This is a paper designed to discuss the Reformed doctrine of
common grace which is being attacked with vigor in many circles today. I don’t
imagine that it will be as inclusive as some would hope, but I will at least attempt
to touch the general principles espoused by this doctrine. We will look at 1) what
it addresses, 2) the evidence that supports its claims, and 3) its historical
claim within the Reformed faith. In seeing some of the attacks that are being
leveled at this doctrine and its advocates I have noticed a great lack of
understanding in what is even being proposed here. My hope is to explain what
is actually being taught here and hopefully in the end those that oppose it
will at least be informed and can then make up their mind as to whether or not
they are still in disagreement or not.
What Does the Doctrine
of Common Grace Address?
To even begin a conversation on this topic we must first
understand what it deals with in the first place. Louis Berkhof gives wonderful
insight into this, he says, “The origin of the doctrine of common grace was
occasioned by the fact that there is in the world, alongside of the course of
the Christian life with all its blessings, a natural course of life, which is
not redemptive and yet exhibits many traces of the true, the good, and the
beautiful. The question arose, How can we explain the comparatively orderly
life in the world, seeing that the whole world lies under the curse of sin? How
is it that the earth yields precious fruit in rich abundance and does not
simply bring forth thorns and thistles? How we can we account for it that
sinful man still “retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the
difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good
outward behavior”? What explanation can be given for the special gifts and
talents that with which the natural man is endowed, and of the development of
science and art by those who are entirely devoid of the new life that is in
Christ Jesus? How can we explain the religious aspirations of men everywhere,
even of those who did not come in touch with the Christian religion? How can
the unregenerate still speak truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly
virtuous lives?” [1]
At least in part this line of thought has existed for a very
long time, even among the Greek philosophers. Take the case of Heraclites for
example. Heraclites was amazed at the order of the world and eventually this
led to a realization that had a profound impact on all of our lives. We see
this in his saying, “It is impossible to step in the same river twice.” What he
meant by that was if you step in a river and then step back out, by the time
you have stepped back into the river it has flowed on, making it impossible to
step in the same river twice. Each time you step back in you are, in essence,
standing in a new river; or, at the very least, a changed river. This may seem
like philosophic rambling but indeed it pointed even the lost Greek
philosophers to recognize an important truth. The truth which was espoused by
these men was that the world is in a constant state of flux; thus, if there was
not a Creator and a Controller for the universe everything would be in a state
of perpetual chaos. This, when built upon by successive Greek philosophers,
came to be known as “logos.” This, now, is a term we are very familiar with as
Christians; it is literally translated in our bibles as “the Word” (Jn. 1).
Logos to the Greek was significant because it was, at the very least, the idea
of God; though they didn’t recognize God and worshipped idols instead. It was
the force that kept everything in nature working in good order as it should be.
Without logos the world would deteriorate into a chaotic mess and so this idea became
very essential to their philosophic ideals. The apostle John later used this
term, borrowed from the Greek philosophers, to describe to us who Christ is: He
is God and the one who created the world, the one who sustains its order. To
the mind of the time this was a significant claim, especially to the Jew who
viewed the logos not merely as a word but as a deed, to speak was to do. Christ
was the fulfillment of those vain philosophic thoughts, He was relevant to Jew
and Gentile, He was the one who kept order in the created universe for both the
lost and the saved alike.
So whether it is the Reformed man or the philosopher, the
question, in part or in full, is relevant and it is one that necessarily needs
to be answered. There cannot be just a base indifference to this topic as if it
didn’t exist. It does exist, and the reality is that there is order in the
world, there is blessing to the lost as well as the saved; as Michael Horton
says, “[…] all of us – believers and unbelievers alike – are simultaneously
under a common curse and common grace.” [2] We should know whether or not the
Bible gives us a doctrine to account for this reality. In the next section we
will see if that evidence exists or not.
Biblical Evidence for
the Doctrine of Common Grace
At this point many of you are defaulting to your New
Testaments in order to confirm or rebut me. But that isn’t our starting point,
that isn’t where we see this doctrine presented initially, for this is a
concept that goes much further back, in fact it goes all the way back to at
least the Noahic Covenant. The text we will be addressing is Gen. 8:21-22, “And
the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart, I will not
again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s
heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing
living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and
cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Here God
made a unilateral covenant with mankind at that time; not with Noah alone, not
with the elect specifically, and not for redemptive purposes. As we know, we
see the rainbow as a perpetual sign of this covenant for all of mankind, not
just for the saints. Furthermore, lest we cave in to the argument that would
object to this doctrine based on the word ‘grace’ I think it important to
realize that this passage speaks to grace specifically, as we will soon see.
John Calvin has this to say about the passage under our consideration, “[…]
here it behooves us more deeply to consider [God’s] design; for it was the will
of God that there should be some society of men to inhabit the earth. If,
however, they were to be dealt with according to their deserts, there would be
a necessity for a daily deluge. Wherefore, He declares, that in inflicting
punishment upon the second world, He will so do it, as yet to preserve the
external appearance of the earth, and not again to sweep away the creatures
with which He has adorned it. Indeed, we ourselves may perceive such moderation
to have been used, both in the public and special judgments of God, that the
world yet stands in its completeness, and nature yet retains its course.
Moreover, since God here declares what would be the character of men even to
the end of the world, it is evident that the whole human race is under sentence
of condemnation, on account of its depravity and wickedness.” [3] Calvin went
on to say much more here, especially in detailing that there is an outward
virtue displayed by almost all men though spoiled by the state of their hearts,
but it is important to notice two things: (1) that all of mankind is under a
curse and a blessing alike (As Dr. Horton pointed out earlier), and that (2)
God acknowledges that the state of man is continually mired in sin. Calvin
spends some time discussing how deep this depravity extends so that we cannot
mistake that it is a state of total depravity and not merely occasionally
sinful thoughts or behavior. Yet God still graciously extends this covenant to
all of mankind though our actions deserve only God’s wrath wherein He would
presumably wipe the earth clean day by day. Keil and Delitzsch present the idea
of what God was doing here in terms of a need for His grace and a forbearing
God granting that grace to all of mankind insofar as He would not destroy them
in their entirety again as long as the earth existed. They say, “[…] because
[the thoughts of men] are evil
from his youth up, because evil is innate
in man…, he needs the forbearance of God.” [4]
Michael Horton says this regarding the Noahic Covenant,
“After the fall, God might have legitimately disowned His creation but for the
eternal and unconditional agreement of the Trinity for the redemption of a
people. Both to call out his new people He has chosen and to care even for the
rest of humanity hostile to His purposes, God has unconditionally pledged His
common grace to all of creation… God swears to uphold creation in its natural
processes even in the face of human depravity.” [2] With this thought and
doctrine firmly rooted in our bibles, even extending all the way back to the
Noahic Covenant, we can now look at Matt. 5:44-48.
“But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is
in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you,
what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your
brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
To start with, we will indeed have to deal with the topic of
God’s love for mankind in general. I know, everyone is now cringing worried
that this will now descend into some liberal rant about God’s love of all men
equally. That is not the case, it is not Biblical to take such a position, and
it is neither the idea proposed here or indeed anywhere in the Reformed faith;
we do not rewrite our Bibles to exclude the word ‘hate’ from it. (See my posted
study on Ps. 5:5 for further clarification on the concept of hate in a godly
sense,
http://dannystudyofpsalms.blogspot.com/2012/01/psalm-55.html.)
That aside, let us see how this text validates the doctrine of common grace.
Michael Horton says, “First of all, the human race is not divided at the
present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time
is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike
share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of
their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death.
And they also share together in the common blessings of life, such as fruitful
wombs and vines, abundant natural resources, marital pleasures, and liberty to
realize temporal dreams. Fundamentalists need to learn that salvation and
damnation are not the only two categories in Scripture. There is in this
present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply
common.
Jesus affirmed this third category for this present moment
in time: common grace answering to the common curse, in which God sends rain on
the just and the unjust alike and calls us to imitate His generosity towards
our enemies… God’s goodness in watering everybody’s garden underscores God’s kindness
in bestowing such temporal goods on people who are not and never will be His
friends. In other words, common grace is not saving grace. In fact, unbelievers
will use God’s patient restraint of His wrath not as an opportunity to embrace
His Messiah, but as evidence that there is no judgment in the offing and they
can therefore go on in their sins (2 Pet. 3:1-9). God does not simply hate
unbelievers and leave them to their own devices; he feeds, clothes, heals, and
cares for them, and He sends them many earthly pleasures. Yet this does not
lead us to conclude that God’s love and care for everyone in common grace is
the same as his love and care for His elect in saving grace.” [2]
William Hendriksen likewise confirms this same truthful
reality, “It is far more meaningful to say ‘
He causes
His sun to
rise’ and ‘
He sends rain’ than ‘the sun rises’ and ‘it rains.’ The way
Jesus says it we are made to look beyond the action to the One who causes it,
and also beyond the fact as such to the reason that brings it about, namely,
the Father’s love for mankind… In order to make the marvelous nature of the
Father’s love stand out all the more conspicuously the two pairs of objects are
arranged chiastically (X-wise), the emphasis falling neither on the evil or the
good... Now it is certainly true that men respond differently to the blessings
by means of which the Father reveals His love. There is no common gratitude. It
is therefore also true that those who reject the gospel use God’s blessings to
their own hurt. However, all this cannot cancel the fact that the love of God
for earth-dwellers, good and bad, is impartially revealed in the blessings of
sunshine and rain and all their beneficial results… None of this should be
regarded as a denial of the fact that there is indeed a love of God that is not
shared by all. [A host of] passages prove this beyond any doubt… [Jesus]
indicates even more definitely that it is the Father’s
perfection that
we should strive to imitate; that is, perfection here specifically (as the preceding
context indicates) in the love He shows to all.” [5]
I could keep citing commentary after commentary on this but
then you could go read them yourselves and I will have accomplished very
little. So, with these two representing others it is vital that we understand
what is being said here. Yes, common grace is affirmed by the Scriptures and by
these exegetes in their commentary on those Scriptures. But there is a more
important point to be had then simply a base acknowledgment of this doctrine, the
real question becomes why is this doctrine taught in the word of God? Is it
simply to satisfy a vain questioning where we hope to understand why, or how,
the lost are not immediately destroyed for their sin and even flourish in the
world while retaining a trace of the good and the true? No, it is not that; at
least not entirely. In both of these passages we’ve cited here the larger
message is God’s love for mankind, His care for them in spite of their sin, and
the fact that it stands as a model for how we are to relate to the rest of the
world. To see how some treat this topic leaves you wondering if they are of the
assumption that we should quarantine the lost until God decides to send bolts
of lightening down upon them. We are a part of the world, and we are to
interact with that world, we are to care for that world, we are to show the
love the Father has for us to the world. It doesn’t mean that we don’t tell
them they are sinners and that we don’t preach Christ crucified as the only
hope of eternal salvation. But it does mean that we function alongside one
another and that we are to care for them as much as is possible in spite of the
fact that we are not in our hearts the same. Common Grace teaches this
principle abundantly to God’s people. Undoubtedly where such a concept is fully
embraced the Spirit blesses that place with an outpouring of converts who have
become accustomed to the kind hand of their Christian counterparts. In the same
way that God taught us to be kind and to pay fair wages to laborers by not
muzzling the ox (Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9), He teaches us here to be kind and
gentle and loving to the world around us. Rather than thinking we must reject
this doctrine to guard the holy nature of God we can freely embrace it and know
that for the lost who takes advantage of God’s love for His creation that in
and of itself stands as a damning charge against them. If they abuse the good
and the pure then it is their lot to answer for their sin before God, but it is
not right that we reject clear biblical truth to prevent the unpreventable.
The Historic Verity
of Common Grace Within the Reformed Faith
I recently saw an article wherein it was urged that since
all people could cite this theologian or that as proof of their position that
no-one should ultimately claim that there is a specific Reformed perspective
regarding common grace in general. This much is true: there are people on both
sides of this debate within Reformed Christianity. But that does not mean that
there is not a Reformed consensus either. To err on the one hand and claim that
all Reformed Christians believe this is untenable, but so too is erring on the
other side and not citing a consensus on the matter at all. The same can be
said in discussions on Eschatology, the same can be said in discussions on the
Supra/Infra debate, and the same can be said on a number of issues. But
divergent opinions do not negate the reality of a majority opinion in any of
those issues either.
Horton testifies to this fact of Reformed thought when he
says, “Although the concept of common grace has been challenged in some
circles, it has been generally recognized by Reformed theology as a crucial
aspect of biblical teaching. Although the specific term
common grace is
rather recent, the substance is not. Whenever Christians confess their faith in
God’s benevolent providence toward a world under sin and judgment, we encounter
this doctrine.” [2]
Louis Berkhof says, “[Calvin] developed alongside of the
doctrine of particular grace the doctrine of common grace. This is a grace
which is communal, does not pardon or purify human nature, and does not effect
the salvation of sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a
measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible,
distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the
development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children
of men. Since the days of Calvin the doctrine of common grace was generally
recognized in Reformed theology, though it also met with occasional opposition…
Up to the present Kuyper and Bavinck did more than any one else for the
development of the doctrine of common grace.” [1]
As anyone who has read “The Stone Lectures” by Kuyper can
see, his embrace of common grace led to his view of how we are to interact with
the world around us and how Calvinism specifically was able to influence that
world. And this is a vital understanding to capture here. Without the doctrine
of common grace we are left to assume the positive of what was before
mentioned, namely, that God hates the sinner and leaves them and this fallen
creation to operate in a state of chance. But it is impossible that such an act
would be able to affect the lost alone, we too are affected by such a thing
detrimentally. If God is not actively working in history to bring about His
will and to maintain order and blessing then all we are left with is the
logical chaos that Heraclites saw through his theory. But, when God is
personally active in the world sincere order ensues and is maintained. It does
not mean that the effects of sin are not punished in the temporal as well as in
the eternal state of man; it only means that their sin is restrained, God’s
creation is preserved, and that we as men do not have to fear another purge as
was the case in the flood. We all operate under the curses and blessings of
this present time; without God specifically bringing that to pass only curses
would exist, if existence were to continue at all.
Charles Hodge adds, “That there is a divine influence of the
Spirit granted to all men, is plain both from Scripture and from experience… To
the general influence of the Spirit (or to common grace) we owe: 1. All the
decorum, order, refinement, and virtue existing among men… 2. To the same
divine agent is due specially that general fear of God, and the religious
feeling which prevail among men…, 3. The Scriptures refer to this general
influence of the Spirit those religious experiences, varied in character and
degree, which so often occur where genuine conversion, or regeneration does not
attend or follow.” [6] I heard it objected many times by many people that there
is only one form of grace and that it extends exclusively to the elect. At
least in part that is true if we are speaking of saving grace, but
theologically there are a number of considerations under the larger heading of
grace. Charles Hodge mentions no less than seven distinct considerations under
that heading. In fact, for Hodge it is apparent that common grace is only a
part of the consideration in dealing with this doctrine, to fully consider his
thoughts on the matter you would also have to dive into things like
preventing
grace, which we will not endeavor to accomplish today.
Francis Turretin also addresses this topic, though under the
heading of providence. He says, “[…] we believe that all things without
exception are under divine providence: whether heavenly or sublunary, great or
small, necessary and natural or free and contingent. Thus nothing in the nature
of things can be granted or happen which does not depend on it. The reasons
are: (1) God created all things, therefore He also takes care of all things.
For if it was glorious for God to create them, it ought not to be unbecoming in
Him to take care of them. Nay, as He created, He is bound to conserve and
govern them continually, since He never deserts His own work, but ought to be
perpetually present with it that it may not sink back into nothingness.” [7]
In all of these cases the argument is presented in a manner
that leaves no room for doubt; this is the majority opinion of the Reformed
faith. That a group of Christians wishes to diverge from that thought has no
ultimate bearing on the rest of us confirming this truth in unity.
Conclusion
There can be no mistake about this doctrine as being truly
biblical and as truly embraced at large by the Reformed faith. It gives us such
a valuable and necessary insight into the heart of our God, into the way we are
to treat the lost world, and in the very order and existence of nature itself.
Indeed I would argue that once you toss this doctrine to the side it becomes
likely that you are casting a great deal of Christian character and dogma to
the side as well.
But, even if after I have given this presentation one should
still persist in refuting the doctrine of common grace, I ask only that you
learn to debate the topic, which may be beneficial if engaged with knowledge
and wisdom, with an irenic nature that is becoming of a Christian. I recently
watched a debate between Dr. Wayne Grudem and a Presbyterian pastor named Ian
Hamilton. They were not afraid to admit similarities anymore than they were
afraid to staunchly contend for their position. But in the end Pastor Hamilton
left the entire debate with this one righteous thought: if you cannot behave in
a manner that glorifies God than you need to be quiet (I don’t know if I
captured his words precisely but that was the gist of it).
May the truth of God’s word infect all of our hearts and may
He be glorified now and forever more, Amen.
Sources Cited:
[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand
Rapids, MI, 1968, pp 432-446
[2] Michael Horton, “Introducing Covenant Theology,” Baker
Books,
Grand Rapids, MI,
2009, 111-128
[3] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 1, Baker Books,
Grand Rapids, MI, 2005, pp. 283-286
[4] Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, WM.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, pp 150-151
[5] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Baker
Academic,
Grand Rapids, MI,
2007, pp 312-319
[6] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, WM. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1997, pp 654-675
[7] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology,
P&R Publishing,
Phillipsburg, NJ,
1992, pp 497-498
"Paul, the apostle..., after his great travail and unspeakable labors in promoting the Gospel of Christ, suffered also [under the persecution of] Nero. Abdias, declares that unto his execution Nero sent two of his esquires, Ferega and Parthemius, to bring him word of his death. They, coming to Paul instructing the people, desired him to pray for them, that they might believe; who told them that shortly after they should believe and be baptized at his [tomb]. This done, the soldiers came and led him out of the city to the place of execution, where he, after his prayers made, gave his neck to the sword."
