Puritan Board Freshman
Much of the disagreement here is over the use of the term "grace" when discussing what has come to be called "common grace." While I agree whole-heartedly with the concept (as stated above by brothers Josh and Jim) of God's general and providential goodness, the term "grace" itself is misleading and I would shy away from its usage because it can imply something that was not intended by the term. A term such as "common goodness" might actually be more helpful.
I've seen the term "common grace" used numerous times to promote man-centred theology (and that's one of the reasons I shy away from using it).
-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:19:03 EST-----
If, by Common Grace, you mean that God brings rain on the just and the unjust alike, that He grants temporal gifts to the reprobate as well as the elect, so on and so forth, I can agree with you (though I wouldn't call it grace). However, all of those "gifts" simply serve to fit the reprobate for destruction and make them all the riper for judgment. So I believe Common Grace is an insufficient term to describe the temporal "good things of the earth" God gives to all creatures made in His image.Common Grace anyone?
If you're interested, there's a very good article that touches upon this briefly by our very own Rev. Winzer (armourbearer):
Well said, In my humble opinion. I'd also side with Pastor Winzer against Professors Murray and Stonehouse on this subject.
-----Added 7/1/2009 at 12:25:02 EST-----
Dr. Richard Mouw is an example of someone that has used the term "common grace" to promote un-Biblical teachings, In my humble opinion.