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.,
[2] Michael Horton, “Introducing Covenant Theology,” Baker Books,
[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,
[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,
No comments:
Post a Comment