Spirit upon them, also by grace.

Hebrews 10:29. I would not like to be dogmatic in saying that these people had experienced nothing of the Spirit of God/Grace of God, although clearly not regeneration, especially in the light of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Galatians 5:4 In God's grace they heard the message of grace and for a time looked as if they had received it by grace - but it was temporary faith.
(See e.g. Galatians 1:6)

Galatians 2:21 Although Paul wasn't frustrating God's grace, the implication is that the Galatians were by turning to a false Gospel.

II Corinthians 6:1 They received the grace of God. Whether it involved only the outward call of the Gospel or also some influences of the Spirit that fell short of conversion, I don't know?

If you wish to correct these thoughts further, I will not demur.

Whatever God's long term reasons for giving the reprobate what they do not deserve may be, or whatever the long term effects of these gifts in the lives of the reprobate may prove to have, those reasons do not change the fact that the reprobate who do not experience death immediately after sinning are experiencing some level of blessing from God, and that blessing is not what they deserve.

I agree. The point of contention here seems to be that because God's ultimate attitude to the reprobate is one of hatred, contempt and loathing, we should not call any of the good things that He gives to them grace/gifts of grace or common grace. Whatever the logic in that it seems to contradict the language of Scripture about these things the reprobate receive, including the "common operations of the Spirit". (WCF IX IV).

Yours,
Richard.

-----Added 7/5/2009 at 11:28:15 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalawine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

We just have to be careful in how we express and explain these things. Plenty of orthodox Reformed divines have believed in Common Grace.

Can you name these divines? Before or after Kuyper?

Engelsma, "I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on God’s part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim, every orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication. When I say that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, “bounties of providence,” whether Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s intellectual ability or whatever it may be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God."

Well Robert Dabney's "Systematic and Polemic Theology" (1871) and Charles Hodge's "Systematic Theology" (1871-3) for a start.

Quote from Engelsma
But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because they’re done by God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to ‘Christianize’ society. That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: ‘Christianizing’ society by a common grace of God.

I don't think that Hodge or Dabney would call the works of the unregenerate "truly good". More likely "outwardly good" or "good as far as they went". Neither do I think that Hodge and Dabney who were both postmillennialists would believe that society can be Christianised without large numbers of people in the society being converted and being salt and light. Nor do I think they believed in a third class of people who were "partially good"

I'd have to check up on the "well meant Gospel offer". I think Hodge and Dabney would say that when the Gospel is preached, the Spirit regenerates some, leaves others and works by common and not saving operations on others.(?)