OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
No problem. Here is a link for Calvin's commentaries. 2 Cor.8 is particularly good on this subject. Calvin's Commentariesin/commentaries.i.html]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html
Distinction between the special grace and common grace of God
- Thread starter Ben_Ives
- Start date
- Status
No problem. Here is a link for Calvin's commentaries. 2 Cor.8 is particularly good on this subject. Calvin's Commentariesin/commentaries.i.html]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Ben, let me make this my last response to you. I'm really tired and don't desire to continue on this topic anymore. See my comments in red.
Lastly, I'd like to add something to this topic from the Old Testament, since it is the obvious place where a proponent of "common grace" will flee, when he realizes there is no favor of God to the reprobate in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament many words convey one or more aspects of the New Testament doctrine of grace. The two which most comprehensively express the NT word charis are hen and hesed. The former bears the NT sense of favor, with an undertone of meaning that the favor is undeserved. Thus Moses said to the Lord "If I have found grace in thy sight" (Ex.33:13). The word hesed, most often translated "loving kindness" or "mercy", has also, though not invariably, the association of the covenant that God makes with his people: "The Lord appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with have I drawn thee" (Jer.31:3); "the Lord thy God shall keep with thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers" (Deut.7:12).
There is no favor of God to the reprobate, period.
Lastly, I'd like to add something to this topic from the Old Testament, since it is the obvious place where a proponent of "common grace" will flee, when he realizes there is no favor of God to the reprobate in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament many words convey one or more aspects of the New Testament doctrine of grace. The two which most comprehensively express the NT word charis are hen and hesed. The former bears the NT sense of favor, with an undertone of meaning that the favor is undeserved. Thus Moses said to the Lord "If I have found grace in thy sight" (Ex.33:13). The word hesed, most often translated "loving kindness" or "mercy", has also, though not invariably, the association of the covenant that God makes with his people: "The Lord appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with have I drawn thee" (Jer.31:3); "the Lord thy God shall keep with thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers" (Deut.7:12).
There is no favor of God to the reprobate, period.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Ben:
With respect to your point about a distinction between the Spirit's work in common grace and providence, you'll appreicate Hodge's discussion (v. 2, 665-7), "The Work of the Spirit is distinct from Providential Efficiency."
Peace,
Alan
With respect to your point about a distinction between the Spirit's work in common grace and providence, you'll appreicate Hodge's discussion (v. 2, 665-7), "The Work of the Spirit is distinct from Providential Efficiency."
Peace,
Alan
The Dutch school extended the idea of common grace to include "natural" benefits (for want of a better term), and by and large that is how the term tends to be used almost exclusively now. Originally, however, it was used in the context of the means of grace and the benefits derived from membership in the visible church. There is a helpful and clear discussion of this in one of James Durham's digressions in his Commentary on Revelation.
A term is only as good as its definition. If the definition of common grace is clear that the "grace" is efficacious in its sphere of operation, it will have some use in the reformed system. If, however, it becomes confused with saving grace, and gives way to the pantheistic idea of God longing to be fulfilled by creation, it should be cast down and burned to ashes with all the other figments of men's imaginations.
Loopie
Puritan Board Freshman
As has been mentioned in previous posts, it is important that there be a common (no pun intended) definition of grace that we can all agree upon.
For instance, it was mentioned in an earlier post that Grace = getting something you do not deserve, and that Mercy = not getting something you do deserve. If THAT is your definition, then certainly you are going to see God's 'common' grace bestowed upon the reprobate.
Personally, I do not hold to that definition of Grace. I believe that BOTH getting what you do not deserve AND not getting what you do deserve, in the context of fallen, sinful human beings, is Mercy. That is, the reprobate are not destroyed immediately, which is what they deserve, and so that is an act of mercy. Furthermore, the reprobate receive many physically good things on this earth, which I think is ALSO an act of mercy. It would be akin to giving someone a 'last wish', or 'last meal' before being executed. When the murderer on death row is given one last meal before he dies, that is not an act of favor being bestowed upon them by the guards or judges. It is an act of mercy. The prisoner does not deserve a last meal, but one is provided for them anyways.
That is why I would argue that Grace is defined as God's unmerited favor, which is bestowed only upon the Elect.
Lastly, I would point out that 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' can also be the definitions of 'injustice'. That is because we must consider the nature of the recipients, which is why I intentionally mentioned how mercy must be defined in the context of sinful human beings.
For instance, if a judge fails to uphold justice by giving freedom to an unrepentant, guilty murderer, then that is an injustice. If a business owner refuses to give fair wages to an honest, hard working man who deserves it, that is also an injustice. That is why whenever the phrase 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' is used to define terms such as 'mercy', it must be considered in the context of sinful human beings who have rebelled against a perfectly holy God.
For instance, it was mentioned in an earlier post that Grace = getting something you do not deserve, and that Mercy = not getting something you do deserve. If THAT is your definition, then certainly you are going to see God's 'common' grace bestowed upon the reprobate.
Personally, I do not hold to that definition of Grace. I believe that BOTH getting what you do not deserve AND not getting what you do deserve, in the context of fallen, sinful human beings, is Mercy. That is, the reprobate are not destroyed immediately, which is what they deserve, and so that is an act of mercy. Furthermore, the reprobate receive many physically good things on this earth, which I think is ALSO an act of mercy. It would be akin to giving someone a 'last wish', or 'last meal' before being executed. When the murderer on death row is given one last meal before he dies, that is not an act of favor being bestowed upon them by the guards or judges. It is an act of mercy. The prisoner does not deserve a last meal, but one is provided for them anyways.
That is why I would argue that Grace is defined as God's unmerited favor, which is bestowed only upon the Elect.
Lastly, I would point out that 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' can also be the definitions of 'injustice'. That is because we must consider the nature of the recipients, which is why I intentionally mentioned how mercy must be defined in the context of sinful human beings.
For instance, if a judge fails to uphold justice by giving freedom to an unrepentant, guilty murderer, then that is an injustice. If a business owner refuses to give fair wages to an honest, hard working man who deserves it, that is also an injustice. That is why whenever the phrase 'getting what you do not deserve' and 'not getting what you do deserve' is used to define terms such as 'mercy', it must be considered in the context of sinful human beings who have rebelled against a perfectly holy God.
Can I just say thank you very much to everyone who has contributed to this discussion, I really appreciate the input of everyone in taking the time to offer insight into this subject. I'm very grateful to you 
This discussion has, I think, descended into a debate / discussion based on terminology now really. I don’t think any of us really disagree on anything except that people who dislike or 'deny' there is any Common Grace dislike it mainly because it has the word grace attached to it. It's just a word.
If you take / remove from grace the character of God from its meaning or definition, and apply grace as an act which man does to another person. e.g. “How very gracious of you to slow down and let me overtake you, your car and caravan were holding up all the traffic, how very gracious of you to pull over and let us past - you didn't have to do that.” What you get is an understanding of what grace is. Grace is not something that God alone is able to do in a literal sense.
The Bible says that God is love, if God is love does that mean that the reprobate cannot be in love? The Bible doesn't say that God has an infinite capacity to love, or that God is the perfection of all that love is - it says that God IS love. However the reprobate is able to love and be in love, as per Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite
Man can be gracious. Man can show grace, and be gracious. The reprobate can fall in love and be gracious, and can be kind and speak kindly. But wait a moment - isn't man totally depraved? how is man able to possess characteristics which are seemingly divine?
Common grace, when understood as a term divorced from God means just regular benefits from not being dead yet. It doesn't mean that God has loved you with the unique love that only the elect receives because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to that person. The love we do receive from God as His child is not an affectionate pardoning love towards our characters, God doesn't love me for me, or for who I am. God loves me for who I am in the person of Christ. All that is in me is the flesh, i.e. all that is me, 'of me' is flesh and is carnal and corrupt and is bent on sin and God righteously hates that. God hates my sin. God doesn't pardon or overlook my sin and condone my sinful nature - alternatively He pours out His righteous wrath and anger against my sin on the person of Christ on the cross. God's love is that He sent His Son to die in my place - and I didn't deserve it. He hates my sin as I do, as we all should - we should hate our own sinful nature and only see Christs righteousness as what sets us apart from the ungodly , and it’s not because we are loved for who we are, its because Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf, that we are accepted by God into His family. And that IS love. It IS love that sent Christ to die for us because we didn't deserve it - and we still don't deserve to be saved.
I find it a little bit obnoxious the way the reprobate has been referred to as being an enemy of God in a way that the elect aren't. I don’t think there is any place in the Church for elitism like we are a separate chosen people and super special and the reprobate are just a filthy carnal lot who righteously deserve to burn forever in hell. IF there is anything special about us that sets us apart, its not because we are set apart. We are set apart to be Holy because that’s what God wants us to be like, and in our most holy and righteous state on this earth, we are as vain and as corrupt and as pathetically unworthy as the reprobate. The only thing setting us apart is the righteousness of Christ - which is not then MY righteousness before God, it is imputed ONLY. We are NO DIFFERENT from the unGodly except God has chosen to save us. And the reason we are still on earth and not immediately glorified is because God keeps us here to live in the world, to show the reprobate how to live, how they should live. We are here as examples, we are not here to look down our nose at them, as if they are stupid and spiritually ugly in a way which we are not. We are here as salt. Sure they hate us, and sure they mock us, and sure they despise us, try to kill us often and try to ruin us, but how about our attitude? What was Christs attitude when suffering? Hold not this sin against them Lord.. Same as Stephen - forgive them Father for they know not what they do.. May God rebuke our hearts if we are proud and self righteous in any way.
My God has rules and laws, and by His laws He says I ought to die. Same as the reprobate. My God doesn't bend the rules to suit me, alternatively He sends His Son to suffer and die so He keeps His rules and law and so is consistent. Were all the children of Israel saved, in Israel, who were fed of the manna in the wilderness? Were there not damned people whom God led out of Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel? What about that family who were swallowed up by the earth? Do you think they were swallowed up by the earth and then went to heaven? Who are you kidding? Is not God showing His grace towards the ungodly by leading them out from the bondage of Egypt (even if they end up killed in the desert), the fact that they were delivered at all, fed with food from heaven, water from a rock and protected from drowning and delivered from the Egyptian armies - sorry, that's clear grace in my understanding of the word. NO NOT SAVING GRACE NO, but undeserved blessings. No one deserves the blessings of God, we all deserve to die and rot in hell, and the only reason that we don't is that a sacrifice was made for us. We still don’t deserve it any more than the reprobate, so to say, 'oh how dare anyone say that God loves a reprobate' HANG ON proud man, YOU don’t deserve it either, no one said you were any better than they are, because YOUR NOT GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE EITHER, which is death.
How dare people suggest that they are loved by God because they are elect, no no no - you are elect, because you were loved graciously. Anything else is arrogant pride, and to fail to understand that we are living in God’s creation, which is His, and No one deserves to be here, to have their heart beat just one more time, to think that God is somehow incapable of being merciful towards reprobates in the same way as He is merciful to us redeemed is in my opinion quite vaunted. Because why? Is God so indiscriminate with his saving grace that there is no purpose in saving us elect? We aren't here just to be saved and carry on in a segregated elite, "I'm set apart from you so you’re not worthy of any benefits", can't people see that God is able to be merciful and slow to anger towards the reprobate? Doesn't anyone think God is unable to control himself? Do you think He is like some big computer that acts predictably and coldly, He is far above our understanding to be able to look into the least of His grace. God’s grace is eternal, God isn't a mechanism, He is a divine being, He is the only true God, He is infinitely above us is power and wisdom, and He is able to be long suffering towards the reprobate, and long suffering is - by definition - not getting what you deserve. If you don’t get what you deserve - it is grace, 'period'. Whether it is putting off of eternal punishment for a space of time, it is still NOT WHAT YOU DESERVE.. WHICH IS GRACE. GRACE TOWARDS THE REPROBATE..
The reprobate (as we all do) deserves the lake of fire forever, NOW. Not when they die, not in 6 weeks from now.. they deserve it NOW. So a delay on that is LONG SUFERRING, IT IS GRACE, it is not deserved. Grace is not exclusive to God, but God is eternally gracious. I can be gracious towards my boss at work by doing free overtime. My land lord can be gracious towards me by allowing me to delay payment of rent, and not kicking me out of my house AS I DESERVE, because my contract with him says I have to pay weekly.
Now if anyone wants to know anymore, I'll explain my understanding of how grace and mercy are not the same thing. Mercy is always gracious, but grace is not always merciful. (As in mercy is not a necessary ingredient of grace, it can 'happen anyway' - yet grace is by definition a pre-requisite of mercy. You can get a gracious benifit without it being a judgment avoided) Grace is not warranted, it is not, "called for". Grace is unmerited favor, which can be received in situations in which mercy is not a factor. A judges death sentence shows no mercy, but delaying the death penalty for 6 weeks to enable to condemned to see his daughter get married is gracious, but not merciful. It is not a merciful thing for a judge to let a death row inmate stay alive 6 extra weeks. If the daughter cries out in the court to the judge and says, "Mercy your honour, if my father is not at my wedding my heart will be broken", the judge may be acting mercifully towards the daughter, but he is only being gracious towards the condemned man, not merciful, because he has already passed sentence upon him.
Christians don't get what they deserve in eternity, not because of the mercy of God, but because of the grace of God. God was not merciful towards His Son, and He executed all His furious anger towards His Son, on our behalf. We don't receive the mercy of God when we go to heaven, we are saved by grace. God has no mercy towards sin, and all sin requires the shedding of blood. This stems from what should be our understanding of, 'the absolute necessity of the atonement'. God was required to punish Christ because of His law, now because God IS love He wanted to save people, so He provided a sacrifice. Some might say, well why couldn't God just forgive sin without sending His Son, or God just sent His Son as the way, but he didn't really HAVE TO... No God HAD TO. God HAS TO punish sin, and HE DOES punish ALL sin. His law says he will and He must. But if He isn't doing it right away, and allowing reprobates to fall in love, to be kind to one another, to be prompted by His Holy Spirit, write symphonies, cure diseases, set up governments, and paint amazing masterpieces and design 3D television and movies like Saving Private Ryan, if that’s not gracious, and the grace of God towards the reprobate then I think people assume God is constrained by His own law in a way which is not described in the Bible. God was not constrained by His law when He fulfilled the law by sending His Son to die, He operated in perfect symmetry with His law in a powerful and gloriously majestic way that only the divine could do. God is not limited by His own promises; He is not somehow obliged to do according to His law or word.
Christ offered Himself freely on the cross, willingly, triumphantly. Why is that an unusual concept? (To strive to do good and to be good and do good, and to act in perfect love) Because WE aren't good. We aren't like that, we are selfish most often, and anything 'good' we (we as in man, saved and reprobates alike) do is something we do which is not good as apart or distinct from God, it is only that we would display something which God is perfect at. The same as holiness - when a Christian becomes more holy, they are not achieving their own holiness, they are just becoming more like God who is the perfection of Holiness, for His very character is infinitely holy.
If anyone thinks that God is a, 'big meanie' who hates the wicked and just loves the elect because we are His little fan club, they are deluded. God has concluded all men to be sinners that He might have mercy on all. Mercy is always gracious, if God is merciful towards the reprobate which His word says He is, He is being gracious.
I've only inserted these scriptures at the end, but if I had the time I would provide more scriptural backing to my other arguments. Some of what I have said might have seemed very direct, but I'm writing this as I would be saying it out loud, I'm hoping that where I have placed emphasis in capitals it helps the meaning in what I've said. I'd appreciate if quoting me in what I have said above it could not be taken out of the context of the entire 2200 word thing I just wrote instead of doing invoicing which I need to try and do now, and its gone into Sunday here!! :/
This discussion has, I think, descended into a debate / discussion based on terminology now really. I don’t think any of us really disagree on anything except that people who dislike or 'deny' there is any Common Grace dislike it mainly because it has the word grace attached to it. It's just a word.
If you take / remove from grace the character of God from its meaning or definition, and apply grace as an act which man does to another person. e.g. “How very gracious of you to slow down and let me overtake you, your car and caravan were holding up all the traffic, how very gracious of you to pull over and let us past - you didn't have to do that.” What you get is an understanding of what grace is. Grace is not something that God alone is able to do in a literal sense.
The Bible says that God is love, if God is love does that mean that the reprobate cannot be in love? The Bible doesn't say that God has an infinite capacity to love, or that God is the perfection of all that love is - it says that God IS love. However the reprobate is able to love and be in love, as per Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite
Man can be gracious. Man can show grace, and be gracious. The reprobate can fall in love and be gracious, and can be kind and speak kindly. But wait a moment - isn't man totally depraved? how is man able to possess characteristics which are seemingly divine?
Common grace, when understood as a term divorced from God means just regular benefits from not being dead yet. It doesn't mean that God has loved you with the unique love that only the elect receives because Christ's righteousness has been imputed to that person. The love we do receive from God as His child is not an affectionate pardoning love towards our characters, God doesn't love me for me, or for who I am. God loves me for who I am in the person of Christ. All that is in me is the flesh, i.e. all that is me, 'of me' is flesh and is carnal and corrupt and is bent on sin and God righteously hates that. God hates my sin. God doesn't pardon or overlook my sin and condone my sinful nature - alternatively He pours out His righteous wrath and anger against my sin on the person of Christ on the cross. God's love is that He sent His Son to die in my place - and I didn't deserve it. He hates my sin as I do, as we all should - we should hate our own sinful nature and only see Christs righteousness as what sets us apart from the ungodly , and it’s not because we are loved for who we are, its because Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf, that we are accepted by God into His family. And that IS love. It IS love that sent Christ to die for us because we didn't deserve it - and we still don't deserve to be saved.
I find it a little bit obnoxious the way the reprobate has been referred to as being an enemy of God in a way that the elect aren't. I don’t think there is any place in the Church for elitism like we are a separate chosen people and super special and the reprobate are just a filthy carnal lot who righteously deserve to burn forever in hell. IF there is anything special about us that sets us apart, its not because we are set apart. We are set apart to be Holy because that’s what God wants us to be like, and in our most holy and righteous state on this earth, we are as vain and as corrupt and as pathetically unworthy as the reprobate. The only thing setting us apart is the righteousness of Christ - which is not then MY righteousness before God, it is imputed ONLY. We are NO DIFFERENT from the unGodly except God has chosen to save us. And the reason we are still on earth and not immediately glorified is because God keeps us here to live in the world, to show the reprobate how to live, how they should live. We are here as examples, we are not here to look down our nose at them, as if they are stupid and spiritually ugly in a way which we are not. We are here as salt. Sure they hate us, and sure they mock us, and sure they despise us, try to kill us often and try to ruin us, but how about our attitude? What was Christs attitude when suffering? Hold not this sin against them Lord.. Same as Stephen - forgive them Father for they know not what they do.. May God rebuke our hearts if we are proud and self righteous in any way.
My God has rules and laws, and by His laws He says I ought to die. Same as the reprobate. My God doesn't bend the rules to suit me, alternatively He sends His Son to suffer and die so He keeps His rules and law and so is consistent. Were all the children of Israel saved, in Israel, who were fed of the manna in the wilderness? Were there not damned people whom God led out of Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel? What about that family who were swallowed up by the earth? Do you think they were swallowed up by the earth and then went to heaven? Who are you kidding? Is not God showing His grace towards the ungodly by leading them out from the bondage of Egypt (even if they end up killed in the desert), the fact that they were delivered at all, fed with food from heaven, water from a rock and protected from drowning and delivered from the Egyptian armies - sorry, that's clear grace in my understanding of the word. NO NOT SAVING GRACE NO, but undeserved blessings. No one deserves the blessings of God, we all deserve to die and rot in hell, and the only reason that we don't is that a sacrifice was made for us. We still don’t deserve it any more than the reprobate, so to say, 'oh how dare anyone say that God loves a reprobate' HANG ON proud man, YOU don’t deserve it either, no one said you were any better than they are, because YOUR NOT GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE EITHER, which is death.
How dare people suggest that they are loved by God because they are elect, no no no - you are elect, because you were loved graciously. Anything else is arrogant pride, and to fail to understand that we are living in God’s creation, which is His, and No one deserves to be here, to have their heart beat just one more time, to think that God is somehow incapable of being merciful towards reprobates in the same way as He is merciful to us redeemed is in my opinion quite vaunted. Because why? Is God so indiscriminate with his saving grace that there is no purpose in saving us elect? We aren't here just to be saved and carry on in a segregated elite, "I'm set apart from you so you’re not worthy of any benefits", can't people see that God is able to be merciful and slow to anger towards the reprobate? Doesn't anyone think God is unable to control himself? Do you think He is like some big computer that acts predictably and coldly, He is far above our understanding to be able to look into the least of His grace. God’s grace is eternal, God isn't a mechanism, He is a divine being, He is the only true God, He is infinitely above us is power and wisdom, and He is able to be long suffering towards the reprobate, and long suffering is - by definition - not getting what you deserve. If you don’t get what you deserve - it is grace, 'period'. Whether it is putting off of eternal punishment for a space of time, it is still NOT WHAT YOU DESERVE.. WHICH IS GRACE. GRACE TOWARDS THE REPROBATE..
The reprobate (as we all do) deserves the lake of fire forever, NOW. Not when they die, not in 6 weeks from now.. they deserve it NOW. So a delay on that is LONG SUFERRING, IT IS GRACE, it is not deserved. Grace is not exclusive to God, but God is eternally gracious. I can be gracious towards my boss at work by doing free overtime. My land lord can be gracious towards me by allowing me to delay payment of rent, and not kicking me out of my house AS I DESERVE, because my contract with him says I have to pay weekly.
Now if anyone wants to know anymore, I'll explain my understanding of how grace and mercy are not the same thing. Mercy is always gracious, but grace is not always merciful. (As in mercy is not a necessary ingredient of grace, it can 'happen anyway' - yet grace is by definition a pre-requisite of mercy. You can get a gracious benifit without it being a judgment avoided) Grace is not warranted, it is not, "called for". Grace is unmerited favor, which can be received in situations in which mercy is not a factor. A judges death sentence shows no mercy, but delaying the death penalty for 6 weeks to enable to condemned to see his daughter get married is gracious, but not merciful. It is not a merciful thing for a judge to let a death row inmate stay alive 6 extra weeks. If the daughter cries out in the court to the judge and says, "Mercy your honour, if my father is not at my wedding my heart will be broken", the judge may be acting mercifully towards the daughter, but he is only being gracious towards the condemned man, not merciful, because he has already passed sentence upon him.
Christians don't get what they deserve in eternity, not because of the mercy of God, but because of the grace of God. God was not merciful towards His Son, and He executed all His furious anger towards His Son, on our behalf. We don't receive the mercy of God when we go to heaven, we are saved by grace. God has no mercy towards sin, and all sin requires the shedding of blood. This stems from what should be our understanding of, 'the absolute necessity of the atonement'. God was required to punish Christ because of His law, now because God IS love He wanted to save people, so He provided a sacrifice. Some might say, well why couldn't God just forgive sin without sending His Son, or God just sent His Son as the way, but he didn't really HAVE TO... No God HAD TO. God HAS TO punish sin, and HE DOES punish ALL sin. His law says he will and He must. But if He isn't doing it right away, and allowing reprobates to fall in love, to be kind to one another, to be prompted by His Holy Spirit, write symphonies, cure diseases, set up governments, and paint amazing masterpieces and design 3D television and movies like Saving Private Ryan, if that’s not gracious, and the grace of God towards the reprobate then I think people assume God is constrained by His own law in a way which is not described in the Bible. God was not constrained by His law when He fulfilled the law by sending His Son to die, He operated in perfect symmetry with His law in a powerful and gloriously majestic way that only the divine could do. God is not limited by His own promises; He is not somehow obliged to do according to His law or word.
Christ offered Himself freely on the cross, willingly, triumphantly. Why is that an unusual concept? (To strive to do good and to be good and do good, and to act in perfect love) Because WE aren't good. We aren't like that, we are selfish most often, and anything 'good' we (we as in man, saved and reprobates alike) do is something we do which is not good as apart or distinct from God, it is only that we would display something which God is perfect at. The same as holiness - when a Christian becomes more holy, they are not achieving their own holiness, they are just becoming more like God who is the perfection of Holiness, for His very character is infinitely holy.
If anyone thinks that God is a, 'big meanie' who hates the wicked and just loves the elect because we are His little fan club, they are deluded. God has concluded all men to be sinners that He might have mercy on all. Mercy is always gracious, if God is merciful towards the reprobate which His word says He is, He is being gracious.
I've only inserted these scriptures at the end, but if I had the time I would provide more scriptural backing to my other arguments. Some of what I have said might have seemed very direct, but I'm writing this as I would be saying it out loud, I'm hoping that where I have placed emphasis in capitals it helps the meaning in what I've said. I'd appreciate if quoting me in what I have said above it could not be taken out of the context of the entire 2200 word thing I just wrote instead of doing invoicing which I need to try and do now, and its gone into Sunday here!! :/
Last edited:
Loopie
Puritan Board Freshman
Ben,
Again, it comes down to a proper definition of 'grace'. It is true that the term 'grace' has a semantic domain. We could use it as a synonym to 'mercy' or as a synonym to 'kindness' or 'long suffering'. But the important thing is understanding how it is used in Scripture, and who is the recipient of it.
You mentioned in your post, towards the end, that grace is 'unmerited favor' from God. So, what does it mean for God to 'favor' the reprobate? Certainly there are some wicked men who are prosperous, and who think that God has truly blessed them and has shown favor upon their actions. But the Psalmist says that the reason they flourished was so that they would ultimately be destroyed.
Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB)
5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
So again, when we talk about 'grace', we should be clear about how we define the term. If we wish to change the definition in the middle of our discussion, that will only cause confusion. When you speak of grace, do you mean 'unmerited favor from God' or 'getting what you do not deserve'? I recognize that there is a semantic domain, and that we might use the term 'grace' to refer to 'kindness' or 'patience', but the most important thing is how the Bible uses that term.
Lastly, you mentioned that we as believers are "no different from the ungodly except that God has chosen to save us". I just wanted to point out (and I am sure you would agree), that now that we are saved, we ARE different. We are a 'new creation' and we are putting away 'the old man'. Certainly our righteousness is imputed to us, but we are also being 'conformed' into Christ's image.
Good discussion!
Eric
Again, it comes down to a proper definition of 'grace'. It is true that the term 'grace' has a semantic domain. We could use it as a synonym to 'mercy' or as a synonym to 'kindness' or 'long suffering'. But the important thing is understanding how it is used in Scripture, and who is the recipient of it.
You mentioned in your post, towards the end, that grace is 'unmerited favor' from God. So, what does it mean for God to 'favor' the reprobate? Certainly there are some wicked men who are prosperous, and who think that God has truly blessed them and has shown favor upon their actions. But the Psalmist says that the reason they flourished was so that they would ultimately be destroyed.
Psalm 92:5-9 (NASB)
5 How great are Your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep.
6 A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this:
7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.
8 But You, O LORD, are on high forever.
9 For, behold, Your enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Your enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.
So again, when we talk about 'grace', we should be clear about how we define the term. If we wish to change the definition in the middle of our discussion, that will only cause confusion. When you speak of grace, do you mean 'unmerited favor from God' or 'getting what you do not deserve'? I recognize that there is a semantic domain, and that we might use the term 'grace' to refer to 'kindness' or 'patience', but the most important thing is how the Bible uses that term.
Lastly, you mentioned that we as believers are "no different from the ungodly except that God has chosen to save us". I just wanted to point out (and I am sure you would agree), that now that we are saved, we ARE different. We are a 'new creation' and we are putting away 'the old man'. Certainly our righteousness is imputed to us, but we are also being 'conformed' into Christ's image.
Good discussion!
Eric
Hi Eric,
I'm concerned (not chiefly by you) that our leaning on specific terminologies leads us down the path the an educated elite who must interpret the scriptures for everyone else, such as the Roman Catholic Church sought to maintain at the end of the dark ages. That the mass was said in latin, the Bible was latin etc and if one wanted to know God it was only through the latin Bible at the time in certain sections. Not everywhere, I'm just trying to make a point.
Being super focused on the meanings of words specifically as a primary means of understanding, as opposed to reflecting on the Greek or Hebrew for assistance I think has in this example become a means to just try to win an argument as the basis for seeking the meaning.
The triune God is expressed as such in the understanding of the original Hebrew word in Genesis 1, but I've already said to you what I think grace means. I'm not expounding specific scripture, God is revealed through His word I don't think He is marginalized by His word in the way you are trying to do.
I'm very tired physically so I'm just saying this now I might more tomorrow. But its become an inane interpretation of words, I think I have explained myself clearly and I really have nothing further to add from the above. I think its all in there. Its not my doctrine, I learned it through Louis Berkoff and John Owen, and the Free Presbyterian Bible College in Northern Ireland. I'm confident from what I know and understand that I have a proper understanding of Gods grace towards the wicked.
I don't think what I have said and argued can really be negated by changing a definition halfway through as you put it, you only spoken here at the end, I've never defined grace at the start and then changed my mind later - who says that grace is the unmerited favour of God in a salvific way? Thats not the definition, grace is not a concept unique to God, and you don't have to be a doctor of Greek and Hebew to understand this.
And I defy anyone who suggests that Greek and Hebrew interpreters have an understanding and an ability to know the mind of God that others don't. That is a return to the Catholic darkness I mentioned earlier.
I already said what grace is, this conversation has moved away from Common grace to language interpretation. When I said, 'we ned a better definition of grace' I was speaking generally, as if to gently suggest that the meaning some people have limited themselves too is - well just wrong flatly. No dictionary will tell you that grace is exclusive to the character of God. As I said I can be gracious by giving out free food.
If we are just arguing about the definitions of words now, then whats the point - its just an excuse to be contradictory.
Good night
I'm concerned (not chiefly by you) that our leaning on specific terminologies leads us down the path the an educated elite who must interpret the scriptures for everyone else, such as the Roman Catholic Church sought to maintain at the end of the dark ages. That the mass was said in latin, the Bible was latin etc and if one wanted to know God it was only through the latin Bible at the time in certain sections. Not everywhere, I'm just trying to make a point.
Being super focused on the meanings of words specifically as a primary means of understanding, as opposed to reflecting on the Greek or Hebrew for assistance I think has in this example become a means to just try to win an argument as the basis for seeking the meaning.
The triune God is expressed as such in the understanding of the original Hebrew word in Genesis 1, but I've already said to you what I think grace means. I'm not expounding specific scripture, God is revealed through His word I don't think He is marginalized by His word in the way you are trying to do.
I'm very tired physically so I'm just saying this now I might more tomorrow. But its become an inane interpretation of words, I think I have explained myself clearly and I really have nothing further to add from the above. I think its all in there. Its not my doctrine, I learned it through Louis Berkoff and John Owen, and the Free Presbyterian Bible College in Northern Ireland. I'm confident from what I know and understand that I have a proper understanding of Gods grace towards the wicked.
I don't think what I have said and argued can really be negated by changing a definition halfway through as you put it, you only spoken here at the end, I've never defined grace at the start and then changed my mind later - who says that grace is the unmerited favour of God in a salvific way? Thats not the definition, grace is not a concept unique to God, and you don't have to be a doctor of Greek and Hebew to understand this.
And I defy anyone who suggests that Greek and Hebrew interpreters have an understanding and an ability to know the mind of God that others don't. That is a return to the Catholic darkness I mentioned earlier.
I already said what grace is, this conversation has moved away from Common grace to language interpretation. When I said, 'we ned a better definition of grace' I was speaking generally, as if to gently suggest that the meaning some people have limited themselves too is - well just wrong flatly. No dictionary will tell you that grace is exclusive to the character of God. As I said I can be gracious by giving out free food.
If we are just arguing about the definitions of words now, then whats the point - its just an excuse to be contradictory.
Good night
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Ben,
It is clear that you are sincere and concerned, but when the conversation starts to include "My God..this or that" as if we in this little online community are not speaking about the same God, things will rapidly deteriorate.
While I have a very good facility with the Biblical languages, I always become concerned when appeal to them becomes the singular linchpin of a debate. That said, I do not think that is what is happening in the discussion. God obviously has gifted some men with deep knowledge of the Biblical languages that we all do not possess. When we read these persons' commentaries, sermons, their authored confessions, and the specific English translations we claim to be the word of God, we are not bowing to them as do the Romanists in their "high priestly" infallibility of the church dogma. We are, however, recognizing the Reformed perspective of interpreting Scripture in community of the saints. That community includes scholarly persons whose views are to be tested and examined against the Scriptures they are expounding. But unless we want to fall into the "just me an my Bible" camp of Lone Ranger believers, we should give due personal attention to those that have come before us with more training, education (formal/informal), experience, etc. Does that mean the word of the more equipped is final? Not at all. We are not Romanists and even implying a similarity is going to rankle the best of us. But it does mean that we are duty bound to examine ourselves and test our own personal views against the views of others such as these. Now I do not for a minute, brother, think that you are simply waving off these appeals to the Biblical languages, but your polemic about the same could be misunderstood as such. So can you explain how you view the rightful place of knowledge of the Biblical languages in our interpretative efforts?
It is clear that you are sincere and concerned, but when the conversation starts to include "My God..this or that" as if we in this little online community are not speaking about the same God, things will rapidly deteriorate.
While I have a very good facility with the Biblical languages, I always become concerned when appeal to them becomes the singular linchpin of a debate. That said, I do not think that is what is happening in the discussion. God obviously has gifted some men with deep knowledge of the Biblical languages that we all do not possess. When we read these persons' commentaries, sermons, their authored confessions, and the specific English translations we claim to be the word of God, we are not bowing to them as do the Romanists in their "high priestly" infallibility of the church dogma. We are, however, recognizing the Reformed perspective of interpreting Scripture in community of the saints. That community includes scholarly persons whose views are to be tested and examined against the Scriptures they are expounding. But unless we want to fall into the "just me an my Bible" camp of Lone Ranger believers, we should give due personal attention to those that have come before us with more training, education (formal/informal), experience, etc. Does that mean the word of the more equipped is final? Not at all. We are not Romanists and even implying a similarity is going to rankle the best of us. But it does mean that we are duty bound to examine ourselves and test our own personal views against the views of others such as these. Now I do not for a minute, brother, think that you are simply waving off these appeals to the Biblical languages, but your polemic about the same could be misunderstood as such. So can you explain how you view the rightful place of knowledge of the Biblical languages in our interpretative efforts?
Patrick,
Sorry, my appeal in saying, "My God" was an affectionate remark only. I'm ecstatic I am a Christian and that I can refer to the LORD as my God. Any further meaning by insinuation which you have suggested is not and was not my intention, and I don't believe in "Freudian slips".
I don't intend to discuss anything on this thread besides the Common grace of God. I'm a student nothing further, I'm no expert. I do however have a friend in Northern Ireland who can speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, the Rev. John Douglas, and I'm sure if you addressed him any question he could answer it for you.
Otherwise if you wish to have a private conversation about my beliefs on the original languages and there place, further than mentioning that I hold to the KJV there is little point in having that discussion with you as I really don't know.
The Bible is the word of God and God doesn't violate common sense I don't think, one might say, well a talking snake in the Garden of Eden seems a bit unusual, but it makes perfect sense that God who created the garden would permit a snake to speak. It makes common sense to me that this is possible considering what happened and in the context of the whole story, it’s not that absurd. I think we can go a long way with common sense. That said I do believe that the word of God is perfect and unquestionable, and contains all wisdom.
Telling me how the word, 'grace' might be used in the Bible is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about the word grace as it has been used in the Bible - I'm talking about the unmerited favor of God which can be demonstrated in the Bible and is clearly evident.
If you take your position to its natural conclusion, you could say that its ok to smoke marijuana because the Bible doesn't say its wrong. One can be, 'drunk' on marijuana, but its not wine or, 'the fruit of the grape vine - juice' or whatever. Common sense tells you that to sit in your room and smoke pot until your eyes are red and you can't stand up is pretty much exactly the same thing. Just because the Bible doesn't mention Pot / Heroin / Cocaine etc... if you take your literal approach as a rational method to understand scripture and God, I think you become unstuck.
The guy who has an avatar that looked like the, "kind advice dog meme" has this literal approach and it’s unjustified.
To the gentleman from the USAF (my minister is a retired RAAF pilot ), I should like to point out that whilst we become more, "Christ - like" we do not become righteous in any sense. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. The verse, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags" is not talking exclusively to unbelievers.
Obviously when compared to other humans we can be, or appear better than them or, "good" but not in the sense that God is good. Our righteousness before God is a garment we wear that we are supplied with. But yes definitely in this life we become certainly more Christ like, which should be a preferred term to righteousness, as our righteousness, is nothing other than, 'self-righteousness'. However I do believe there is a place for feeling confident that you like to do the right thing. Yet (not to be negative and diminish that, because that is certainly a good thing and it’s wonderful to have a peaceful conciseness, and to possess a good name in business and work. That is a great blessing and ought to be striven for) in terms of any personal righteousness in an acceptance before God, I would never want to appear before God in any other garment but Christs or I will be consumed by His wrath.
I don't wish anyone any harm, and if I have offended anyone or insulted anyone I'm sorry if I have seemed mean spirited, I don't intend to appear such. I utilise all forms of speech (except vulgarity) to assist in conveying meaning, and that's really all I have sought to do.
This forum has been a wonderful blessing. I am required to keep a theology journal for my studies and there is a link in the journal to this forum. My tutor who has permanent access to this journal as it is a shared online document has probably read this by now, or could have, or eventually will. I'm sure he will correct me if I have made any serious blunders.
BLESSINGS
Sorry, my appeal in saying, "My God" was an affectionate remark only. I'm ecstatic I am a Christian and that I can refer to the LORD as my God. Any further meaning by insinuation which you have suggested is not and was not my intention, and I don't believe in "Freudian slips".
I don't intend to discuss anything on this thread besides the Common grace of God. I'm a student nothing further, I'm no expert. I do however have a friend in Northern Ireland who can speak fluent Greek and Hebrew, the Rev. John Douglas, and I'm sure if you addressed him any question he could answer it for you.
Otherwise if you wish to have a private conversation about my beliefs on the original languages and there place, further than mentioning that I hold to the KJV there is little point in having that discussion with you as I really don't know.
The Bible is the word of God and God doesn't violate common sense I don't think, one might say, well a talking snake in the Garden of Eden seems a bit unusual, but it makes perfect sense that God who created the garden would permit a snake to speak. It makes common sense to me that this is possible considering what happened and in the context of the whole story, it’s not that absurd. I think we can go a long way with common sense. That said I do believe that the word of God is perfect and unquestionable, and contains all wisdom.
Telling me how the word, 'grace' might be used in the Bible is completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about the word grace as it has been used in the Bible - I'm talking about the unmerited favor of God which can be demonstrated in the Bible and is clearly evident.
If you take your position to its natural conclusion, you could say that its ok to smoke marijuana because the Bible doesn't say its wrong. One can be, 'drunk' on marijuana, but its not wine or, 'the fruit of the grape vine - juice' or whatever. Common sense tells you that to sit in your room and smoke pot until your eyes are red and you can't stand up is pretty much exactly the same thing. Just because the Bible doesn't mention Pot / Heroin / Cocaine etc... if you take your literal approach as a rational method to understand scripture and God, I think you become unstuck.
The guy who has an avatar that looked like the, "kind advice dog meme" has this literal approach and it’s unjustified.
To the gentleman from the USAF (my minister is a retired RAAF pilot
), I should like to point out that whilst we become more, "Christ - like" we do not become righteous in any sense. Paul referred to himself as the chief of sinners. The verse, "Our righteousness is as filthy rags" is not talking exclusively to unbelievers.Obviously when compared to other humans we can be, or appear better than them or, "good" but not in the sense that God is good. Our righteousness before God is a garment we wear that we are supplied with. But yes definitely in this life we become certainly more Christ like, which should be a preferred term to righteousness, as our righteousness, is nothing other than, 'self-righteousness'. However I do believe there is a place for feeling confident that you like to do the right thing. Yet (not to be negative and diminish that, because that is certainly a good thing and it’s wonderful to have a peaceful conciseness, and to possess a good name in business and work. That is a great blessing and ought to be striven for) in terms of any personal righteousness in an acceptance before God, I would never want to appear before God in any other garment but Christs or I will be consumed by His wrath.
I don't wish anyone any harm, and if I have offended anyone or insulted anyone I'm sorry if I have seemed mean spirited, I don't intend to appear such. I utilise all forms of speech (except vulgarity) to assist in conveying meaning, and that's really all I have sought to do.
This forum has been a wonderful blessing. I am required to keep a theology journal for my studies and there is a link in the journal to this forum. My tutor who has permanent access to this journal as it is a shared online document has probably read this by now, or could have, or eventually will. I'm sure he will correct me if I have made any serious blunders.
BLESSINGS
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Yet you brought up the discussion of the Greek and then argued it was some movement towards Romanism, hence my question about where you see knowledge of the Biblical languages in the interpretive process, no?
I would disagree. If you are not talking about how some concept is used in Scripture, then you are just talking about personal opinions. You cannot appeal to personal opinions while eschewing the very foundation of how we are to process our personal opinions.
No, that is not a natural conclusion of my position at all.
Patrick,
Was I required to add to this sentence,
that you had offended me?
As a Chaplin, a lot of people would automatically assume you were an elder. I'd be very careful about the way you are treating me on here whilst calling yourself an elder as your conduct is on display for all the world including the ungodly to see.
I'm very interested to see how you respond to this.
Ben
Was I required to add to this sentence,
that you had offended me?
As a Chaplin, a lot of people would automatically assume you were an elder. I'd be very careful about the way you are treating me on here whilst calling yourself an elder as your conduct is on display for all the world including the ungodly to see.
I'm very interested to see how you respond to this.
Ben
Last edited:
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Ben and others who hold to "Common Grace",
I understand the benefit of inventing theological terms (that are not used in the Bible) to reflect what the Bible teaches (although even here we need to think with wisdom and not increase the miscommunication that already exists within Christendom due to everyone having their own terminology). What I do not understand is why you would replace a word -- that is so commonly used by Bible translations to reflect the NT Greek word, charis -- and give it a new meaning, reducing it down to a mere theological term not used in the Bible. Why not just use another term? Because of this you will have to make a distinction between these two graces each time you talk about them to strangers. Otherwise, it will just lead to miscommunication (dangerous miscommunication).
Now, I don't know where this word, grace, originated, but I still wonder if that is irrelevant due to its context of usage by most Bible translations today.
These are the reasons why I don't like the doctrine of "common grace", at least today.
I understand the benefit of inventing theological terms (that are not used in the Bible) to reflect what the Bible teaches (although even here we need to think with wisdom and not increase the miscommunication that already exists within Christendom due to everyone having their own terminology). What I do not understand is why you would replace a word -- that is so commonly used by Bible translations to reflect the NT Greek word, charis -- and give it a new meaning, reducing it down to a mere theological term not used in the Bible. Why not just use another term? Because of this you will have to make a distinction between these two graces each time you talk about them to strangers. Otherwise, it will just lead to miscommunication (dangerous miscommunication).
Now, I don't know where this word, grace, originated, but I still wonder if that is irrelevant due to its context of usage by most Bible translations today.
These are the reasons why I don't like the doctrine of "common grace", at least today.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Ben, I was talking about the origin of the word, grace, not the doctrine of common grace.
Hi Samuel,
Yes I understand that. I also appreciate that you are convinced that the theological doctrine, Common grace is an error.
There is no point arguing about whether its true or not because we both are obviously very entrenched in our position. I don't think any less of you as a person for your position.
This has become extremely contentious and I don't think its beneficial going around in circles like this, unless you can convince me it is necessary?
Ben
Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk
Yes I understand that. I also appreciate that you are convinced that the theological doctrine, Common grace is an error.
There is no point arguing about whether its true or not because we both are obviously very entrenched in our position. I don't think any less of you as a person for your position.
This has become extremely contentious and I don't think its beneficial going around in circles like this, unless you can convince me it is necessary?
Ben
Sent from my RM-941_apac_australia_new_zealand_236 using Tapatalk
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Ben,
I'm actually sorry for pushing these questions on you, since they don't have to do with your OP. Do realize, however, that my position for denying the doctrine of common grace is not at all adamant. That is why I was "wondering" if today's language (or more importantly, the language of Bible interpretations) can make old terms irrelevant. This is a question of wisdom, but it is also a question of authority. Who/what decides which language/terms we should use?
But again, Ben, you don't have to answer to my questions on your thread. Feel free to ignore them (seriously).
Samuel,
You are implying that the dictionary definition of the term grace is invalid because it doesn't limit its definition to reflect the limited use of it in the Bible, and you are saying that the meaning derived from the word when used in the Bible is limited to where the Holy Spirit has used it.
But I'm saying that the Holy Spirit has done more than inspire men to write the infallible word of God, and use the word, 'grace' in a particular way. Furthermore I'm saying that the Holy Spirit moves reprobates and causes them to bless the elect. I'm also saying that the Holy Spirit 's work in the world provides benefits to reprobates in an indirect way, not in benevolence but in complacency.
I'm saying that the benefits brought about by the Holy Spirit to the unregenerate, are blessings which the unregenerate do not deserve. However you do not believe this happens.
I'm saying that my beliefs on 'common grace' do not contradict yours, however the rule of interpretation of a word based on understanding how the word has been used in the Bible is not relevant.
You are implying that the dictionary definition of the term grace is invalid because it doesn't limit its definition to reflect the limited use of it in the Bible, and you are saying that the meaning derived from the word when used in the Bible is limited to where the Holy Spirit has used it.
But I'm saying that the Holy Spirit has done more than inspire men to write the infallible word of God, and use the word, 'grace' in a particular way. Furthermore I'm saying that the Holy Spirit moves reprobates and causes them to bless the elect. I'm also saying that the Holy Spirit 's work in the world provides benefits to reprobates in an indirect way, not in benevolence but in complacency.
I'm saying that the benefits brought about by the Holy Spirit to the unregenerate, are blessings which the unregenerate do not deserve. However you do not believe this happens.
I'm saying that my beliefs on 'common grace' do not contradict yours, however the rule of interpretation of a word based on understanding how the word has been used in the Bible is not relevant.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Ben, my only concern is the lack of wisdom behind teaching "common grace" today. If I were you, I would just teach common goodness or common love of God (with the threefold distinction), since it's the same thing, really. Using the word "grace" today in reference to God's providence only introduces miscommunication.
When one reads a statement like Romans 5:20-21, it is very difficult to see how "grace" could be made "common" in any sense. However, granting that an analogy can be established between saving grace and the the non-saving benefits which men in general receive from God, it must be the first priority to qualify what is meant so as to preserve the high value which the New Testament places upon the concept of grace. Every analogy requires similarity and dissimilarity. It is not enough to show the similarities. What are the dissimilarities? What makes it different from saving grace? These are important questions which must not be overlooked. The failure to properly define "common grace" has the potential to lead to misunderstanding or even perversion.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Example of common grace for we know these brethren already had saving grace:
2 Cor 8We want you to know, brothers,[a] about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. 6 Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you this act of grace. 7 But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you[c]—see that you excel in this act of grace also.
Calvin's commentary on 2Cor: 1. I make known to you. He commends the Macedonians, but it is with the design of stimulating the Corinthians by their example, although he does not expressly say so; for the former had no need of commendation, but the latter had need of a stimulus. And that he may stir up the Corinthians the more to emulation, he ascribes it to the grace of God that the Macedonians had been so forward to give help to their brethren. For although it is acknowledged by all, that it is a commendable virtue to give help to the needy, they, nevertheless, do not reckon it to be a gain, nor do they look upon it as the grace of God Nay rather, they reckon, that it is so much of what was theirs taken from them, and lost. Paul, on the other hand, declares, that we ought to ascribe it to the grace of God, when we afford aid to our brethren, and that it ought to be desired by us as a privilege of no ordinary kind.
2 Cor 8We want you to know, brothers,[a] about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. 6 Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you this act of grace. 7 But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you[c]—see that you excel in this act of grace also.
Calvin's commentary on 2Cor: 1. I make known to you. He commends the Macedonians, but it is with the design of stimulating the Corinthians by their example, although he does not expressly say so; for the former had no need of commendation, but the latter had need of a stimulus. And that he may stir up the Corinthians the more to emulation, he ascribes it to the grace of God that the Macedonians had been so forward to give help to their brethren. For although it is acknowledged by all, that it is a commendable virtue to give help to the needy, they, nevertheless, do not reckon it to be a gain, nor do they look upon it as the grace of God Nay rather, they reckon, that it is so much of what was theirs taken from them, and lost. Paul, on the other hand, declares, that we ought to ascribe it to the grace of God, when we afford aid to our brethren, and that it ought to be desired by us as a privilege of no ordinary kind.
This conversation has deteriorated; thread is closed.
- Status
