Common
Grace
Louis
Berkhof
Contents:
A. Origin of the Doctrine of Common Grace.
B. Name and Concept of Common Grace.
C. Common Grace and the Atoning Work of
Christ.
D. The Relation Between Special and Common
Grace.
E. The Means by Which Common Grace Operates.
F. The Fruits of Common Grace.
G. Objections to the Reformed Doctrine of
Common Grace.
Footnotes
A. Origin of
the Doctrine of Common Grace.
1. The problem with which it deals. The origin of the doctrine of
common grace was occasioned by the fact that there is in the world,
alongside of the course of the Christian life with all its blessings, a
natural course of life, which is not redemptive and yet exhibits many
traces of the true, the good, and the beautiful. The question arose,
How can we explain куда сходить в Екатеринбурге the comparatively orderly life in the world, seeing
that the whole world lies under the curse of sin? How is it that the
earth yields precious fruit in rich abundance and does not simply bring
forth thorns and thistles? How can we account for it that sinful man
still “retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the
difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and
for good outward behavior”? What explanation can be given of the
special gifts and talents with which the natural man is endowed, and of
the development of science and art by those who are entirely devoid of
the new life that is in Christ Jesus? How can we explain the religious
aspirations of men everywhere, even of those who did not come in touch
with the Christian religion? How can the unregenerate still speak the
truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives? These are
some of the questions to which the doctrine of common grace seeks to
supply the answer.
2. Augustine's attitude to this problem. Augustine did not teach the
doctrine of common grace, though he did not use the word “grace”
exclusively as a designation of saving grace. He spoke of a grace which
Adam enjoyed before the fall, and even admitted that man´s existing as
a living, sentient, and rational being might be termed grace. But over
against Pelagius, who stressed the natural ability of man and
recognized no other grace than that consisting in the natural
endowments of man, the law and the gospel, the example of Christ, and
the illumination of the understanding by a gracious influence of God, –
he emphasized the total inability of man and his absolute dependence on
the grace of God as an inner renewing power, which not only illumines
the mind but also acts directly on the will of man, either as operating
or as cooperating grace. He employs the word “grace” almost exclusively
in this sense, and regards this grace as the necessary condition to the
performance of each good act. When the Pelagians pointed to the virtues
of the heathen, who “merely through the power of innate freedom” were
often merciful, discreet, chaste, and temperate, he answered that these
so-called virtues were sins, because they did not spring from faith. He
admits that the heathen can perform certain acts which are in
themselves good and from a lower point of view even praiseworthy, but
yet considers these deeds, as the deeds of unregenerate persons, to be
sin, because they do not spring from the motive of love to God or of
faith, and do not answer to the right purpose, the glory of God. [1] He
denies that such deeds are the fruit of any natural goodness in man.
3. The view that developed during the Middle Ages. During the Middle
Ages the Augustinian antithesis of sin and grace gave way to that of
nature and grace. This was based on another antithesis which played an
important part in Roman Catholic theology, namely, that of the natural
and the supernatural. In the state of integrity man was endowed with
the supernatural gift of original righteousness', which served as a
bridle to hold the lower nature in check. As the result of the fall,
man lost this supernatural gift, but his real nature remained or was
but slightly affected. A sinful bias developed, but this did not
prohibit man from producing much that was true, and good, and
beautiful. However, without the infusion of the grace of God, all this
did not suffice to give one a claim to life eternal. In connection with
the antithesis of the natural and the supernatural, the Roman Catholic
Church developed the distinction between the moral virtues of humility,
obedience, meekness, liberality, temperance, chastity, and diligence in
what is good, which men can gain for themselves by their own labors,
and with the timely aid of divine grace; and the theological virtues of
faith, hope, and charity, which are infused into man by sanctifying
grace. Anabaptism and Socinianism suffer from the same antithesis, but
with the distinction that the former exalts grace at the expense of
nature, while the latter exalts nature at the expense of grace.
4. The position of the Reformers and of Reformed theology. On this, as
on some other points of doctrine, Luther did not entirely escape the
leaven of Roman Catholicism. While he did return to the Augustinian
antithesis of sin and grace, he drew a sharp distinction between the
lower earthly sphere and the higher spiritual sphere, and maintained
that fallen man is by nature capable of doing much that is good and
praiseworthy in the lower or earthly sphere, though he is utterly
incapable of doing any spiritual good. With an appeal to Augustine the
Augsburg Confession teaches “that man´s will hath some liberty to work
a civil righteousness and to choose such things as reason can reach
unto; but that it hath no power to work the righteousness of God.” [2]
The Article contains a quotation from Augustine, in which many of the
good works pertaining to the present life, which the natural man can
do, are named. Zwingli conceived of sin as pollution rather than as
guilt, and consequently regarded the grace of God as sanctifying,
rather than as pardoning, grace. This sanctifying influence, which
penetrated in a measure even into the Gentile world, accounts for the
true, the good, and the beautiful that is in the world. Calvin did not
agree with the position of Luther, nor with that of Zwingli. He firmly
maintained that the natural man can of himself do no good work
whatsoever and strongly insisted on the particular nature of saving
grace. He developed alongside of the doctrine of particular grace the
doctrine of common grace. This is a grace which is communal, does not
pardon nor purify human nature, and does not effect the salvation of
sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure
the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible,
distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes
the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon
the children of men. Since the days of Calvin the doctrine of common
grace was generally recognized in Reformed theology, though it also met
with occasional opposition. For a long time, however, little was done
to develop the doctrine. This was in all probability due to the fact
that the rise and prevalence of Rationalism made it necessary to place
all emphasis on special grace. Up to the present Kuyper and Bavinck did
more than any one else for the development of the doctrine of common
grace.
B. Name and Concept
of Common Grace.
1. Name. The name “common grace” as a designation of the grace now
under discussion cannot be said to owe its origin to Calvin. Dr. H.
Kuiper in his work on Calvin on Common Grace says that he found only
four passage in Calvin´s works in which the adjective “common” is used
with the noun “grace,” and in two of these the Reformer is speaking of
saving grace. [3] In later Reformed theology, however, the name gratia
communis came into general use to express the idea that this grace
extends to all men, in contrast with the gratia particularis which is
limited to a part of mankind, namely, to the elect. In course of time
it became evident that the term “communis” admitted of various
interpretations. In Dutch theology it is often regarded as equivalent
to “general,” and as a result it became customary to speak of “general
grace” (algemeene genade) in the Netherlands. Strictly speaking,
however, the term communis, as applied to grace, while implying that it
is general in some sense of the word, stresses the fact that this grace
is communal, that is, possessed in common by all creatures, or by all
men, or by those who live under the administration of the gospel. Thus
Dr. H. Kuiper classifies the common grace of which Calvin speaks under
three heads, namely: (1) Universal Common Grace, a grace that extends
to all creatures; (2) General Common Grace, that is a grace which
applies to mankind in general and to every member of the human race;
and (3) Covenant Common Grace, a grace that is common to all those who
live in the sphere of the covenant, whether they belong to the elect or
not. It is quite evident that Reformed theologians also subsumed under
the term “common grace” a grace that is not general, namely, the
external privileges of those who are living under the administration of
the gospel, including the external universal calling. At the same time
they point out that this grace, in distinction from general common
grace, belongs to the economy of redemption. [4] Finally, it should be
noted that the term gratia communis is susceptible of, and has actually
received, not only a quantitative, but also a qualitative
interpretation. It may denote a grace that is common in the sense of
ordinary. The ordinary, in distinction from the special, operations of
the Holy Spirit are called common. His natural or usual operations are
contrasted with those which are unusual and supernatural. This is the
meaning of the term “common” in the Westminster Confession X. 4; and
the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 60. W. L. Alexander declares of
the common grace enjoyed by those who live under the gospel: “The grace
thus bestowed is common, not in the sense of being given to all men in
common, but in the sense of producing effects which are ordinary, and
may fall short of a real saving efficacy.”[5] So understood, the grace
of God may be common without being general or universal.
2. Concept. The distinction between common and special grace is not one
that applies to grace as an attribute in God. There are no two kinds of
grace in God, but only one. It is that perfection of God in virtue of
which he shows unmerited and even forfeited favor to man. This one
grace of God manifests itself, however, in different gifts and
operations. The richest manifestation of it is seen in those gracious
operations of God which aim at, and result in, the removal of the
guilt, the pollution, and the punishment of sin, and the ultimate
salvation of sinners. But while this is the crowning work of the grace
of God, it is not its only manifestation. It appears also in the
natural blessings which God showers upon man in the present life, in
spite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the
sentence of death. It is seen in all that God does to restrain the
devastating influence and development of sin in the world, and to
maintain and enrich and develop the natural life of mankind in general
and of those individuals who constitute the human race. It should be
emphasized that these natural blessings are manifestations of the grace
of God to man in general. Some prefer to say that they are expressions
of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mercy, or long-suffering, but
seem to forget that He could not be good, kind, or benevolent to the
sinner unless He were first of all gracious. It should be borne in
mind, however, that the term gratia communis, though generally
designating a grace that is common to the whole of mankind, is also
used to denote a grace that is common to the elect and the non-elect
that are living under the gospel, such as the external gospel call that
comes to both alike, and that inner illumination and those gifts of the
Spirit of which we read in Heb. 6:4-6. It is understood, however, that
these privileges can be called common grace only in the sense that they
are enjoyed by the elect and the reprobate indiscriminately, and that
they do not constitute special, in the sense of saving, grace. In
distinction from the more general manifestations of common grace they,
while they do not constitute a part of the grace of God that
necessarily leads to salvation, are nevertheless related to the
soteriological process. They are sometimes called “special” grace, but
then “special” is not equivalent to “saving.” In general it may be said
that, when we speak of “common grace,” we have in mind, either (a)
those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without
renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His
general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is
maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or, (b)
those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink,
clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately
where and in what measure it seems good to Him.
The following points of distinction between special (in the sense of
saving) and common grace should be noted:
a. The extent of special grace is determined by the decree of election.
This grace is limited to the elect, while common grace is not so
limited, but is granted to all men indiscriminately. The decree of
election and reprobation has no determining influence on it. It cannot
even be said that the elect receive a greater measure of common grace
than the non-elect. It is a matter of common knowledge, and has
frequently been observed, that the wicked often possess a greater
measure of common grace and have a greater share in the natural
blessings of life than the pious.
b. Special grace removes the guilt and penalty of sin, changes the
inner life of man, and gradually cleanses him from the pollution of sin
by the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit. Its work invariably
issues in the salvation of the sinner. Common grace, on the other hand,
never removes the guilt of sin, does not renew human nature, but only
has a restraining effect on the corrupting influence of sin and in a
measure mitigates its results. It does not effect the salvation of the
sinner, though in some of its forms (external calling and moral
illumination) it may be closely connected with the economy of
redemption and have a soteriological aspect.
c. Special grace is irresistible. This does not mean that it is a
deterministic force which compels man to believe against his will, but
that by changing the heart it makes man perfectly willing to accept
Jesus Christ unto salvation and to yield obedience to the will of God.
Common grace is resistible, and as a matter of fact is always more or
less resisted. Paul shows in Rom. 1 and 2 that neither the Gentiles nor
the Jews were living up to the light which they had. Says Shedd: “In
common grace the call to believe and repent is invariably ineffectual,
because man is averse to faith and repentance and in bondage to sin.”
[6] It is ineffectual unto salvation because it leaves the heart
unchanged.
d. Special grace works in a spiritual and recreative way, renewing the
whole nature of man, and thus making man able and willing to accept the
offer of salvation in Jesus Christ, and to produce spiritual fruits.
Common grace, to the contrary, operates only in a rational and moral
way by making man in a general way receptive for the truth, by
presenting motives to the will, and by appealing to the natural desires
of man. This is equivalent to saying that special (saving) grace is
immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul by
the immediate energy of the Holy Spirit, while common grace is mediate,
since it is the product of the mediate operation of the Holy Spirit
through the truth of general or special revelation and by moral
persuasion.
This conception of common grace should be carefully distinguished from
that of the Arminians, who regard common grace as a link in the ordo
salutis and ascribe to it saving significance. They hold that, in
virtue of the common grace of God, the unregenerate man is perfectly
able to perform a certain measure of spiritual good, to turn to God in
faith and repentance, and thus to accept Jesus unto salvation. They go
even farther than that, and maintain that common grace by the
illumination of the mind and the persuasive influence of the truth
incites the sinner to accept Jesus Christ and to turn to God in faith
and repentance, and will certainly achieve this end, unless the sinner
obstinately resists the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Canons of
Dort have this in mind where they reject 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,
that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself.”[7]
C. Common Grace and
the Atoning Work of Christ.
The question naturally arises, whether the manifestation of common
grace is in any way connected with the atoning work of Christ. As far
as we know, Dr. Kuyper does not posit such a connection. According to
him Christ as the Mediator of creation, the light that lighteth every
man coming into the world, is the source of common grace. This means
that the blessings of common grace flow from the work of creation. But
this hardly suffices to answer 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? Perhaps it can be said that it is
not necessary to assume a specific judicial basis for the bestowal of
common grace on man in view of the fact (a) that it does not remove the
guilt of sin and therefore does not carry pardon with it; and (b) that
it does not lift the sentence of condemnation, but only postpones the
execution. Perhaps the divine good pleasure to stay the revelation of
His wrath and to endure “with much long-suffering vessels of wrath
fitted unto destruction,” offers a sufficient explanation for the
blessings of common grace.
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:
“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.” [8] 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 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.”[9] 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.
[10]
D. The Relation
Between Special and Common Grace.
Several questions may be raised respecting this relation, of which the
following are some of the most important.
1. Do special and common grace differ essentially or only in degree?
Arminians recognize alongside of sufficient (common) grace the grace of
evangelical obedience, but aver that these two differ only in degree
and not in essence. They are both soteriological in the sense that they
form part of the saving work of God. The former makes it possible for
man to repent and believe, while the latter, in cooperation with the
will, causes man to repent and believe. Both can be resisted, so that
even the latter is not necessarily effectual unto salvation. Reformed
theology, however, insists on the essential difference between common
and special grace. Special grace is supernatural and spiritual: it
removes the guilt and pollution of sin and lifts the sentence of
condemnation. Common grace, on the other hand, is natural; and while
some of its forms may be closely connected with saving grace, it does
not remove sin nor set man free, but merely restrains the outward
manifestations of sin and promotes outward morality and decency, good
order in society and civic righteousness, the development of science
and art, and so on. It works only in the natural, and not in the
spiritual sphere. It should be maintained therefore that, while the two
are closely connected in the present life, they are yet essentially
different, and do not differ merely in degree. No, amount of common
grace can ever introduce the sinner into the new life that is in Christ
Jesus. However, common grace does sometimes reveal itself in forms that
can hardly be distinguished by man from the manifestations of special
grace as, for instance, in the case of temporal faith. Dr. Shedd does
not seem to bear the essential difference between the two in mind
especially when he says: “The non-elect receives common grace, and
common grace would incline the human will if it were not defeated by
the human will. If the sinner should make no hostile opposition, common
grace would be equivalent to saving grace.” In a note he adds: “To say
that common grace, if not resisted by the sinner, would be equivalent
to regenerating grace, is not the same as to say that common grace, if
assisted by the sinner, would be equivalent to regenerating grace. In
the first instance, God would be the sole author of regeneration; in
the second He would not be.”[11] This reminds one of Lutheran theology,
but the author´s meaning is not entirely clear, for elsewhere he also
ascribes the nonresistance of the sinner to the operation of the Holy
Spirit.[12]
2. Which one of the two is primary, common or special grace? To this
question it must be answered that in a temporal sense neither one of
them can be said to be prior to the other. The third chapter of Genesis
clearly reveals that both of them go into operation at once after the
fall. Logical priority should be ascribed to special grace, however,
because common grace is made subservient to this in its operation in
the world.
3. Does common grace serve an independent purpose or not? It cannot be
doubted that common grace finds its purpose in part in the redemptive
work of Jesus Christ; it is subservient to the execution of the plan of
God in the life of the elect and in the development of the Church. But
in addition to that it also serves an independent purpose, namely, to
bring to light and to harness for the service of man the hidden forces
of nature, and to develop the powers and talents that are latent in the
human race, in order that man may ever-increasingly exercise dominion
over the lower creation, to the glory of God the Creator. [13]
4. Do special and common grace each have a peculiar sphere entirely
distinct from that of the other? It may be said that in a certain sense
special grace has its own peculiar sphere in the organized Church,
though it is not necessarily limited to this, and common grace is also
operative in the Church for it is granted to all men. Both operate in
the world, but while common grace in the more usual sense of the term
pertains to the things of the natural world and this present life,
special grace bears on the things of the new creation. They cannot but
influence each other. Common grace enriches the Church with its
blessings; and the Church raises the fruits of common grace to a higher
level by bringing them under the influence of the regenerate life.
E. The Means by Which
Common Grace Operates.
Several means can be distinguished by which common grace effects its
work. Calvin suggests some of these when he, in speaking of the
restraining influence of common grace says: “Hence, how much soever men
may disguise their impurity, some are restrained only by shame, others
by fear of the laws, from breaking out into many kinds of wickedness.
Some aspire to an honest life, as deeming it most conducive to their
interest, while others are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the
dignity of their station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus
God by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it
from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly
pure. [14] The following are some of the most important means through
which common grace effects its work.
1. The light of God´s revelation. This is fundamental for without it
all other means would be impossible, and even if possible, would fail
to function properly. We have in mind here primarily the light of God´s
revelation that shines in nature and lightens every man coming into the
world. It is itself the fruit of common grace, but in turn becomes a
means for the further manifestation of it, since it serves to guide the
conscience of the natural man. Paul speaks of the Gentiles who do by
nature the things of the law, “in that they show the word of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them.”
ROM 2:14, 15. Calvin in commenting on this passage says that such
Gentiles “prove that there is imprinted on their hearts a
discrimination and judgment by which they distinguish between what is
just and unjust, between what is honest and dishonest.”[15] In addition
to this, however, it may be said that common grace in a more restricted
sense also operates in the light of God´s special revelation, which is
not itself the fruit of common, but of special, grace.
2. Governments. Of these too it may be said that they are at once the
fruit and the means of common grace. According to ROM 13 governments
are ordained of God, to maintain good order in society. To resist them
is to resist the ordinance of God. The ruler, says Paul, “is a minister
of God to thee for good.” ROM 13:4. He finds support in the conscience
of man (verse 5) and for the rest “beareth not the sword in vain.” On
this point the Belgic Confession says: “We believe that our gracious
God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings,
princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by
certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men
might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good
order and decency.”[16]
3. Public Opinion. The natural light that shines in the hearts of men,
especially when reinforced by the influence of God´s special
revelation, results in the forming of a public opinion that is in
external conformity with the law of God; and this has a tremendous
influence on the conduct of men who are very sensitive to the judgment
of public opinion. Naturally public opinion will be a means of common
grace only when it is formed under the influence of God´s revelation.
If it is not controlled by conscience, acting in harmony with the light
of nature, or by the Word of God, it becomes a mighty influence for
evil.
4. Divine punishments and rewards. The providential arrangements of
God, whereby He visits the iniquity of men upon them in this life, and
rewards deeds that are in outward conformity with the divine law, serve
an important purpose in curbing the evil that is in the world. The
punishments have a deterring effect, and the rewards serve as
incentives. By these means, whatever there is of moral goodness in the
world is greatly encouraged. Many shun evil and seek that which is
good, not because they fear the Lord, but because they feel that good
brings its own reward and best serves their interests.
F. The Fruits of
Common Grace.
In the preceding it was already intimated that what is left to us of
the light of nature, is still operative only in virtue of the common
grace of God. It is one of the most important fruits of common grace,
without which some of the others would not be conceivable. The
following fruits may be mentioned here:
1. The execution of the sentence is stayed. God pronounced the sentence
of death on the sinner. Speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, He said. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die.” Man did eat of it, and the sentence went into execution to
a certain extent, but clearly was not fully executed at once. It is due
to common grace that God did not at once fully execute the sentence of
death on the sinner, and does not do so now, but maintains and prolongs
the natural life of man and gives him time for repentance. He does not
at once cut short the life of the sinner, but affords him an
opportunity to repent, thereby removing all excuse and justifying the
coming manifestation of His wrath upon those who persist in sin unto
the end. That God acts on this principle is abundantly evident from
such passages as Isa. 48:9; Jer. 7:23-25; Luke 13:6-9; ROM 2:4; 9:22;
II Peter 3:9.
compared with 2. The restraint of sin. Through the operation of common
grace sin is restrained in the lives of individuals and in society. The
element of corruption that entered the life of the human race is not
permitted, for the present, to accomplish its disintegrating work.
Calvin says: “But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the
corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such
grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint.
For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts,
doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is
capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (ROM 3Ps. 14:3
ff) .” [17] This restraint may be external or internal or both, but
does not change the heart. There are passages of Scripture which speak
of a striving of the Spirit of God with men which does not lead to
repentance, Gen. 6:3; Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51; of operations of the
Spirit that are finally withdrawn, I Sam. 16:14; Heb. 6:4-6; and of the
fact that in some cases God finally gives up men to the lusts of their
own hearts, Ps. 81:12; ROM 1:24,26,28. In addition to the preceding
passages there are some which are clearly indicative of the fact that
God restrains sin in various ways, such as Gen. 20:6; 31:7; Job 1:l2;
2:6; II Kings 19:27,28; ROM 13:1-4.
3. The preservation of some sense of truth, morality and religion. It
is due to common grace that man still retains some sense of the true,
the good, and the beautiful, often appreciates these to a rather
surprising degree, and reveals a desire for truth, for external
morality, and even for certain forms of religion. Paul speaks of
Gentiles who “show the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with
another accusing or else excusing them,” ROM 2:15, and even says of
those who gave free vent to their wicked lives that they knew the truth
of God, though they hindered the truth in unrighteousness and exchanged
it for a lie, ROM 1:18-25. To the Athenians, who were devoid of the
fear of God, he said, “Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that
ye are very religious,” Acts 17:22. The Canons of Dort express
themselves as follows on this point: “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 shows some regard for virtue and for good outward
behavior. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to
bring him to a saving knowledge of God and 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 hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes
inexcusable before God.” III-IV. 4.
4. The performance of outward good and civil righteousness. Common
grace enables man to perform what is generally called justitia civilis,
that is, that which is right in civil or natural affairs, in
distinction from that which is right in religious matters, natural good
works especially in social relations, works that are outwardly and
objectively in harmony with the law of God, though entirely destitute
of any spiritual quality. This is in harmony with our Reformed
Confession. Art. XIV of the Belgic Confession speaks in its title of
man´s incapacity to perform what is truly good, says that man retained
only small remains of his excellent gifts, so as to render him without
excuse, and rejects only the Pelagian error that man can of himself
perform spiritual or saving good. The Canons of Dort III-IV, Art. 3,
speak in a similar vein: “Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and
are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good” etc. It may
be objected that the Heidelberg Catechism speaks in absolute terms when
it says in Question 8 that we are incapable of doing any good unless we
are regenerated. But it is quite evident from the Commentary of Ursinus
himself that he would not deny that man can do civil good, but only
that he can perform good works such as are defined in Question 91 of
the Catechism.
Reformed theologians generally maintain that the unregenerate can
perform natural good, civil good, and outwardly religious good.[18]
They call attention to the fact, however, that, while such works of the
unregenerate are good from a material point of view, as works which God
commanded, they cannot be called good from a formal point of view,
since they do not spring from the right motive and do not aim at the
right purpose. The Bible repeatedly speaks of works of the unregenerate
as good and right, II Kings 10:29, 30; 12:2 (comp. II Chron. 24:17-25);
14:3,14-16,20,27 (comp. II Chron. 25:2); Luke 6:33; ROM 2:14,15.
5. Many natural blessings. To common grace man further owes all the
natural blessings which he receives in the present life. Though he has
forfeited all the blessings of God, he receives abundant tokens of the
goodness of God from day to day. There are several passages of
Scripture from which it appears abundantly that God showers many of His
good gifts on all men indiscriminately, that is, upon the good and the
bad, the elect and the reprobate, such as: Gen. 17:20 (comp. vs. 18);
39:5; Ps. 145:9,15,16; Matt. 5:44,45; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; I
Tim. 4:10. And these gifts are intended as blessings, not only for the
good but also for the evil. In the light of Scripture the position is
untenable that God never blesses the reprobate, though He does give
them many gifts which are good in themselves. In Gen. 39:5 we read that
“Jehovah blessed the Egyptian´s house for Joseph´s sake; and the
blessing of Jehovah was upon all that he had in the house and in the
field.” And in Matt. 5:44, 45 Jesus exhorts His disciples in these
words, “Bless those that curse you... that ye may be children of your
Father who is in heaven.” This can only mean one thing, namely, that
God also blesses those who curse Him. Cf. also Luke 6:35, 36; ROM 2:4.
G. Objections to the
Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.
Several objections have been and are even now raised by some against
the doctrine of common grace as it is presented in the preceding. The
following are some of the most important of these:
l. Arminians are not satisfied with it, because it does not go far
enough. They regard common grace as an integral part of the saving
process. It is that sufficient grace that enables man to repent and
believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation, and which in the purpose of God
is intended to lead men to faith and repentance, though it may be
frustrated by men. A grace that is not so intended and does not
actually minister to the salvation of men is a contradiction in terms.
Hence Pope, a Wesleyan Arminian, speaks of common grace in the
Calvinistic system as “being universal and not particular; being
necessarily, or at least actually, inoperative for salvation in the
purpose of God,” and calls this a “wasted influence.” He further says:
“Grace is no more grace, if it does not include the saving intention of
the Giver.”[19] But, surely, the Bible does not so limit the use of the
term “grace.” Such passages as Gen. 6:8; 19:19; Ex. 33:12, 16; Num.
32:5; Luke 2:40 and many others do not refer to what we call “saving
grace,” nor to what the Arminian calls “sufficient grace.”
2. It is sometimes argued that the Reformed doctrine of common grace
involves the doctrine of universal atonement, and therefore leads into
the Arminian camp. But there is no good ground for this assertion. It
neither says nor implies that it is the purpose of God to save all men
through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The objection is based
particularly on the universal proclamation of the gospel, which is
considered possible only on the basis of a universal atonement. It was
already suggested by the Arminians themselves at the time of the Synod
of Dort, when they asserted that the Reformed with their doctrine of
particular atonement could not preach the gospel to all men
indiscriminately. But the Synod of Dort did not recognize the implied
contradiction. The Canons teach particular atonement [20] and also
require the universal proclamation of the gospel.[21] And this is in
perfect harmony with Scripture, which teaches on the one hand, that
Christ atoned only for the elect, John 10:15; Acts 20:28; ROM 8:32,33;
cf. also John 17:9; and on the other hand, that the gospel call must be
extended to all men indiscriminately, Matt. 22:2-14; 28:19; Mark
16:15,16. If it be objected that we cannot fully harmonize the
indiscriminate and sincere offer of salvation on condition of faith and
repentance with the doctrine of particular atonement, this may be
admitted but with the distinct understanding that the truth of a
doctrine does not depend on our ability to harmonize it with every
other doctrine of Scripture.
3. Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it
presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate
sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God.
This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God,
in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God
reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to
salvation; and in the historical realization of His reprobation He
gives expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath,
leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic
over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take
sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject
we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the
explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences
from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can
reduce to our logical categories. Are the elect in this life the
objects of God´s love only, and never in any sense the objects of His
wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: “For we are
consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7.
Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abideth on them
that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when,
and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36.
And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature
children of wrath even as the rest”? Eph. 2:3. Evidently the elect can
not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God´s love.
And if they who are the objects of God´s redeeming love can also in
some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why
should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath
should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also
a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal,
and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet
pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation.
Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the
traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at
the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties
from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned
sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain,
since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon
all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a
favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the
positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to
grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a
favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11;
Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35: ROM 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If
such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it
would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God´s
revelation is not dependable on this subject.
4. Anabaptists object to the doctrine of common grace, because it
involves the recognition of good elements in the natural order of
things, and this is contrary to their fundamental position. They regard
the natural creation with contempt, stress the fact that Adam was of
the earth earthy, and see only impurity in the natural order as' such.
Christ established a new supernatural order of things, and to that
order the regenerate man, who is not merely a renewed, but an entirely
new man, also belongs. He has nothing in common with the world round
about him and should therefore take no part in its life: never swear an
oath, take no part in war, recognize no civil authority, avoid worldly
clothing, and so on. On this position there is no other grace than
saving grace. This view was shared by Labadism, Pietism, the Moravian
brethren, and several other sects. Barth´s denial of common grace seems
to be following along these same lines. This is no wonder, since for
him too creaturliness and sinfulness are practically identical. Brunner
gives the following summary of Barth´s view: “It follows from the
acknowledgment of Christ as the only saving grace of God that there
exists no creative and sustaining grace which has been operative ever
since the creation of the world and which manifests itself to us in
God´s maintenance of the world, since in that case we should have to
recognize two or even three kinds of grace, and that would stand in
contradistinction with the singleness of the grace of Christ....
Similarly, the new creation is in no wise a fulfillment but exclusively
a replacement accomplished by a complete annihilation of what went
before, a substitution of the new man for the old. The proposition,
gratia non tollit naturain sed peficit, is not true in any sense but is
altogether an arch- heresy." [22] Brunner rejects this view and is more
in line with the Reformed thought on this point.
Footnotes
1. cf. Polman, De Predestinatieleer van Augustinus, Thomas van Aquino
en Calwijn. pp. 77 f.; Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine 11, pp. 75
f.
2. Art. XVIII
3. Cf. p. 178
4. Cf. Mastrieht, God geleerdheit I, p. 441; Brakel, Redelijke
Godsdienst I, pp. 729 f.; Hodge, Syst. Theol. II, p. 654; A. A. Hodge,
Outlines of Theol., p. 449; Sbedd, Calvinism Pure and Mixed, pp. 98 f.;
Vos, Geref. Dogm. IV, pp. 13 f.
5. System of Bib. Theol. II, p. 352.
6. Calvinism Pure and Mixed, p. 99.
7. III-IV. Rejection of errors 5.
8. Hist. Theol. II, p. 333.
9. The Atonement, pp. 358 f.
10. Cf Turretin, Opera, Locus XIV, Q. XIV, par. XI; Witsius, De
Verbonden, B. II, Kap. 9, s. 4; Cunningham, Hist. Theol. II, p. 332;
Symington, Atonement and Intercession, p. 255; Bavinck, Geref. Dogm.
III, p. 535; Vos, Ger, Dogm. III, p. 150,
11. Dogm. Theol. II, p. 483.
12. Calvinism Pure and Mixed, p. 101.
13. Cf. Kuyper, Gemeene Cratie IJ, pp. 622,628,633; Bavinck. De
Algemeene Genade, p. 45.
14. Inst II. 3,3.
15. Comm. on Romans in loco.
16. Art. XXXVI.
17. Inst. Il. 3,8,
18. Cf. Calvin, Inst. III. 14,2; Van Mastricht, Codgeleerdheid, Bk. IV.
4,11,12; Voetius, Catechisatie I, p. 168-172; Ursinus, Comm. on the
Catechism, Lord´s Day II, p. 77; Charnock, On the Attributes II, pp.
303,304; Brakel, Redelijke Godsdienst I, p. 338.
19. Christian Theology II, pp. 387 f.
20. II. 8.
21. II. 5 and III. 8.
22. Natur and Gnade, p. 8