Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Particular vs Common Grace Controversy
by Christopher Davidson
Intro
Common grace teaches God loves the reprobates, but as I have shown in my other blog “Love God Hate Evil” we see that God has nothing but hatred towards the reprobates. This error of a love of God for the reprobate is being used by many (including professed Calvinists). In 1924 controversy on this topic within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) led to a division of the church, establishing the Protestant Reformed Church (PRC).
This article is my view on the topic which I have held for a few years now, but have grown in my understanding of the topic through reading the book ‘Common Grace Considered’ by Herman Hanko. So it is my intention in this article to share my views on the topic with using quotes from what I have read on it to give you a understanding of the biblical interpretation on the subject. I ask you would do the same as the Bereans did when Paul preached to them the word of God examining the Scriptures to see what I am saying is true. Acts 17:11 “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
It is for my love of Christ I have written a response for those who hold to common grace, in hope that they may repent and be sound in the faith, giving God the glory. For it is Gods command to correct our brothers Titus 1:13 “This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith.”
The teaching of common grace adopted by the Christian Reformed Church in 1924 is summed up into 3 points:
1. In addition to the saving grace of God, shown only to those who are elected to eternal life, there is also a certain favor, or grace, of God shown to his creatures in general.
2. Since the fall, human life in society remains possible because God, through his Spirit, restrains the power of sin.
3. God, without renewing the heart, so influences human beings that, though incapable of doing any saving good, they are able to do civil good.
Regarding the First Point
The first point of common grace adopted by the synod of the CRC in 1924 offered the following Biblical proof: Matthew 5:44-45,Psalm 145:9, Luke 6:35-36, Acts 14:16-17. I will discuss these texts one by one.
The first proof text, Matthew 5:44-45:
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
The argument as I understand goes like this. God sends sunshine and rain upon the just and the unjust or in other words the righteous and the wicked. The common sunshine and rain God sends is proof for Gods favour, love and kindness. When I reject this first point im not saying the sunshine and the rain the wicked receive are not good, it is good. But the wicked must recognize them as good. If it is true God loves all humanity through sunshine and rain the opposite must also be true that God hates the righteous and the wicked when he brings calamity and destruction upon us.
The mistake that many make including Asaph is to say everything good God gives man is a blessing to all of humanity. Asaph “envied the arrogant when he saw the prosperity of the wicked”, they are without “struggles” and “always carefree”. His “foot had almost slipped” (Psalm 73) when he saw this and he is not the only one many other Christians struggle with this too. How is it the wicked are without struggles and always carefree yet the ones God loves go through all sorts of trials and persecutions? It wasn’t until Asaph had entered the sanctuary of God he came to an understanding that all these things God had given to the wicked was God setting them up on slippery ground to be cast down to ruin.
I’ve heard of a really good analogy from a friend that helped me understand this. This is his analogy, compare it to a cattle living in a farm sted, the farmer feeds and watches over the cattle, like God feeds and provides for the reprobates giving them sunshine, air, water etc. but why? The cattle go to the slaughterhouse when they are ready, and just like this farmer God is preparing the wicked in the same way, getting them ready for the winepress of His judgment when the earth is ripe.
Hence this is not out of Gods love He gives them these things, it is a curse upon the wicked for God is using these things for their own destruction.
The second proof text, Psalm 145:9:
The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.
This is simply a sloppy study of the text, for those who are reformed should know better than this, for we accuse the arminians of taking texts out of context. If we continue to the next verse we read All your works shall give thanks to you, O Lord, and all your saints shall bless you! verse 9 simply cannot mean every single creature since all he has made gives thanks to the Lord but the reprobates don’t give thanks to the Lord.
Let us have the Hebrew parallelism of Psalm 145:9-10 clearly before us:
[9a] The Lord is good to all: [9b] and his tender mercies are overall his works. [10a] All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; [10b] and thy saints shall bless thee.
” “All” (v9a) and “all [God’s] works” (v9b, v10a) and God’s “saints” (v10b) refer to the same group, God’s holy people who are new creatures in Jesus Christ (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10). The eternal, unchangeable and faithful Jehovah is good to “all” of them (Ps. 145:9a) and they are the objects of His covenantal “tender mercies” (v9b). Knowing God’s goodness and tender mercies, all of His holy people “praise” (v10a) and “bless” (v10b) Him, and “speak of the glory of [His] kingdom, and talk of [His] power” (v11).
Moreover, if we would follow the eisegesis of those who believe that “all [God’s] works” in Psalm 145:9 include every human being bar none, we would also be forced to conclude that the same would apply to “every living thing” in verse 16. But if we were to grant this, it would require us to believe that God satisfies “the desire” for food (v15-16) of every human being in the history of the world. Yet we know that thousands have died, and still die, of hunger. Also, “every living thing” (v16) is said to “wait upon” God for food (v15). This may well include animals, birds and fish (cf. Ps. 104:21, 25-28), as well as God’s children who seek from Him alone their daily bread. But the reprobate are unbelievers; they do not truly wait upon or pray to God for food in faith! [1]”
The third proof text, Luke 6:35-36:
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
This passage is very similar to the passage in Matthew 5 which I have dealt with, the only difference being that Jesus here speaks of God’s kindness to the unthankful and evil, while in Matthew 5, Jesus speaks of the rain and sunshine God sends to the just and the unjust. Many assume from this passage that God shows kindness to all of the wicked. But we need to remember we were once enemies of God we were as ungrateful and wicked as any other man, the reference to the ungrateful and evil is speaking about the ungrateful and evil elect. The elect who are the objects of God’s mercy know with total certainty that they were not chosen because they were in any way better than those not chosen. We were as deserving of everlasting condemnation as those who were not chosen. God had chosen not from anything we had done but from His good purpose, pleasure and will.
” The awesome character of election and its sovereign work of God is the reason for the humility of God’s people. How can it be any different? It is not at all strange, therefore, that these people are admonished to be merciful to others. They are eager to love their enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again. They cannot help but be themselves be kind unto the unthankful and evil, for this is the way God dealt with them.
There is no reason at all in the text to argue, as those who teach common grace argue, that God is merciful to all men. After all, Jesus is speaking here to His own disciples (verse 20) and is describing the characteristics and calling of those who belong to the kingdom of heaven. Citizens of the kingdom of heaven are saved by grace; they are now to be gracious to those with whom they come into contact. In this way they manifest to others the grace God has shown to them. [2]“
The fourth and last proof text , Acts 14:16-17:
In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.
The context of this passage is quite clear Paul and Barnabas had fled to Lystra to preach the gospel after they had almost been stoned at Iconium. During the course of Pauls preaching in the city, Paul had healed a lame man. The citizens of this city tried to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas seeing them as two of their gods. We find Paul and Barnabas trying with their best efforts to prevent the people from committing idolatry by worshipping them. We see the two proclaim they are no better than them they too are only human and it is the living God who should be worshiped who created the heavens and the earth. Looking at the context of this passage one would wonder why in the world would the doctrine of common grace appear in an attempt to prevent the people to stop worshiping them. It is simply not there, what is being taught though in verse 16 and 17 is that God gives good gifts to men, His gifts are always good and never evil (James 1:17) [3] this doesn’t mean God loves all people and shows a favourable attitude towards them. The reason why God gives good gifts is that God doesn’t leave Himself without witness. In the good gifts that He gives, God testifies Himself when God gave good gifts to men, He gave them to show all men that He alone is God, that He alone is good, and that He alone must be served and worshiped. Paul appeals to that truth in Lystra, because he underscores the fact that the wicked from the beginning of time and including the idolaters in Lystra knew and know that God alone must be worshipped and served. The people in Lystra, therefore, must not offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, but to God alone. Paul explains this further in Romans 1 God giving a general revelation to all people so no one is without excuse.
Conclusion of Point 1
“Though all men have all the things of this creation in common, God’s attitude towards the wicked is different from His attitude towards His elect. God is never gracious, or loving, or kind, or filled with compassion to the wicked. Because He is sovereign, He sends them all that they receive; but all is His just judgment on those who hate Him. Equally, He is sovereign in all He gives to the righteous, but all that He sends them is blessing. [4]”
“But if God cares only for his chosen ones, why does he provide natural benefits to the reprobates? And if non-Christians are so repulsive to him, why does he put up with them for so long before he sends them to hell to torture them forever? Paul explains in Romans 9, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…?” (v. 22-23). In other words, God keeps non-Christians alive and functional so that they can provide an environment for Christians to interact with, to learn and practice the word of God, and to witness God’s wrath against these people that refuse to believe in Jesus Christ.”
“Suppose a man wishes to preserve some beer bottles to use as targets when he plays with his rifle, and to show off his marksmanship to his children. He would collect these bottles, clean them, and preserve them in a safe place. He offers to these bottles a natural benevolence, but he has no personal concern for them as he does his children. And when the time comes he will line them up and shoot them to a thousand pieces without any remorse, while his children praise him and rejoice with him. [5]“
Regarding the Second and Third Point
My rejection to the second point is not that God restrains sin. He does. My rejection is of the idea that the restraint of sin is a gracious work of the Spirit of God within the heart of the natural man that changes the moral character of a man’s depraved nature, but does not save him.
“This work of the Holy Spirit not only impedes the progress of sin or restrains its outbreak in the lives of the individual, but it also has a good effect on the nature of man so that he is morally better than he would be without this common grace. The work of the Holy Spirit does not actually regenerate a man; that is, the Holy Spirit does not actually give to the sinner the life of Christ and a new heart, but God does, in His internal work, alter the nature of man for good. That is, a totally depraved nature is made less than totally depraved by God’s common grace given through the Holy Spirit.
Those who hold to common grace and also profess to be Calvinists feel constrained to defend the doctrine of total depravity, one of the five points of Calvinism. In order to accomplish this extremely difficult, if not impossible, task of harmonizing the good change in the nature of the unregenerate with the doctrine of total depravity, they make a distinction between “total” depravity and “absolute” depravity. The latter means depraved completely. And sometimes is added, “beyond salvation.” The devils are described as being absolutely depraved. But “total” depravity, in distinction from “absolute” depravity, means that a man is depraved in every part of his nature (body, soul, mind, emotions and will) but not completely so. Each part of his nature is partially depraved, but also partially good. This, it seems to me, is playing with words and with Biblical truths. But, of course, the proponents of this restraint of sin have a difficult time of it when they try to explain how, as Calvinism insists, a man can be totally depraved and yet be able to do good by the work of the Holy Spirit. [6]“
“The inner restraint of the Holy Spirit in all men does deny total depravity in spite of the protestations of the supporters of common grace. It is a gracious work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men that alters morally the nature of man. This is a denial of the total depravity of the natural man apart from regeneration, and therefore a sacrifice of a crucial part of Calvinism. Hence, the question and answer found in Lord’s Day 3 is denied:
8. Q. But are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil?
A. Yes, unless we are born again, by the Spirit of God.
The defenders of common grace would have to answer the question by saying, “Indeed we are except we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit or have the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to restrain sin, though never saving us.” If Calvinism no longer teaches the total depravity of the natural man, then salvation is not entirely the work of saving grace, but involves man’s cooperation.
This kind of grace, an improvement over his totally depraved state, enables him to do some good, namely to accept or reject the offers of the gospel. The gracious and well-meant gospel offer is also a work of common grace to a sinner who already has the grace of the restraint of sin and the resultant change of his nature for the better.
All this is Arminian language and a denial of the sovereign grace of God in the work of salvation. It is a theological heresy that is specifically mentioned in the Canons of Dordt as a doctrine that needs to be condemned. Canons 3/4.B: Error 5 reads: “We condemn the error of those who teach that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since He applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion.” [7]“
“Thus common grace, though taught by professing Reformed men, militates directly against the Canons of Dordt. This is inexcusable and culpable conduct.
Also serious is the claim that the inner restraint of sin destroys the Biblical truth of the antithesis. Already in 1924, Rev. Herman Hoeksema warned the Synod that adopted the three points of common grace that the error of an inner and gracious restraint of sin in the hearts of all men would destroy the antithesis and open the way for a flood of worldliness that would pour into the church. And so it has happened. While worldliness is a grave danger against which we all have to fight and which has had its own influence on our lives, the difference is that a true church fights against it and condemns it, while churches that adopt such a view as common grace officially justify it, for these churches have given worldliness a doctrinal foundation. [8]“
Final Conclusion
“The doctrine of common grace is unbiblical and dangerous and leads to many unbiblical truths. God shows no sign of love or gracious attitude towards the wicked, He abhors all who do wrong and will destroy them all for He has nothing but hatred towards them. [9] This teaching of common grace is being used by many to erode the antithesis (Gen. 3:15), to soften total depravity, to compromise particular atonement, to preach a desire of God to save the reprobate, to silence and (then) deny unconditional reprobation and election, to refuse to condemn Arminianism and its teachers, and to enable fellowship with unbelievers. [10]”
Proverbs 3:33
The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous.
Notes
[1] Rev Angus Stewart, Covenant Protestant Reformed Church articles, “Does Psalm 145:9 Teach Common Grace?”.
[2] Herman Hanko, “Common Grace Considered”, 87-88.
[3] James 1:17 – Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
[4] Herman Hanko, “Common Grace Considered”, 58.
[5] Vincent Cheung, “Systematic Theology”, 73.
[6] Herman Hanko, “Common Grace Considered”, 117- 118.
[7] Ibid, 129.
[8] Ibid, 130.
[9] Psalm 5:4-6; Psalm 11:5.
[10] Rev Angus Stewart, Covenant Protestant Reformed Church articles, “Common Grace”.