Does God Show Grace to the Reprobate?

[Iconoclast]

God "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45).

If this is not Grace then words have no meaning.

Hi Pilgrim,
Here is another way some reformed men have viewed these verses,

A Brief Answer to Common Grace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brief answer to the First Point of Common Grace:
In the first point, the Christian Reformed Church adopted two dogmas:
The first we may call the dogma of Common Grace. It teaches that God is gracious to all men in bestowing upon them the things of this present time, such as rain and sunshine, and all earthly things. This is what Synod meant when it spoke of a grace of God to "all creatures."
The second we may call the dogma of Universal Grace. According to it, God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel to all that hear. This is what Synod meant when it referred to Canons II:5 and III-IV:8 and 9, and the "general offer" of the Gospel.
As to the dogma of Common Grace:
The Confessions do not express themselves on this point, although they do attribute the term "common grace" to the Arminians in Canons III-IV:5.
It is, however, contrary to Scripture, which plainly teaches that God hates the wicked reprobates and that He uses even the things of the present time to their destruction. See the following: Psa. 5:5; Psa. 11:5; Psa. 73:17-20; Psalm 92:5-7; Prov. 3:33; Mal. 1:2-4; Rom. 9:13; I Pet. 3:12.
The truth is that grace is not in things. All things are but means which God uses to the salvation of the righteous (elect) while He uses them to the destruction and damnation of the wicked (reprobate). And, because men also use these means as rational, moral creatures, they are responsible. Things are certainly common but grace is never common.
As to the theory of Universal Grace:
This is surely not proven by the passages from the Confession to which the Synod of 1924 referred. Canons II:5 merely teaches the general preaching of the gospel that is particular in contents. Canons III-IV:8 teaches that what God proclaims in the Gospel is unfeigned, that it is pleasing to Him that the called should come to Him and that He promises eternal life to them that come (the elect). Canons III-IV:9 emphasizes that the guilt of not coming is wholly the sinner's.
Nor is this proven by the texts Synod quoted. Romans 2:4 merely teaches that the wicked despise the goodness of God that leads man to repentance. And Ezekiel 33:11 teaches that God has pleasure in the wicked that repents, and that is always the elect.
The doctrine that God is gracious in the preaching of the Gospel to all that hear the preaching of it is, however:
Contrary to the Reformed Confessions which plainly teach that God is gracious to the elect only: See Canons 1:6; II:8; III-IV:10; V:8, and Rejection of Errors II:6.
Contrary to Scripture: Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:13; Romans 9:16; II Cor. 2:15-16; Mark 4:11-12; Matth. 11:25-26; John 12:39-40.
Brief Answer to the Second Point of Common Grace:
The meaning of the Second Point:
The second point of 1924 does not teach that God holds the sinner in His power, so that he cannot do anything against the will and providence of God. This is plainly taught in the Bible and in the Belgic Confession, Art. 13.
But the second point teaches:
That there is a gracious operation of the Holy Spirit which is not regenerating on the heart and mind and will of the sinner.
That this operation commenced immediately after the fall and continues all through history.
That as a result there is in man a remnant of his original goodness, so that he is not as depraved as he would be without this operation.
That, because of this operation, the natural man is able to live a relatively good life in this life, and do good in the sphere of the world.
Objection to the Second Point:
The proof adduced by Synod for this point does not hold:
From Scripture the Synod quoted the following passages: Gen. 6:3; Psa. 81:11-12; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; II Thess. 2:6-7; Concerning these passages we note:
Only one speaks of the Holy Spirit at all, namely, Gen. 6:3. However, the text does not speak of a restraining by the Spirit, but of a striving. This took place through the Word of God by the prophets.
None of them speak of a restraint of sin.
Three of them speak of the very opposite of restraint, namely, of a delivering over into sin by the wrath of God. See: Psa. 81:11-12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; Acts 7:42.
II Thess. 2:6-7 does not refer to the Holy Spirit as is plain from the text itself.
As to the proof adduced from the Confessions:
Belgic Conf., Art. 13, does not speak of an influence of the Holy Spirit, but of the Providential power of God; nor of an inward restraint of sin, but the restraint of sinners and devils.
Art. 36 does not speak of an influence of the Spirit but of the power of the police or magistrate.
The Second Point itself is contrary to Scripture and the Confessions:
To Scripture:
It postulates a remnant of good in natural man, which is contrary to all those passages of Holy Writ that speak of the depravity of the natural man. For these, see the discussion under Point III.
Scripture teaches directly the opposite from the main tenant of the Second Point when it declares that God delivers men over into ever greater corruption by His wrath. See: Rom. 1:24-28; Psalm 51:5.
To the Confessions: Canons III-IV:4 speaks of "remnants of natural light." These remnants are not due to an operation of Common Grace. Even with these remnants, however, the natural man is still wholly depraved and incapable of doing any good even in things natural and civil.
Brief Answer to the Third Point:
The meaning of the third point:
The meaning of the third point of 1924 is not:
That the natural man through the remnants of natural light that are left in him after the fall is able to distinguish between good and evil; has some knowledge of God and of things natural.
That the natural man is able to see that the law of God is good for himself, and that, therefore, there is on his part an attempt to live in outward conformity with that law.
That the third point does not intend to express this is evident from:
The fact that the deposed ministers taught exactly this before 1924. It was this view which Synod condemned.
The fact that no special influence of the grace of God is necessary to explain these things in the natural man. The confessions explain them as remnants of natural light. Synod, however, speaks of an influence of God on the natural man, whereby he is able to do civil righteousness.
From the evident connection between the second and third points.
But the third point teaches:
That there is an influence of God, of the Holy Spirit, on the mind and will of the natural man, which is not regenerating, but improves him.
That because of this influence, he is able to live a relatively good life in this world, and his works are not always sinful before God.
Objections to the third point:
It is contrary to the Reformed Confessions:
The proof from the confessions to which Synod referred does not hold:
Canons III-IV:4:
Speaks of a remnant of natural light and not of an influence of God on the natural man.
It emphasizes that even in things natural and civil the natural man wholly pollutes this natural light and holds it in unrighteousness.
Netherlands Confession, Art. 36:
Does not speak of any good that the natural man can do, but of a good order and decency which God establishes among men.
Nor does it refer to an influence of God on the natural man, but to the power of the magistrates.
For proof from the confessions to the contrary, see: Heidelberg Catechism, L.D. III,Q. 8; L.D. 33, Q. 91; Belgic Confession, Art. 14; Canons III-IV:1-4.
It is contrary to Scripture:
Synod tried to sustain the Third Point by the following passages:
II Kings 10:29-30. (But Jehu saw in God's commandment a means to satisfy his own ambition, and very well executes the command--but becomes blood- guilty in doing so, and does not depart from the ways of Jeroboam (See Hosea l).
II Kings 12:2 and 14:3. (At best the examples of Jehoash and Amaziah prove an attempt to live in outward conformity to the law. In the case of Jehoash this was under the influence of a godly priest.)
Luke 6:33. (a proof that sinners do no good and have no reward.)
Romans 2:14. (The work of the law in the hearts of the Gentiles--not the law itself.)
For proof to the contrary, that is, for positive proof from Scripture that the unregenerate cannot do good, see: Psalm 14:1-3; Matt. 7:16-20; Romans 1:28- 32; and Romans 3:9-18.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the sermon, article, and pamphlet listings.
Return to the Loveland Protestant Reformed Church home page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last modified, 9-Oct-2000

 

[AV1611]

Yes, the reprobate experience God's common grace.

First off, let us try to be Confessional. Do the confessions teach the doctrine of common grace? No they do not, neither the phrase nor the idea is contained within them (save the Canons where "common grace" as understood by the Arminian is condemned).

I like Matthew Winzers explanation here:

Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:27-36
Matthew 5:44-48, in conjunction with Luke 6:27-36, is the first reference provided to support the position that God desires the salvation of all men. We are told that it is referenced, not because it deals with the overtures of grace in the gospel, but because “it does tell us something regarding God’s benevolence that has bearing upon all manifestations of divine grace” and that “all without distinction, reprobate as well as elect, are the beneficiaries of this favour.” [19] Specifically, the report deduces from these texts “that the kindness bestowed in sunshine and rain is the expression of divine love, that back of the bestowal there is an attitude on the part of God, called love, which constrains him to bestow these tokens of his lovingkindness.” [20]

The method of argumentation for establishing this conclusion is quite simple. Since men are commanded to love their enemies, and since they are also commanded, as a motive to the exercise of this love, to imitate the Father in heaven’s perfection, it necessarily follows that it is a part of the Father in heaven’s perfection that “he loves his enemies and that it is because he loves his enemies that he makes his sun rise upon them and sends them rain.” [21]

One dare not argue with logic. But we may test the conclusion by applying the same logic to the other imperatives which Jesus gave, such as “bless (speak well to) them that curse you” and “pray for them which despitefully use you.” Are we to conclude that a man speaking well to his enemies is in imitation of the Father speaking well to His enemies? Or, that a man praying for those who despitefully use him imitates the Father praying for those who despitefully use Him?

Putting the question in this manner should help us to see that while the logic seems sound enough, the reasoning fails to account for the distinction in being between the Creator’s infinitude and the creature’s finitude. The commandments given to man are suited to his creatureliness, and whatever perfection a man might attain to, it can never be greater than creaturely perfection. God’s perfection is omniscient and omnipotent. He knows who are the elect and who are the reprobate, and it is in His power to act in accord with the purpose He has for each one. Bearing this in mind, we may understand Jesus’ commandment in its Biblical context. Hatred and vengeance is not in your power. It belongs to God to repay. Therefore, determine to do good to your enemies, and thereby show that you are more virtuous than publicans. For such virtue imitates your Father’s perfection, and demonstrates that you are His sons. That is, the perfection which Jesus calls upon His followers to imitate is not the Father’s actions, but the virtuous quality which characterises His actions.

Hence, the report’s inference from this text is inadmissible. The conclusion, however, deserves examination in the light of traditional reformed thought on the subject of God’s love. For it is noteworthy that some reformed divines, those strictly so-called, were not averse to referring to a benevolence in God towards all men, elect and reprobate alike. So Francis Turretin, whilst explaining God’s love of Jacob (the elect) and hatred of Esau (the reprobate), distinguishes it from “God’s general love and the common providence by which he is borne to all his creatures.” [22]

The reason for adopting this terminology appears to have been the original relation which God sustained to the creation prior to the fall of man. It is in consideration of the fact that the creature is the perfect work of His own hands, and man in particular is made in His image and after His likeness. Sin has certainly been introduced into the created order so that the creature is now subjected to vanity and man as the image of God is defaced. Yet, the Scriptures sometimes speak of the Creator relating and acting towards the creation as considered in its original condition, as when the shedding of man’s blood and the cursing of a man’s person is forbidden because man is still regarded as the image of God (Gen. 9:6; Jam. 3:9). Hence, some warrant seems to be afforded for the view that God bears a general love to the creature as His creature; and that not on the basis of a disposition or tendency of the Divine nature, but because of the eternal decree to be disposed in this way towards the creature.

What should be kept in mind with regard to this love as expounded by these divines is its generality. If it is appropriate to say that God bears a general love to the creature as His creature, such a love must, by its very nature, be without reference to particular persons or any special purpose. In other words, it is God’s love to mankind considered as a whole, or as the apostle describes it, as a lump of clay (Rom. 9:21). But as God did not only decree to create man, but also “of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour,” the one to love and the other to hate, it is impossible to speak of God’s love to this or that man for this or that purpose without predicating something of God’s special electing love. As John Knox has said: “You make the love of God common to all men; and that do we constantly deny, and say, that before all beginning God hath loved his Elect in Christ Jesus his Sonne, and that from the same eternitie he hath reprobated others.” [23] Consequently, the question as to whether God loves the reprobate becomes rhetorical. The answer must be “no,” because the very nature of the question requires an answer with respect to God’s special purpose to love or not to love particular persons.

It is in this sense that the report’s conclusion is out of accord with those divines who suggest that it is appropriate to think of a general love of God. It does not refer to a general love and providential care which God exercises over His creation as such, but to a special love with regard to “reprobate as well as elect.” Moreover, it suggests that this love “is exercised towards them in their ungodly state” and has some bearing “upon the grace of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel.” [24] In other words, it is not a general love to the creature as a creature, but a special love to the creature as a lost, miserable sinner who stands in need of salvation. All reformed divines, however, are adamant that this love to sinners is restricted to elect sinners.

The report has adduced a text of Scripture which does not speak to the issue of the divine love being manifested to the sinner in the gospel. It has relied solely upon an incidental statement to demonstrate its claims; and that in itself cannot be regarded as legitimate when it is considered that the subject being dealt with lies very near the heart of the Bible’s message. What of all the Scriptural statements which speak perspicuously to the issue? Prof. Murray was unable to refer to these because they all, each and every one, speak of the divine love being manifested to the sinner in the giving of the Lord Jesus Christ for the sinner, i.e., in terms of a particular redemption. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). To quote Samuel Rutherford:

In this grammar of the Holy Ghost, observe we, by the way, for resolution, The wisdom of God, in framing the words of the gospel. It cannot be said that God loved all the world in Christ his beloved; and all, and every sinner, and all the race of mankind. Yet, laying down this ground, that God keepeth up in his mind, the secrets of election and reprobation, till he, in his own time, be pleased to reveal them; the Lord hath framed the gospel-offer of Christ in such indefinite words, and so general (yet without all double-dealing, lying, or equivocating; for his own good-pleasure is a rule both of his doings and speeches).” [25]

Hence, the love of God to sinners is manifested only generally in the gospel, and does not become a particular manifestation to this or that person until God is pleased to work faith in those whom He has chosen, whereby they become partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ. Scripture does not warrant the extending of this manifestation any further than the extent of the atonement. For whom did Christ die? It is those to whom the love of God is manifested and commended. This point is made very eloquently in a sermon by Dr. John Kennedy:

‘But,’ it may be asked, ‘how are we, who hear the gospel, related to the Father’s love?’ Not so, that we have any warrant to conclude, because of what the gospel tells you of His love, that it now, and as you are, embraces you. It speaks to you of that love, it exhibits the glorious proof given of the sovereignty, freeness, and riches of that love, in the mission and death of the Son, as the Christ and ‘the Lamb of God,’ but it cannot, by possibility, assure you of being an object of that love till you first come to Christ, and be embraced by it in Him. Aught else would be utterly inconsistent with the mode in which His love was revealed, as well as with the source whence it flows. Love, that could not approach a sinner except through Christ’s rent body and shed blood, cannot, apart from Christ-crucified, be approached by a sinner. It cannot come but through divine blood to you, and you must not attempt to come to it except through the same channel. Let there be movements in desire and faith towards it as it is revealed in Christ, but let there be no attempt to embrace it, as a loved one, till first, as a sinner, you embrace ‘Jesus Christ as He is freely offered to us in the gospel.’ [26]

Given this affinity between the love of God and the redemption purchased by Christ, and especially the prominence attributed to it by Scripture, the report’s attempted exegesis of an incidental statement is most unsatisfactory. [27] One is not at liberty to overlook what the Scriptures positively teach upon the subject in question; for it may be that the express word of Scripture excludes what is being extracted from other portions of Scripture which do not speak so directly and explicitly. And that, as has been demonstrated, is true in the case before us.

The Scriptures explicitly refer to God’s love as efficaciously bringing the objects of it into an estate of salvation, and that this estate, reciprocally, is the sole evidence that one is beloved of God. When the Shorter Catechism states that assurance of God’s love is a benefit which accompanies justification, adoption, and sanctification, and that these in turn are benefits which pertain to those that are effectually called, [28] it is accurately representing the Scriptural presentation of the divine love as it respects sinners. There can be no personal assurance of God’s love in the outward call of the gospel. Such assurance is spurious and delusive. When that call is made effectual by the Holy Ghost working faith in the hearer, he is thereby united to Christ and made a partaker of all the benefits of His redemptive work. Then, and only then, can there be a genuine, personal assurance of God’s love.

Obversely, the Scriptures are just as explicit with regard to God’s hatred of the reprobate, as was demonstrated previously in connection with the introduction of the report. Whatever temporal benefits the reprobate enjoy as a result of God’s providential care of the creature, the fact that the word reprobate implies God’s purpose of displaying His justice with regard to them as sinners, means that every temporal benefit is a manifestation of God’s just displeasure against them. And this may be confidently maintained, not on the basis of an incidental statement, but in the very words of inspiration: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Pet. 2:9). [29] Hence, the reprobate cannot properly be regarded as “beneficiaries” of God’s favour. In the purpose of God, the temporal benefits received by the reprobate are the very means He uses to reserve them for punishment. This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith states with regard to God’s providential dealings to them:

God, as a righteous Judge... not only withholdeth His grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasions of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan: whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others. [30]

As was stated earlier, the creature as God’s creature was created good, and God undoubtedly exercises a providential care over His works, even rejoicing in them (Ps. 104:31). But the reprobate are not considered merely as creatures when God dispenses temporal benefits to them. They are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” and God is said to endure them “with much longsuffering” (Rom. 9:22). And this long-suffering is not presented as being in any sense for their benefit, as if He were patiently waiting for them to turn to Him that He might be favourable to them. No, it is so that “he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (verse 23). Thus, God’s wrathful enduring of the reprobate is for the purpose of mercifully manifesting His glory to the elect. Every temporal benefit, therefore, which comes to the reprobate is not without purpose, but is made effectual to them for their inuring and making meet for damnation.

Psalm 11 makes this point clear in its demarcation of the righteous and the wicked in the sight of the Almighty. The context is the power and prosperity of the wicked, and the apparent defencelessness of the righteous in relation to it (verses 1-3). Yet, God is in heaven. His eyes behold and His eyelids try the children of men (verse 4). What follows is best left to David Dickson to describe, who has captured the very essence of the Psalm:

However he giveth the wicked and violent persecutor to have a seeming prosperity, while the godly are in trouble, yet that is no act of love to them: for the wicked, and him that loveth violence, his soul hateth... All the seeming advantages which the wicked have in their own prosperity, are but means of hardening them in their ill course, and holding them fast in the bonds of their own iniquities, till God execute judgment on them: upon the wicked he shall rain snares... Whatsoever be the condition of the wicked for a time, yet at length sudden, terrible, irresistible, and remediless destruction they shall not escape: fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest is the portion of their cup. [31]

Such is the Biblical and reformed teaching on God’s love to His elect and hatred of the reprobate. The next reference adduced by the report is Acts 14:17, but the report states that “this text does not express as much as those considered already.” [32] Thus we may proceed to an examination of those texts which are said to imply that God wishes for things that never come to pass.​

 

[CalvinisticCumberland]

Saving Grace? No. Common grace? Yes. The grace that allows a reprobate to be born into freedom, gain wealth, live in relative peace... etc., etc.....

A temporal grace, and that only. A limited grace, given only for a season, and ultimately ONLY for HIS glory, carried out in His eternal plan, and hidden in mystery from man's understanding until that day when all becomes clear to His chosen.

 

[JBaldwin]

As was stated earlier, the creature as God’s creature was created good, and God undoubtedly exercises a providential care over His works, even rejoicing in them (Ps. 104:31). But the reprobate are not considered merely as creatures when God dispenses temporal benefits to them. They are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” and God is said to endure them “with much longsuffering” (Rom. 9:22). And this long-suffering is not presented as being in any sense for their benefit, as if He were patiently waiting for them to turn to Him that He might be favourable to them. No, it is so that “he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (verse 23). Thus, God’s wrathful enduring of the reprobate is for the purpose of mercifully manifesting His glory to the elect. Every temporal benefit, therefore, which comes to the reprobate is not without purpose, but is made effectual to them for their inuring and making meet for damnation.

Richard,

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that passage. Thanks

 

[Herald]

No. Grace is not extended in any shape, fashion or form to the reprobate.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Maybe alongside of a definition of grace we also need a definition of show. What does it mean to say does God "show" grace to the reprobate? Luke 4:22 seems to indicate that grace was shown through the words of the Lord Jesus, "And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth."

Seems to me in some way Jesus showed grace by His words. And certainly Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. And we are also called to follow in His steps by showing grace by our words to every man according to Colossians 4:6, "Let your speech be alway with grace..."

Just thinking out loud on what it means to "show" grace.

 

[dwayne]

I still have not voted because I am not completely swayed one way or another.

I am leaning towards no though because of this.
God shows grace to his elect. How can a just God show grace to those who are ill deserving? Because Christ is our(the elect) mediator, and his atonement was substitutionary. Christ is not the mediator for the reprobate so how can God remain Just and show them grace at all??

You asked . How can a just God show grace to those who are ill deserving? I thought that pretty well describs all of us.

 

[shackleton]

I thought grace meant getting something that one does not deserve? We are all being shown grace not just the reprobate, if we were not then we would all be living in judgment. We all deserve hell but thankfully God decided to save some.



Main Entry:
grace
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin gratia favor, charm, thanks, from gratus pleasing, grateful; akin to Sanskrit gṛṇāti he praises
Date:
12th century

1 a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b: a virtue coming from God
c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace2 a: approval, favor <stayed in his good graces> barchaic : mercy, pardon c: a special favor : privilege <each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage —
(Merriam-Webster)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I am of the persuasion of number 2.

I believe that grace is shown to the reprobate, but not by the Cross. I think that it is more accurate to say that the cross bought mercy for the elect, not necessarily grace, I may be incorrect here though. I make a distinction between mercy and grace which is expounded upon by A.W. Pink in "The Attributes of God", which I have conveineintly misplaced. If anyone has a copy and knows what I am talking about, maybe they can shed some light there.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I thought grace meant getting something that one does not deserve? We are all being shown grace not just the reprobate, if we were not then we would all be living in judgment. We all deserve hell but thankfully God decided to save some.



Main Entry:
grace
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin gratia favor, charm, thanks, from gratus pleasing, grateful; akin to Sanskrit gṛṇāti he praises
Date:
12th century

1 a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b: a virtue coming from God
c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace2 a: approval, favor <stayed in his good graces> barchaic : mercy, pardon c: a special favor : privilege <each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage —
(Merriam-Webster)

According to this definition, do the reprobate receive any of them? I say not one bit. Now on the flip side, those who do receive grace can not turn this into some entitlement and boast. True grace will always create meeknes and humility.

 

[timmopussycat]

What does God owe all sinners?

All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and have earned the wages thereof which is death (Rom. 6:23). Therfore, God owes all death.

But he does not immediately deliver that punishment to all who deserve it. Rather he bears with great patience the objects of his wrath, so as to make his wrath, power and grace known to the objects of his mercy (Rom. 9:22,23). During that time, "he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" (Luke 6:35). It is clear from the immediate context that Christ would say that in a certain sense God does good to his enemies since Jesus commands us to do good to our enemies on the premise that if we do so "we will be sons of the Most High,..." and to "be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (v.36).
In Matthew the command to love our enemies leads to the conclusion "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his son to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:44,45).

Although the extent of God's benevolence to unrighteous enemies who deserve nothing but death is ulitmately limited by the exercise of his just wrath upon them, the kindness and mercy shown by God to these enemies in this life is explicitly taught by Jesus and we cannot and must not deny it. To deny that blessings extended to the reprobate sinners are expressions of God's kindness and mercy is to let our theological reasoning trump an explicit Scriptural statement, which is an error we should never commit.

Since mercies are like grace in that both are blessings one receives contrary to that which one deserves, one might call these blessings received by the wicked a limited kind of grace (especially when compared to the grace the believer receives). I do not believe, however, that Scripture ever uses the term "grace" to describe them. If it does, the term "common grace" is fully appropriate to describe them. But if Scripture never uses "grace" to define mecies received by unbelievers, we may legitimately avoid the possibility of confusion and equivocation by describing them as "common mercies" since "mercies", as has been shown, has explicit Scriptural support.

But whatever term we use, we must recognize that these gospel passages do teach that God shows that he is, to a real, if limited extent, truly kind, merciful and loving to his enemies, even though that presents us with a theological confict that we must resolve. Those who deny the term "common grace" for the mercies unbelievers receive must never deny the reality of God's kindness, mercy and love expressed to unbelievers in God's common benevolences. For Scripture will not let us do so.

 

[BertMulder]

Indeed, Tim, as Psalm 85 also says:

The Lord is good to all. His tender mercies are over all his works - (from memory)

Important also for us to remember how undeserving we are. God would be justified, and still good to us, if he condemned all humankind to eternal perdition.

 

[Bygracealone]

I think one of the problems that adds to the confusion over this whole question comes down to the actual word "grace." The word "grace" as used in the Scriptures is always used in the sense of that "grace" that flows from the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ. I haven't yet found an instance in which the word "grace" is used in reference to the reprobate.

I'm personally much more comfortable speaking of God's "common benevolence" (goodness) rather than "common grace" as I find nothing "common" about the grace of our God; rather, I find His grace to be quite particular. That said, I think many folks use the term "common grace" and actually mean something closer to "common benevolence."

There's also the issue of temporal experiences versus how those experiences are counted eternally. Do the reprobate enjoy good things in this life? I have to say "yes." They enjoy good things like food, drink, marriage, sex, having children, the satisfaction of work and play, etc. These are good things that they enjoy temporally. Will these things be used against them on the day of Judgment? Yes, because they enjoyed the good things God has given them and never acknowledged from whom those good things came; they failed to give praise to whom praise is due. But were those things that they enjoyed actually "good things," I think so... So, I think there's a distinction to be made between the fact that those things are truly good things and how they might be used at the Judgment. Temporally, they are good things, but eternally those good things will be counted against them.

Just my thoughts... I don't know which option in the poll best suits my understanding...

Cheers!

 

[Bygracealone]

Hi Josh,

I failed to read your post thoroughly as I tried to catch up. You did a fine job, so my post was a bit superfluous.

Blessings!

 

[VaughanRSmith]

If Christ would not have made substitutionary atonement then would Adam and Eve would have been cast into hell immediately upon sinning? Does this not carry on to the reprobate? How is it that a reprobate can take a single breath of air if it is not for common grace? What is the grounds for common grace. I dare say it is the Sacrifice of Christ. Those who disagree that common grace was purchased by Christ and is extended to the sinner must answer the question, “How does the reprobate yet live on this earth when the punishment for sin is hell?” If they live because God is longsuffering then is this longsuffering not the common grace of God? If the grounds for this common grace is not Christ then what are the grounds by which his forensic judgment may be delayed?

 

[Barnpreacher]

I was reading Henry on Romans 2 tonight and this thread came to my mind.

The consideration of the goodness of God, his common goodness to all (the goodness of his providence, of his patience, and of his offers), should be effectual to bring us all to repentance; and the reason why so many continue in impenitency is because they do not know and consider this.

 

[Superstu]

I agree more with option 2. I figure that Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is only for the elect's salvation. period. Neverless, my interpretation of Scripture gives the impression that God shows a degree of kindness (which could be considered some sort of grace) towards the damned in that he has granted the reprobate some blessings in their earthly life.

Either way just my

 

[dwakefield86]

I personally agree with option 2.

The grace purchased by Christ's atoning work was of a different nature than that of God's common grace. In order to forgive the sins of His people it was necessary for Christ to shed His own blood, but His atonement is not necessary for God to show His common grace to reprobates. His common grace is not a pledge to redeem those to whom it is shown, but simply to express His own goodness towards His creatures. I hope this makes sense.

In response to option 3, any grace received by reprobates is real grace, though of a different sort. Although it is true that the ultimate purpose for which God shows this grace to the non-elect is to judge them and to make known his mercy to vessels fitted for glory, still these acts of kindness still maintain their gracious quality. In other words, God is not deceiving people by displaying kindness towards them, but in fact is truly showing mercy towards them.

There is a passage of Scripture I would like you guys to comment on. It is Romans 2:4 - "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" I been studying the subject of the dual will of God, that is, His will of decree versus His will of command. Though it is said in Romans 9:22 and 23 that God's intention in being patient towards the reprobate is to bring judgment upon them, it also says in the above quoted passage that Gods general kindness is "meant to lead you to repentance?" How would you reconcile these two passages?