Common Grace

[Saiph]

cariV is from the perspective of heaven down. "Grace" is an english word, which in the context of this thread is being defined as cariV exclusively. Now, I do not think the reformers and puritans mentioned in this thread always used it in that exclusive sense. They used in the sense of "temporal blessings" from the hand of God's providence. So, I agree with you, but we have to read these guys in context and within the language of their time.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here is the full Sermon 33 in PDF from Durham's sermons on Isa 53 quoted previously (thanks to Fred for fixing that attachment limit thing). This work is presently out of print; large format hard back, 704 pp. Pick one up if you find it on the used market.

 

[Me Died Blue]

How do those who deny the existence of common grace reconcile that with the fact that there are reprobates with true membership and participation in the Covenant of Grace (as contrasted with the Covenant of Redemption) or its external aspect (as contrasted with its internal aspect)?

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
How do those who deny the existence of common grace reconcile that with the fact that there are reprobates with true membership and participation in the Covenant of Grace (as contrasted with the Covenant of Redemption) or its external aspect (as contrasted with its internal aspect)?

I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?

 

[Saiph]

I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?

Exactly.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Saiph

I'm still thinking through this, but if a person was within a Covenant community and was not elect/converted, everytime they partook of the Lord's Supper would they not be eating and drinking damnation?

Exactly.

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Mark, I think Chris' point was that for unbelievers in the Covenant of Grace, the sacraments would only confer judgment, thus not in fact conferring grace in any sense. If that is what you meant, Chris, I see some of your point with regard to the sacraments. What of the preached Word, however? Though the Law aspect is only bad news for the unbeliever in the Covenant of Grace, what of the Gospel aspect and the free offer of such?

Furthermore, a key question in this discussion is whether the means of grace's lack of salvific efficacy for a certain person necessarily negates their conferring of actual grace in any sense. I would say it does not, and I could go into explaining myself why I see it as such, but Michael Horton stated how I see it far more concisely and effectively than I can:

Does Baptism actually save, then, if so many who are baptized fail to believe? If the sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word"”that is, if they are means of grace"”then we can ask the same question of the Word: Does the preached Word actually save, if so many fail to believe? Most of us have no hesitation in answering, "[Of course.] God offers eternal life"”but if we reject it, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we accept it, we have no one to praise but God." The same is true of baptism. If God offers eternal life to everyone, even to those outside the covenant of grace, then how much more will he hold us responsible for rejecting his saving grace sealed to us by his Spirit through the Word and baptism?

(from page 221 of In the Face of God)

 

[Scott Bushey]

I would not consider the grace that is conferred via covenant community membership 'common'. I connect the term w/ the unregenerate world whom has no relationship to God, His people or His church.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I would not consider the grace that is conferred via covenant community membership 'common'. I connect the term w/ the unregenerate world whom has no relationship to God, His people or His church.

So you would agree then that God does in fact bestow grace upon non-elect persons, but would just disagree with the notion of that ever happening outside of the visible covenant community?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I would not consider the grace that is conferred via covenant community membership 'common'. I connect the term w/ the unregenerate world whom has no relationship to God, His people or His church.

So you would agree then that God does in fact bestow grace upon non-elect persons, but would just disagree with the notion of that ever happening outside of the visible covenant community?

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Me Died Blue]

Chris,
The term today is used to describe all men; that the rain and sunshine is a form of Gods common graces. Gods grace is not common; it is preseved for his people, it is salvific and refining; secondarily (in the divided sense) the unregenerate are partakers of even the crumbs that fall from the masters table. However(in the compound sense), they were not intended for the unregenerate in the least.

So, yes, I believe that the members of the Covenant community partake, else the holiness God promises to our children and spouses would not be.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.

Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?

Thanks.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by poimen

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.

Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?

Thanks.

Yes.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by poimen

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.

Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?

Thanks.

Yes.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sorry dan. I'm still a tad bit anesthesized from yesterday.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Sorry dan. I'm still a tad bit anesthesized from yesterday.

I'm joking friend. I was fairly sure I understand the original post rightly but your unamibiguous and succint answer made it all clear.

Do you feel better now?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yes
<yuk yuk yuk>

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Yes
<yuk yuk yuk>

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]

How did I know that you were going to say that?

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor
Again, I think we must rather look at "common grace" as the character of God, not necessarily to distinguish who He intends to save or just bless temporarily. That is the whole point in the illustration to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We are to love our enemies because God loves His enemies in some sense and uses His own example to command us to do the same. He is kind, good, and longsuffering toward his enemies. And so we must also be, to reflect His perfect character. Jesus is the perfect example of this for us.

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick,
In the compound sense, God hates his enemies. In the divided (Christ) he loves them, i.e. Judas.

I don't think it's that simple. Christ is both God and man. And He is not schizonphrenic. Yes God hates his enemies, but he loves them at the same time. He demonstrates this by not returning evil for evil, but in being good and kind to them despite their rebellion. Again, Jesus is the ultimate picture of this on the Cross, not reviling His enemies.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by poimen
Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?
Thanks.

The compound and divided sense are Turretin's terms for two ways of looking at God's will.

The compound sense is God's will from his persepective. In this sense, God cannot repent, has no body parts, no emotions, but is a spirit, infinite eternal and unchangable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. (A little of the WSC for ya... )

The divided sense is God's will from our perspective, but more than that how God reveals it to us in this manner. He "dumbs it down" for us. He stoops down to our level in order to reveal his infinite majesty and attributes. In this sense, the Bible says that God does repent, has wings, eyes, etc. etc.

This view is in contrast to the Two wills of God view which says that God has one will (revealed) and another (secret). It is really not two wills, but one will, but viewed at from different angles.

 

[Arch2k]

Some excerpts from The Two Wills of God by Matthew MacMahon

Grace is not common, it is particular. IT is not found generally, but specially. It is not found in the common arena of nature, but in the special covenant pact men may have in Jesus Christ alone.
p. 111

It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that men may find grace. But it is not something given to all men, rather, only some men. It is particular, not common. There is not a sub-section within grace that could be deemed a lesser grace called "œcommon grace."
p. 111

I do believe God grants good gifts to the wicked. I do believe the wicked possess all that they do, including the air they breathe, as something which comes from the hand of God´s indiscriminate providence. But I do not believe that it is an intentionally gracious act of God towards those people, not even in the divided sense. I believe God certainly is commonly bountiful with all men, giving them good gifts. However, the term "œcommon grace" is too loosely utilized, "œcommon bounty" would be better. I think this because the Bible does not allow us to define grace that way, nor does it allow us the implicit liberty to do so as I hope to show. I had said in the beginning of this book that I believed in "œcommon grace." Yes, I do, but the term is not helpful. I want to explain a more helpful term that does not do injustice to the will or desires of God.

Let me restate Berkhof´s definition of common grace before continuing: "œthose general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or, those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him." In breaking down this definition, it is import to see that Berkhof is ascribing this to a form of "œgrace" which I believe is unwarranted. In either the compound or divided sense I do not believe that any of these things which he mentions constitutes what the Bible would consider "œgrace." Some like to define "œgrace" generically as "œGod´s unmerited favor." Even this definition, given what we know about the doctrine of reprobation, could not fit as a kind of "œgrace" to the wicked. Berkhof says that this common grace is actually part of the same grace which resides in God. He says, "œThere are not two kinds of grace in God, but only one." Here I agree. Favor is not grace; only grace is grace. Berkhof states, "œIt is that perfection of God in virtue of which He shows unmerited and even forfeited favour to men." Where does grace come from but Jesus Christ? How could there be a lesser aspect of the same grace which Berkhof states "œresides" in God? This is a mix-up of the attributes of God and failure to see the two sense of the biblical record.
p. 112-113

Common grace is not really grace at all, it´s a term used to demonstrate God´s goodness to the wicked. It does not refer to conferring any "œgrace" that would necessarily come from Jesus Christ or is associated with his death and resurrection. In the compound sense, God never has given real grace to the reprobate. Such ideologies of grace do not exist. Turretin states, "œThat there is no such will or purpose in God we prove: 1) from the decree of election and reprobation. Because the Scriptures make the purpose of having mercy particular, not universal (since it testifies that God had mercy upon some certain persons only, loves them and inscribes them in the book of life, but hates, hardens, appoints to wrath and ordains to condemnation others, Romans 9:11, 12, 13, 18, 22; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 1 Peter 2:8)" Grace is not general, nor can we generalize it unless we radically change definitions the Bible ascribes to it as it uses the term.
p. 113-114

We see the case is far otherwise when Paul continues through the discourse and has laid out the reason-that if works are added to grace in any way, grace ceases to be grace. He assert in Romans 11:6, "œAnd if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then its it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
p. 125

There is no "œin between" when applying grace. The Bible does not create a non-electing grace which may be applied to all men. Grace is particular. Love in Christ is particular. All of it is particular and special. Grace cannot be grace (or be particular), unless God´s eternal election of some men to heaven, and eternal reprobation of others to hell, is a result of His good pleasure alone.
p. 125

My hand is tired.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yea, like I said, it's the crumbs that fall from the masters table that the dogs eat.

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Yea, like I said, it's the crumbs that fall from the masters table that the dogs eat.

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

Scott,

If I understand that passage correctly, the crumbs referred to are real grace given to people outside the Jewish nation.

Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

I don't think this deals with common grace, but a grace that was previously strange to the Gentiles, but now was being manifested in "crumb" form.

Matthew Henry:

3. The turn she gave to this word of Christ, which made against her, and her improvement of it, to make for her, Mar_7:28. She said, "œYes, Lord, I own it is true that the children's bread ought not to be cast to the dogs; but they were never denied the crumbs of that bread, nay it belongs to them, and they are allowed a place under the table, that they may be ready to receive them. I ask not for a loaf, no, nor for a morsel, only for a crumb; do not refuse me that." This she speaks, not as undervaluing the mercy, or making light of it in itself, but magnifying the abundance or miraculous cures with which she heard the Jews were feasted, in comparison with which a single cure was but as a crumb. Gentiles do not come in crowds, as the Jews do; I come alone. Perhaps she had heard of Christ's feeding five thousand lately at once, after which, even when they had gathered up the fragments, there could not but be some crumbs left for the dogs.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Yea, like I said, it's the crumbs that fall from the masters table that the dogs eat.

Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
Mar 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

Scott,

If I understand that passage correctly, the crumbs referred to are real grace given to people outside the Jewish nation.

Mar 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

I don't think this deals with common grace, but a grace that was previously strange to the Gentiles, but now was being manifested in "crumb" form.

Matthew Henry:

3. The turn she gave to this word of Christ, which made against her, and her improvement of it, to make for her, Mar_7:28. She said, "œYes, Lord, I own it is true that the children's bread ought not to be cast to the dogs; but they were never denied the crumbs of that bread, nay it belongs to them, and they are allowed a place under the table, that they may be ready to receive them. I ask not for a loaf, no, nor for a morsel, only for a crumb; do not refuse me that." This she speaks, not as undervaluing the mercy, or making light of it in itself, but magnifying the abundance or miraculous cures with which she heard the Jews were feasted, in comparison with which a single cure was but as a crumb. Gentiles do not come in crowds, as the Jews do; I come alone. Perhaps she had heard of Christ's feeding five thousand lately at once, after which, even when they had gathered up the fragments, there could not but be some crumbs left for the dogs.

I understand that Jeff. However, at that given moment, they were not part of that present plan; even Christ tells her, "Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled:". In the same way, Christ tells his disciples to only go to the children of Israel.

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Dogs are compared to swine........


Keep in mind, a dog is a dog and the children of the kingdom are NOT dogs. So, the terminology used is specific. In this case, this dog was elect. A dog in the OT was a filthy animal; scorned. It ate and touched dead things, something that the Jew was forbidden.

Exo 22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.

1Ki 14:11 Him that dieth of Jeroboam in the city shall the dogs eat;

1Ki 21:23 And of Jezebel also spake the LORD, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.

Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Isa 56:11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Phi 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.


[Edited on 10-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by poimen
Could you define what you mean by 'compound' and 'divided' sense? Are you referring to God and the God-man so that we can say that God hates His enemies but Christ may love them because He is not only God but also man?
Thanks.

The compound and divided sense are Turretin's terms for two ways of looking at God's will.

The compound sense is God's will from his persepective. In this sense, God cannot repent, has no body parts, no emotions, but is a spirit, infinite eternal and unchangable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. (A little of the WSC for ya... )

The divided sense is God's will from our perspective, but more than that how God reveals it to us in this manner. He "dumbs it down" for us. He stoops down to our level in order to reveal his infinite majesty and attributes. In this sense, the Bible says that God does repent, has wings, eyes, etc. etc.

This view is in contrast to the Two wills of God view which says that God has one will (revealed) and another (secret). It is really not two wills, but one will, but viewed at from different angles.

Hey that's good stuff!!

 

[yeutter]

Originally posted by JWJ

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Charles Hodge defines common grace thus:

"the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, of holiness, and of life in all its forms, is present with every human mind, enforcing truth, restraining from evil, exciting to good, and imparting wisdom or strength, when, where, and in what measure seemeth to Him good. . . . This is what in theology is called common grace"

[Edited on 10-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Though I have limited time to discuss this matter allow me a few comments. Firstly, with all due respect, your use of these quotes does nothing to prove your point. As a matter of fact it is a type of straw-man approach that has been dealt with by others including the PRC.

Secondly, to claim that a denial of common grace justifies the charge of hyper-Calvinism is just as true as the claim that to uphold common grace justifies the charge of hypo-calvinism.

This brings me to the third and most important point. The whole issue of "common grace" is more than just semantics. Rather the issue is on what is both denied and affirmed by the use of the term. Most of what you said about God being good towards both elect and reprobate no one would argue (Even the PRC would agree with this). However, many, including myself, refuse to use this term because in today's usage of intent it implicitly denies that God is only saving the elect; that God uses these material "blessings" to further harden the hearts of the reprobate, that the gospel "offer" is only effectual towards His elect; and that God is not sincerely trying to save every person (i.e., desiring their salvation) by the gospel "offer".

Therefore we in the reformed camp should drop the term common grace just as we should drop the term free will.

Jim

I am all for dropping the term Common Grace and talking instead about the providential goodness of God. That is what most people mean when they use the term.

The Hodge quote fascinates me. I always assumed the common grace thing was a dutch introduction. It would be interesting to know the context in which Hodge said this.

One problem with Common Grace is it is not always defined the same way. The Christian Reformed Church definition of this doctrine in 1924 is very troubling.

 

[Peter]

Yes. One needs to remember the other aspect of common grace is God arresting the effects of sin in unregenerate so that the world doesnt break into utter riot.