Introduction
What is grace?
Grace is favor from someone that is not earned or merited.
What does the Bible mean by grace?
The Bible uses this term to refer to the favor which God shows to His people.
To whom does God show grace?
In one sense, God shows grace to all people. In another sense, He shows grace only to His elect.
How is this?
Because the Bible teaches us to understand God’s grace in two ways.
First is God’s common or universal favor which He shows to all people.
Second is God’s special grace which He shows only to His people.
What is common grace?
This is any favor which God shows to a person which does not result in their salvation. Edwards (p19):
Such phrases as “common grace,” and “special” or “saving grace,” may be understood as signifying either diverse kinds of influence of God’s Spirit on the hearts of men, or diverse fruits and effects of that influence. The Spirit of God is supposed sometimes to have some influence upon the minds of men that are not true Christians; and that those dispositions, frames and exercises of their minds that are of a good tendency, but are common to them with the saints, are in some respect owing to some influence or assistance of God’s Spirit. But as there are some things in the hearts of true Christians that are peculiar to them, and that are more excellent than anything that is to be found in others, so it is supposed that there is an operation of the Spirit of God different, and that the value which distinguishes them is owing to a higher influence and assistance than the virtues of others. So that sometimes the phrase, common grace, is used to signify that kind of action or influence of the Spirit of God, to which are owing those religious or moral attainments that are common to both saints and sinners, and so signifies as much as common assistance; and sometimes those moral or religious attainments themselves that are the fruits of this assistance, are intended. So likewise the phrase, special or saving grace, is sometimes used to signify that peculiar kind or degree of operation or influence of God’s Spirit, whence saving actions and attainments do arise in the godly, or, which is the same thing, special and saving assistance; or else to signify that distinguishing saving virtue itself, which is the fruit of this assistance. These phrases are more frequently understood in the latter sense, viz. not for common and special assistance, but for common and special, or saving virtue, which is the fruit of that assistance: and so I would be understood by these phrases in this discourse.
What is special grace?
Special grace is that favor which God shows to His elect people which results in their salvation.
Genesis 8:20-22
What is taught in this passage?
In this passage, we have the account of Noah leaving the Ark and offering a sacrifice to God. God then promises Noah that He will never again destroy the entire creation.
Why is this text important for our understanding of God’s favor to men?
Because here we have an example of God showing favor to every human person, even animals.
Why do you say so?
Because the recipients of God’s favor here are said to be “every living thing” (Genesis 8:21) and every living creature. (Genesis 9:10, 12) Furthermore, Genesis 8:21 makes it clear that God gives this favor to mankind in spite of the fact that they remain totally depraved. Notice the description given here of man’s depravity:
And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)
This should be compared with God’s previous verdict given us in Genesis 6:5.
If mankind remains totally depraved even after the flood, then why does God not immediately punish them and cast all of them into eternal condemnation?
The reason is because of the propitiatory sacrifice which Noah offered after he had left the ark. We read of this in Genesis 8:
And Noah built an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. (Genesis 8:20-21)
Why do you call this a propitiatory sacrifice?
First, note that God smells Noah’s offering. This means that God accepts the offering and is pleased with it. The opposite can be seen in Amos where God will not smell the offering: I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. (Amos 5:21)
Second, a propitiatory sacrifice is a sacrifice that removes God’s wrath. This is seen especially in the word here translated “sweet” (see here) which has the sense of soothing or quieting. Edersheim calls (p52) it “a savor of rest” or “of satisfaction,” the point being that God’s anger was pacified or caused to rest by Noah’s sacrifice. This word is the same word used to describe the effect of the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus. (Leviticus 1:9, 13,17, etc.) It is important not to miss the typology here. In light of future revelation, Noah’s sacrifice is clearly a type of the sacrifice of Christ which is what really removes God’s wrath against sinners. (John 3:36; Romans 5:9)
Why do you say that Noah’s offering was a type of the sacrifice of Christ?
Because Paul teaches us to think of the death of Jesus as “an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.” (Ephesians 5:2)
What does Noah’s offering here teach us about God’s general favor toward all men?
It shows us that even the blessings of God’s common grace were purchased for us by the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, here typified in Noah’s offering.
Psalm 145:9
What does this passage teach us about God’s grace?
Here God teaches us that He has a certain favor that extends to all His creation. The LORD is good to all, and His mercy is over all that He has made. (Psalm 145:9)
This verse seems to teach that God loves all His creation but not necessarily all people?
The expression “all that He has made” would certainly include people since they are also created by God.
How do those who reject the doctrine of common grace understand this text?
Hoeksema holds that the “all” of v9 does not include the reprobate. He writes:
The word “all” in the sentence: “The Lord is good to all,” must be interpreted in the light of the context. If we do so, it will at once be evident that it does not mean: “all men” godly and ungodly, but “all the works of God” man and beast and the green tree and herb of the field, the organic whole of creation, and that the ungodly reprobate are exactly excluded from this “all.”
On what basis does Hoeksema assert that the ungodly reprobate are not included in the all of Psalm 145:9?
He points to the verses which follow as establishing this:
The LORD is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The LORD is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works. All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power; (Psalm 145:8-11)
The “all” in v9 is to be understood as the same as “all Your works” which is to be understood in parallel with “Your godly ones.” Furthermore, Hoeksema points to the same Psalm which teaches that God will destroy the wicked. The LORD keeps all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy. (Psalm 145:20)
Is it not true that by the principles of Hebrew parallelism, the “all” of v9 should be understood in parallel with “all Your works” and “Your godly ones” of the following verses?
First, recall that in Hebrew poetry, we expect the second line to carry forward the idea contained in the first line and not merely to repeat it. It is a hermeneutical error to view both lines as perfectly synonymous. Longman, How to Read the Psalms, 97–98. In v10, the first line states a basic truth; i.e. that all creation gives thanks to God. The second line carries this thought forward and highlights the specific activity of God’s chosen and sanctified people.
What about v20; does this not teach that God will destroy the reprobate?
First, it should be noted that wicked does not equal reprobate. When the Psalmist writes “…but all the wicked He will destroy.” (Psalm 145:20), this is not the equivalent of “…but all the reprobate He will destroy.” God brings a great deal of destruction on elect wicked people (e.g. 2 Samuel 12:10) just as He does on reprobate wicked people. This text is not making a statement about God’s punishing the reprobate.
Second, we must ask ourselves which system best makes sense of this text. Hoeksema’s system requires us to read this text in a way that is not consistent with its most natural reading. Another system holds that there is a sense in which God is good to all and yet will destroy the wicked both in this life and the next. This is a better system and is entitled to be regarded as more biblical than Hoeksema’s system because it does not require us to force a meaning on this text which is not natural to it.
What do you mean by a meaning which is natural to the text?
This simply means that a text has a meaning. We do not create that meaning or invent it; we discover it. And discovering this meaning does not mean that we assign a possible meaning to it but that we understand it in its most natural and plausible meaning in the context in which it exists. Fairbairn writes (p67):
Necessary, however, and important as this sympathetic spirit, this spiritus interpres, is, on the part of the interpreter of Scripture, when possessed in fullest measure, it can never entitle any one to use arbitrariness in the explanation of its words, or warrant him to put a sense on these different from that which properly belongs to them. Its value lies simply in guiding to the real import, not in modifying it, or in superinducing something of its own upon it. And we, therefore, lay it down as another principle to be sacredly maintained in Scriptural interpretations, that nothing should be elicited from the text but what is yielded by the fair and grammatical explanation of the language. The import of each word, and phrase, and passage, must be investigated in a manner perfectly accordant with the laws of language, and with the actual circumstances of the writers. Not what we may think they should have said, or might possibly wish they had said, but simply what, as far as we are able to ascertain, they did say—this must be the sole object of our pursuit; and the more there is of perfect honesty and discriminating tact in our efforts to arrive at this, the more certain is our success.
And Bengel (p259):
The truth of God must be our dearest object whether the popular system accord with it or not. Far be it from us to wrest or force Scripture into compliance with any favorite hypothesis. It never can be right to invent dogmas and then go to Scripture in order to prove them. It is better to run all lengths with Scripture truth in a natural and open manner, than to shift, and twist, and accommodate. Straightforward conduct may draw against us bitterness and rancor for a time, but sweetness will come out of it. Every single truth is a light of itself, and every error, however minute, is darkness as far as it goes.
Matthew 5:44
Where else does the Bible teach that God has a common favor for all people?
Jesus teaches us this in Matthew 5:
You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 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. (Matthew 5:44-48)
What is being taught here?
In these verses, Jesus commands us to love all people, even those people who are most obnoxious to us; i.e. our enemies.
How does this teach us that God has a common favor towards all people?
Because of the reason given to enforce this command.
What is that reason?
We are told to love all people because God loves all people, even His enemies.
Are we to conclude that God’s “enemies” include both elect and non-elect people?
The question of their election is not addressed here.
Why cannot this verse be understood to teach that God loves all His elect people, even His elect enemies?
This may very well be a possible interpretation of these verses, but it certainly is not the most probable meaning.
How do you know that God is commanding us to love in the same way He does?
Because Jesus says, “…so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” This means that when we act as God does, we are His “sons.”
How do those who deny the idea of common grace understand this text?
Hoeksema says that if the above understanding of this text is correct, then it proves too much. He writes:
It proves too much, for, all the Scriptures witness that God does not love, but hates His enemies and purposes to destroy them, except them He chose in Christ Jesus and whom He loves not as His enemies, but as His redeemed people, justified and sanctified in Christ. God does, indeed, love His enemies, but not as such, but as His children in Christ.
Does not Scripture teach that God hates His enemies?
It does. There is a mystery here; how are we to understand those passages, which speak of God hating sinners, in a way that is consistent with those passages which speak of God’s love for all?
What passages speak of God’s hatred of sinners?
Consider the following:
- The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
- The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalm 11:5)
- There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19)
- All their evil is at Gilgal; Indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels. (Hosea 9:15)
- “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:2-3)
How are these texts consistent with what Jesus said above?
The only options here are:
- to deny that God is kind to all which is what Hoeksema does;
- to deny that God hates anyone; or
- to affirm that, in some way, God can love and hate the same person.
The vast majority of evangelical Christians opt for the third.
How is it possible for God to love and hate the same person?
First, understand that it is very possible that this is a question that cannot be answered. We ought not to be surprised to find mysteries in the word of God. Second, theologians have put forth various suggestions the most common of which is this. Usher says (p80) it very succinctly:
The Scripture saith, That God doth hate all that work Iniquity: How then can God both hate and love one and the same Man? In every wicked Man we must consider two things. First, His Nature. Secondly, His Sin. His Nature is the Work of God, and that he loveth: But his Iniquity is not of God, and that he hateth.
Augustine writes (p659):
Seemeth he to pray against her, or for her, who says, Fill their faces with shame? It seems to be an adversary, it seems an enemy. Hear what follows, and see whether a friend can offer this prayer. Fill, says he, their faces with shame, and they shall seek Thy Name, O Lord. Did he hate them whose faces he desired to be filled with shame? See how he loves them whom he would have seek the Name of the Lord. Does he love only, or hate only? or does he both hate, and love? Yea, he both hates, and loves. He hates what is thine, he loves thee. What is, “He hates what is thine, he loves thee?” He hates what thou hast made, he loves what God hath made. For what are thine own things but sins? And what art thou but what God made thee, a man after His Own image and likeness? Thou dost neglect what thou wast made, love what thou hast made. Thou dost love thine own works without thee, dost neglect the work of God within thee. Deservedly dost thou go away, deservedly fall off, yea, deservedly even from thine own self depart; deservedly hear the words, A spirit that goeth and returneth not. Hear rather Him That calleth and saith, Turn ye unto Me, and I will turn unto you. For God doth not really turn away, and turn again; Abiding the Same He rebuketh,
Thomas (see his reply to objection 4):
Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him.
Gill (p70):
All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Genesis 1:31; he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works; Psalm 104:31; he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psalm 36:6, and 145:9; and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Timothy 5:21; by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Col. 2:10; and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matthew 18:10; yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, Acts 17:28, and 14:17, Matthew 5:45; but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his great love, Ephesians 2:4; whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, Ephesians 1:3, 4; and which love is distinguished and discriminating, Malachi 1:1, 2. Romans 9:11, 12.
All these men are distinguishing between what a man is as created by God and what a man is as a sinner and rebel to God.
What other distinction is important for reconciling these texts?
The distinction between God’s love of benevolence and His love of complacency.
What is the difference between these two?
- A love of benevolence is when we seek to do good to someone such as when we see someone in need, and we do what we can to relieve their suffering. This is the kind of love spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13.
- A love of complacency is a kind of delight that we have in something that we find appealing. When someone says they love pizza, for example, they are speaking of a love of complacency.
How does this distinction help us to reconcile these texts?
Because we can say that God has a love of benevolence for all His creation, especially for human persons, even the wicked. This is the kindness Jesus is speaking of in Luke 6:35. He has a love and a pity for all and desires to do them good. God does not, however, love all men with a love of complacency. This kind of love is only directed towards His people in whom He has created holiness in which God takes great delight. (Psalm 147:11)
What else does Hoeksema say about Jesus’ words here?
He writes about the classical understanding of this text:
And it leads to absurdity, for if rain and sunshine are a manifestation of God’s love to all men, the just and the unjust, what are floods and droughts, pestilences and earthquakes and all destructive forces and evils sent to all through nature, but manifestations of His hatred for all, the just and the unjust? But it is absurd to say that God hates the just, for He loves them. It is also absurd to say that God changes, now loving the just and the unjust and manifesting this love in rain and sunshine, now hating them and revealing His hatred in upheavals and destruction. Hence, the interpretation that leads to this evident absurdity is itself absurd. Besides, it must not be overlooked, that the text does not at all state, that God is gracious to the just and to the unjust, but that He rains and causes His sun to shine on all.
He continues:
We must take our starting point from Matthew 5:44. The Lord admonishes His people that they shall love their enemies. Now, love is not a sentimental feeling or emotion or affection. It is, according to Scripture, the bond of perfectness. (Colossians 3:14) It is therefore, the bond between two parties or persons that are ethically perfect, that seek each other and find delight in each other because of their ethical perfection, and that, in the sphere of ethical perfection seek each other’s good. It is in this true sense that God is love.
However, it stands to reason that in the case of loving our enemies, that despitefully use us, curse us and persecute us, love must needs be onesided. There cannot be a bond of fellowship between the wicked and the perfect in Christ. To love our enemy, therefore, is not to flatter him, to have fellowship with him, to play games with him and to speak sweetly to him; but rather to rebuke him, to demand that he leave his wicked way and thus to bless him and to pray for him. It is to bestow good things upon him with the demand of true love that he leave his wicked way, walk in the light and thus have fellowship with us. If he heed our love, which will be the case if he be of God’s elect and receive grace, he will turn from darkness into light and our love assumes the nature of a bond of perfectness. If he despise our love our very act of love will be to his greater damnation. But the cursing and persecution of the wicked may never tempt the child of God to live and act from the principle of hatred, to reward evil for evil, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
As a single illustration from actual life and experience, the Lord points to the fact, that so God rains and causes His sun to shine upon the just and the unjust, thus bestowing good things upon them all, demanding that they shall employ them as means to walk in righteousness and light. For with God love is delight in perfection in the highest sense of the word. If now the wicked receive grace with rain and sunshine, they will walk in the light and have fellowship with God. If they do not receive grace they will employ the rain and the sunshine in the service of sin and receive the greater damnation.
But rain and sunshine is never grace and Matthew 5:44, 45 does not prove the contention of the first point. (318)
What is to be said about this interpretation?
If I understand Hoeksema correctly (and I am not sure I do), he is not denying that God gives many good gifts to the reprobate. He is saying that God’s gifts come to them for the purpose of hardening them in their sin and making them ripe for damnation. Thus, these gifts are not motivated by God’s kindness or love but by hatred and judgment. On Luke 6:35, Hoeksema clearly says that God is kind to the elect unthankful and evil but “is not kind to the reprobate unthankful and evil.” (p319) So the real point at issue here is God’s intent. This question is answered by Jesus in Luke 6:35-36 where He clearly teaches us that these gifts come from God’s kindness and mercy.
Romans 2:4
Are there other passages which teach common grace?
Consider Paul’s teaching in Romans 2. Paul has just shown in the previous chapter that the pagan world was under the wrath of God. Now, he condemns the self-righteous Christians who condemn the pagans for their sin even while practicing the same themselves. The rhetorical question in v3 sets the tone here: Do you suppose, Oh man that you will escape the judgment of God? and the doctrine Paul is advancing here is given in v11 For there is no partiality with God.
How does this teach common grace?
Because in v4, Paul speaks of God’s delay in bringing down His judgments upon the wicked. This delay, says Paul, is not because God is willing to overlook their sin, but comes from the riches of God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience which God shows to these self-righteous people in order to give them time and space to repent of their sin.
Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:1-4)
How do you prove that this kindness is shown to those who are reprobate?
Because Romans 2:3 shows that these people will surely not escape the judgment of God. Also in Romans 2:5 and Romans 2:9, Paul speaks of these people as going into everlasting punishment.
How do those who deny the doctrine of common grace understand this text?
Hoeksema writes that the above understanding of this text is “impossible and wholly contrary to the plain words of the text.” He notes that the text does not say that the kindness, tolerance, and patience of God might lead to repentance but that it actually does lead him to repentance. He also asserts that the man in v3 is not an individual but a category of people. He writes:
Paul is addressing Man. (See Romans 2:1, 3) Now, the evident question is, how Paul could write of the same Man, that God’s goodness leads him to repentance, while on the other hand, he does not know this, despises this goodness and gathers unto himself treasures of wrath. It is very lucid that this could not possibly be asserted of the same individual. For, if the goodness of God leadeth a man to repentance, he does not despise that goodness, and if he despises the goodness of God, that goodness does not lead him to repentance. The two are mutually exclusive. Hence, the solution of this question must be sought in the fact, that the apostle is not addressing an individual, but a class. Man must be understood collectively. It is true, that the goodness of God leadeth Man to repentance, that is the elect man. It is also true, that Man despiseth this goodness of God, and that he gathers for himself treasures of wrath, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth man to repentance. This last predicate is true of the ungodly reprobate.
Hoeksema’s understanding of this text can be seen in this paraphrase:
Do you suppose, Oh man—you whom God has rejected from eternity and who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience which God is showing to His elect people, not knowing that God’s kindness to them is meant to lead you to repentance?
What can be said of this interpretation?
First, it is clearly an interpretation driven by Hoeksema’s theological system. This doesn’t necessarily make it wrong; still, we should first try to understand the text as it is. Second, as in the previous texts, the question of the election of these hypocritical people is not addressed in this text. Third, and most significantly, is Hoeksema’s understanding of the antecedents of these pronouns.
But do you suppose this, O man, when you [reprobate men] pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you [reprobate men] will escape the judgment of God? Or do you [reprobate men] think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you [elect men] to repentance? But because of your [reprobate men] stubbornness and unrepentant heart you [reprobate men] are storing up wrath for yourself [reprobate men] in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, (Romans 2:3-5)
What is wrong with this interpretation?
First, there is nothing in this text which would lead us to believe that these pronouns have different antecedents. Hoeksema’s system requires him to do this, but is there a better system from which to understand this text. Hoeksema reads this text through a system that does not believe that God shows any favor to the reprobate. Because of this, he has to read the pronouns here in a way that is unnatural and forced. Others read this text by way of a system which teaches us that God does bestow a great number of blessings, even on reprobate men. Among these blessings is God holding back His judgments to give even reprobate sinners time and space to repent and be saved. When the text is read through this lens, there is no need to juggle the antecedents of these pronouns. They can be understood just as we would expect. The “man” addressed here is the self-righteous, (Jewish?) man who is continually passing judgment on the pagans even though he is guilty of the same sins. Hoeksema should allow this text to correct his system instead of forcing the text to conform to his system.
Since Scripture always seems to use the term “grace” for His redemptive favor that results in the salvation of His people, should we dispense with the term “common grace”?
Some have said that we should. John Frame, for instance, writes:
To my knowledge, Scripture never uses hen [the Hebrew word translated “grace”] or charis [the Greek word translated “grace”] to refer to his blessings on creation generally or on non-elect humanity. So it would perhaps be better to speak of God’s “common goodness”, or “common love”, rather than His “common grace.” The word grace in Scripture tends to be more narrowly focused on redemption than goodness and love, though the latter terms also have rich redemptive associations. The Doctrine of God, 429–430.
There is one verse, however, where grace is used in the sense of common grace. Isaiah says, “Let favor be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal wrongfully, and will not behold the majesty of Jehovah.” (Isaiah 26:10) The word favor is the verb form of the word hen which Frame mentions above.
Is this an issue on which other Christians have spoken?
To the best of my knowledge, not a single Christian theologian of any denomination has ever denied the doctrine of common grace. Hoeksema is the first to do so. Quotations could be multiplied endlessly. Here is Mastricht:
From this emerges a threefold love of God, that is, toward his creatures:
(1) a universal love (Psalm 104:31; 145:9), through which He created, conserves, and governs all things (Psalm 36:6; 147:9).
(2) A common love, extending itself particularly to men, certainly not to each and every individual, but yet indiscriminately to anyone, as much the reprobate as the elect, of which kind is also the love that dispenses the benefits that are mentioned in Hebrews 6:4–5 and 1 Corinthians 13:1–2.
(3) A love proper to the elect, by which he dispenses saving benefits to them, benefits that accompany salvation (Hebrews 6:9), which accordingly are different from nature and natural benefits. For it is most terrible to confuse nature and grace. Theoretical-Practical Theology 2.351.
Gill (p115):
All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Genesis 1:31; he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works; Psalm 104:31; he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psalm 36:6, and 145:9; and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Tim. 5:21; by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Colossians 2:10; and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matthew 18:10; yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, Acts 17:28, and 14:17, Matthew 5:45;
What was Calvin’s view of common grace?
The phrase “common grace” never occurs in Calvin’s writings as translated into English. The closest is the expression “the general goodness of God.” (2.2.17) That Calvin affirmed and taught what we call common grace today is beyond controversy. Consider his comments (3.14.2) here:
In the first place, I do not deny, that whatever excellencies appear in unbelievers, they are the gifts of God. I am not so at variance with the common opinion of mankind, as to contend that there is no difference between the justice, moderation, and equity of Titus or Trajan, and the rage, intemperance, and cruelty, of Caligula, or Nero, or Domitian; between the obscenities of Tiberius and the continence of Vespasian; and, not to dwell on particular virtues or vices, between the observance and the contempt of moral obligation and positive laws. For so great is the difference between just and unjust, that it is visible even in the lifeless image of it. For what order will be left in the world, if these opposites be confounded together? Such a distinction as this, therefore, between virtuous and vicious actions, has not only been engraven by the Lord in the heart of every man, but has also been frequently confirmed by his providential dispensations. We see how he confers many blessings of the present life on those who practice virtue among men. Not that this external resemblance of virtue merits the least favor from him; but He is pleased to discover His great esteem of true righteousness, by not permitting that which is external and hypocritical to remain without a temporal reward. Whence it follows, as we have just acknowledged, that these virtues, whatever they may be, or rather images of virtues, are the gifts of God; since there is nothing in any respect laudable which does not proceed from Him.
What was decided in 1924 in the Christian Reformed denomination on this issue?
This synod, meeting in the First CRC church of Kalamazoo, endorsed the following three points:
The First Point – Concerning the first point, touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general, and not alone toward the elect, Synod declares that it is certain, according to Scripture and the Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen to eternal life, also a certain favor or grace of God which he shows to his creatures in general. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dort, II, 5, and III and IV, 8 and 9, where the general offer of the gospel is discussed; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
The Second Point – Concerning the second point, touching the restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession, there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Belgic Confession, article 13 and 36, where it is taught that God through the general operations of his Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains sin in its unhindered breaking forth, as a result of which human society has remained possible; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
The Third Point – Concerning the third point, touching the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good (Canons of Dort, III, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dort, III, IV, 4, and the Belgic Confession, where it is taught that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers have from of old championed this view.
The first of the above points references the Canons of Dordt. What does the Canons teach on this point?
The first point references head 2, article 5:
Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
This article clearly teaches that the gospel is to be preached to all people. The synod understood this as an example of God’s favorable attitude towards all people.
Is this an accurate understanding of this article?
Historically, it is clear that the Reformed theologians of the time would have agreed with the synod’s understanding. The protestants at the synod of 1924, who eventually gathered together and formed the Protestant Reformed denomination (PRC), disagreed. They agreed that God does command the gospel to be preached to all men. This gospel preaching, however, is a judgment on the reprobate and serves only to harden them further in their unbelief and sin. So far from the gospel preaching being a mercy to the reprobate, it is actually a manifestation of God’s hatred of them.
On what basis can God gives these gifts to men who have forfeited all rights to His favor by their original and actual sin?
Every grace and favor that comes to any person only comes as a result of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. The blessings of common grace come to the wicked as a result of Christ’s death on the cross. This has been disputed in Reformed circles.
There is no one [Bible] verse that anchors common grace in the atonement of Christ. However, theologically this is necessarily so. Any mitigation of the effects of sin is due ultimately to the cross work of Christ. There is no other basis on which God could deal with sin in grace or mercy. Common grace is grace—non-redemptive grace—and is a mitigation of the full effects of sin. Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2.297
What is the question here?
The question pertains to the source of common grace blessings. Do they come to the wicked as a result of Christ’s death or simply as a function of God’s providence over all creation? Berkhof states (see §C. here) the question:
…how it is to be explained that a holy and just God extends grace to, and bestows favors upon, sinners who have forfeited everything, even when they have no share in the righteousness of Christ and prove finally impenitent. The question is exactly, How can God continue to bestow those blessings of creation on men who are under the sentence of death and condemnation? As far as the elect are concerned this question is answered by the cross of Christ, but how about the reprobate?
To say that common grace blessings come from God’s providence doesn’t answer the question.
True, this has caused some confusion on this point. Everyone agrees that common grace blessings come to the wicked as a result of God’s providence. The question still remains if these gifts are motivated by God’s kindness or hatred. If they are motivated by God’s kindness, then they must flow from the death of Christ since it is inconceivable that any blessing could come to someone apart from the death of Jesus. Turretin writes on this point:
We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God’s word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. Rather the question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were (by the counsel of God and the will of Christ himself) intended for each and every one (as they hold); or for the elect only (as we assert). Institutes 2.459
Grudem disagrees and says that these blessings come only indirectly from the death of Christ:
In distinction from common grace, the grace of God that brings people to salvation is often called “saving grace.” Of course, when we talk about “common grace” and “saving grace” we are not implying that there are two different kinds of grace in God himself, but only that God’s grace manifests itself in the world in two different ways. Common grace is different from saving grace in its results (it does not bring about salvation), in its recipients (it is given to believers and unbelievers alike), and in its source (it does not directly flow from Christ’s atoning work, since Christ’s death did not earn any measure of forgiveness for unbelievers, and therefore did not merit the blessings of common grace for them either). However, on this last point it should be said that common grace does flow indirectly from Christ’s redemptive work, because the fact that God did not judge the world at once when sin entered it was primarily or perhaps exclusively due to the fact that he planned eventually to save some sinners through the death of his Son. Systematic Theology p658
Berkhof also uses the word indirectly (see §C. here):
Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share. In every covenant transaction recorded in Scripture it appears that the covenant of grace carries with it not only spiritual but also material blessings, and those material blessings are generally of such a kind that they are naturally shared also by unbelievers. Says Cunningham (p333): “Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other.” And it is but natural that this should be so. If Christ was to save an elect race, gradually called out of the world of humanity in the course of centuries, it became necessary for God to exercise forbearance, to check the course of evil, to promote the development of the natural powers of man, to keep alive within the hearts of men a desire for civil righteousness, for external morality and good order in society, and to shower untold blessings upon mankind in general. Dr. Hodge expresses (p358) it thus: “It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or for worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected.” He quotes Dr. Candlish to the effect that “the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning.” These general blessings of mankind, indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ, were not only foreseen by God, but designed by Him as blessings for all concerned. It is perfectly true, of course, that the design of God in the work of Christ pertained primarily and directly, not to the temporal well-being of men in general, but to the redemption of the elect; but secondarily and indirectly it also included the natural blessings bestowed on mankind indiscriminately. All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ.
John Murray says that if blessings do indeed come to the non-elect then they were intended to so.
In continuing the analysis of this doctrine, it is necessary to be clear what the question is not. The question is not whether many benefits short of justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8-9). Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. Redemption Accomplished and Applied p59-60