What is common grace? The term was first coined by Abraham
Kuyper1 who meant it as merely 'a favor of God that gives the
world the temporal blessings of rain, sunshine, health, and
riches, and that restrains corruption in the world so that the
world can produce good culture.' However, even after giving it
this name Kuyper feared--prophetically, as history shows!--that
misuse would be made of (his) doctrine of common grace 'as if
saving grace were meant by it,' with the result that 'the firm
foundation that grace is particular would again be dislodged...'
With that fear a definite possibility, Kuyper should have
labored to find another expression for his doctrine because,
unfortunately, Kuyper is being used as a proponent of the
erroneous teachings of common grace being bandied about by
current reformed theologians. Though there are many who still
think of Kuyper's definition when common grace is mentioned,
there are just as many who have come to think of it in the wrong
way which Kuyper warned against.
Kuyper sharply distinguished this common grace from the
saving grace of God. So concerned was he that "common grace"
not be confused with "saving grace" (which is particular,
according to Kuyper, for the elect only) that he deliberately
gave "common grace" a name distinct from that of "particular
grace." Common grace, he called gratie, whereas particular,
saving grace was called genade. Kuyper's attempt to prevent
common grace from developing into universal, saving grace by
giving the two graces different names was futile. The
precarious co-existence of particular, saving grace and common,
non-saving grace was short-lived. Soon common grace began
nibbling on particular grace until, currently, it has almost
completely devoured particular grace. The result is a "common
grace" that sincerely desires the salvation of all and expresses
itself in free offer of the Gospel to all.
Just staying within the 'Calvinist' or 'reformed' camps we
can find the wrong direction that this phrase has turned. It
happened first in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924,
not too many years after Kuyper wrote his book. In the Synod of
Kalamazoo three points were brought up and decided upon for the
CRC's doctrine of common grace. The first point reads,
"Relative to the first point, which concerns the question of a
favorable attitude (italics mine, jt) of God towards humanity in
general and not only towards the elect, synod declares it to be
established according to Scripture and the Confessions, that,
apart from the saving grace of God shown only to those that are
elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace
of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is
evident from the Scriptural passages quoted and from the Canons
of Dort, II, 5 and III, IV, 8 and 9, which deal with the
general offer of the Gospel, while it also appears from the
citations made from Reformed Theology that our Reformed fathers
from the past favored this view."
In this first point the CRC are teaching that there is a
favorable attitude of God towards all men in general, and not
only toward the elect. The proof given for this point was the
"rain and the sunshine" that the unbelievers receive from God.
I don't believe that the "rain and the sunshine" come from a
'favorable attitude' by God. But I am not saying that the
rain and sunshine the wicked receive are not good. They are
good. The wicked must recognize them as good too. I also
recognize that they are given to the wicked by God. My
difficulty with that first point of the CRC is that it teaches
that God gives those good things to unbelievers in His love for
them or His favor towards them.
In 1948 Westminster Seminary professors John Murray and
Ned Stonehouse wrote a doctrinal study for the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church (OPC) entitled "The Free Offer of the
Gospel." The study was published by that church and remains its
major teaching on God's grace in the gospel. The writing of the
study was fueled by a major doctrinal conflict in the OPC
between Dr. Gordon H. Clark and the faculty of Westminster
Seminary concerning Clark's fitness for ordination. Cornelius
Van Til led the seminary faculty in a Complaint against Clark's
understanding of the Confession of Faith. One of their chief
objections concerned Clark's view of the so-called "sincere
offer" of salvation to all men, including the reprobate. In
"The Free Offer of the Gospel", authors Murray and Stonehouse
assert: "God himself expresses an ardent desire for the
fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his
inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there is a
will to the realization of what he has not decretively willed, a
pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree.
This is indeed mysterious..."
In 1944 the leading Complainant against Clark's use of
logic was Dr. Cornelius Van Til. To this day Dr. Van Til
remains a leading proponent of the doctrine that Scripture
contains irreconcilable paradoxes. He asserts: "There are
those who have denied common grace. They have argued that God
cannot have any attitude of favor...to such as are the 'vessels
of wrath.' But to reason thus is to make logic rule over
Scripture... All the truths of the Christian religion have of
necessity the appearance of being contradictory... In the case
of common grace, as in the case of every other biblical
doctrine, we should seek to take all the factors of Scripture
teaching and bind them together into systematic relations with
one another as far as we can. But we do not expect to have a
logically deducible relationship between one doctrine and
another.2
This type of thinking produced a stir in the Reformed
Theological schools. Benjamin Warfield wrote, "The reemergence
in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of
Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and
that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is,
therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed
theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an
abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render
thinking in a system impossible, but would discredit at a stroke
many of the fundamentals of the faith, such e.g. as the doctrine
of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of the
authority of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine
of whatever simplicity can be ascertained from Scripture except
by the use of the processes of the understanding...The recent
plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has
been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection
of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly,
in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it
destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of
which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human
logic."3
Warfield was speaking of the Westminster Confession's
statement that we are required to believe and to obey not only
what is 'expressly set down in Scripture,' but also what 'by
good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.'
In contrast to this Scriptural view, Van Til denies the
possibility of a deductive system and asserts that the
"analogical truths" we have all appear to be contradictory.
Apart from this unscriptural denial of the role of logic and the
perspicuity of Scripture, one must ask the questions: What is
the meaning of a 'system' of non-deducible paradoxes? Van
Tilianism, in the words of Warfield, "logically involves the
denial of the authority of all doctrine whatsoever."
John Frame also came against Van Til on this, even though
he endorses most of Van Til's ideas. He presented an excellent
analysis of Van Til's proposal when he wrote: "...the necessity
of formulating doctrines in 'apparently contradictory' ways
certainly increases the difficulty of developing a 'system of
doctrine,' especially a system such as Van Til himself
advocates...4
Even so, Van Til himself, in his book, The Calvinist
Concept of Culture (1959, Baker), warns against what he would
call "abusing" the doctrine of common grace. He speaks of "a
certain level of existence at which the army of the Lord is
immobilized, where it does not function as an army, but suddenly
takes on the appearance of crowds of vacationers, or the motley
multitude at a fair and pushing one another for a better
position to see. Thus there is established between the church
and the world a gray, colorless area, a kind of no-man's land,
where an armistice obtains and one can hobnob with the enemy
with impunity in a relaxed Christmas spirit, smoking the common
weed." If he was this concerned why was he so adamant about his
view of common grace?
The CRC's synodical declaration already in 1928 says: "The
question arises, what basis of fellowship there can be between
the child of God and the man of this world. What have they in
common which makes a degree of communion possible and
legitimate?... The solution is found in the doctrine of common
grace .. The basis of our fellowship with unbelievers should
be...the grace, common, which they have in common with us." Has
II Corinthians 6 been removed from the CRC bible? Where is it
heard anywhere anymore that 'friendship with the world is enmity
against God?'
In these findings I concluded that I'm on the side of
rational, logical thinking when I believe Scripture interprets
Scripture. Shouldn't we be very careful of phrases that could
be construed two or three different ways, phrases which aren't
found in Scripture so that they cannot be interpreted by
Scripture? Though at the time they are coined there may be a
definite truth to the phrase. The Trinity is one such phrase
that no person could misconstrue. It has passed the test of
time. Common Grace, on the other hand, was meant a certain way
by Kuyper, but through time has not passed the test of remaining
with the original intention. So why won't the theological giants
of our time come up with a phrase that works, and let the common
grace of universal love and favor to every human remain the
heresy it is?
Let's look at what is at stake if we continue down this
road. Doctrines which are denied in the incorrect definition of
common grace are predestination on the first point, and total
depravity on the third point.
The teaching of the first point is a back handed way of
teaching the "free offer of the gospel." The free offer either
explicitly or implicitly denies predestination. It teaches that
God's love is for all who hear the preaching of the gospel, and
that His will is that they be saved. But election is that the
love of God in Christ is eternally directed toward some,
definite, particular men, willing their salvation and
effectually accomplishing it (see Deut 7:6-8 and Romans
8:28-39). Those who believe in this erroneous common grace call
those who don't agree with the free offer of the gospel
hyper-Calvinist. But I am not a hyper-Calvinist.
Hyper-Calvinism says you should not even preach to unbelievers.
But I believe you must! Hyper-Calvinism says God only calls
those who are his elect in eternity to repent and believe. Not
so. The gospel calls every single human being who hears it to
repent and believe. I believe God promises salvation to all who
believe. The denial of the free offer means this: I do not
believe that there is grace in the preaching to all men, or that
the preaching expresses God's desire and purpose and intent to
save all men.
In CRC's third point of common grace we find, "Relative
to the third point which is concerned with the question of civil
righteousness as performed by the unregenerate, synod declared
that, according to the Scripture and the Confessions, the
unregenerate, though incapable of doing saving good, can do
civil good. This is evident from the quotations from Scripture
and from the Canons of Dort, III, IV, 4, and from the
Netherlands Confession Art. 36, which teach that God without
renewing the heart so influences man, that he is able to perform
civil good; while it also appears from the citations from
Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed
Theology, that our Reformed Fathers from ancient times were of
the same opinion."
This third point teaches that unbelieving, unregenerate
man does something of which God approves, with which God is
pleased, and which is conformable to God's will. He is able to
do civil good. This teaching I believe undermines the truth of
total depravity. The article that CRC used as proof of the
civil good in man reads, "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 discovers some regard for virtue,
good order in society, and for maintaining a good, external
deportment." This is all the third point quotes for its proof
that the writers of the confession believed in common grace.
But listen to the last half of that confession purposely left
out (because it destroys their logic): "But so far is this light
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,
further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders
wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, which by doing
he becomes inexcusable before God." Whatever the framers of
this doctrine meant when they said that natural man is unable to
use the light of nature aright in things natural and civil, it
is clear that they mean here that natural man does not do good.
Just for my own perusal I have searched the meaning of
Grace, that I may be convinced in my mind that it cannot be
common as some theologians want it to be.
Of course, phrases such as common grace are made up by man to
mean what they think Scripture implicitly teaches. Is God's
kindness (chesed-O.T., chrestos-N.T.), or goodness (tob-O.T.,
chrestos-N.T.) to be lumped together with God's grace
(chen-O.T., charis-N.T.)? Even Scripture uses different names
for the activities of God toward the evil, and grace is not one
of them.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible--
Grace (charis)--Unmerited favor
A. Descriptive of
God's favor: Gen.6:8, Ex.33:12, Luke 1:30
God's unconditional election: Rom. 11:5-6, Eph.2:8-9
Jesus Christ: John 1:17
Spiritual gifts: Romans 12:6, 1Peter 4:10
Eternal Life: 1 Peter
B. Is the source of
Salvation: Acts 15:11 Call of God: Gal. 1:15
Faith: Acts 18:27 Justification:
Rom. 3:24
Forgiveness: Eph. 1 Consolation: 2
Thess.2:16
O.T.--chen: graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or
objective (beauty):--favor, grace (ious), pleasant,
precious, (well)-favored.
chanan: prop. to bend or stoop in kindness to an inferior; to
favor, bestow; causes. to implore (i.e.
move to favor by
petition):--beseech, x fair, (be, find, shew) favor (able), be
(deal, give, grant
(graciously), entreat, (be) merciful, have
(shew) mercy (on, upon, have pity upon, pray,
make
supplication, x very).
techinnah: graciousness; cause. entreaty:--favor, grace,
supplication.
N.T.--charis: graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act
(abstr. or concr.; lit., fig. or spiritual; espec. the divine
influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life;
including gratitude:--acceptable, benefit, favor, gift, grace
(ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy). 'Grace'
translated in various verses of Scripture as: 'favor' in Luke
1:30, 2:52; Acts 2:47, 7:10, 46; 25:3
'highly favored' or 'accepted' in Luke 1:28, Eph. 1:6
'free gift' or 'free favor' in 2 Cor. 8:4
charisma: a (divine) gratuity, i.e. deliverance
(from danger or passion); (spec.) a (spiritual) endowment, i.e.
(subj.) religious qualification, or (obj.) miraculous
faculty:--free gift
charizomai: to grant as a favor, i.e.
gratuitously, in kindness, pardon or rescue:--deliver,
(frankly) forgive, (freely) give, grant.
Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible--
O.T.--hen: favor, hesed: loving kindness, mercy, chanan: to be
gracious
techinnah: supplication for grace
N.T.--charis: graciousness chrestos: Useful, kind 1 Peter 2:3
euprepeia: gracefulness, comeliness
Bullinger's A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English
and Greek New Testament categorizes the different uses of the
Greek word into English and puts how many number of times it is
used in this way after each translation.
Charis: grace--129, thanksgiving--1, favor--6, pleasure--2,
liberality--1, gift--1, benefit--1, grace --1, thanks--4,
thank--3, thankworthy--1, acceptable--1, gracious--1, to
thank--3, God be thanked--1
Bullinger's definition of 'charis': a kind, affectionate,
pleasing nature and inclining disposition, either in person or
thing. Objectively it denotes, personal gracefulness, a
pleasing work, beauty of speech, etc. Subjectively it means an
inclining towards, courteous or gracious disposition, friendly
willingness; on the part of the giver of a favor, kindness,
favor; on the part of the receiver, thanks.
From Baker's Dictionary of Theology
In the Old Testament many words convey one or more
aspects of the doctrine of grace. The two which most
comprehensively express the NT word charis are hen and hesed.
The former bears the pre NT sense of favor, with an
undertone of meaning that the favor is undeserved. Thus Moses
said to the Lord "If I have found grace in thy sight"
(Ex.33:13). The word hesed, most often translated
"loving kindness" or "mercy", has also, though not invariably,
the association of the covenant that God makes with his people:
"The Lord appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I d
thee with an everlasting love: therefore with
have I drawn thee"(Jer.31:3); "the Lord thy God shall keep with
thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers"
(Deut.7:12).
The most common New Testament word for grace is charis. Its
basic significance is to be found in joyfulness, whether in
regard to the appreciation of things or of people. But as used
by the NT, it conveys the combined meanings of hen and hesed:
e.g., for the former; "But if it is by grace, it is no more of
works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom.11:6); for the
latter: "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."
(Rom.5:20).
The essence of the doctrine of grace is that God is for us.
What is more, he is for us who in ourselves are against him.
More still, he is not for us merely in a general attitude, but
has effectively acted towards us. Grace is summed up in the
name Jesus Christ. He is the grace of God towards us. (pg.257)
Now I come to the study of the verses that are used in
connection with 'common grace'. As is witnessed above there is
much evidence that charis (which is also the root of charisma,
which means (Spiritual) 'gift' involving charis on the part of
God as the Donor; also charitoo which is an even higher form of
favor, called 'Divine favor' or 'accepted of the Lord' , or the
O.T. hen, and hesed are NOT to be used in a common way. So how
did theologians come up with the term? I believe I have an
answer. It is within the word 'chrestos'.
This word 'chrestos' has been translated different ways in
Scripture. Some of the interpretations read: good, kind,
gracious, easy, goodness, and along with derivatives of this
word which give the sense of useful, profitable, etc.
Concordance says it is from the word 'chraomai' meaning: to
furnish what is needed. Chrestos actually means: useful (as in
manner or morals). All of the definitions of "chrestos" given in
the Bullinger Concordance add this claim, "Actively beneficent
in spite of ingratitude." This tells us what the gift is. It is
beneficial and it is good. Rain and sunshine are useful for the
reprobate as well as the elect. God furnishes all of His
creation with what is needed. But this definition does not tell
us why God is kind to the unthankful. If you call this benefit
'grace' (which Scripture never does toward men in general) you
are prompting an automatic mental picture of a favor of God
toward His creatures (because of what 'charis' means all through
Scripture). So, what is God's purpose when he is kind to the
unthankful and evil?
As seen above, the word 'chrestos' gives us the clue. God's
gift is useful to do either of two things: (1) It either brings
the elect to repentance (Rom. 2:3-5, 1 Pet. 2: 2-3), or it
brings wrath to the reprobate (Rom.2:3-5)
I will take one of the main verses with this word in it,
which is used for the teaching of common grace, and analyze what
I believe is taught. Luke 6:35: "But love ye your enemies, and
do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward
shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest:
for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." This has
been an argument for those who believe God loves, or at least
has a favorable attitude toward the evil. Why would God ask us
to love our enemies, if He does not love them? That is a fair
question that needs an honest answer. The answer lies in what
this kindness, or love, does to your enemy, or an unbeliever.
Proverbs 25:22 provides the answer: "If thine enemy be hungry,
give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to
drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the
Lord shall reward thee." This passage has been interpreted
several different ways, but whatever it means 'heaping coals of
fire upon his head' does not calculate to something I personally
would desire. Therefore, I take this to mean our kindness has a
negative affect on those who are our enemies, or unbelievers who
hate us, and God.
However, God is able, and may, use our kindness or love to
bring His elect, who are enemies at the moment, to repentance.
(Rom.2:4). If it does not bring repentance we are assured that
it brings 'wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God.' (Rom.2:5) What brings this wrathful
judgment? Despising the riches of God's goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering.(Rom.2:3) Why does God show these
attributes to those who will not acknowledge them, to those He
does not even intend to save? Romans 9:22 gives the answer,
though there will be many who don't like God's answer: "What if
God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his
glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto
glory." We find it is not out of favor towards the evil that
God shows kindness, but out of wrath! Why? To make known the
riches of His glory toward His elect. God is sovereign! Who
can reply against Him? But how does God's longsuffering,
goodness, kindness, etc., make known the riches of His glory? 2
Corinthians 2:15 sheds light on this question; "For we are unto
God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in
them that perish: To the one we are the savor of death unto
death; and to the other the savor of life unto life." Calvin
thought that God was showing us that He is glorified when the
Gospel is given whether it saved or whether it reprobated:
"...faithful and sincere ministers of the Gospel have a sweet
savor before God not only when they quicken souls by the
fragrance of salvation but also when they bring death to
unbelievers; thus the fact that the Gospel is opposed should not
make us value it any less. Both savors, he says, are agreeable
to God, both that by which the elect are recreated unto
and that by which the reprobate are tormented. This is a
notable passage from which we may learn that whatever the
results of our preaching may be, it is pleasing to God provided
only that the Gospel is preached and our obedience is acceptable
to Him. The good name of the Gospel is in no way brought into
disrepute by the fact that it does not profit all. For God is
glorified when it brings about the ruin of the reprobate and so
this must happen. And if anything is a sweet savor to God it
ought to be so to us also, that is, we should not be offended if
the preaching of the Gospel does not result in the salvation of
all who hear it, but should think it quite enough if it promotes
God's glory by bringing the reprobate a just condemnation. Even
if the heralds of the Gospel are in bad odor in the world,
because their success is not always as great as they would wish,
they have the choice consolation of knowing that they waft to
God an incense of sweet fragrance and that what is offensive in
the world's nostrils is a sweet savor to God and His angels.
He lays great emphasis on the word savor. It is as if he
had said "The power of the Gospel is so great that it either
quickens or kills not only by its taste but by its very smell.
Whether the outcome be life or death, it is never preached in
vain.' But the question arises how this can be consistent with
the nature of the Gospel which he defines a little later as 'the
ministry of life'. The answer is easy: the Gospel is preached
unto salvation, for that is its real purpose, but only believers
share in this salvation; for unbelievers it is an occasion of
condemnation, but it is they who make it so. Thus Christ came
not into the world to condemn the world--there was no need for
that since we were all condemned already without Him. Yet He
sends the apostle not just to loose but also to bind, not just
to remit sins but also to retain them. He is the light of the
world and yet He blinds unbelievers; He is the foundation stone,
yet to many He is the stone of stumbling. But the proper
function of the Gospel is always to be distinguished from what
we may call its accidental function which must be imputed to the
depravity of men by which life is turned into death." (Calvin's
N.T. Commentaries, Book 10, pgs. 34-35).
What is said above about the Gospel has to be the same with
any of the good that God gives to men. For some it will produce
blessing, others God's wrath and judgment. If that is true how
can we put a phrase together that suggests a favorable attitude
toward the person to whom God intends wrath and judgment, such a
phrase as 'common grace'? Since Scripture itself does not apply
grace to these actions or attributes of God to the unthankful
and evil, should we? Let the words used in Scripture be the
words we say. It would be nice if there was one word we could
define 'chrestos' as and put common onto it. 'Common kindness',
or 'common goodness' would be better suited. Even 'common
revelation' would be good because God is revealing Himself to
all, believer's as well as unbeliever's when He shows His
attributes of kindness, and goodness, in the rain and sunshine
and all other pleasurable things God has created that we all
enjoy. But again, the key is... are we thankful for God's
blessings? If not, judgment was intended.
In all the authors that I have come across that use the term
'common grace' inevitably I find that they believe God has
emotions which involve love, mercy, kindness, or at least pity
toward the reprobate. They believe that God 'desires' that the
reprobate also be saved ('desiring will' which God does not
'decree'.) A love for all mankind, and a sincere desire that
all turn from their wicked ways and be saved, a possibility
completely open for the reprobate to choose. Reformed teachers
teaching Arminian hogwash that nowhere is backed up in
Scripture. In fact, on close scrutiny of all verses in
Scripture which these men use, there is plain-sense Scriptural
exegesis which other portions of Scripture agree with and which
teaches just the opposite of what they want everyone to believe.
Anyone can take one verse and make it say what they believe,
but it must line up with ALL Scripture. If it disagrees with
any part it must be questionable. Of course, as seen above in
Van Til, the way to get around such teaching that can't jive
with Scripture is to call it a mystery, or dichotomy, or
misnomer, etc.. Something man is incapable of figuring out.
Maybe I'm just not willing to accept that what God has said in
His word is unknowable by the creatures He is writing to. The
Trinity is a hard teaching, but Scripture teaches it in such a
way that we must accept it. First, though, we have to
understand that it is truly taught before we accept it. This is
the way God does things. He tells us they are so, and we
believe Him. Though we understand what God is saying about
Himself, that is not the same as understanding the
incomprehensible parts of God, or God's reasoning behind what He
does. Though I don't fully comprehend how God can be three. I
do understand that God writes about Himself in three persons. I
can see that as I read His word. The same goes for all other
doctrine.
And further, in order for God to communicate with His
creatures, He has to condescend to our level of speech, which
unfortunately people have always misconstrued as God being
somehow humanlike. No, He is God. I contend that there is much,
much more of a gulf between God's mind and ours than man is
willing to admit. Yet for His beloved, He has left word of who
He is, and what He has done for us. Our response should be
total gratitude, continually. Instead, so much of the time it
is 'attitude'. Just because we would not do things the way God
has told us He has done things, we interpret God's Word
accordingly--our way. It is always going to be so. I wish it
weren't like that among His own people, but too often it is.
I'll admit that I personally wish in my heart that all people
were going to be saved, and all go to that blessed place Jesus
is preparing for His elect. I have empathy for those who don't
believe a word about God, who hate everything that His teachings
stand for. I have been there. The grace that changed my mind
is, indeed, amazing. But it is even more amazing because I was
changed and some aren't. Where do we go to understand that? It
is found in Scripture, and we can read it, but it will always
remain incomprehensible to me. This is where faith--that gift
of God that helps us believe in the face of the
incomprehensible--comes in real handy. I am thankful that God
gave me faith. Faith that He IS God. That He knows ALL. That
He is all Wise. That His purpose is so perfect that it will
thrill us to no end when He let's us see the whole picture in
glory. Faith, then, must accept what God says for now, even if
it stinks in our own nostrils, it is a sweet savor to Him.
1 De Gemeene Gratie (Common Grace) written in 1884.
2 Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel, Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973, pp. 165-166
3 Benjamin B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work,
Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack Publishing, 1972, pp. 226-227
4 John Frame, "The Problem of Theological Paradox," Foundations
of Christian Scholarship, Gary North, editor. Vallecito,