The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 1 – A Biblical Introduction

This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will begin by noting that God defines marriage, and He defined is as being between one man and one woman.

In today’s first instalment, I will briefly outline the biblical perspective on homosexuality. In tomorrow’s second instalment, I will release an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Then later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage.

The Bible on Gay Marriage:

God instituted marriage at creation to be between one man and one woman:

Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God commands marriage to be between one man and one woman:

Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Homosexuality is sin; it is an abomination:

Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those tho lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”

Romans 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over tin the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonoured among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, me with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their sin. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realising the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men, and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (C.f. Genesis 19:5)

Governing authorities are required to illegalise same-sex marriage:

Governments are instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). Same-sex marriage is a final hallmark of a sinful nation; God destroyed the exceedingly sinful (Genesis 18:20) Sodom over homosexuality (Genesis 19:5, Jude 7). God commands Governments to restrain sin (1 Peter 2:13-14); in functioning to restrain/punish sin and maintain good order in society (Romans 13:1-4), Governments are to oppose and punish homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).

Marriage is a creation institution common to both believers and unbelievers – providing a foundation for the continuation and development of society. The ability to have children is intrinsic to marriage (Genesis 1:28). Children are born through a mother and a father. If two men are two women are allowed to marry, that would mean that a child does not need both a mother and a father. Children can only be produced by one man and one woman; children need both a mother and a father (Genesis 2:24). So called same-sex marriages by definition cannot biologically produce children, so cannot be called marriages.

Societies consist of families; families are the building blocks of societies. This has been God’s framework since creation (Genesis 2:24). A society cannot continue or survive without a future generation. To have a future generation is only possible through the reproductive acts of a father and a mother. If procreation is abstracted from marriage, the private and public context for parental responsibility, societal order and the intrinsic responsibility for a biological father to care for his children are removed. Governments must regulate marriage as being between one man and one woman to protect the very foundation of society.

Conclusion:

According to God, marriage is the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If you define marriage as anything else, you must appeal a standard. By what standard ought marriage by defined by? If marriage is not defined by God, it cannot be defined at all. If governing authorities are not permitted to illegalise so called same sex marriage, then by what standard are they permitted to illegalise incestuous marriage? As Christians, we must begin with God – the very foundation of morality. This point will be demonstrated in our second instalment.

©Jonathan Williams, April 2012.

Zacharias Ursinus on Common Grace

My intention in this post is to answer one question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Whether or not the author of the Heidelberg Catechism taught common grace in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism will decisively answer this question.

Did Ursinus teach Common Grace?

The following is a non-exhaustive collection of quotes from Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that will answer the question at hand. As his commentary explains and expounds on the actual Heidelberg Catechism, it goes without saying that his commentary conveys the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.

“The wisdom of man reasons and concludes differently, as is evident from the objection which we often hear: He who withdraws, in the time of temptation, that grace, without which it is not possible to prevent a fall, is the cause of the fall. But God withdrew, from man, his grace, in the trial through which he was called to pass, so that man could not but fall. Therefore, God was the cause of the fall of man.

Ans. The major proposition is true only of him who withholds grace, when he is obligated not to withdraw it; who takes it from him who is desirous of it, and does not wilfully reject it; and who withholds it out of malice. But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him; and who does not therefore, withhold it because he envies the sinner righteousness and eternal life; but that he may make a trial of him to whom he has imparted his grace. He who thus forsakes any one, is not the cause of sin, even though it necessarily follows this desertion and withdrawal of grace. And in as much as God withheld his grace from man in the time of his temptation, not in the first, but in the last manner just described, he is not the cause of his sin and destruction; but man alone is guilty for wilfully rejecting the grace of God.” (p. 34-35)

Ursinus speaks of a grace that is “withdrawn”, “not preserved” and “rejected”. This grace cannot be said to be the effectual saving grace given by God to only His elect.

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

Ursinus called the sufficiency of the atonement “grace”. Also note, that Ursinus explicitly states that the “benefits of Christ [are] offered in the gospel” to those who “perish” and “reject”. Further, Ursinus believes that the offer of Christ in the gospel to the non-elect is an act of God’s grace.

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

Again, Ursinus stated that the “grace of Christ” is “freely offered” to those who “reject that grace”.

“Hence the devils are said to tremble, because they do not apply to themselves what they know of God; that is, they do not believe that God is to them what they know him to be from his word, merciful, gracious.” (p. 114)

Ursinus stated that the devils do not believe what they know him to be to them from His word: merciful and gracious to them. They know that He is gracious to them, but they do not believe it.

“The evils of guilt as far as they are such, that is, sins, have not the nature of that which is good. Hence God does not will them, neither does he tempt men to perform them, nor does he effect them or contribute thereto; but he permits devils and men to do them, or does not prohibit them from committing them when he has the power to do so. Therefore these things do indeed also fall under the providence of God, but not as if they were done by him, but only permitted. The word permit is therefore not to be rejected, seeing that it is sometimes used in the scriptures. … (Gen. 20:6; 31:7. Ps. 105:14. Acts 14:16.)

But we must have a correct understanding of the word lest we detract from God a considerable portion of the government of the world, and of human affairs. For this permission is not an indifferent contemplation or suspension of the providence and working of God as it respects the actions of the wicked, by which it comes to pass that these actions do not depend so much upon some first cause, as upon the will of the creatures acting ; but it is a withdrawal of divine grace by which God (whilst he accomplishes the decrees of his will through rational creatures) either does not make known to the creature acting what he himself wishes to be done, or he does not incline the will of the creature to render obedience, and to perform what is agreeable to his will. Yet he, nevertheless, in the meanwhile, controls and influences the creature so deserted and sinning as to accomplish what he has purposed.” (p. 153-154)

Here, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. In permitting man to sin (providentially, not morally), God withdraws His grace; God’s grace cannot be withdrawn if it was never active. Ursinus believes that God’s providential restraints of sin are acts of His ‘grace’.

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

Once again, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. The referencing of Romans 9 puts it beyond doubt that the reprobates are included in Ursinus affirmation that it is of God’s grace that he providentially restrains sin in the non-elect.

Ursinus on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Related Doctrines:

I demonstrated above that Ursinus taught what is known as the free offer of the gospel, and further that he attributed the free offer of Christ to all men to God’s grace. The following quotes from Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further prove that Ursinus held to the fee offer of the gospel, and saw no problem with God desiring things that He did not decree:

“By the heart we are to understand the affections, desires, and inclinations. When God, therefore, requires our whole heart, he desires that he alone should be loved above everything else; that our whole heart should be stayed on him, and not that a part should be given to him and a part to another.” (p. 24)

“But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him.” (p. 35)

“We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. So he also exercises great mercy towards the faithful, for he has, from his mercy alone, without being bound by any law or merit on our part, given his son, and subjected him to punishment for our sake. We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.).” (p. 69-70)

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

“God s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice.” (p. 127)

“The natural law, the knowledge of general principles natural to men, the difference between things honest and base, engraven upon our hearts, teach that there is a providence: for he who has engraven upon the heart of man a rule or law, for the regulation of the life, has a regard to the actions of men. God now has engraven such a rule upon the heart of man, and desires us to live in conformity thereto. Therefore he must also govern the lives, actions and events of his creatures. “The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:15.)” (p. 148)

“There are four terms in this syllogism, for in the major proposition, the want of righteousness signifies the desertion and withdrawal of grace actively, which is a most just punishment of the creature sinning, and is thus from God; whilst in the minor it is to be understood passively, signifying a want of that righteousness which we ought to possess, which, when it is willingly contracted and received by men, and exists in them contrary to the law of God, is sin which is neither wrought nor desired by God.” (p. 159)

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

“God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation.” (p. 292)

“As the gospel is the savour of life unto life when it is believed, and is the savour of death unto death when it is despised, so Christ, when he is eaten, quickeneth, and when he is despised, judgeth. Christ now is despised, when he is offered to the unbelieving in the word and sacraments, and is rejected by their unbelief.” (p. 428)

“On account of the general command of God with respect to guarding against the profanation of the sacraments, both in the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God would not allow wicked and obstinate offenders to be included among the number of his people, but required them to be excluded from their fellowship. Much less would he permit them to come to the sacraments of his church. “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger,) the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off” (Num. 15:30, 31.) God did indeed desire all to come to the Passover, that is, all the members of his church; but he did not regard the rebellious and obstinate as included in the number of those who were in covenant with him. Hence he commanded them to be excluded from his people.” (p. 442)

“Because he desired that the incestuous man “be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5) that is, he desired him to be dealt with in such a manner, that notwithstanding his life might be prolonged, and he repent, his flesh might be subdued by sincere contrition, the old man mortified, and the new man quickened. Hence he did not desire that he should be put to death.”(p. 458)

“There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts.” (p. 519-520)

“Obj. 2. The Holy Scriptures attribute to God the different members of the human body, and thus declare his nature and properties. Therefore it is also lawful to represent God by images. Ans. There is a difference between these figurative expressions used in reference to God, and images; because in the former case there is always something connected with those expressions which guards us against being led astray into idolatry, nor is the worship of God ordinarily tied to those figurative expressions. But it is different in regard to images, for here there is no such safeguard, and it is easy for men to give adoration and worship to them. God himself, therefore, used those metaphors of himself figuratively, that he might help our infirmity, and permits us, in speaking of him, to use the same forms of expression; but he has never represented himself by images and pictures; neither does he desire us to use them for the purpose of representing him, but has, on the other hand, solemnly forbidden them.” (p. 527)

“Obj. 6. All that is necessary is, that men should not, by the preaching of the gospel, have images in their hearts. Therefore it is not necessary that they should be removed from our churches. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because God not only forbids us to have idols in our hearts; but also before our eyes, seeing that he does not merely desire us to be no idolaters, but to avoid even the appearance of idolatry, according as it is said; “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:22.).” (p. 534)

“The preface is contained in the words, Oar Father which art in heaven. This again consists of two parts: a calling upon the true God contained in the words, Our Father, and a description of the true God expressed by the words, Who art in heaven. Christ will have us to pray in this way, because God desires to be called upon with due honor, which consists, 1. In true knowledge. 2. In confidence. 3. In obedience. Obedience comprehends true love, fear, hope, humility and patience.” (p. 626)

“Neither ought the magistrate to whom it belongs to inflict punishment, to remit it except for just and weighty reasons; for God desires that his justice and law should be put into execution.” (p. 653)

“That which is good, and which accompanies afflictions and the cross, we should not pray for deliverance from; but afflictions and the cross itself, which are evil in themselves, being destructive to our nature, from these we should pray for deliverance, as Christ himself also prayed when he said, Let this cup pass from me, that is, let it pass from me in as far as it is a destruction and evil, in which sense the Father himself did not desire it. But in as far as the death of Christ was a ransom for the sins of his people, in so far both Christ and the Father desired it; ‘Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ (Matt. 26:39.)” (p. 656)

Conclusion:

There are more affirmations of common grace in Ursinius’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism; I did not even go into how common grace relates to the covenant and the sacraments in the theology of Zacharias Ursinus, and I only included quotes where the word ‘grace’ was explicitly used.

To answer our initial question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Yes. This is clearly demonstrated from Zacharias Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Appendix:

Of course, Ursinus’ affirmation of common grace is completely in line with historic Reformed Theology; to give three examples:

John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)

Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 3:3)

John Calvin on Common Grace

Hyper Calvinists frequently make the false assertion that John Calvin rejected common grace. This compilation of quotes primarily from John Calvin’s “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” proves that Calvin affirmed common grace. For a scholarly exposition on Calvin’s doctrine of common grace, I recommend “Calvin and Common Grace”, written by Herman Bavinck, then later translated into English by Geerhardus Vos.

“Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that they “might feel after God and find him,” immediately adds, that “he is not far from every one of us,” (Acts 17:27); every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being.” - (Book 1, Chapter 5:3).

“Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man.” – (Book 1, Chapter 8:1).

“The power of the intellect, secondly, with regard to the arts. Particular gifts in this respect conferred on individuals, and attesting the grace of God.” - (Chapter 2, Heading)

“In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgment, while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art, God, by this variety commends his favour toward us, lest anyone should presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from His mere liberality. For whence is it that one is more excellent than another, but that in a common nature the grace of God is specially displayed in passing by many and thus proclaiming that it is under obligation to none.” – (Book 2, Chapter 2:17)

“But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” – (Book 2, Chapter 3:3)

“Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other. When he was pleased to set Saul over the kingdom, he made him as it were a new man.” - (Book 2, Chapter 3:4)

“The reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.  In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 2:11)

“As by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 2:12)

“God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear it, and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 24:15)

"For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it" – John Calvin (Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:6)

“But prosperity, and the happy issue of events, ought also to be attributed to his grace, in order that he may always receive the praise which he deserves, that of being a merciful Father, and an impartial Judge. About the close of the psalm, he inveighs against those ungodly men who will not acknowledge God’s hand, amid such palpable demonstrations of his providence.” - John Calvin (Commentary on Psalm 107)

"That God indeed favours none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts." – John Calvin (Commentary on Hebrews 6:5)

“He is therefore rightly called the Spirit of grace, by whom Christ becomes ours with all his blessings. But to do despite to him, or to treat him with scorn, by whom we are endowed with so many benefits, is an impiety extremely wicked. Hence learn that all who wilfully render useless his grace, by which they had been favoured, act disdainfully towards the Spirit of God. It is therefore no wonder that God so severely visits blasphemies of this kind; it is no wonder that he shows himself inexorable towards those who tread under foot Christ the Mediator, who alone reconciles us to himself; it is no wonder that he closes up the way of salvation against those who spurn the Holy Spirit, the only true guide.” – John Calvin (Commentary on Hebrews 10:29)

“There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” - John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 66)

There are more affirmations of common grace in John Calvin’s writings, but I resolved to limit myself to 1(6)00 words. However, these quotes undeniably prove that John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

Lastly, Common Grace has always been a Reformed Doctrine:

John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)

The Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.”

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Loraine Boettner on Common Grace

The Argument:

Earlier this week, I received an email from a person claiming that Loraine Boettner rejected common grace. He claimed that Boettner’s rejection of common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ proves that Common Grace is not Reformed.

He clearly did not read ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ very carefully. The exact phrase ‘common grace’ appears no less than seventeen times in Boettner’s book, and always in the affirmative. There is even a heading affirmatively titled ‘Common Grace’, under the chapter on ‘Efficacious Grace’. To demonstrate the indisputable fact that Boettner embraced common grace, I have typed a run-down of his usage of the exact phase. An extensive treatment of Boettner’s affirmation of common grace is beyond the scope of this post.

Explicit Statements in Earlier Chapters:

“The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus.” – Boettner (page 47)

“God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.” – Boettner (page 109)

“Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase ‘Limited Redemption’ rather than ‘Limited Atonement.’ The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption.” – Boettner (page 110)

‘Common Grace’ – Boettner (page 124, 131)

“Apart from this special grace which issues in the salvation of its objects, there is what we may call ‘common grace,’ or general influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. He sends fruitful seasons and gives many things which make for the general happiness of mankind. Among the most common blessings which are to be traced to this source we may name health, material prosperity, general intelligence, talents for art, music, oratory, literature, architecture, commerce, inventions, etc. In many instances the non-elect receive these blessings in greater abundance than do the elect, for we often find that the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light. Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of the truth upon the heart and conscience is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead to salvation, but it keeps this earth from becoming a hell. It arrests the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the fury of wild beasts. It prevents sin from being manifested in all its hideousness, and thus hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the smoking fire. Like the pressure of the atmosphere, it is universal and powerful though unfelt.

Common grace, however, does not kill the core of sin, and therefore it is not capable of producing a genuine conversion. Through the light of nature, the workings of conscience, and especially through the external presentation of the Gospel it makes known to man what he should do, but does not give that power which man stands in need of. Furthermore, all of these common influences of the Holy Spirit are capable of being resisted. The Scriptures constantly teach that the Gospel becomes effectual only when it is attended by the special illuminating power of the Spirit, and that without this power it is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness. Hence the unregenerate man can never know God except in an outward way; and for this reason the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is declared to be just no righteousness at all. Jesus said to His disciples that the world could not receive the Spirit of truth, ‘for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;’ yet in the same breath He added, ‘Ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you,’ John 14:17. The Arminian doctrine destroys the distinction between efficacious and common grace, or at best makes efficacious grace to be an assistance without which salvation is impossible, while the Calvinistic makes it to be an assistance by which salvation is made certain.” – Boettner (page 131-132)

“Concerning the reformations which are produced by common grace Dr. Charles Hodge says” and “The following paragraph by Dr. S. G. Craig very clearly sets forth the limitations of common grace” – Boettner (page 132)

Explicit Statements in Latter Chapters:

“There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race who is not treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And since grace is favor shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another. ‘The bestowment of common grace upon the non-elect,’ says W. G. T. Shedd, ‘shows that non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation to believe and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help that is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by anything in the nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of God. The fault or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the sinner alone; and he has no right to plead afault of his own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace’.

If it be objected that God must give every man an opportunity to be saved, we reply that the outward call does give every man who hears it an opportunity to be saved. The message is: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ This is an opportunity to be saved; and nothing outside the man's own nature prevents his believing. Shedd has expressed this idea very well in the following words: ‘A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of God's passing him by in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, 'Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now try again, and try harder.'” – Boettner (page 192-193)

‘Calvinism and Education’:

In diametric opposition to the indefensible claim that Boettner rejected common grace, Boettner’s views on Christian Education are thoroughly rooted in and shaped by common grace:

“The relationship which Calvinism bears to education has been well stated in the two following paragraphs by Prof. H. H. Meeter, of Calvin College: ‘Science and art were the gifts of God's common grace, and were to be used and developed as such. Nature was looked upon as God's handiwork, the embodiment of His ideas, in its pure form the reflection of His virtues. God was the unifying thought of all science, since all was the unfolding of His plan. But along with such theoretical reasons there are very practical reasons why the Calvinist has always been intensely interested in education, and why grade schools for children as well as schools of higher learning sprang up side by side with Calvinistic churches, and why Calvinists were in so large measure the vanguard of the modern universal education movement.” – Boettner (page 281-282)

Conclusion:

Loraine Boettner clearly affirmed common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’, which is the standard text on Calvinism. Hyper Calvinists are welcome to claim John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and John Robbins, none of whom have views that are Biblical or Reformed.

I will finish with a quote from John Calvin: “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 3:3). Both Loraine Boettner and John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

©Jonathan Williams, February 2011.