Bootstrap
Eileen Beckett

Is it common....

Part 3
Eileen Beckett 5 min read
205 Articles
0 Comments
Eileen Beckett
Eileen Beckett 5 min read
205 articles

Eileen Beckett examines whether the historic Reformed creeds support the doctrine of common grace, demonstrating that the Canons of Dordt actually reject it as error—the only place the term appears in the creeds condemns it alongside Arminianism. She argues that while the Canons acknowledge unregenerate humans retain "glimmerings of natural understanding" (Article 4), they explicitly deny this natural ability constitutes true "good" in any salvific sense, maintaining instead the doctrine of total depravity as taught in the Heidelberg Catechism. Beckett questions whether attributing genuine goodness to the unredeemed—whether for cultural benefit or otherwise—weakens total depravity and contradicts the Reformed principle that God's saving grace is particular to the elect, citing Scripture passages (Psalm 147:19-20, Acts 14:16, 16:6-7) that emphasize God's special revelation to His chosen people.

What does the Bible say about common grace?

The Bible does not support the concept of common grace as it is often defined; rather, it emphasizes total depravity and the need for regenerating grace.

The concept of common grace, which suggests that God provides a general grace to all people allowing them to do good, is not supported by Scripture in the way proponents argue. The Canons of Dordt clearly state that all men are conceived in sin and incapable of doing saving good on their own. The understanding outlined in Canons Article 3 emphasizes that apart from the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, individuals are not able or willing to return to God. This perspective aligns with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, which asserts that fallen humanity is entirely dependent on God's grace for salvation. Additionally, while there may be a natural understanding in humanity post-fall, it remains insufficient for true conversion or knowledge of God, rendering any 'good' deeds unable to contribute to one's salvation.

Ephesians 2:1-3, Canons of Dordt Article 3-4, Heidelberg Q&A 8

How do we know total depravity is true?

Total depravity is supported by various Scriptures demonstrating humanity's incapacity to seek God without divine intervention.

Total depravity teaches that every aspect of humanity is affected by sin, leaving individuals incapable of seeking God or doing good on their own. Scripture references, such as Romans 3:10-12, affirm that there is no one who seeks God, and Ephesians 2:1-3 emphasizes that all humans are dead in their transgressions. The Canons of Dordt articulate that apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, humans are spiritually dead and unable to incline themselves toward God. This total incapacity means that all good actions are not ‘saving good’ but rather are tainted by sin unless performed in the light of God’s grace.

Romans 3:10-12, Ephesians 2:1-3, Canons of Dordt Article 3-4

Why is the concept of common grace important for Christians?

Common grace is often misunderstood and can undermine the doctrine of total depravity and the necessity of saving grace.

Although the concept of common grace is argued to reflect God's goodness to all, the Reformed perspective holds that its acceptance can lead to significant theological errors. By suggesting that unregenerate humans can perform good that is worthy of salvation, the integrity of total depravity is compromised. The Canons of Dordt clearly reject the notion that the corrupt natural man can use what is termed common grace to achieve spiritual good or salvation. Understanding this distinction is vital for Christians as it affirms the necessity of divine grace and the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, which is central to the Gospel message and the assurance of salvation.

Canons of Dordt Article 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-9, Psalm 147:19-20

The Creeds

I found it interesting that the creeds are silent on the issue of ‘common grace’. There isn’t any mention of this teaching on ‘common grace’, instead by what is taught in the creeds the theory is actually rejected. Dr. Mouw uses the Third head, Article 3, of the Canons of Dordt in the defense of common grace:

“Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.”

Dr. Mouw believes that by the Canons use of the two words ‘saving good’ it necessarily implies and leaves open the possibility that man can do ‘good’, just not saving good. This good is seen in the works of the unbeliever that regard virtue, deeds that bring about good order in society, etc., which leads to the main thrust of his book; “common grace ministries”. But if we take into account the very next Article in the Canons along with the teaching of the Heidelberg we see that the implication of unregenerate man being capable of doing good is not specifically taught, it is actually repudiated.

Canons Article 4

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, 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 understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, farther, 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.”

Heidelberg Q 8:

Q: “But are we so depraved, that we are wholly incapable of any good and prone to all evil”?

A: "Yes, unless we are born again by the Spirit of God."

Further the Canons in the rejection of errors (the only time the actual words ‘common grace’ are used) states:

Paragraph 5:

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, and that in this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since He applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion.
For both the experience of all ages and the Scriptures testify that this is untrue. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statues and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his ordinances, they have not known them (Ps. 147:19, 20). Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own way (Acts 14:16). And: And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not (Acts 16:6,7)

This was the error of the Arminians, rejected by the Canons, who taught that man could achieve his own salvation by the use of his “common grace” ability for good. While it is true that this is not the goal of Dr. Mouw, who uses “common grace” as a means God uses in the unregenerate in order to produce a good culture, it nevertheless weakens the teaching of total depravity and gives to the natural man real ability to do good and the affirmation of a favor of God to all men without exception, leading to the inevitable expression “God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men”. So the one time that the creeds do mention ‘common grace’ they reject it as an error opposed to the Gospel.

I began putting the phrase ‘common grace’ in quotation marks some time ago and in my studies and reading I ran across this statement by Henry Van Til who actually embraced ‘common grace’. He raised the important question of whether ‘common grace’ is indeed ‘grace’ in any straightforward sense of the word and decided that it was best to ‘place the term ‘common grace’ in quotation marks, because it seems a little odd to equate what he considers to be the very real ‘beneficent goodness of God to the non-elect sinners’ with the redemptive ‘blessings which God bestows upon elect sinners in and through Jesus Christ, the Mediator".

Is there then any straightforward sense in which grace is common?

Comments

0 / 2000 characters
Comments are moderated before appearing.

Be the first to comment!

Joshua

Joshua

Shall we play a game? Ask me about articles, sermons, or theology from our library. I can also help you navigate the site.