Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
My Thoughts on Common Grace
by Junell Taylor
What is common grace? The term was first coined by Abraham Kuyper[1] who meant it as merely 'a favor of God that gives the world the temporal blessings of rain, sunshine, health, and riches, and that restrains corruption in the world so that the world can produce good culture.' However, even after giving it this name Kuyper feared--prophetically, as history shows!--that misuse would be made of (his) doctrine of common grace 'as if saving grace were meant by it,' with the result that 'the firm foundation that grace is particular would again be dislodged...' With that fear a definite possibility, Kuyper should have labored to find another expression for his doctrine because, unfortunately, Kuyper is being used as a proponent of the erroneous teachings of common grace being bandied about by current reformed theologians. Though there are many who still think of Kuyper's definition when common grace is mentioned, there are just as many who have come to think of it in the wrong way which Kuyper warned against. Kuyper sharply distinguished this common grace from the saving grace of God. So concerned was he that "common grace" not be confused with "saving grace" (which is particular, according to Kuyper, for the elect only) that he deliberately gave "common grace" a name distinct from that of "particular grace." Common grace, he called gratie, whereas particular, saving grace was called genade. Kuyper's attempt to prevent common grace from developing into universal, saving grace by giving the two graces different names was futile. The precarious co-existence of particular, saving grace and common, non-saving grace was short-lived. Soon common grace began nibbling on particular grace until, currently, it has almost completely devoured particular grace. The result is a "common grace" that sincerely desires the salvation of all and expresses itself in free offer of the Gospel to all. Just staying within the 'Calvinist' or 'reformed' camps we can find the wrong direction that this phrase has turned. It happened first in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924, not too many years after Kuyper wrote his book. In the Synod of Kalamazoo three points were brought up and decided upon for the CRC's doctrine of common grace. The first point reads, "Relative to the first point, which concerns the question of a favorable attitude (italics mine, jt) of God towards humanity in general and not only towards the elect, synod declares it to be established according to Scripture and the Confessions, that, apart from the saving grace of God shown only to those that are elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from the Scriptural passages quoted and from the Canons of Dort, II, 5 and III, IV, 8 and 9, which deal with the general offer of the Gospel, while it also appears from the citations made from Reformed Theology that our Reformed fathers from the past favored this view." In this first point the CRC are teaching that there is a favorable attitude of God towards all men in general, and not only toward the elect. The proof given for this point was the "rain and the sunshine" that the unbelievers receive from God. I don't believe that the "rain and the sunshine" come from a 'favorable attitude' by God. But I am not saying that the rain and sunshine the wicked receive are not good. They are good. The wicked must recognize them as good too. I also recognize that they are given to the wicked by God. My difficulty with that first point of the CRC is that it teaches that God gives those good things to unbelievers in His love for them or His favor towards them. In 1948 Westminster Seminary professors John Murray and Ned Stonehouse wrote a doctrinal study for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) entitled "The Free Offer of the Gospel." The study was published by that church and remains its major teaching on God's grace in the gospel. The writing of the study was fueled by a major doctrinal conflict in the OPC between Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the faculty of Westminster Seminary concerning Clark's fitness for ordination. Cornelius Van Til led the seminary faculty in a Complaint against Clark's understanding of the Confession of Faith. One of their chief objections concerned Clark's view of the so-called "sincere offer" of salvation to all men, including the reprobate. In "The Free Offer of the Gospel", authors Murray and Stonehouse assert: "God himself expresses an ardent desire for the fulfillment 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..." In 1944 the leading Complainant against Clark's use of logic was Dr. Cornelius Van Til. To this day Dr. Van Til remains a leading proponent of the doctrine that Scripture contains irreconcilable paradoxes. He asserts: "There are those who have denied common grace. They have argued that God cannot have any attitude of favor...to such as are the 'vessels of wrath.' But to reason thus is to make logic rule over Scripture... All the truths of the Christian religion have of necessity the appearance of being contradictory... In the case of common grace, as in the case of every other biblical doctrine, we should seek to take all the factors of Scripture teaching and bind them together into systematic relations withone another as far as we can. But we do not expect to have a logically deducible relationship between one doctrine and another.[2] This type of thinking produced a stir in the Reformed Theological schools. Benjamin Warfield wrote, "The reemergence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system impossible, but would discredit at a stroke many of the fundamentals of the faith, such e.g. as the doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of the authority of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever simplicity can be ascertained from Scripture except by the use of the processes of the understanding...The recent plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly, in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic."[3] Warfield was speaking of the Westminster Confession's statement that we are required to believe and to obey not only what is 'expressly set down in Scripture,' but also what 'by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.' In contrast to this Scriptural view, Van Til denies the possibility of a deductive system and asserts that the "analogical truths" we have all appear to be contradictory. Apart from this unscriptural denial of the role of logic and the perspicuity of Scripture, one must ask the questions: What is the meaning of a 'system' of non-deducible paradoxes? Van Tilianism, in the words of Warfield, "logically involves the denial of the authority of all doctrine whatsoever." John Frame also came against Van Til on this, even though he endorses most of Van Til's ideas. He presented an excellent analysis of Van Til's proposal when he wrote: "...the necessity of formulating doctrines in 'apparently contradictory' ways certainly increases the difficulty of developing a 'system of doctrine,' especially a system such as Van Til himself advocates...[4] Even so, Van Til himself, in his book, The Calvinist Concept of Culture (1959, Baker), warns against what he would call "abusing" the doctrine of common grace. He speaks of "a certain level of existence at which the army of the Lord is immobilized, where it does not function as an army, but suddenly takes on the appearance of crowds of vacationers, or the motley multitude at a fair and pushing one another for a better position to see. Thus there is established between the church and the world a gray, colorless area, a kind of no-man's land, where an armistice obtains and one can hobnob with the enemy with impunity in a relaxed Christmas spirit, smoking the common weed." If he was this concerned why was he so adamant about his view of common grace? The CRC's synodical declaration already in 1928 says: "The question arises, what basis of fellowship there can be between the child of God and the man of this world. What have they in common which makes a degree of communion possible and legitimate?... The solution is found in the doctrine of common grace .. The basis of our fellowship with unbelievers should be...the grace, common, which they have in common with us." Has II Corinthians 6 been removed from the CRC bible? Where is it heard anywhere anymore that 'friendship with the world is enmity against God?' In these findings I concluded that I'm on the side of rational, logical thinking when I believe Scripture interprets Scripture. Shouldn't we be very careful of phrases that could be construed two or three different ways, phrases which aren't found in Scripture so that they cannot be interpreted by Scripture? Though at the time they are coined there may be a definite truth to the phrase. The Trinity is one such phrase that no person could misconstrue. It has passed the test of time. Common Grace, on the other hand, was meant a certain way by Kuyper, but through time has not passed the test of remaining with the original intention. So why won't the theological giants of our time come up with a phrase that works, and let the common grace of universal love and favor to every human remain the heresy it is? Let's look at what is at stake if we continue down this road. Doctrines which are denied in the incorrect definition of common grace are predestination on the first point, and total depravity on the third point. The teaching of the first point is a back handed way of teaching the "free offer of the gospel." The free offer either explicitly or implicitly denies predestination. It teaches that God's love is for all who hear the preaching of the gospel, and that His will is that they be saved. But election is that the love of God in Christ is eternally directed toward some, definite, particular men, willing their salvation and effectually accomplishing it (see Deut 7:6-8 and Romans 8:28-39). Those who believe in this erroneous common grace call those who don't agree with the free offer of the gospel hyper-Calvinist. But I am not a hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism says you should not even preach to unbelievers. But I believe you must! Hyper-Calvinism says God only calls those who are his elect in eternity to repent and believe. Not so. The gospel calls every single human being who hears it to repent and believe. I believe God promises salvation to all who believe. The denial of the free offer means this: I do not believe that there is grace in the preaching to all men, or that the preaching expresses God's desire and purpose and intent to save all men. In CRC's third point of common grace we find, "Relative to the third point which is concerned with the question of civil righteousness as performed by the unregenerate, synod declared that, according to the Scripture and the Confessions, the unregenerate, though incapable of doing saving good, can do civil good. This is evident from the quotations from Scripture and from the Canons of Dort, III, IV, 4, and from the Netherlands Confession Art. 36, which teach that God without renewing the heart so influences man, that he is able to perform civil good; while it also appears from the citations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed Theology, that our Reformed Fathers from ancient times were of the same opinion." This third point teaches that unbelieving, unregenerate man does something of which God approves, with which God is pleased, and which is conformable to God's will. He is able to do civil good. This teaching I believe undermines the truth of total depravity. The article that CRC used as proof of the civil good in man reads, "There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining a good, external deportment." This is all the third point quotes for its proof that the writers of the confession believed in common grace. But listen to the last half of that confession purposely left out (because it destroys their logic): "But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, which by doing he becomes inexcusable before God." Whatever the framers of this doctrine meant when they said that natural man is unable to use the light of nature aright in things natural and civil, it is clear that they mean here that natural man does not do good. Just for my own perusal I have searched the meaning of Grace, that I may be convinced in my mind that it cannot be common as some theologians want it to be. Of course, phrases such as common grace are made up by man to mean what they think Scripture implicitly teaches. Is God's kindness (chesed-O.T., chrestos-N.T.), or goodness (tob-O.T., chrestos-N.T.) to be lumped together with God's grace (chen-O.T., charis-N.T.)? Even Scripture uses different names for the activities of God toward the evil, and grace is not one of them.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible--Grace (charis)--Unmerited favorThe former bears the pre NT sense of favor, with an undertone of meaning that the favor is undeserved. Thus Moses said to the Lord "If I have found grace in thy sight" (Ex.33:13). The word hesed, most often translated "loving kindness" or "mercy", has also, though not invariably, the association of the covenant that God makes with his people: "The Lord appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I d thee with an everlasting love: therefore with have I drawn thee"(Jer.31:3); "the Lord thy God shall keep with thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers" (Deut.7:12). The most common New Testament word for grace is charis. Its basic significance is to be found in joyfulness, whether in regard to the appreciation of things or of people. But as used by the NT, it conveys the combined meanings of hen and hesed: e.g., for the former; "But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom.11:6); for the latter: "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." (Rom.5:20). The essence of the doctrine of grace is that God is for us. What is more, he is for us who in ourselves are against him. More still, he is not for us merely in a general attitude, but has effectively acted towards us. Grace is summed up in the name Jesus Christ. He is the grace of God towards us. (pg.257) Now I come to the study of the verses that are used in connection with 'common grace'. As is witnessed above there is much evidence that charis (which is also the root of charisma, which means (Spiritual) 'gift' involving charis on the part of God as the Donor; also charitoo which is an even higher form of favor, called 'Divine favor' or 'accepted of the Lord' , or the O.T. hen, and hesed are NOT to be used in a common way. So how did theologians come up with the term? I believe I have ananswer. It is within the word 'chrestos'. This word 'chrestos' has been translated different ways in Scripture. Some of the interpretations read: good, kind, gracious, easy, goodness, and along with derivatives of this word which give the sense of useful, profitable, etc.Concordance says it is from the word 'chraomai' meaning: to furnish what is needed. Chrestos actually means: useful (as in manner or morals). All of the definitions of "chrestos" given in the Bullinger Concordance add this claim, "Actively beneficent in spite of ingratitude." This tells us what the gift is. It is beneficial and it is good. Rain and sunshine are useful for the reprobate as well as the elect. God furnishes all of His creation with what is needed. But this definition does not tell us why God is kind to the unthankful. If you call this benefit 'grace' (which Scripture never does toward men in general) you are prompting an automatic mental picture of a favor of God toward His creatures (because of what 'charis' means all through Scripture). So, what is God's purpose when he is kind to the unthankful and evil? As seen above, the word 'chrestos' gives us the clue. God's gift is useful to do either of two things: (1) It either brings the elect to repentance (Rom. 2:3-5, 1 Pet. 2: 2-3), or it brings wrath to the reprobate (Rom.2:3-5) I will take one of the main verses with this word in it, which is used for the teaching of common grace, and analyze what I believe is taught. Luke 6:35: "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." This has been an argument for those who believe God loves, or at least has a favorable attitude toward the evil. Why would God ask us to love our enemies, if He does not love them? That is a fair question that needs an honest answer. The answer lies in what this kindness, or love, does to your enemy, or an unbeliever. Proverbs 25:22 provides the answer: "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee." This passage has been interpreted several different ways, but whatever it means 'heaping coals of fire upon his head' does not calculate to something I personally would desire. Therefore, I take this to mean our kindness has a negative affect on those who are our enemies, or unbelievers who hate us, and God. However, God is able, and may, use our kindness or love to bring His elect, who are enemies at the moment, to repentance. (Rom.2:4). If it does not bring repentance we are assured that it brings 'wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.' (Rom.2:5) What brings this wrathful judgment? Despising the riches of God's goodness and forbearance and longsuffering.(Rom.2:3) Why does God show these attributes to those who will not acknowledge them, to those He does not even intend to save? Romans 9:22 gives the answer, though there will be many who don't like God's answer: "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." We find it is not out of favor towards the evil that God shows kindness, but out of wrath! Why? To make known the riches of His glory toward His elect. God is sovereign! Who can reply against Him? But how does God's longsuffering, goodness, kindness, etc., make known the riches of His glory? 2 Corinthians 2:15 sheds light on this question; "For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life unto life." Calvin thought that God was showing us that He is glorified when the Gospel is given whether it saved or whether it reprobated: "...faithful and sincere ministers of the Gospel have a sweet savor before God not only when they quicken souls by the fragrance of salvation but also when they bring death to unbelievers; thus the fact that the Gospel is opposed should not make us value it any less. Both savors, he says, are agreeable to God, both that by which the elect are recreated unto and that by which the reprobate are tormented. This is a notable passage from which we may learn that whatever the results of our preaching may be, it is pleasing to God provided only that the Gospel is preached and our obedience is acceptable to Him. The good name of the Gospel is in no way brought into disrepute by the fact that it does not profit all. For God is glorified when it brings about the ruin of the reprobate and so this must happen. And if anything is a sweet savor to God it ought to be so to us also, that is, we should not be offended if the preaching of the Gospel does not result in the salvation of all who hear it, but should think it quite enough if it promotes God's glory by bringing the reprobate a just condemnation. Even if the heralds of the Gospel are in bad odor in the world, because their success is not always as great as they would wish, they have the choice consolation of knowing that they waft to God an incense of sweet fragrance and that what is offensive in the world's nostrils is a sweet savor to God and His angels. He lays great emphasis on the word savor. It is as if he had said "The power of the Gospel is so great that it either quickens or kills not only by its taste but by its very smell. Whether the outcome be life or death, it is never preached in vain.' But the question arises how this can be consistent with the nature of the Gospel which he defines a little later as 'the ministry of life'. The answer is easy: the Gospel is preached unto salvation, for that is its real purpose, but only believers share in this salvation; for unbelievers it is an occasion of condemnation, but it is they who make it so. Thus Christ came not into the world to condemn the world--there was no need for that since we were all condemned already without Him. Yet He sends the apostle not just to loose but also to bind, not just to remit sins but also to retain them. He is the light of the world and yet He blinds unbelievers; He is the foundation stone, yet to many He is the stone of stumbling. But the proper function of the Gospel is always to be distinguished from what we may call its accidental function which must be imputed to the depravity of men by which life is turned into death." (Calvin's N.T. Commentaries, Book 10, pgs. 34-35). What is said above about the Gospel has to be the same with any of the good that God gives to men. For some it will produce blessing, others God's wrath and judgment. If that is true how can we put a phrase together that suggests a favorable attitude toward the person to whom God intends wrath and judgment, such a phrase as 'common grace'? Since Scripture itself does not apply grace to these actions or attributes of God to the unthankful and evil, should we? Let the words used in Scripture be the words we say. It would be nice if there was one word we could define 'chrestos' as and put common onto it. 'Common kindness', or 'common goodness' would be better suited. Even 'common revelation' would be good because God is revealing Himself to all, believer's as well as unbeliever's when He shows His attributes of kindness, and goodness, in the rain and sunshine and all other pleasurable things God has created that we all enjoy. But again, the key is... are we thankful for God's blessings? If not, judgment was intended. In all the authors that I have come across that use the term 'common grace' inevitably I find that they believe God has emotions which involve love, mercy, kindness, or at least pity toward the reprobate. They believe that God 'desires' that the reprobate also be saved ('desiring will' which God does not 'decree'.) A love for all mankind, and a sincere desire that all turn from their wicked ways and be saved, a possibility completely open for the reprobate to choose. Reformed teachers teaching Arminian hogwash that nowhere is backed up in Scripture. In fact, on close scrutiny of all verses in Scripture which these men use, there is plain-sense Scriptural exegesis which other portions of Scripture agree with and which teaches just the opposite of what they want everyone to believe. Anyone can take one verse and make it say what they believe, but it must line up with ALL Scripture. If it disagrees with any part it must be questionable. Of course, as seen above in Van Til, the way to get around such teaching that can't jive with Scripture is to call it a mystery, or dichotomy, or misnomer, etc.. Something man is incapable of figuring out. Maybe I'm just not willing to accept that what God has said in His word is unknowable by the creatures He is writing to. The Trinity is a hard teaching, but Scripture teaches it in such a way that we must accept it. First, though, we have to understand that it is truly taught before we accept it. This is the way God does things. He tells us they are so, and we believe Him. Though we understand what God is saying about Himself, that is not the same as understanding the incomprehensible parts of God, or God's reasoning behind what He does. Though I don't fully comprehend how God can be three. I do understand that God writes about Himself in three persons. I can see that as I read His word. The same goes for all other doctrine. And further, in order for God to communicate with His creatures, He has to condescend to our level of speech, which unfortunately people have always misconstrued as God being somehow humanlike. No, He is God. I contend that there is much, much more of a gulf between God's mind and ours than man is willing to admit. Yet for His beloved, He has left word of who He is, and what He has done for us. Our response should be total gratitude, continually. Instead, so much of the time it is 'attitude'. Just because we would not do things the way God has told us He has done things, we interpret God's Word accordingly--our way. It is always going to be so. I wish it weren't like that among His own people, but too often it is. I'll admit that I personally wish in my heart that all people were going to be saved, and all go to that blessed place Jesus is preparing for His elect. I have empathy for those who don't believe a word about God, who hate everything that His teachings stand for. I have been there. The grace that changed my mind is, indeed, amazing. But it is even more amazing because I was changed and some aren't. Where do we go to understand that? It is found in Scripture, and we can read it, but it will always remain incomprehensible to me. This is where faith--that gift of God that helps us believe in the face of the incomprehensible--comes in real handy. I am thankful that God gave me faith. Faith that He IS God. That He knows ALL. That He is all Wise. That His purpose is so perfect that it will thrill us to no end when He let's us see the whole picture in glory. Faith, then, must accept what God says for now, even if it stinks in our own nostrils, it is a sweet savor to Him.
A. Descriptive of God's favor: Gen.6:8, Ex.33:12, Luke 1:30 God's nconditional election: Rom. 11:5-6, Eph.2:8-9 Jesus Christ: John 1:17 Spiritual gifts: Romans 12:6, 1Peter 4:10 Eternal Life: 1 Peter
B. Is the source of Salvation: Acts 15:11 Call of God: Gal. 1:15 Faith: Acts 18:27 Justification: Rom. 3:24 Forgiveness: Eph. 1 Consolation: 2 Thess.2:16 O.T.--chen: graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty):--favor, grace (ious), pleasant, precious, (well)-favored. chanan: prop. to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior; to favor, bestow; causes. to implore (i.e. move to favor by petition):--beseech, x fair, (be, find, shew) favor (able), be (deal, give, grant (graciously), entreat, (be) merciful, have (shew) mercy (on, upon, have pity upon, pray, make supplication, x very). techinnah: graciousness; cause. entreaty:--favor, grace, supplication. N.T.--charis: graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstr. or concr.; lit., fig. or spiritual; espec. the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude:--acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, grace (ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy). 'Grace' translated in various verses of Scripture as: 'favor' in Luke 1:30, 2:52; Acts 2:47, 7:10, 46; 25:3 'highly favored' or 'accepted' in Luke 1:28, Eph. 1:6 'free gift' or 'free favor' in 2 Cor. 8:4 charisma: a (divine) gratuity, i.e. deliverance (from danger or passion); (spec.) a (spiritual) endowment, i.e. (subj.) religious qualification, or (obj.) miraculous faculty:--free gift charizomai: to grant as a favor, i.e. gratuitously, in kindness, pardon or rescue:--deliver, (frankly) forgive, (freely) give, grant. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible-- O.T.--hen: favor, hesed: loving kindness, mercy, chanan: to be gracious techinnah: supplication for grace N.T.--charis: graciousness chrestos: Useful, kind 1 Peter 2:3 euprepeia: gracefulness, comeliness Bullinger's A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament categorizes the different uses of the Greek word into English and puts how many number of times it is used in this way after each translation. Charis: grace--129, thanksgiving--1, favor--6, pleasure--2, liberality--1, gift--1, benefit--1, grace --1, thanks--4, thank--3, thankworthy--1, acceptable--1, gracious--1, to thank--3, God be thanked--1 Bullinger's definition of 'charis': a kind, affectionate, pleasing nature and inclining disposition, either in person or thing. Objectively it denotes, personal gracefulness, a pleasing work, beauty of speech, etc. Subjectively it means an inclining towards, courteous or gracious disposition, friendly willingness; on the part of the giver of a favor, kindness, favor; on the part of the receiver, thanks. From Baker's Dictionary of Theology In the Old Testament many words convey one or more aspects of the doctrine of grace. The two which most comprehensively express the NT word charis are hen and hesed.
2. Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973, pp. 165-166 [back]
3. Benjamin B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack Publishing, 1972, pp. 226-227 [back]
4. John Frame, "The Problem of Theological Paradox," Foundations of Christian Scholarship, Gary North, editor. Vallecito [back]