Common Grace Purchased By Christ

[Ben Chomp]

I am helped again today by Berkhof:

"While Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, nevertheless the whole human race, including the impenitent and the reprobate, derive great benefits from His death. The blessings of common grace may be regarded as indirect fruits of the atoning work of Christ."

This is how Christ can be the savior of all men, but especially of those who believe.

If my unbelieving, reprobate neighbor possesses the gift of teaching, it is because Jesus Christ purchased it for him on the cross. And Jesus Christ will use it, in spite of my neighbor's unbelief, to build up his church and advance his kingdom.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

While I recognise that many Reformed divines in the past believed that the death of Christ did have a universal reference so that if the wicked were to believe and repent they would be saved by Christ's death (i.e. the non-Amyraldian Hypothetical Universalist position) [1], Louis Berkhof's position seems to go beyond even that view. He appears to be saying that Christ's death purchased things that are merely natural gifts. Christ did not need to die in order for us to understand that 2 + 2 = 4, as we know that from nature and reason. Maybe I have misunderstood the venerable Professor Berkhof, but I prefer what Nicholas Byfield says on this subject:

Q. Who receive the benefit of this Redemption wrought by Christ?

A. Only the Church, which is a company of men in every age that are God's Elect, gathered by the power of Christ, & separated from the World, unto the sincere profession of true Religion.

Nicholas Byfield, The principal grounds of Christian religion. Briefly and plainly propounded by way of question and answer for the instructing of the younger sort (London: Ralph Rounthwaite, 1625), pp 12-13 (emphasis added).

[1] This view is not my personal opinion.

 

[Ben Chomp]

While I recognise that many Reformed divines in the past believed that the death of Christ did have a universal reference so that if the wicked were to believe and repent they would be saved by Christ's death (i.e. the non-Amyraldian Hypothetical Universalist position) [1], Louis Berkhof's position seems to go beyond even that view. He appears to be saying that Christ's death purchased things that are merely natural gifts. Christ did not need to die in order for us to understand that 2 + 2 = 4, as we know that from nature and reason. Maybe I have misunderstood the venerable Professor Berkhof, but I prefer what Nicholas Byfield says on this subject:

Q. Who receive the benefit of this Redemption wrought by Christ?

A. Only the Church, which is a company of men in every age that are God's Elect, gathered by the power of Christ, & separated from the World, unto the sincere profession of true Religion.

Nicholas Byfield, The principal grounds of Christian religion. Briefly and plainly propounded by way of question and answer for the instructing of the younger sort (London: Ralph Rounthwaite, 1625), pp 12-13 (emphasis added).

[1] This view is not my personal opinion.

I think Byfield is being imprecise. Jeremiah Burroughs also taught that any grace anyone receives - whether it be common or special - is purchased by Christ on the cross. Jesus purchases every blessing even for the reprobate. Burroughs, in "The Rare Jewel Of Christian Contentment", teaches that the reprobate have these blessings like the criminal on death row. They will ultimately perish but they still benefit from grace for a time and this grace finds its origins in the cross.

I don't like the term "natural gifts". It's not a biblical concept. Every gift comes from the Holy Spirit and from the Father of lights.

 

[Ben Chomp]

Why didn't Christ need to die in order for us to know that 2+2=4? It's an amazing thing that God has any patience with sinners at all - let alone with vessels of wrath. Apart from God's common grace, we should all be swept away in a moment. Why does God's common grace not come through Christ?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think Byfield is being imprecise. Jeremiah Burroughs also taught that any grace anyone receives - whether it be common or special - is purchased by Christ on the cross. Jesus purchases every blessing even for the reprobate. Burroughs, in "The Rare Jewel Of Christian Contentment", teaches that the reprobate have these blessings like the criminal on death row. They will ultimately perish but they still benefit from grace for a time and this grace finds its origins in the cross.

I don't like the term "natural gifts". It's not a biblical concept. Every gift comes from the Holy Spirit and from the Father of lights.

Thanks for the reference to Jeremiah Burroughs.

 

[timfost]

Ben, you may enjoy this link. You could also add Sheds and C. Hodge to the list. Let me know if you want quotes from them.

https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...nement/redemptive-benefits-for-the-reprobate/

 

[timfost]

And this:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=13857

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

"GENERAL BENEFITS RECEIVED THROUGH COMMON GRACE

We do not deny, of course, that all mankind does receive many and important blessings because of the work of Christ. The penalty which would have been inflicted because of sin is temporarily postponed. Fallen man in this world remains on a much higher plane than that of the fallen angels who have been abandoned to evil and who are commonly referred to in Scripture as evil spirits or demons. As the Gospel is preached and the plan of redemption is progressively worked out, mankind at large shares many uplifting influences. The forces of evil are kept within bounds, and incomparably higher standards of moral, social and economic life are maintained. Paul could say to the heathen people of Lystra that God “left not Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness,” Acts 14:17. God makes His sun to shine on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. These are the blessings of common grace. Though designed primarily for the elect, they are shared by all mankind; and since this world is not the place of final rewards and punishments, but the place of discipline and testing and development for the Lord’s people, these blessings are oftentimes enjoyed in greater abundance by the non-elect than by the elect. But in themselves they are not sufficient to bring a single soul to salvation. They are on an entirely different plane from the blessings of special grace, which are regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification. But in a secondary way the blessings of common grace are designed to serve God’s purpose in revealing His glory, manifesting His character, filling the world with beauty and happiness, and in general playing their necessary part in the development of His kingdom. There is, then, a sense in which Christ died for all men, and we do not reply to the Arminian tenet with an unqualified negative. But what we do maintain is that His death had special reference to the elect, that with the accompanying influences of the Holy Spirit which are secured by it, it is effectual for their salvation, and that the effects which are produced in others are only incidental to this one great purpose."


Boettner, L. (1947). Studies in theology (pp. 325–326). Grand Rapids, MI: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Why didn't Christ need to die in order for us to know that 2+2=4?

It is known from nature and reason, not from special revelation. Christ did not die in order to teach us basic mathematics. He needed to die in order to bestow upon sinners a saving knowledge of God.

While I am not saying that there is not a place for such thinking concerning common grace within the Reformed tradition, though I would need to look into it further for myself, there is a danger of confusing nature with grace.

 

[Ben Chomp]

It is known from nature and reason, not from special revelation. Christ did not die in order to teach us basic mathematics. He needed to die in order to bestow upon sinners a saving knowledge of God.

While I am not saying that there is not a place for such thinking concerning common grace within the Reformed tradition, though I would need to look into it further for myself, there is a danger of confusing nature with grace.

Isn't it a grace that sinners get to enjoy nature and learn from it rather than being obliterated? From where does this grace come if not from Christ?

 

[jwithnell]

It is known from nature and reason, not from special revelation. Christ did not die in order to teach us basic mathematics. He needed to die in order to bestow upon sinners a saving knowledge of God.

While I am not saying that there is not a place for such thinking concerning common grace within the Reformed tradition, though I would need to look into it further for myself, there is a danger of confusing nature with grace.

You would disagree with Corelius Van Til that man's knowledge is analogical to Gods? That as an image-bearer man can know only because his knowledge, though finite, is possible by reflecting God's? That a believer and nonbeliever may state a similar fact that is substantively different because a believer thinks God's thoughts after Him, while a nonbeliever asserts facts from a rebeliously, independent position.

 

[RamistThomist]

You would disagree with Corelius Van Til that man's knowledge is analogical to Gods? That as an image-bearer man can know only because his knowledge, though finite, is possible by reflecting God's? That a believer and nonbeliever may state a similar fact that is substantively different because a believer thinks God's thoughts after Him, while a nonbeliever asserts facts from a rebeliously, independent position.

That's not quite what Daniel is saying. Only Clarkians and Barthians deny that our knowledge is analogical of God's. We all agree there. The point Daniel was making is that Christ didn't die to mediate the knowledge that 2+2 = 4.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You would disagree with Corelius Van Til that man's knowledge is analogical to Gods? That as an image-bearer man can know only because his knowledge, though finite, is possible by reflecting God's? That a believer and nonbeliever may state a similar fact that is substantively different because a believer thinks God's thoughts after Him, while a nonbeliever asserts facts from a rebeliously, independent position.

See Jacob's comment above this one.

 

[jwithnell]

That's not quite what Daniel is saying. Only Clarkians and Barthians deny that our knowledge is analogical of God's. We all agree there. The point Daniel was making is that Christ didn't die to mediate the knowledge that 2+2 = 4.

Thomas Aquinas creeps into a reformed formulation of epistemology more commonly than I'm pleased to see. If y'all are limiting the focus to Jesus' mediation then

 

[Ben Chomp]

That's not quite what Daniel is saying. Only Clarkians and Barthians deny that our knowledge is analogical of God's. We all agree there. The point Daniel was making is that Christ didn't die to mediate the knowledge that 2+2 = 4.

But Christ's death makes it possible for sinners to know that 2+2=4 because Christ's death purchases the common graces of intellect, time, and energy spent on this planet which otherwise would be swept away from us because of God's wrath toward our sin.

 

[Ben Chomp]

I think it can be misleading to say that we have some things by nature and other things by grace.

For example, it's been said that some people have certain gifts by nature. My unbelieving and reprobate neighbor is naturally gifted as a teacher. So, it's been said, he has this gift by nature and not by grace.

On the other hand, we have the new affections of regeneration not by nature but by grace. These are not things we were born with, but things God graciously gives us in salvation.

The latter point is certainly true, but I think the former point is misleading. Anything that any creature enjoys from God's hand is a gift of his grace. We don't deserve any of it. This is because we are undeserving creatures who cannot deserve anything from the infinite Creator. But it is doubly true because we are sinners and have forfeited any "rights" we might otherwise have had due to our sin.

So when a sinner enjoys anything at all - whether it's a sip of coffee, a sunny morning, or the knowledge that 2+2=4 - this is God's grace. While these things are not redemptive in themselves, they are nonetheless grace purchased for the human race by the merits of Christ.

 

[Solparvus]

@Reformed Bookworm post #8, I wonder if maybe John Owen has some parallel thoughts.

In the privilege of adoption, all things in heaven and earth belong to the Christian. The wicked have no title to anything in this world. "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it," Psalm 24:1. The only true possessors are the Lord and those united to Christ, who has taken the dominion which we lost. When the wicked use anything in the world they are, as Owen calls them, "bad faith possessors". They have no title or rights to use anything in this world. However, they are tolerated possession for one reason only, and that is to maximize the inheritance of God's adopted children.

My thoughts: if the blood of Christ has purchased common grace, it would seem that it's as a consequence of the children of God being forgiven, granted an inheritance, and the world being given measures of common grace for the sake of those who would inherit it. I can't imagine that they themselves are ever recipients of any salvific benefit whatsoever of Christ's blood. Might this be where Boettner is partially going?

@Ben Chomp in post #3 is this where Burroughs is going with the death row analogy?

 

[TheOldCourse]

I believe that Daniel is on the right track here. Christ's atoning death and mediation bore covenantal fruit. Thus, the "common grace" benefits that unbelievers enjoy from his death were usually regarded as being occasioned by the death of Christ rather than the fruit of it, and were those benefits particularly associated with the mediation of the new covenant--forbearance, the visible church, restraint of wickedness, etc. See, for instance John Brown of Haddington:

"This satisfaction being infinitely excellent in itself, fulfilled in a nature common to man, and thus equally suited to every man's case, a sufficient foundation was laid for a general and indefinite invitation of them to receive and rest on it, as their justifying righteousness before God: and all of them according to their degree of connection with the elect, receive manifold gifts, offices, or outward accommodations which otherwise they would not, Isa lv 1 7 xxxv Matt xxiv 22 Eph iv 11 12; though indeed reprobates enjoy these things as consequents, rather than as proper fruits, of the death of Christ with respect to them." (italics original).

Witsius and Turretin likewise clearly limit the benefits of Christ's death to the covenantal economy and speak of them as occasioned by rather than fruits of his death. This distinction maintains that the purpose, the design of Christ's atoning work is towards the elect, and benefits that the reprobate receive as a result are ancillary, at most, to that purpose. Durham does speak of fruit, in the since of a consequence of an act rather than an end, but still speaks only of the gospel economy. Those providential goods, as distinct from the goods that result from the gospel administration, such as the rain before the harvest, a well formed reason, health, etc., are the good gifts of God as Creator respecting man as his creatures. Analogous blessings are spread to all of creation, even to the beasts and the fields, and man, as the most noble of creation, receives the most noble of providential goods. They are not gifts of the mediation of Christ respecting man as sinners, in which priestly relationship the reprobate do not participate.

Since Burroughs was adduced as support, the referenced section in The Rare Jewel only teaches that God does good towards evil men, but does not in that section ascribe that good to the atonement. Rather, he speaks of the providential good towards saints being peculiarly theirs by right of purchase by Christ. The providential good towards the wicked rather is theirs, in contrast, by right of free bounty from God apart from the purchase of Christ. In other words, they are a work of God's common governance rather than Christ's mediation.

 

[Solparvus]

I believe that Daniel is on the right track here. Christ's atoning death and mediation bore covenantal fruit. Thus, the "common grace" benefits that unbelievers enjoy from his death were usually regarded as being occasioned by the death of Christ rather than the fruit of it, and were those benefits particularly associated with the mediation of the new covenant--forbearance, the visible church, restraint of wickedness, etc. See, for instance John Brown of Haddington:

"This satisfaction being infinitely excellent in itself, fulfilled in a nature common to man, and thus equally suited to every man's case, a sufficient foundation was laid for a general and indefinite invitation of them to receive and rest on it, as their justifying righteousness before God: and all of them according to their degree of connection with the elect, receive manifold gifts, offices, or outward accommodations which otherwise they would not, Isa lv 1 7 xxxv Matt xxiv 22 Eph iv 11 12; though indeed reprobates enjoy these things as consequents, rather than as proper fruits, of the death of Christ with respect to them." (italics original).

Witsius and Turretin likewise clearly limit the benefits of Christ's death to the covenantal economy and speak of them as occasioned by rather than fruits of his death. This distinction maintains that the purpose, the design of Christ's atoning work is towards the elect, and benefits that the reprobate receive as a result are ancillary, at most, to that purpose. Durham does speak of fruit, in the since of a consequence of an act rather than an end, but still speaks only of the gospel economy. Those providential goods, as distinct from the goods that result from the gospel administration, such as the rain before the harvest, a well formed reason, health, etc., are the good gifts of God as Creator respecting man as his creatures. Analogous blessings are spread to all of creation, even to the beasts and the fields, and man, as the most noble of creation, receives the most noble of providential goods. They are not gifts of the mediation of Christ respecting man as sinners, in which priestly relationship the reprobate do not participate.

Since Burroughs was adduced as support, the referenced section in The Rare Jewel only teaches that God does good towards evil men, but does not in that section ascribe that good to the atonement. Rather, he speaks of the providential good towards saints being peculiarly theirs by right of purchase by Christ. The providential good towards the wicked rather is theirs, in contrast, by right of free bounty from God apart from the purchase of Christ. In other words, they are a work of God's common governance rather than Christ's mediation.

This clears things up nicely for me. Thanks!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I believe that Daniel is on the right track here. Christ's atoning death and mediation bore covenantal fruit. Thus, the "common grace" benefits that unbelievers enjoy from his death were usually regarded as being occasioned by the death of Christ rather than the fruit of it, and were those benefits particularly associated with the mediation of the new covenant--forbearance, the visible church, restraint of wickedness, etc. See, for instance John Brown of Haddington:

"This satisfaction being infinitely excellent in itself, fulfilled in a nature common to man, and thus equally suited to every man's case, a sufficient foundation was laid for a general and indefinite invitation of them to receive and rest on it, as their justifying righteousness before God: and all of them according to their degree of connection with the elect, receive manifold gifts, offices, or outward accommodations which otherwise they would not, Isa lv 1 7 xxxv Matt xxiv 22 Eph iv 11 12; though indeed reprobates enjoy these things as consequents, rather than as proper fruits, of the death of Christ with respect to them." (italics original).

Witsius and Turretin likewise clearly limit the benefits of Christ's death to the covenantal economy and speak of them as occasioned by rather than fruits of his death. This distinction maintains that the purpose, the design of Christ's atoning work is towards the elect, and benefits that the reprobate receive as a result are ancillary, at most, to that purpose. Durham does speak of fruit, in the since of a consequence of an act rather than an end, but still speaks only of the gospel economy. Those providential goods, as distinct from the goods that result from the gospel administration, such as the rain before the harvest, a well formed reason, health, etc., are the good gifts of God as Creator respecting man as his creatures. Analogous blessings are spread to all of creation, even to the beasts and the fields, and man, as the most noble of creation, receives the most noble of providential goods. They are not gifts of the mediation of Christ respecting man as sinners, in which priestly relationship the reprobate do not participate.

Since Burroughs was adduced as support, the referenced section in The Rare Jewel only teaches that God does good towards evil men, but does not in that section ascribe that good to the atonement. Rather, he speaks of the providential good towards saints being peculiarly theirs by right of purchase by Christ. The providential good towards the wicked rather is theirs, in contrast, by right of free bounty from God apart from the purchase of Christ. In other words, they are a work of God's common governance rather than Christ's mediation.

Thanks for this post. So, to summarise, the gifts that the non-elect receive in this life are properly ascribed to God's providence as creator rather than to Christ's work as Redeemer?

 

[RamistThomist]

But Christ's death makes it possible for sinners to know that 2+2=4 because Christ's death purchases the common graces of intellect, time, and energy spent on this planet which otherwise would be swept away from us because of God's wrath toward our sin.

In that case no one knew 2+2 = 4 before Christ died, but that can't be the case.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thomas Aquinas creeps into a reformed formulation of epistemology more commonly than I'm pleased to see. If y'all are limiting the focus to Jesus' mediation then

Most of the Puritans were Thomists to one degree or another. Just read John Owen on divine simplicity. I am not a Thomist, though.

 

[Ben Chomp]

In that case no one knew 2+2 = 4 before Christ died, but that can't be the case.

By the same logic, no one could be regenerate by the Holy Spirit before Christ died.

 

[RamistThomist]

By the same logic, no one could be regenerate by the Holy Spirit before Christ died.

Not quite, since the OT is replete with types and shadows. I just want to see the typical connection between basic math and Christ's propitiating the wrath of God.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Thomas Aquinas creeps into a reformed formulation of epistemology more commonly than I'm pleased to see. If y'all are limiting the focus to Jesus' mediation then

The Reformed scholastics followed Thomas Aquinas pretty closely on many matters. That influence is reflected in the Confessions. The Westminster Confession is pretty clear that fallen man still knows things by the light of nature, though these are insufficient to grant him a saving knowledge of God (WCF 1.1), as that only comes through faith in Christ the Redeemer.

 

[Ben Chomp]

Not quite, since the OT is replete with types and shadows. I just want to see the typical connection between basic math and Christ's propitiating the wrath of God.

I'm not saying that the work of Christ is foreshadowed in mathematics. I'm saying that all sinners - the reprobate included - enjoy grace (both common and special, relative to whether or not one is reprobate or elect) in this age because of the mediation of Christ. Living long enough to learn that 2+2=4 and having the mental capacities to understand that 2+2=4 is grace for any creature, let alone a sinner.

I agree that even this common grace serves the greater end of God's purposes in redemption. God uses peace amongst the nations to advance his gospel and build up his church, for example. But Berkhof and the other Reformed thinkers cited are teaching (rightly, I think) that common grace after the fall is an indirect fruit of Christ's atonement.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not saying that the work of Christ is foreshadowed in mathematics.

Then your counter to me loses all force, for the reason--the only reason--that sinners were justified before Christ was because of the typolgical elements.

 

[Ben Chomp]

Then your counter to me loses all force, for the reason--the only reason--that sinners were justified before Christ was because of the typolgical elements.

I don't think it loses force. Your logic sounded like this to me:

1. If common grace (CG) is a benefit of Christ's atonement, then it cannot have existed temporaly prior to Christ's atonement.
2. Mathematical knowledge is CG.
3. Mathematical knowledge existed before Christ's atonement.
4. Therefore CG is not a benefit of Christ's atonement.

I would challenge premise (1). I would say that CG is a benefit of Christ's atonement, but this does not mean that it cannot have existed temporaly before Christ's atonement. This is because there are many other benefits of Christ's atonement - such as regeneration - which clearly temporaly precede Christ's atonement. The benefits of Christ's atonement - both common and special - precede Christ's atonement.

To provide an example, consider Cyrus. Cyrus is called God's instrument whom he raised up for his purposes. God used Cyrus, and the rise of the Persian empire in general, to liberate God's people from captivity in Babylon so that they might return to the land. Cyrus was surely not a regenerate believer and the nation of Persia was surely full of reprobate people. Yet because of the atonement of Christ and the broader purposes of God, they enjoyed common grace for a season as an indirect fruit of that atonement.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say that CG is a benefit of Christ's atonement, but this does not mean that it cannot have existed temporaly before Christ's atonement.

That's the premise that needs to be proven.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Thanks for this post. So, to summarise, the gifts that the non-elect receive in this life are properly ascribed to God's providence as creator rather than to Christ's work as Redeemer?

For the most part, yes. We can acknowledge that the non-elect do receive some benefit from Christ's work as Redeemer, but it is only "according to their degree of connection with the elect" as John Brown put it. One may see it as God giving so generously for the elect of the benefits of Christ that their cups overflow to those around for whom they are not primarily meant. Thus all of the advantages of Christian civilization, public ordinances, etc. The isolated pagan savages on an island would not receive this benefit.

However, the more general blessings often comprehended under "common grace" they receive from God's providence as creator, as you said. If common grace arises from Christ's atonement, as Mediator, we must ask how they are provided. The mediatorial blessings of Christ are applied to the saints through the covenant of grace, by which they are united to him. While we acknowledge that unbelievers may participate in the external administration of that covenant, they do not participate in it vitally. Common grace is not applied mediatorially in that manner but rather in the manner as God as creator and sustainer clothes the lilies and upholds the sparrows. Of course some schemes have held the Noahic covenant to be a common grace covenant, but as such it is chiefly a recapitulation of creation rather than a new federal relationship.