|
Sep
18
|
I’ll simply state up front that this entry is one of those “blogging out loud” ones. I don’t pretend to have a position that I’m arguing to defend, but rather, I’m simply opening up my own wrestlings with a particular for all to read. Being a good little Reformed boy, I’ve always taken the idea of “common grace” for granted. The idea holds that God’s grace extends (not in a saving manner) even to the non-regenerate. Things such as the rain to water the earth, the air that we breathe, the withholding of His judgment, even the common creative abilities shared by mankind, though stained by the Fall, are understood as what is called “common grace.”
While some have argued that the extent of this “grace” extends to the point of almost neutralizing total depravity such that everyone is on a “level playing field” when it comes to salvation, such notions have traditionally been rejected. Instead, the idea of common grace has played a large role in many cultural discussions. How is it, if as reformed theology says, that sin stains every ounce of who we are, what we think and what we do and salvation is a drastic, miraculous rescue from the “domain of darkness” into the “kingdom of His beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13), and, as Cornelius Van Till says, the unredeemed can’t understand the “first thing about the first thing,” how is it then that we can often benefit from the academic or creative abilities of the unregenerate? How can we explain this sense of what appears to be a “commonality” even across the division of believer/non-believer? Common grace has often been one of the main answers; one of the main answers I’ve typically taken for granted until recently.
In defense of the “common grace” concept, many have turned to Mattew 5:44-45 which reads:
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.
I’ve been reading He Shines In All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Fuller Theological Seminary president Richard J. Mouw. I have read (and benefitted greatly from) two other books by Mouw (Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport and When the Kings Come Marching In), so I’m somewhat familiar with Mouw’s perspective on interacting with culture. The idea of exploring cultural ideas through the lens of common grace is honestly not one that I’ve greatly explored, so the book’s concept greatly caught my interest. Mouw primarily deals with the “in-house” debates within the Reformed community surrounding common grace and I must admit that I was not entirely familiar with any arguments opposing the common grace idea up until this point.
Mouw profiles some of the debate that took place within the Christian Reformed denomination in the early 1920’s. Well known theologian Herman Hoeksema wrote a piece entitled The Protestant Reformed Churches in America: Their Origin, Early History and Doctrine. The book chronicles Hoeksema’s decision to break from the Christian Reformed denomination, and many of the reasons center around the idea of “common grace.” Mouw summarizes Hoeksema’s position:
“As Hoeksema points out, the elect experience many evils in their lives, such as sickness, grief and poverty; but surely these things are not to be taken as visitations of divine wrath on the godly. Why, then, Hoeksema asks, should we take the good things that visit the lives of the ungodly as evidence of grace?”
Mouw further clarifies:
“He believed that viewing the non-elect as somehow benefiting from the restraint of sin, or from rain and sunshine that nurture the crops of the elect and non-elect alike, is a lot like using the term “blessing” to describe the experience of someone who is enjoying “a nice sleigh-ride on a beautifully smooth and slippery road that ends in a deep precipice.” How, he asks, can we attribute to “grace” something that leads to the recipients “inevitable destruction?”
I must admit that I had never really questioned the doctrine of common grace until reading those lines. The reality is that what the proponents of common grace attribute to divine favor, the doctrine’s critics explain in terms of the workings of providence. Many admit that there are indeed important ways in which depraved people fit into God’s good purposes and even benefit from them, but, they argue, this does not mean that we somehow then view these depraved people as recipients of God’s blessings and surely not of His grace, for these things do not work to somehow make them “less depraved,” they are merely bright spots on the road to judgment.
Upon the question of the unredeemed being able to discern and perform acts of civic good, Mouw writes that “Hoeksema acknowledges that the non-elect do have a grasp of the principles that are necessary for proper societal living. But since such a person does not seek after God, nor aim at Him and His glory, the actual result of all of this is that he uses his social efforts to rebel against God, leading also to evil effects.”
There is an aspect in which God’s provision extends to the non-elect as Jesus’ words clearly point out, but can we rightly call this provision “grace.” Hoeksema and others argue that to do so actually cheapens the word and what it represents because, even upon receiving provision, these people still turn their backs on God and are bound for judgment; they do not receive grace in the truest sense. Yet on the other side of the argument, the very fact that rebels receive another breath seems to imply some sort of grace, though admittedly not salvific. Justice would simply wipe out these people, but justice tempered with grace is postponed.
I’m certainly looking forward to thoughts and input from those of you who have thought much more than I about these issues because at this point, I can see valid points to both sides.
- Read He Shines In All That’s Fair by Richard J. Mouw
- Read Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport by Mouw
- Read When the Kings Come Marching In by Mouw
- Read The Protestant Reformed Churches in America by Herman Hoeksema
I confess that I have likewise taken for granted the idea of ‘common grace’. I find the idea of common grace’s opposite, ‘common wrath’ (let us say), to be convincing evidence to question the idea of common grace. If we allow for God to be gracious to all, thus saying there is common grace, why do we stop short and do not allow for God to be wrathful to all, positing common wrath? Afterall, the Christian life is far from perpetual bliss.
I do not know where this would fall into it all, but I think it would influence my thinking. The idea of the sun softening wax, but hardening clay, and yet still being the same sun shining the same way, has influenced my idea of God’s love. I think that God is God to all peoples, whether the being of God is experienced as love, or whether it is viewed as righteous indignation, depends not upon whether God acts differently, but whether the vessel upon which He acts is either in Him or not.
In this sense we would say that God is ‘loving’ to all people, but by ‘loving’ we would merely mean that God is God to all people. ‘Love’ would be a term we applied to the way one experiences God when they are in Him.
This is the doctrine of Simplicity, I think, in action. Not only is God simply God, but God simply acts as God.
In this regard I then would favor the idea of common grace. God is God to all peoples. Whether this ’shining’ of God is manifested as momentary ‘blessings’ in a life that is frought with great pain, and will be frought with eternal torment, or whether it is momentary ‘hurt and heartache’ in an eternity in the arms of love, depends not upon whether God shines favoreably or witholds His light, but whether the thing shined upon is wax or clay.
WOOT! I was first…
I think that using the term grace so broadly tends to cheapen the true meaning, that being the the salvation revealed through the cross, in Christ alone. Therefore the other provisions you mention for the unregenarate, I think should not be termed grace or even common grace, but rather either some type of God’s mercy or “temporal mercy”, but not grace. James Fowler does a much better job of explaining the history and meaning of grace etc in his writings entitled “The Grace Of God” and can be found at the following address.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/gracegod.html
And have a blessed day.
If by “grace” we refer to God’s bestowing upon fallen man that which he (man) does not deserve, then the so-called “common graces,” viz. rain, sunshine, life, breath, etc (Matt. 5, Acts 17). are indeed graces. Man in his sinful condition is in no way deserving of any good from God, but rather only judgment. God in his holiness is in no way obligated to give to his rebellious creatures anything but the judgment their sin requires of him.
Now it is true that the common graces are ultimately temporary, especially in comparison to effectual, eternal grace. Rain and sunshine do indeed pale in comparison to eternal life, but they are still good gifts from the Father of lights (James 1:17).
Isaiah 45:9 — “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’?”
I would certainly have to cogitate further about some definition issues, but at a base level I’m not averse to the term of common grace.
If grace is unmerited favor or getting what one does not deserve, I can see that as valid across the board. God’s provisions are still gracious, to me and the heathen, though I hope we don’t behave in the same fashion.
The rain we received yesterday helps my lawn as well as my neighbors’, but none of us merited such from God. If neither was deserving, weren’t we all recipient of God’s grace in that sense?
If we are ALL deserving of God’s righteous judgment, which we are, and NONE of us deserve any of the blessings we receive such as breath, food, shelter, rain etc., which we don’t, then I believe you have to call what God gives to saints and sinners alike grace. The very definition of grace requires it. In its simplest form, grace is commonly defined as unmerited favor.
The only alternative to grace is works. So, in my mind, this is what it would mean. ALL mankind can perform works that earn the blessings common to all men; however, only certain men are able to perform works that earn them salvation. I, for one, don�t want to travel down that path. Paul describes this in Romans 11:5-6 �So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.�
OK, well you were asking for opinions from well-read people, and I am not, but I’m commenting anyway. These are just my thoughts after reading through this several times and reading some bible passages, and they are neither here nor there.
First, what is the difference between God’s grace and divine favor, anyway? Isn’t that just semantics? Wikipedia defines grace (and I agree) by saying: “More broadly, divine grace refers to God’s gifts to humankind, including life, creation, and salvation. More narrowly but more commonly, grace describes the means by which humans are saved from original sin and granted salvation.” It is also true that the definition of Grace in part is that it is non-merited. And isn’t it also true that none of us (saved and non-saved alike) are deserving of God’s grace? Therefore, how could the recipients of God’s grace shape or define what God’s grace is, since we have nothing to contribute towards it or anything in any way to detract from it? God’s grace would still be his grace, it wouldn’t be any less so, and a blessing is still a blessing even if it isn’t recognized as one, right?
About depravity, isn’t it also true that ‘total depravity’ refers to the state of our soul, our hearts, and not the state of our surroundings and would also, therefore, not be effected by favor of rain, air to breathe, or even small (recognized or unrecognized) blessings like job promotions and good health. Those who are children of God would recognize such acts as blessings from God and their soul/heart would repond appropriately. Those who do not love God would not recognize such things as coming from God but perhaps from their own hard work or just plain luck and their soul and heart would also resond appropriately. The condition of their soul would be what it was before. However, isn’t it also true that for unbelievers, God uses such things over time to show himself for either 1.) the purpose of demonstrating himself prior to opening one’s eyes to the truth so that they can look back and see that the truth (God) was always there with them or for 2.) (as I interprate Romans 1:18-24 to mean) for the purpose of illustrating that though God ’should’ be visible to all (through his creation and his blessings) not all will see him, but many will turn to worship the creation instead of the creator. Total depravity, even with favor and grace and blessings, is still totally depraved. Ya, know, “a rose by any other name…” I could heap cool whip and cherries on a pile of dirt, but the dirt is still dirt.
In reference to: “…how is it then that we can often benefit from the academic or creative abilities of the unregenerate?” James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above. While we cannot know how and why God does what he does, we can know this: the blessings come from God. I also believe (though I can’t support it off the top of my head) that ALL things come from God (whether good, or not so good.) Either by way of God’s directly imparting to us the blessing or trial, or by way of permission (i.e, the story of Job.) It is true that many unbelievers do many good things, and that sometimes believers are blessed through those good things. Many a worldy actor/politician/millionaire is attributed with starting some kind of children’s foundation or something similar. Yet, God may choose to use these foundations to provide food/healthcare/clothes/jobs for someone who is a believer. Why? We can’t say obviously, but the key thing to me is this: Who was that person blessed by? The foundation? Or God? Naturally, believers would give thanks to God as the giver and provider and as the ultimate orchestrator behind the foundation in the first place. If we truly believe that God is sovereign and Lord over everything, then mustn’t we also agree with James 1:17 that EVERY good and perfect thing is from above?
Lastly, in reference to common grace versus common wrath, I believe it is the saving grace that protects believers from the wrath of God. If it were not for that, we too would be at the receiving end of His wrath, for we too are deserving of it. Yet through salvation, we receive grace which we do not deserve and not wrath which we do.
Wow, that was long. Sorry. :)
I’d agree w/ Amber–this seems like a semantic argument. (on a side note, it’s interesting to me that Hoeksema felt like this semantic issue was important enough to schism from the church of his day. I’m not judging that decision, but rather find it intriguing–I’ve always felt like ‘we’re just arguing semantics here’ was a pretty sure-fire way to say, ‘this isn’t really an argument worth having for any reason other than our own entertainment’. That somebody would disagree w/ that idea so strongly that he’d start his own denomination is rather thought-provoking).
And I think that’s really the issue here–is (re?)defining the word ‘grace’ to include the ordinary good things of life (to put sunshine and Ghandi in the same category might be a little broad…but then again, maybe not) a major issue or not?
I don’t know that I’ve got a good answer to that question–I tend to think ‘not’ because I think language is pretty ephemeral and mutable. If the word you’re using doesn’t work, make up (or use) another word. Sure the word grace has a traditional sense, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that theology is like computer programming. “Grace” is not a variable that can only mean one thing, but rather a word with a lot of baggage that varies from person to person (and theology to theology).
Seems to me that we don’t need to worry so much about this idea, but simply distinguish the goodness of life in general (as a gift from God) from grace (as salvific).
Where to draw the line between goodness of life and the delay of judgement (which often necessarily bring destruction)? Now THAT is a question I’m DEFINATELY not smart enough to answer, hehehe.
