[Back to Contents]

Common Grace

1. Luke 6:35 and Matthew 5:43-48: The Common Grace Texts?

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil (Luke 6:35).

Luke 6:35 and Matthew 5:43-48 are appealed to by the RWC’s article in support of the theory of common grace.⁵ The RWC committee elaborates on this theory in Point 2 (a) of its response in the Minutes of Synod: “We use this term [i.e., common grace] simply to refer to all those expressions of God’s lovingkindness in this world which are not confined to the elect.” In Point 2 (b) of the article, this lovingkindness of common grace is extended to the reprobate in the preaching of the gospel. Once again I draw attention to the fallacy of the committee’s position to which I referred in the third point of my protest. The fallacy is this: common grace by definition has to do with the good things God gives to all men alike—elect and reprobate—in this life, such as “food, rain and sunshine, health and a variety of abilities and skills” (“The British Reformed Fellowship: How Reformed Is It?” Point 3), things that are by definition non-saving and temporal. Therefore, common grace has no part in any discussion of a grace of God expressed to all men in the gospel, which is the realm of saving grace.

This is a fallacy endemic in all free-offer theology, beginning with the official formulation of common grace by the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924, through John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse’s 1948 formulation, right up to the present day. It is interesting to note that Murray and Stonehouse, in seeking biblical support for their doctrine, turned first to Matthew 5:44–48, a passage that they even admit “does not indeed deal with the overtures of grace in the gospel … The particular aspect of God’s grace reflected upon here is the common gifts of providence, the making of the sun to rise upon the evil and good.”⁶ Yet the passage is used to support their idea of a grace of God for all men, elect and reprobate, in the preaching of the gospel.

It is clear from their reference to Luke 6:35 in both the article and the response that the RWC understands the words “[God] is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” as applying to absolutely all the unthankful and evil, including the reprobate unthankful and evil. The idea is then that believers are to love all their enemies without exception as a reflection of the love that God has for all His enemies without exception.

This interpretation is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that God is kind to all the unthankful and evil. If God is kind to all the unthankful and evil, including the reprobate unthankful and evil, then the text proves too much for the committee. This is because the RWC, in line with all proponents of common grace, wants to make a distinction in the grace or kindness of God between common grace and special or saving grace. But the kindness mentioned in the text is the one saving kindness of God’s love. It is the love of God for His people: the love that God has for His people when they were His enemies. And this love God causes His people to know as a love that is capable of being kind and merciful to His enemies.

That the kindness of God mentioned in the text is the one saving kindness of God’s love is clear from Luke 6:36: “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” This verse is connected to and explains the kindness of God mentioned in verse 35: God’s kindness to the unthankful and evil is His mercy. The kindness of verse 35 is not the common favour of common grace, nor is it the RPC’s “expression of God’s loving-kindness to the non-elect” (a thoroughly ambiguous phrase). It is rather the one saving kindness of God’s mercy, the mercy that God shows only to His elect when they too were His enemies. This is why the RWC’s interpretation of the text—that God is kind to absolutely all the unthankful and evil—proves too much. If God is kind to all His enemies, including His reprobate enemies, then He is also merciful to all His reprobate enemies with His one saving mercy; and then the distinction the committee wants to make in the grace of God between common and special grace no longer exists.

Nevertheless, God is indeed kind to the unthankful and to the evil. God is kind with His one saving love and mercy to His dear people when they were His bitter enemies. As a gracious heavenly Father He is merciful to His children; to them He speaks in the text, for they are “the children of the Highest” (Luke 6:35). For them alone is it true that “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him” (Ps. 103:13). Upon them God lays the obligation to love their enemies as a reflection of God’s love for His enemies, but not absolutely all His enemies, for it is not the scope, but the character of God’s love—a love for enemies—of which the text speaks.

Matthew 5:44–45 is also quoted by the RWC in support of the doctrine of common grace (“The British Reformed Fellowship: How Reformed Is It?” Point 3). Presumably their reasoning is that we are commanded to love and bless our enemies. In doing so we are a pattern of God’s love for all His enemies, the manifestation of His love for all His enemies being that “he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). The RWC simply assumes that the text teaches a love of God for all His enemies, including His reprobate enemies. Together with all proponents of common grace, the RWC views the good gifts that all men alike receive in this world, things such as rain and sunshine, as evidences of God’s love and favour. But this is simply not the case. Psalm 73, for example, makes clear that God’s favour and blessing is not in things. The prosperity of the wicked mentioned in this psalm, which certainly includes rain and sunshine, was not God’s blessing on them. This was how Asaph understood the prosperity of the wicked and why he had almost given up on being a child of God. Asaph had to understand God’s purpose in giving earthly prosperity (good gifts of his providence) to the wicked. He speaks of their “end” in Psalm 73:17; this “end” is the purpose of God with the reprobate wicked which is declared in verse 18: “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction.” God’s giving good gifts to the reprobate was His setting them in slippery places in order to cast them into hell. Blessing is not in things.

2. Common Operations of the Spirit and Common Grace

Both the article and the response of the RWC refer to the term “common operations of the Spirit.” In the mind of the RWC, when the Westminster Confession of Faith (the confession) uses this term it is speaking of common grace. As they say in the article, God restrains sin in the non-elect and convinces them of their sin but without renewing the heart and will. In line with the usual understanding of common grace, these operations of the Spirit are temporal (only for this world) and non-saving (expressing a general favour of God).

The RWC believes that such common operations of the Spirit are an expression of “God’s lovingkindness to the non-elect.” That this is exactly not what the confession is saying is clear from Matthew 7:22, the first proof text cited for the statement. This verse speaks of those who in response to the gospel performed many great and noteworthy works, at least in their own minds. But what does Jesus say about those who have these common operations of the Spirit? He says this: “I never knew you.” The verb “knew” here does not merely mean that Jesus was cognizant of these people, that He merely knew certain facts about them. When Scripture uses the verb to know in connection with persons, it means the knowledge of love: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). This obviously does not mean that God was unaware of the other nations and that He only had knowledge of Israel; it means that He loved only Israel. Jesus says of those who have the common operations of the Spirit (those to whom according to the RWC God expresses His loving-kindness) that He never loved them.

Bearing in mind that this text is one of three proof texts for the confession’s phrase “common operations of the Spirit,” which phrase is an example of common grace, according to the RWC, there is something else that must be pointed out. What needs to be understood regarding Matthew 7:22-23 is not only is it not teaching common grace but it also flatly contradicts common grace in the most unmistakable terms. The standpoint of Jesus’ condemnation of false professors of religion is the Day of Judgment (Matt. 7:22; 25:41). Jesus does not say “I will not love you” with reference to eternity, as if He loved them for a time, but at the end of the world pronounces judgment upon them. Jesus is emphatic: He says He never loved them. He never loved them during all the course of their lives in this world when they were prophesying, casting out devils and doing many other wonderful works in His name.

It is, therefore, clear that the term “common operations of the Spirit” is not an example of common grace, at least not in the minds of the authors of the Westminster standards. They chose their proof texts carefully and respecting the phrase “common operations of the Spirit” the use of Matthew 7:22 makes clear that what they meant by this phrase flatly contradicts the common grace position of the RWC.

The second proof text is Matthew 13:20 which refers to what may be called “the stony ground

hearer.” The operation of the Spirit in and upon this hearer is produced by the preaching of the gospel—“he that heareth the word”—with the result that he receives that word with joy for a time. That the response of the stony ground hearer is due to the work of the Holy Spirit in him is indeed true, but the fact of the Spirit’s operation in and upon someone tells us nothing of the motivation of the Spirit. In this case, the Holy Spirit produces a natural understanding of spiritual things, not a spiritual understanding of spiritual things. There is only one of the four hearers in whom the Spirit produces a spiritual understanding of the gospel: the good ground hearer. In keeping with the parable, the good ground represents the heart prepared by regeneration; it is good ground in distinction from the other soils precisely because the goodness of God is bestowed upon it. The other soils are not good, do not produce fruit and are rejected, precisely because there is not bestowal of God’s goodness and grace upon them.

The motivation of the Spirit with respect to the four kinds of hearers in Matthew 13 is described in verses 11–17. Jesus explains the different responses to the preaching of the gospel represented by the different hearers of the parable, and He does so in terms of election and reprobation. Jesus declares that those who believe the gospel and bring forth good fruit—the good ground hearers—do so because it is “given” to them (v. 11). Their response of saving faith is given to them by the grace of God. But to the other hearers “it is not given” (v. 11); there is no bestowal of God’s goodness upon them. Upon the latter group, the Spirit’s motivation in His work in them is clear: the preaching of the gospel stops their ears and shuts their eyes, “lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (v. 15). In other words, the operation of the Spirit in them by the preaching of the gospel effects God’s decree of reprobation. It is clear therefore (at least in the minds of the authors of the confession) that the common operations of the Spirit in the non-elect have nothing to do with a common grace of God towards them.

The third proof text for the phrase “common operations of the Spirit” is Hebrews 6:4–5. These verses teach a work of the Holy Spirit in some non-elect that “enlightens” them and grants them a “taste” of heavenly things. It is clear that these verses refer to the reprobate within the sphere of the visible church; it is there that the gospel is preached and by it the things of heaven are brought near to them, for they “have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come” (v. 5). Such people receive a natural understanding of spiritual things and a corresponding natural sense or taste of such things. However, those who receive the “common operations of the Spirit” as described in these verses are subject not to the common grace of God but to his curse. This is clear from verse 8, where it is said of such persons that they are “nigh unto cursing.”

I have dealt with this term in some detail because it is commonly used by the defenders of the free offer in the RPC as confessional proof of their doctrine, whereas, as evinced by the proof texts cited by the confession’s authors, such “common operations of the Spirit” as are found in the reprobate have nothing to do with common grace.

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

FOOTNOTES:

5. “The British Reformed Fellowship: How Reformed Is It?” Reformed Witness Committee article, Covenanter Witness (February, 1996), Point 3.

6. John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Free Offer of the Gospel (www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html).

[Back to Contents]