Q. 1. “Why must we define our terms?”
“In communication—and especially in
theological debate—it is vital to define one’s terms. If this is not done, two
people can find themselves talking at cross purposes, assuming erroneously that
they are in agreement, or alternatively believing wrongly that they disagree
with one another.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p.
55)
Q. 2. “What is ‘grace’?”
“Grace,” in Scripture, means first and
foremost “beauty” or “a favourable attitude or disposition.” For instance,
“Noah found grace [that is, favour or beauty] in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen.
6:8); “Let your speech be alway with grace [that is, let your speech be
attractive or appealing]” (Col. 4:6); and “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is
vain” (Prov. 31:30). Notice the parallelism in the last passage. Grace is
“beauty” or “divine favour,” not “getting something you do not deserve.”
Christ earned or merited the grace of God for
us. Grace is therefore a merited favour of God, not an “unmerited” favour. We
did not merit it, but Jesus did, for He was the obedient, divine Son of God.
When this grace comes upon God’s people through the Holy Spirit, it saves and
transforms them, for it is the grace, beauty and favour of God. Hence, God’s
grace can never be “common”—that is, it can never work in or upon a lost person
without saving him. Such a notion is blasphemous.
Q. 3. “Does not grace mean ‘getting something
you do not deserve’?”
No, for the following reasons:
- In Luke 2:40, Christ is said to receive God’s “grace”: “… and the
grace of God was upon him.” If “grace” is defined as “getting something
you do not deserve,” would that not imply that Christ, the Holy One of
God, was “undeserving”? Yes, it would. It would mean that He “received
something [He] did not deserve.” That is blasphemy. Christ was never
undeserving of anything. Indeed, Christ earned or merited the grace of God
for us, His people. To define grace as “something undeserved” implies that
Christ is no Saviour.
- If “grace” means “getting something you do not deserve,” consider
this: Christ suffered persecution and harassment at the hands of the Jews,
was nailed to the cross and was, effectively, murdered. Did He deserve
that? No. Christ was undeserving of those things; He received something
that He did not deserve. According to the popular definition, all the
affliction, suffering and persecution that the world heaped upon Him would
therefore have been “grace.” How blasphemous!
- “Grace” is an attribute or perfection of God. God is, in Himself,
the “God of all grace” (I Pet. 5:10). Grace is who He is. He does not
become gracious “in time,” nor does He need the creation in order to be
the God of grace. He is eternally gracious within the Holy Trinity. The
Father is gracious towards the Son through the Holy Spirit, and the Son is
gracious towards the Father through the Holy Spirit. There is nothing
undeserving about the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. Hence, “grace”
cannot be defined as “getting something undeserved.”
- Defining grace as “getting something you do not deserve” also leads
to absurdity:
“I am going to give you a gift.”
“Great. What is the gift?”
“All I can tell you is that it is something
you do not deserve.”
“Yes, but what is it that I do not deserve?”
Q. 4. “What is ‘common grace’?”
According to its advocates, common grace is a
grace of God that is common: a grace of God for everybody, head for head, bar
none, including the reprobate—those who are not elected, redeemed or
effectually called in Jesus Christ. The advocates of common grace claim that
God has grace, love and mercy for the reprobate, whom He has eternally decreed
not to save but to punish in the way of their sins.
There are many different formulations of
common grace. All forms hold to the first two points below, while some
proponents add one or more of the others:
- God has a favourable attitude towards the reprobate wicked, viewing
them with grace and pity as objects of His lovingkindness and mercy.
- All the good things that the reprobate wicked receive from God in
this life come to them out of His love for them, as proofs of His grace
and favour towards them and as instances of His blessing upon them.
- God inwardly and graciously restrains sin in the reprobate (contrary
to the Bible’s teaching on total depravity).
- God inwardly and graciously enables the reprobate to perform works
that are partly good in His sight (contra Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:12).
- Believers are to be friends with unbelievers (contrary to the truth
of the antithesis—Gen. 3:15; II Cor. 6:14–18).
- Christians should cooperate with non-Christians in building the
kingdom of God on earth (contra II Chron. 19:2; John 3:3).
- God empathizes with the ungodly, entering into and sharing their
feelings (contra Josh. 11:20; Lam. 2:2).
- Most advocates of common grace link it with the free offer: a
purported earnest and passionate, yet always resisted, desire of God to
save the reprobate (contra Matt. 11:25–27; Rom. 9:17–18, 21–23). (Rev.
Angus Stewart, Covenant Reformed News, vol. 12, no. 21)
“Most of the proponents of common grace agree
that it includes the following elements: the natural blessings which come to
all such as rain and sunshine; the maintenance of order in society in general;
the postponement of judgment on the wicked; the preservation of truth,
morality, and religion among men; the enrichment and development of natural
life; the experience of the power and glory of the gospel to those who come
under the preaching of the gospel but are not saved; and the restraint of sin
in the lives of men, with the result that the unregenerate are capable of doing
good in an outward or relative sense of the word.” (Herman C. Hanko, PRTJ, vol.
26, no. 1 [Nov. 1992], p. 60)
“The theory of ‘common grace’ posits an
attitude of favour and blessing on the part of God toward all men in the things
of this present time—for example, in rain and sunshine, health and happiness,
etc. ‘Common grace’ allegedly has nothing to do with eternity. According to it,
a man may very well be the recipient of temporal favours of God all his
lifetime, but be damned in hell forever. In fact, it is exactly characteristic
of the theory of ‘common grace’ that it separates between time and eternity.” (Homer
C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue 7 [Jan. 1974])
Q. 5. “What is meant by the words ‘common’ and
‘grace’ in the expression ‘common grace’?”
“[According to common grace adherents,] by
‘common’ is meant ‘universal.’ That is, grace which is common is grace which is
shown universally; not only to all humans, but also to all God’s creation, to
what the first point of 1924 called ‘God’s creatures in general.’ Some even
speak of a common grace within the covenant which is shared by the elect and
non-elect who are born within the sphere of the covenant.
“And, secondly, ‘grace’ is indeed defined as
grace in the full sense of that word—even if common grace is carefully
distinguished from saving grace. Common grace is a grace which is a revelation
of God’s own attribute of grace. It is a grace that is unmerited favour. It is
a grace that is synonymous with, or includes in it, love, favour, kindness,
mercy, longsuffering, forbearance, and benevolence. In fact, common grace is
also said by some to be rooted in the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Some emphasize in this connection that this common favour of God can indeed be
called ‘grace’ because it is unmerited; and that which is unmerited is always
grace.” (Herman C. Hanko, PRTJ, vol. 26, no. 1 [Nov. 1992], p. 60)
Q. 6. “Can you summarize the history of the
doctrine of ‘common grace’?”
The following answer is by David J. Engelsma
and has been edited for readability and concision:
“The first thing I would say about the history
of the theory of common grace is that the theory of common grace was explicitly
condemned in the Reformed creed, the Canons of Dordt, in 1618–1619. Basic to
the Arminianism against which the Canons of Dordt were drafted was the notion
of the well-meant gospel offer: a love of God in Christ for all humans without
exception, according to which the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant offer
of salvation to all humans without exception. That very doctrine, which is fundamental
to the theory of common grace, the Synod of Dordt condemned. The history of the
doctrine of common grace must therefore begin there, if it does not begin with
Augustine, long before the Canons of Dordt were adopted.
“This is extremely important because many
forget today, in the debate and controversy over common grace, that Reformed
churches have held synods that officially condemned the well-meant gospel offer
and a universal saving grace of God. It is therefore illegitimate for Reformed
churches and theologians to espouse this doctrine; they have been prohibited
from doing so by the creed. If properly understood, the same is true of the
Westminster Standards.
“It is intriguing—and ought to be important to
Reformed men, women, theologians and ministers today—that this theory of common
grace, which its defenders treat as though it were fundamental to the Christian
religion, has never been proposed and adopted by the Reformed creeds. There is
not a word of it in the Canons of Dordt except to condemn it. The Westminster
Confession does not espouse it. There is no article or chapter in the
Westminster Confession proposing, explaining and defending this supposedly fundamental
doctrine of the Reformed religion. That ought to speak to Reformed people: it
is not confessional and, in fact, the creeds condemn it.
“After the Canons of Dordt were adopted,
however, an aspect of the theory of common grace involving a confusion of grace
with providence did creep into the Reformed tradition. Ministers and
theologians began to speak of a grace of God towards everybody in the gifts of
providence. That was careless language which contradicted Scripture and the
Reformed creeds, but it was present and I acknowledge that. This theory of
common grace—a favour of God towards everybody in the things of providence—gave
traction to the teaching of the powerful and influential Reformed theologian
Abraham Kuyper, as well as Herman Bavinck. They were influential not only in
the Reformed churches but also in Presbyterianism.
“Kuyper deliberately and explicitly advocated
a common grace of God in the things of providence and creation. He also
appealed to common grace as a reason for seeking the approval and cooperation
of the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands when he was running for the
office of prime minister. He appealed to common grace as the basis for
cooperation between Roman Catholics and the Reformed in solving the problems of
the Netherlands and creating a good culture.
“Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck have had
great influence in the churches of the Dutch Reformed tradition with regard to
that aspect of common grace. At the same time—and this is ignored by many
disciples of Kuyper—he clearly and explicitly denied that his notion of common
grace involved the well-meant gospel offer. His common grace did not involve a
saving attitude of God towards all human beings or a saving desire of God for
the salvation of all in the preaching of the gospel. No one may appeal to Kuyper
or Bavinck as teaching the well-meant gospel offer or a divine desire for the
salvation of all human beings. Moreover, although this particular kind of
common grace was advocated by Kuyper, his teachings were not creedal,
confessional or binding upon the Reformed tradition.
“In 1924, however, the Christian Reformed
Church, an influential Reformed denomination in North America, officially
adopted the theory of common grace as church doctrine. It adopted common grace
in both its aspects: not only as involving earthly goods that properly belong
to providence but also in its more dangerous form, namely, a saving grace of
God towards all humans without exception, expressed in the well-meant gospel
offer. This implies that salvation ultimately depends upon the decision of the
sinner’s will rather than upon the particular and sovereign grace of God.
“In implementing and synodically adopting that
heretical doctrine of common grace, the Christian Reformed Church deposed
Herman Hoeksema and George Ophoff from the ministry. These men subsequently
helped to found the Protestant Reformed Churches in America. The issue of
common grace is therefore not merely academic; it has very much to do with the
existence of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
“To this day, the Protestant Reformed Churches
maintain that God providentially governs all humans without exception and gives
to all the good gifts of providence. They deny, however, that the preaching of
the gospel is a well-meant offer to all humans without exception arising from a
divine desire to save them all. Rather, they explain the preaching of the
gospel as the means by which God sovereignly saves His elect, by particular
grace, out of all nations, tongues and tribes. At the same time, the preaching
is also a means by which God hardens the hearts of the reprobate wicked who
come under it and renders them inexcusable.
“I might add, in connection with the more
recent history of the doctrine, that in 1945 the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church—if it did not officially adopt the doctrine of common grace as written
largely by John Murray—approved it at its General Assembly so emphatically that
Gordon H. Clark, who denied the theory of common grace, was driven out of its
fellowship. The influence of common grace has been dramatic in both the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Christian Reformed Church.
“That, in brief, is a summary of the history
of the doctrine of common grace in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition.”
(David J. Engelsma, “The Common Grace Myth!”—a
podcast discussion with Sonny Hernandez)
Q. 7. “What is meant by the ‘well-meant
offer’?”
“By the ‘well-meant offer’ is meant the
conception, or doctrine, of the preaching of the blessed gospel in Calvinistic
circles that holds that God sends the gospel to all who hear out of an attitude
of grace to them all and with the desire to save them all. The ‘well-meant
offer’ insists, at the very least, on these two notions: God is gracious in the
preaching to all hearers; and God has a will, or sincere desire, for the
salvation of every man who hears the gospel.” (David J. Engelsma, “Is Denial of
the ‘Well-Meant Offer’ Hyper-Calvinism?”)
“[In short, the ‘well-meant offer’ is] a
divine invitation to salvation that expresses a saving love of God for all to
whom the ineffectual invitation comes, with the sincere, gracious purpose and
desire of God that everyone who hears the invitation be saved. In the ‘free
offer,’ God extends His saving grace in Jesus Christ to all to whom the offer
comes—extends it with the desire of love that the sinner be saved by the offer,
that is, by the offering God.” (David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 53, no. 1 [Nov.
2019], p. 100)
For a further outline by Prof. Engelsma, see:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-serious-call-of-gospel.html
Q. 8. “Can you provide citations showing that
proponents of the free offer teach that God comes to all hearers with the same
saving intention?”
Yes. The following page contains quotations
confirming this:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2022/05/what-well-meant-offer-is.html
One prominent source to which many advocates
of the free or well-meant offer appeal is the following webpage. Its
interpretation of the relevant texts clearly argues that God comes to all
hearers with the same saving purpose or intention, albeit one that is not
fulfilled:
The arguments on that page have been addressed
and answered on Common Grace Deliberations:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/11/responses-to-travis-fentiman.html
Q. 9. “What is the relation between the
‘well-meant offer’ and what is called the ‘free offer’?”
“[M]any advocates of the well-meant offer like
to disguise the heresy, which they hold, as much as possible by carefully
referring to it only as the ‘free offer.’ Thus, they hide behind the use of the
phrase in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF, 7.3) and leave the
impression that they are only confessing the indiscriminate preaching of the
gospel to all and sundry; the serious call to all hearers to repent and
believe; and the generally announced particular promise that everyone who
believes will surely be saved. This meaning of the ‘offer,’ of course, is
orthodox, and heartily subscribed to by the PRC.” (David J. Engelsma, PRTJ,
vol. 53, no. 1 [Nov. 2019], p. 101)
Q. 10. “What is an ‘offer’?”
“An offer is a presentation of something to
someone with the desire that the presentation will be accepted, or an offer is
an expression of readiness to do or give something to someone. If I offer
someone a drink, for example, I expect and desire that my offer will be
accepted. God does not offer Christ or the benefits of salvation in that way.
In addition, an offer implies some kind of receptivity and ability in the one
to whom the offer is made—one does not offer a cup of coffee to a corpse! One
does not offer salvation to a sinner! We preach to dead sinners not because we
believe that they can respond, although they are obligated to respond, but
because we believe that God can raise the spiritually dead and cause them to
believe in Christ. It makes sense to preach to the spiritually dead, therefore,
only if one believes in sovereign regeneration, that is, if one is a
Calvinist.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 60–61)
Q. 11. “What is an ‘invitation’?”
“An invitation is a polite, formal or friendly
request to go somewhere or to do something. When we make invitations to one
another, we do so with the desire that the invitee comes, but to refuse our
invitation rarely, if ever, has serious consequences. The Bible does not
present the gospel as a friendly invitation from God to sinners to do
something. In the gospel, God calls (He does not invite). A call is an
authoritative address to a person summoning him to come, which has consequences
for the person if he does not come. A judge, for example, calls a witness to
appear in court—if he refuses to come, the judge will compel him to come and
penalize him for not coming.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April
2018], p. 61)
Q. 12. “What is a ‘call’?”
“A call is an authoritative address to a
person summoning him to come, which has consequences for the person if he does
not come. A judge, for example, calls a witness to appear in court—if he
refuses to come, the judge will compel him to come and penalize him for not
coming … The word ‘call’ appears, for example, in Christ’s parable of the
Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1–14 … In that text, Matthew uses the Greek verb
kaleo (call), translated variously as ‘bid’ or ‘call’ (vv. 3, 4, 8, 9, 14). The
king’s call is not a friendly request, nor merely an entreaty, but a serious,
authoritative command with a threat to the one who does not obey the call:
refuse this ‘wedding invitation’ and God will cast you into hell, for by
refusing the call you dishonour both the Father and the Son!” (Rev. Martyn
McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 61)
Q. 13. “What is a ‘promise’?”
“[T]he promise of God is His sure and certain
word to give salvation and all the blessings of Christ to His people. Or to
state it differently, the promise of God is His sure and certain word to give
salvation and all the blessings of Christ to believers or to whomsoever
believeth. Or to express it even more clearly, it is His sure and certain word
to give salvation and all the blessings of salvation to the elect. God does not
promise—even conditionally—to give salvation to the reprobate. If He did, His
promise would prove to be false. Men’s promises might prove to be false. Men
might even make sincere promises without foreseeing the difficulty that might
arise so that they fail to keep their sincere promises. The promise of Almighty
God cannot fail, for He is wise, holy, righteous, and good—nothing can annul
His word or overturn His promise, not even the unbelief or unfaithfulness of
His people, for by the power of His promise He works faith in their hearts.”
(Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 64)
Q. 14. “Is this really such an important
issue?”
“The controversy over the ‘well-meant offer’
is not a tilting at windmills, but a life-or-death jousting between Reformed
orthodoxy and the Arminian heresy.” (David J. Engelsma, 21 December 2022)
One proponent of the free or well-meant offer
writes, “These are important questions. They concern God. They concern the
manner in which we will present the gospel, and the nature of the gospel
itself.” (Sean Humby, “The Disposition of God in the Gospel Offer to the
Reprobate”)
Is this an important issue? Definitely.
Q. 15. “When I speak of ‘common grace,’ I am
not referring to a general attitude of favour, kindness or love in God towards
the reprobate wicked. I mean only His general upholding, sustaining and
maintenance of creation through sunshine and rainfall, together with His
promotion of law and order in civil society. Is this use of the term entirely
separate from the doctrine that you oppose?”
“[Since some mean] by common grace merely the
good gifts that God bestows upon the reprobate wicked and a work of the law
written in the hearts of the ungodly that causes them outwardly to conform to
the law for selfish reasons, [they] should give up the terminology, ‘common
grace.’ [Their] usage is not the common usage.
“The Bible does not use the term. Nor do the
Reformed creeds (the only time that the Three Forms of Unity speak of ‘common
grace’ they attribute the belief to the Arminians in the Canons of Dordt,
III/IV, Rejection of Errors 5). [The insistence of some] on employing the term
to refer to the gifts that God gives the wicked, while rejecting any attitude
of favour on God’s part toward the wicked, results in paradoxical, confusing
statements … Instead of speaking of ‘common grace,’ [we] should speak of the bounties,
or gifts, of God’s providence.” (David J. Engelsma, “Common Bounty or Common
Grace?”—a review of Gary North’s Dominion and Common Grace)
Q. 16. “Do not many Reformed preachers use
‘common grace’ merely to mean God’s general providence over all His creatures,
by which He gives them good things that they do not deserve? Likewise, do they
not use ‘free offer’ merely to mean that the gospel should be preached
indiscriminately to all sinners, that all should be called to repent and
believe and that salvation is promised to all who believe?”
“With this idea I have no dispute, although
whether the idea ought to be called ‘common grace’ is another question. To call
it such is at least confusing when the term is universally used for different
ideas.” (Herman C. Hanko, Common Grace Considered [2019 ed.], p. 94)
“Yes. However, those who defend these two
theories in lectures and in books tend to mean far more by them than this. And
it is in this extended and sophisticated sense that they are rejected by us and
others.” (British Reformed Journal, issue 9 [Jan.–March 1995], pp. 21–22)
“[Some take] the term free offer, of course,
[to mean] that the Gospel should be preached indiscriminately to all men … Now
if this were the meaning of the term, we would have no quarrel with it. In
fact, there would be no controversy about the whole matter. Nor would the term
be necessary. As we have said again and again throughout our history, and as
our Reformed confessions plainly teach, the gospel must indeed be preached
promiscuously and to all those to whom God in His good pleasure sends it. This
is, however, by no means the doctrine of the free offer in the history of
dogma; nor is this by any means the same as saying that God wills the salvation
of all to whom the gospel is preached or that God is gracious to all in the
preaching.” (Homer C. Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 50, issue 9 [Feb.
1974])
Q. 17. “You state that the controversy over
the free or well-meant offer is not about the indiscriminate preaching of the
gospel, but about whether God has a real and earnest desire for all men to be
saved. Can you prove this?”
For proof, consider the following quotations
from John Murray’s “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” in Collected Writings of
John Murray, vol. 4 (Great Britain: Banner of Truth, 1982):
“… the real point in dispute in connection
with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God
desires the salvation of all men” (p. 113; emphasis added).
“… the expression ‘God desires,’ in the
formula that crystallizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not
at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition …”
(p. 114; emphasis added).
“If it is proper to say that God desires the
salvation of the reprobate, then he desires such by their repentance. And so it
amounts to the same thing to say ‘God desires their salvation’ as to say ‘He
desires their repentance.’ This is the same as saying that he desires them to
comply with the indispensable conditions of salvation. It would be impossible
to say the one without implying the other” (p. 114; emphasis added).
“… God himself expresses an ardent desire for
the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable
counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a will to the realization of
what he has not decretively willed, a pleasure towards that which he has not
been pleased to decree. This is indeed mysterious …” (p. 131; emphasis added).
Q. 18. “You state that the ‘free offer of the
gospel,’ as taught by contemporary theologians, makes the preaching of the
gospel a ‘grace’ bestowed upon all. Can you prove this?”
“… there is in God a benevolent loving
kindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not
decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call
to repentance … The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon
all … The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything
less; it is the will to that salvation.” (Murray and Stonehouse, “The Free
Offer of the Gospel” [Banner of Truth, 2001], p. 30; emphasis added)
The report of the Fifteenth General Assembly
of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1948 states that “the full and free
offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all.” (“Minutes of the Fifteenth
General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948,” appendix, pp.
51–63)
Q. 19. “What is said to be ‘offered’ in the
‘free offer’ or ‘well-meant offer’?”
“What is freely offered in the gospel? The
words of Jesus already quoted (Matt. 11:28) give the answer. It is Christ who
is offered. More strictly, he offers himself. The whole gamut of redemptive
grace is included. Salvation in all of its aspects and in the furthest reaches
of glory consummated is the overture. For Christ is the embodiment of all.
Those who are his are complete in him and he is made unto them wisdom from God,
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. When Christ invites us
to himself it is to the possession of himself and therefore of all that defines
his identity as Lord and Saviour.” (John Murray, Collected Writings of John
Murray [Banner of Truth, 2001], vol. 1, p. 82)
Q. 20. “If the ‘well-meant offer’ is wrong,
what is the alternative? How should the gospel be preached?”
“[True gospel preaching] consists of exposing
the misery of all because of sin against the just and holy God; of proclaiming
Jesus Christ as God’s way out of this misery; of calling all to come to Jesus;
and of announcing the sure promise of God that whosoever believes shall be
saved, as well as the warning that every one who rejects Jesus abides under the
wrath of God … [The] church does not proclaim a love of God for all, a death of
Christ for all, a grace of God to all, a will of God for the salvation of all,
or the promise of God to all.” (David J. Engelsma, “Is Denial of the
‘Well-Meant Offer’ Hyper-Calvinism?”)
See also Prof. Engelsma’s outline of “The
Serious Call of the Gospel”:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-serious-call-of-gospel.html
Q. 21. “You state that common grace teaches
that God loves the reprobate. Can you prove this?”
The following quotations from mainstream
proponents of common grace establish the point:
“[There] is a love in God that goes forth to
lost men and is manifested in the manifold blessings which all men without
distinction enjoy, a love in which non-elect persons are embraced …” (Collected
Writings, vol. 1, p. 68)
“Relative to [this doctrine of common grace]
which concerns the FAVOURABLE ATTITUDE OF GOD TOWARDS HUMANITY IN GENERAL AND
NOT ONLY TOWARDS THE ELECT, … that, apart from the saving grace of God shown
only to those that are elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favour
[goodwill] or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general …” (The
First Point of Common Grace, 1924)
“Common grace is God’s LOVING AND FAVOURABLE
ATTITUDE to human beings per se, flowing forth in all those blessings which
stop short of actual salvation … These passages all testify to A GOODWILL OF
GOD TOWARDS ALL HUMANITY, showing itself in manifold gifts and blessings.” (N.
R. Needham, Common Grace and the Work of the Christian Institute [The Christian
Institute, 2008], pp. 5, 7)
“[H]e shows favour [goodwill] for a time to
non-elect condemned sinners while they are in this world … he may, and does,
within that decree of reprobation, determine to show them genuine non-saving
favour [goodwill] in this life according to his good pleasure.” (David
Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed [2005], pp. 40, 42)
Q. 22. “If the good gifts given to the
reprobate are not ‘common grace,’ what should we call them?”
“Common aliments.” (John Calvin, Institutes,
3.25.9)
“Good gifts which show God’s goodness and
leave man inexcusable.” (Rev. Angus Stewart)
See also:
https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/uncommongracequotes/
Q. 23. “But ‘common grace’ is not ‘saving
grace’ …”
“Determined as one may be to distinguish
common grace from saving grace, grace is grace, and grace is divine delight in
Christ, in those who are washed in his blood, and in the works that are done to
glorify God. Cultural common grace cannot avoid taking form as universal saving
grace.” (David J. Engelsma, “Review of Richard J. Mouw: ‘All That God Cares
About’”)
Richard J. Mouw, one of the leading proponents
of common grace in the contemporary Reformed and evangelical world, writes:
“… For all I know—and for all any of us can
know—much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be
revealed to be saving grace.” (Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair:
Culture and Common Grace [Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2001], p. 100)
Q. 24. “Surely it is hyper-Calvinism to deny
that good gifts are tokens of a favourable attitude in God towards everyone?”
“[Whatever] God grants and bestows on the
ungodly cannot, properly speaking, be deemed as an evidence of his favor and
grace; but he thus renders them more unexcusable, while he treats them so
indulgently.” (John Calvin, commentary on Jer. 33:8)
No comments:
Post a Comment