John Calvin and the Subject of Common Grace (4)

.
Dear Forum Members,
.
In our last installment, we discussed Augustine’s repudiation of ideas, which have, since the Reformation, become known as the well-meant gospel offer. I included three decisive quotes from Augustine’s writings to show that he did not hold to the ideas expressed by this doctrine. I used quotes that refer to texts to which defenders of the well-meant offer appeal to support of their view; the same passages to which the Semi-pelagians appealed in support of their heresies. In condemning the interpretation of these passages given by the Semi-pelagians, Augustine condemned the interpretation of the defenders of the well-meant gospel offer as well.
.
One would think that the church of Augustine’s day would have accepted his views, but such was not the case. There is a kind of irony in the fact that Rome bestowed on Augustine sainthood and gave him the name, Doctor of Grace, but repudiated his views of grace. Rome condemned blatant Pelagianism, but adopted a Semi-pelagian position. Rome became Semi-pelagian in all its teachings, and particularly in its doctrine of justification. Rome taught justification by faith and works, a Semi-pelagian heresy.
.
There was something inevitable about this rejection by Rome of Augustine’s position. Early in the history of the new dispensational church, monasticism arose and soon began to flourish. But monasticism was based on a two-tiered morality – one level for the common members of the church and another level for the monks and nuns. The latter level was a higher level, because those who lived on this level lived more holy lives than the ordinary people of God: they repudiated, as part of their monastic vows, marriage in order to live celibate lives, possession of earthly goods to live in poverty, and the enjoyment of God’s good gifts in the creation. Because, repudiating these things, they lived a more perfect life; they also merited with God and earned a higher place in heaven by their extraordinary good works – so the church taught.
.
This idea of merit, as tacitly approved by Rome’s encouragement of monasticism even before the Pelagian controversies, committed Rome to a Semi-pelagian position. If a man’s good works truly merit with God, it can only be because he originates these good works; they are not gifts of grace, sovereignly worked in man’s heart. Having committed itself to the doctrine of the merit of good works, it was impossible for Rome to adopt Augustine’s position, and Rome became completely Semi-pelagian. Not only did Rome deny sovereign grace, but it began, in its determination to hold to its heretical position on grace, to persecute those who taught and believed in sovereign and irresistible grace. In the Ninth century, Gottschalk rotted in prison after severe torture because he insisted on teaching the views of Augustine. And the people who came out from Rome under the leadership of the reformers were in constant danger of becoming the objects of Rome’s fury.
.
It was not till the time of the Reformation that God delivered His people from Rome’s bondage.

* * * *
In giving the history of the idea of common grace, we must remember that the term itself, whether as referring to a general and well-meant offer or God’s attitude of favor toward all men, was unknown prior to the Reformation, and was even unknown at the time of the Reformation. Nor were the concepts generally discussed and debated. The reformers hated Rome’s Semi-pelagianism, but Rome had made no dogma that was called “common grace.” The reformers without exception, therefore, restored to the church the truths of sovereign and particular grace without any specific reference to a grace common to all men.
.
Because the term common grace was unknown in the century of the Reformation, we would look in vain for some reference to it. Luther does not, so far as I know, use the term, not even in his development of justification by faith alone through grace against Rome’s teachings of justification by faith and works. This does not mean, however, that Luther is of no value to us in our discussion of the issues of common grace. It is especially in his major work, The Bondage of the Will, written against the humanist Erasmus and his detestable doctrine of free will, that Luther developed the truths of sovereign and particular grace. The book is almost “must reading” for anyone who wants to know what the Reformer of Wittenburg taught on the subject of grace. And anyone who reads the book will see clearly that to try to introduce into the book any doctrine of common grace is an exercise in futility.
.
Calvin, however, dealt with the concept, even though he too did not specifically refer to the term. Defenders of common grace are frequently wont to appeal to Calvin in support of their position. Nevertheless, their appeal is unwarranted and a perversion of Calvin’s teachings.
.
It might be worthwhile, in passing, to point out that Calvin repeatedly used the word “offer” in his writings. And this use of the word “offer” is one reason why Calvin is said to support the idea of the gracious and well-meant offer of the gospel. I once knew a man, now in glory, who so desperately hated the word “offer” that, meaning well, he went through all Calvin’s writings and blotted out the word “offer” wherever he found it. This man made a serious mistake and should never have done this. The word is, after all, found in the Canons of Dordt, a confession of the Reformed Churches. It is a good word. But he misunderstood the Latin use of it.
.
The word “offer” comes from the Latin offere, which means, “to present, set forth, and hold before someone.” And the idea of the frequently used term “offer” is, therefore, to underscore the fact that in the gospel, Christ is presented or set forth as the One whom God has ordained to be the means of salvation; and that all who hear the gospel are commanded to repent of their sin and believe in Christ. The word is used by Calvin in the sense in which Paul uses it in Galatians 3:1: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”
.
A few quotations from Calvin will lay to rest the erroneous supposition that Calvin taught a well-meant gospel offer. (This quotation and the following quotes are taken from Calvin’s Calvinism: Treatises on the Eternal Predestination of God & the Secret Providence of God [Grand Rapids: RFPA, no date.] The book is a reprint of the edition first translated into English in 1859 by Henry Cole. The treatise, The Eternal Predestination of God was originally written and published in Geneva in 1552. It is sometimes known as the Consensus Genevensis, because it was written by Calvin when the doctrine of predestination was attacked by Pighius and Bolsec, and a consensus was sought with all the reformers in Switzerland. It makes specific mention of Pighius, a bitter opponent of Calvin, especially Calvin’s doctrine of predestination.)
.
On page 50, 51 of Calvin’s Calvinism, Calvin writes: “Pighius will himself confess that there is need of illumination to bring to Christ those who were adversaries to God; but he, at the same time, holds fast the fiction that grace is offered equally to all, but that it is ultimately rendered effectual by the will of man, just as each one is willing to receive it.” And Pighius was an enemy of the gospel, against whom Calvin’s Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God was written.
.
In the second document included in Calvin’s Calvinism, a document entitled A Defense of the Secret Providence of God, Calvin writes: “But with reference to His (God’s, HH) hardening of men’s hearts, that is a different way of God’s working, as I have just observed. Because God does not govern the reprobate by His regenerating Spirit (to work salvation, HH); but He gives them over to the devil, and leaves them to be his slaves; and He so overrules their depraved wills by His secret judgment and counsel, that they can do nothing but what He has decreed” (319).
.
A rather lengthy quote from pages 81, 82 is important, for it refers to Scriptural passages that deal with the question brought up by the defenders of the well-meant gospel offer. “Now let us listen to the Evangelist John. He will be no ambiguous interpreter of this same passage of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 53:1 & 6:9, 10, HH) . ‘But (says John) Jesus had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him, that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart,’ etc. Now most certainly John does not here give us to understand that the Jews were prevented from believing by their sinfulness. For though this be quite true in one sense, yet the cause of their not believing must be traced to a far higher source. The secret and eternal purpose and counsel of God must be viewed as the original cause of their blindness and unbelief. It perplexed, in no small degree, the ignorant and the weak, when they heard that there was no place for Christ among the people of God (for the Jews were such). John explains the reason by showing that none believe save those to whom it is given, and that there are few to whom God reveals His arm. This other prophecy concerning ‘the arm of the Lord,’ the Evangelist weaves into his argument to prove the same great truth. And his words have a momentous weight. He says, ‘Therefore they could not believe.’ Wherefore, let men torture themselves as long as they will with reasoning, the cause of the difference made – why God does not reveal His arm equally to all—lies hidden in His own eternal decree. The whole of the Evangelist’s argument amounts evidently to this: that faith is a special gift, and that the wisdom of Christ is too high and too deep to come within the compass of man’s understanding. The unbelief of the world, therefore, ought not to astonish us, if even the wisest and most acute of men fail to believe. Hence, unless we would elude the plain and confessed meaning of the Evangelists, that few receive the Gospel, we must fully conclude that the cause is the will of God; and that the outward sound of the Gospel strikes the ear in vain until God is pleased to touch by it the heart within.” (The reference to John’s gospel is to John 12:37-41.)
.
These passages could be multiplied from this important book as well as from other writings of the reformer of Geneva. But the interested reader may, with profit, read more of the same teachings in these treatises of Calvin as well as his Institutes of the Christian Religion. If Calvin found the final cause of men’s rejection of the gospel in God’s will, then it is impossible to conceive of the fact that God wills the salvation of these men.
* * * *
The other aspect of common grace, God’s attitude of favor towards all men, is also said to be a doctrine taught by Calvin. It is not necessary to go into this aspect of the question. We submit five reasons for this. 1) It is admitted by all students of Calvin that passages can be found in his writings, especially his Institutes, which suggest this. But to understand properly these writings of Calvin, we must not forget that Calvin was writing in a time when the issue of God’s favor towards all men was not a topic of debate and was not even consciously thought of as an important doctrine. We must not become guilty of the sin of anachronism (putting back into Calvin’s time our own debates and teachings), and appeal to Calvin on questions, of which he was not even aware, as proof for our position. 2) When Calvin repudiated the idea of an attitude of favor toward all men as it was expressed in the preaching of the gospel (as the above quotes show) he basically repudiated also the idea of an attitude of favor on God’s part towards all men, manifested in the good things of God’s creation. The well-meant gospel offer is said, by its defenders, to be one evidence among others that God has an attitude of favor towards all men. His attitude of favor is show in His expressed desire to save them. 3) Calvin’s repudiation of the well-meant gospel offer is rooted in God’s sovereign decree of election and reprobation, and reprobation means that God hates the wicked, a doctrine emphatically taught by Calvin. 4) Calvin spoke frequently of the fact that God reveals His goodness in all the gifts He bestows on man; but Calvin held to Asaph’s position in Psalm 73:18, that God puts the wicked on slippery places by means of these good gifts. 5) Finally, although Calvin may have made some statements that in the light of later controversies are not totally satisfactory, when Calvin came to the heart of this theology, the core of all he taught, the center of the truths of sovereign and particular grace, he was Biblical and beyond criticism.
.
We may safely conclude that, whether we hold to a general, gracious, well-meant offer or repudiate it, Calvin did not teach it. We ought not to be surprised by the fact that Calvin sometimes said things that, in later years and in the light of later controversies, proved to be unfortunate statements. We ought rather to be surprised that Calvin, so recently escaped from Rome, was as solidly Biblical as he was. This is amazing and reason for gratitude to God.
.
Greetings and blessings,
.
Prof. H. Hanko

Brief History of the Origins of The Teaching (3)

Dear Forum members,
.
I intend to spend a little time at the outset of these discussions of common grace on a brief survey of the history of this doctrine. While surely it would be of little profit to enter into this history in detail, some important matters are to be learned from a study of the subject as it has been discussed in the history of the church of Christ. The old adage is true: “He who will not learn from history’s mistakes is doomed to repeat them.”
.
The fact of the matter is that the whole subject of common grace was not on the agenda of the church prior to the Reformation of the 16th century. The term “common grace” was not used and the idea of common grace as it is maintained today in so many circles was strange to the thinking of theologians. This was true of common grace as God’s universal attitude of kindness towards all men, but it was also true of the term “well-meant gospel offer.”
.
Nevertheless, similar ideas as those found on the lips of present defenders of common grace were expressed very early. And it is well to take a brief look at some of them. I intend to write in this installment a bit about the ancient church father Augustine. He and Athanasius, the great defender of Christ’s divinity at the Council of Nicea, are my own favorite church fathers from the time of the close of the New Testament canon to the supremacy of papal rule in Europe and the medieval church.
* * * *
Augustine lived in the last part of the 4th century and the first part of the 5th century. He died in 430 A.D., the same day the barbarians were storming the gates of the city of Hippo where he was bishop. He was born from a Christian mother and a pagan father, and in his early years he himself was a wicked man. He continued a dissolute life until he was, under the power of the grace of God, converted from his sinful ways and brought to faith in Christ. Augustine’s early life and conversion, however, were used by God to underscore, in his own experience, the truth that grace is sovereign, irresistible and the sole power of salvation – much like Luther’s monastery experiences and his search for God. Augustine knew from his own experience that he was helpless to break the shackles of sin that had bound him. Augustine became, what the Roman Catholic Church later called him: Doctor of Grace. With supreme irony, Rome gave him the honorable title of “Doctor of Grace,” while rejecting his doctrines of grace.
.
(Left: Augustine)
.
Augustine knew that sovereign grace alone could and did save him from the slavery of his lusts. God, whose ways are always wise, used these experiences to prepare Augustine for his calling to defend the sovereign grace of God.
.

Augustine was an extremely brilliant man and, prior to his conversion, dabbled in all the philosophies current during his lifetime. But when God brought him out of his unbelief, God set his thinking on theology rather than on vain philosophy. While he was unable to shake completely free from his philosophical meanderings for some years after his conversion, Augustine was compelled to be devoted more deeply to the study of the truths of Scripture by the rise in Italy of a horrible theology known as Pelagianism. And when the church condemned blatant Pelagianism, a modification of Pelagianism arose, especially in southern France, which Augustine also fought bitterly. It became known as Semi-pelagianism.
.

It was in his wars against these heresies that Augustine developed his own views on sovereign grace. Knowing that he himself was a sinner saved only by the power of grace, he saw also that these truths were the clear teachings of the Word of God. And he spent the remainder of his life defending them. Augustine, in his writings against Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, taught the doctrines that we today call the five points of Calvinism. He taught sovereign, double predestination, the total depravity of the natural man, an atonement that was limited to the elect, a work of God’s grace that man could not resist, and a perseverance of the saints throughout their life. It is really no wonder that Calvin quoted Augustine’s writings more than the writings of any other church father of the first four centuries.

* * * *

Pelagius was a superficial thinker, but, as so often happens in the church, a very congenial man and one well-liked. He taught that Adam was created neither good nor bad, with a sort of morally neutral nature, but with the potential for doing both. When Adam chose to disobey God and brought about the fall into sin, Adam experienced no serious and important consequences of the fall, but remained capable of choosing for the good or for the bad. Nor did the fall have any consequences for his posterity. Sin itself, a matter of bad choices, was only a bad habit, like smoking. The longer one committed a sin, the more habitual it became. But, by force of the will, one could break the habit, repent of the sin, and make this fundamental alteration in his life. In other words, man was saved by his own efforts to overcome habits of sin he had probably learned from other people.
.

It stands to reason that such a blatant distortion of Biblical doctrine could not be tolerated in the church, and Pelagius was condemned. But a modified form took its place. This modification became known as Semi-pelagianism. Those who promoted this view claimed that the fall resulted in a certain depravity of man’s nature, but this depravity was more a matter of a grave and potentially deadly sickness than an actual spiritual death. And so, while grace was certainly necessary, the help and assistance of grace could only be acquired through man’s own desire to attain salvation. He was sick, but no doctor would come to heal him unless he summoned the divine doctor to his bedside.
.

Thus, salvation was possible for all men. This led inevitably to another position to which these Semi-pelagians held: the idea of a universal atonement rooted in God’s desire to save all men. And here is where, while not speaking in terms of a well-meant gospel offer, the Semi-pelagians taught something almost identical to today’s “well-meant offer of the gospel” rooted in God’s love for men.

* * * *
I am going to give a few quotes from Augustine’s writings to demonstrate his commitment to a repudiation of this underlying error of the well-meant gospel offer. Although as I said, Augustine taught clearly all the doctrines of grace, I cannot offer in this forum quotes from Augustine’s writings to prove these points. But I offer two pertinent quotes to demonstrate Augustine’s position on the idea of a gracious gospel offer.
.
In defense of total depravity, Augustine argued that the will was a slave to sin and not free. “So, when man by his own free will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost” (Enchiridion, 30).[i] “And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness” (Enchiridion, 30).
.

Not surprisingly, the Semi-pelagians quoted the same Scriptures as are quoted today in support of the well-meant gospel offer. I Timothy 2:4 is one such text: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” Augustine wrote: “. . . but that we are to understand by ‘all men’ the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, -- kings, subjects; noble, plebian, high, low, learned, and unlearned, the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. . . We are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if ‘He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth,’ as the Psalmists sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done“ (Enchiridon, 103). This interpretation is the same as Calvin gives to this passage.
.
Matthew 23:37 is another text to which appeal is made by defenders of the well-meant gospel, and reads: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not!” Augustine, in his answer to those who appealed to this text, said: “But even though she (Jerusalem) was unwilling, He gathered together as many of her children as He wished: for He does not will some things and do them, and will others and do them not, but He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and on earth” (Enchiridion, 97).
.

Passages such as these could be multiplied, as well as countless passages in support of the other doctrines of grace. Augustine wanted no part of any universal intent or desire of God to save all men. Nor would Augustine speak of two wills in God, one will to save all and another will to save only His people. He was opposed to the doctrine. An early form of the well-meant offer was rejected.

* * * *

There were also those among the Semi-pelagians who appealed to the wonderful deeds of the pagans, including the marvelous systems of philosophy developed by the Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle, as proof of man’s natural ability to do good. In fact, in my own Greek courses in college my Greek professor did not cease to extol the works of Plato; they were, he said, works that brought Plato to the next to the top rung of the ladder to heaven, and he bemoaned the fact that Plato did not climb that last rung. Augustine dismissed these works of the philosophers as being good in the sight of God (even though he had been ensnared by philosophy in his pre-conversion days). Rather disdainfully, he dismissed them as “splendid vices.”
.
Greetings and blessings to all,
.
Prof Hanko
***
[i] All the quotes I give are from Augustine’s writings as found in Schaff, Philip, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1-8 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1980-1986]. From henceforth I will give only the work quoted.

Common vs. Particular Grace (2)

.
Dear Forum members:
.
With this installment, we begin our discussion of common versus particular grace.
.
We ought, before entering into a discussion of the subject itself, deal with a couple of preliminary matters. The first is the meaning of the term “grace in Scripture.” In this connection it is well to note that the term “grace” itself is never used in Scripture in any way that suggests that grace is common, but is always used in connection with salvation. The concept “common grace” is a deduction from other passages that actually do not use the term.
.
The word “grace” in Scripture has several connotations. Herman Hoeksema in his Reformed Dogmatics[i] speaks of five uses of the word “grace” in Scripture. 1) It is used as an attribute of God and has the fundamental meaning of lovely or beautiful. As applied to God it refers especially to the beauty of His perfect holiness and goodness. 2) “Grace” can also mean God’s attitude of favor towards His creatures. 3) In connection with the second meaning, “grace” refers to God’s undeserved attitude of favor, undeserved because it is shown to sinners. 4) The term is used also as God’s power by which He saves those upon whom He looks with favor. 5) And, finally, it is used in the sense of giving thanks. This later use is found in I Corinthians 15:57: “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Greek has “grace” instead of “thanks”: “Grace be to God . . . .”
.
All, whether they hold to or oppose common grace, are agreed, however, that grace implies other attributes of God such as goodness, love, mercy, longsuffering, kindness, etc. If God shows grace towards all, He shows love, mercy, kindness, etc., to all. If God shows grace only to His people, He shows mercy, love compassion, etc., to His people only. There is, so far as I know, no disagreement on this point. In speaking of God’s grace all are agreed that we speak of all God’s ethical attributes.
.
The relationship between these various attributes of God and their fundamental unity is found in the fact that all God’s perfections are one in Him. Our distinctions only help us in understanding God’s infinitely perfect being. Hoeksema is correct, therefore, when he makes all God’s communicable attributes facets of His own infinite holiness[ii] God is called in Scripture The Holy One; and in this name are included all his ethical perfections, including His grace.
In the various meanings of grace mentioned above, we are concerned in this forum with definitions under 2 through 4: Grace as an attitude of favor and grace as the power of God that brings salvation. We must be careful, however, that we make proper distinctions. Scripture clearly teaches, for example, that God has an attitude of favor towards the creation itself. Psalm 145:9 speaks of the fact that “The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.” God loves His own creation and it always favorably inclined towards the things that He has made. Although Satan, in alliance with wicked men, attempts to subvert the creation from its original purpose and use it for their own evil purposes, God will never allow man to steal His creation from Him. Even though, temporarily, it is under the curse because of man’s sin, God has mercy on it and is determined to save it. This salvation of the entire creation was explained to Noah early in the history of the world in Genesis 9:8-17, and it is further described in such passages as Romans 8:19-22 and Colossians 1:20.
.
But the additional question is: Does God have an attitude of favor towards all men? That must be determined, and the determination must be grounded on Scripture. It is that question that we will examine.
.
The word “grace” can also mean “the power to save.” Even when grace means the power to save God’s people, it also applies to the creation. Christ died for the world; not for every man, but for the whole of the creation as well as for those whose sins are paid for by His perfect sacrifice. Grace refers to the power to save in Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” It is also used in the sense of the power to save in Romans 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
.
Because grace is an attribute of God, it already ought to strike our attention that the two main ideas of grace, that it is an attitude of favor, and that it is the power to save, cannot be separated. It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how God can be gracious in the sense of being favorably inclined to someone while he is not also gracious towards someone in saving him. A common grace considered as an attitude of favor towards all men is powerless and some different kind of grace; it lacks the power of grace that saves.
.
But we intend, God willing, to examine the question more in detail some later time.
* * * *
Almost throughout the entire history of the development of the error of common grace, common grace has come to mean two separate works of God, though both are related to each other. On the one hand, God’s attitude of favor towards the creation and all men is a key element in the whole idea of common grace; but on the other hand, the so-called well-meant offer of the gospel is also an element of common grace, which has become the predominant idea in our day.
.
The relation between the two is clear. God’s attitude of favor that he shows to all men is expressed in His desire to save all men. Quite obviously, if God loves them, is merciful to them and is filled with lovingkindness in his thoughts of them, it is also God’s desire to save them. This desire to save them comes to expression in the gospel. The gospel then becomes a means of conveying to men God’s desire and intention with respect to them.
.
But there is another relation between God’s attitude of favor and the well-meant gospel offer that is included in common grace. God’s attitude of favor is not only expressed in His desire to save all – a desire He also makes known through the gospel, but this attitude of favor actually bestows upon man a very gracious gift: the power of grace, not to save, but rather to enable one to decide himself whether he will accept the gospel offer or reject it. God’s attitude of favor does something to man. It changes him in a significant way deep down in his heart. It does not save him, but it does give him the necessary spiritual strength to take to himself the gift of salvation freely offered.
.
It is true, in the view of those holding to common grace that the grace bestowed through the gospel to everyone that hears falls short of actual salvation; but it nevertheless does give man the power to choose for or against salvation. This is quite significant and something, in itself, very powerful. If the totally depraved sinner is totally unable to do anything right, including choose for salvation, he has to undergo some sort of radical change. That change must alter his total depravity to such an extent that he now possesses the spiritual ability to do at least this much good: choose for the salvation freely offered in the gospel.
* * * *
Doctor Abraham Kuyper added yet another idea in his development of common grace. He wrote a three-volume treatise on the subject and gave it the title, Gemeene Gratie. He meant by this term to distinguish his version of common grace from the common grace of a gracious well-meant gospel offer, which he repudiated. And so, while the common grace that included an offer of salvation to all was called Algemeene Genade (common grace), Kuyper called his grace Gemeene Gratie (general grace).
.
Although Kuyper attempted to appeal to Calvin in support of this notion, he himself admitted that his ideas with respect to common grace were a novelty and consisted of ideas never before taught in the Reformed tradition from Calvin to the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries when Kuyper did his work.
.
Kuyper’s ideas of common grace consisted of a grace that prevented man at the time of the fall from becoming a beast, preserved him as a rational and moral creature, and that through the abiding power of common grace, enabled man to do good works that were pleasing to God, able to be of use and benefit for the church, and were of abiding value in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, established at our Savior’s second coming.
.
This idea of common grace has captivated the attention of thousands who carry out his views and speak of the calling of the church to conquer the world for Christ. It seems as if no one today remembers the Kuyper of particular grace (powerfully defended in his book, Particular Grace[iii].
But this idea as well we will examine at a later date.

*******
[i] Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, second edition [Grand Rapids: RFPA, 2004] 159. 160, 280, 281
[ii] Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 94-98, 131-143.
[iii] Kuyper, Abraham, Particular Grace: A Defense of God’s Sovereignty in Salvation, tr. by Marvin Kamps from the Dutch: Dat Gods Genade Particuleer Is [Grand Rapids: RFPA, 2001]). Many hold to Kuyper’s General Grace – even if in most instances they have never read his work on it.

Introduction (1)

Dear Forum members:

.
At the last annual meeting of the British Reformed Fellowship in July, 2008 it was decided to continue the forum that Prof. Engelsma had led on the subject of justification by faith alone. Because Prof. Engelsma had nearly finished the material he wanted to include in his articles, it was decided to introduce a new subject: “Common Or Particular Grace.” And it was decided to ask me to write for the forum on this subject. I accepted this appointment with some reluctance, for my work in Seminary was not in the field of theology. But the importance of the subject compelled me to accept.
· * * * *
I am hoping that the discussion of common grace versus particular grace will generate questions and/or comments. Such questions or comments will make the forum more lively and give me an opportunity to learn what problems others have with the subject. I think, however, that the best way to conduct a discussion on these questions or remarks is through me. If we open the forum to a general discussion, we run the risk of reducing the forum to a debating society, and subsequent progress would be slow at best. If questions or comments are sent to me, I will answer them in my own writings in the forum so that all can profit by them. So, please write.
· * * * *
As most of you know, I am a member of the Protestant Reformed Churches. That means that the controversy concerning common grace versus particular grace is at the starting point of our history as a denomination and was the immediate occasion for the coming into existence of the churches of which I am a member. My own personal life is closely bound up in the controversy, for my father was a member of Rev. Herman Hoeksema’s church (Eastern Ave. Christian Reformed Church) at the time of Rev. Hoeksema’s deposition from the ministry by the Christian Reformed Church. He was in the first graduating class from the Protestant Reformed Seminary and was a minister of the gospel in that denomination all his adult life. The events that led up to the formation of our churches and the doctrinal issues involved were a frequent subject of conversation in our home, and the milk of the truth of sovereign and particular grace was a significant part of the food on which we were nourished from childhood on. I myself studied in the Seminary under Rev. Hoeksema and his colleague, Rev. George Ophoff, also deposed by the Christian Reformed Church, during the three years of Seminary training – although the work of both of them was nearing its end.
.
No Protestant Reformed Christian schools existed during the years of my schooling, and I attended “Christian Reformed” schools for approximately twenty-four years: grade schools, high schools, college and study for a master’s degree. During all those years I was given a steady diet of common grace and teaching in other subjects from the perspective of common grace. I had opportunity to learn, first hand, how common grace had wormed its way into every branch of knowledge, and what affect it had on every subject we were required to master. It was an eye-opening experience.
· * * * *
If I may cite but one example: Already in the sixth grade, in the years 1945 – 1946, I was taught the principles of evolutionism. Then already the grounds given for evolutionism as an explanation of the origin of the universe, was that scientists, because they were the recipients of common grace, could not be wrong in their scientific endeavors.
· * * * *
Common grace has, over the years and in different countries and churches, been defined in different ways. I myself have met and discussed the question with men who have meant nothing more by common grace than God’s providential control of His creation. Whether or not such providential control should be called “grace” is another question, but these men did not mean by the term what it so often means in the minds of people: a universal attitude of God’s favor and love upon all men without distinction.
.
But we will wait with a brief discussion of terms till our next letter. Following a definition of terms, I hope to give a brief history of common grace as it has appeared in the church. My plan is to write every two weeks or so, but I intend to keep each individual entry short.
Farewell and may God’s blessing rest on you.
Prof Herman Hanko