Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Richard,
This issue can very easily be solved in a systematic-theological manner without appealing to the nuanced meanings of "grace" in various passages. Even though I believe that God intends well-being for the elect only (i.e., even though I believe that all grace is grace towards the elect), it is still proper for me to speak of "grace" or "graces" that God imparts to reprobates -- so long as these "graces" are referring to gifts irrespective of God's intentions. It's when the term "grace" is used equivocally that problems arise in the dispute, for example when someone says that God could not sustain the existence of a sinner who deserves hell immediately except by grace, and then that person says therefore that God intends good for the creature using a second definition of "grace." I believe in "common grace" if by that you mean God imparts gifts to the reprobates; I deny it vehemently if by that you mean God desires their well-being as a result of this gift. The former is shown by many Scriptures you have provided; the latter is not.
If I am not mistaken the structure of this debate is exactly the same as a section of the Clark/Van Til debate: Clark's point was that the well-meant offer logically contradicts other parts of the Reformed faith (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can find such prooftexts in Scripture), whereas Van Til's point was that he thought it was taught in various texts (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can deny it by our "human logic"; it's just an "apparent contradiction").
Therefore, Richard, if you can combat the logical difficulties that have been shown in your position, and if you can show that the Bible speaks of God's gracious intentions towards reprobates (since that is what the Kuyperian doctrine of common grace is) rather than His gifts towards them, then you will have succeeded in establishing that common grace is Biblical.
This issue can very easily be solved in a systematic-theological manner without appealing to the nuanced meanings of "grace" in various passages. Even though I believe that God intends well-being for the elect only (i.e., even though I believe that all grace is grace towards the elect), it is still proper for me to speak of "grace" or "graces" that God imparts to reprobates -- so long as these "graces" are referring to gifts irrespective of God's intentions. It's when the term "grace" is used equivocally that problems arise in the dispute, for example when someone says that God could not sustain the existence of a sinner who deserves hell immediately except by grace, and then that person says therefore that God intends good for the creature using a second definition of "grace." I believe in "common grace" if by that you mean God imparts gifts to the reprobates; I deny it vehemently if by that you mean God desires their well-being as a result of this gift. The former is shown by many Scriptures you have provided; the latter is not.
If I am not mistaken the structure of this debate is exactly the same as a section of the Clark/Van Til debate: Clark's point was that the well-meant offer logically contradicts other parts of the Reformed faith (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can find such prooftexts in Scripture), whereas Van Til's point was that he thought it was taught in various texts (and therefore it's foolish to presume that we can deny it by our "human logic"; it's just an "apparent contradiction").
Therefore, Richard, if you can combat the logical difficulties that have been shown in your position, and if you can show that the Bible speaks of God's gracious intentions towards reprobates (since that is what the Kuyperian doctrine of common grace is) rather than His gifts towards them, then you will have succeeded in establishing that common grace is Biblical.