Skip to main content
I started a fracas (yes, a fracas) on my Facebook page. It concerns our old friend, the phrase "common grace" in Reformed theology. This is one of the most problematic ideas anywhere in theology. It's not like "actual grace" in Catholic theology, a grace that moves a person toward sanctifying [that is, justifying] grace. In fact, if you were one of the "vessels prepared in advance for destruction," this would be horrible, because in Reformed theology, common grace doesn't of necessity lead to saving grace. In fact, I don't think there's a connection at all. This strikes me as the divine equivalent of healing Westley so he's strong enough to be started on "The Machine." There's a huge difference between being beneficent and providential toward those who hate you, and being gracious in the systematic sense. God is either giving utterly useless graces on purpose to the damned (if that Reformed predestination hoo-ha is true) or grace can be resisted. And another thing, Reformed theology: it's pretty dumb to call the gifts and talents of natural people the fruit of "common grace" because you'd be indirectly saying that grace was necessary to recover the image of God in people, which would make us not human, forget saved. But this confusion happens when you conflate natural and supernatural.

Comments

As I noted on your FB profile, the Reformed usage makes sense given the range of the word "grace" in the English language. Not the least offense intended, but the problem you are running into is trying to import a Catholic definition of grace into the English word grace (and/or Reformed word translated grace). The English word is not so narrow. The OED defines it broadly, and, like I said, there is no better authority on what a word means in our rather fluid language than the Oxford English Dictionary (since we have no direct equivalent to l'Académie française).

I again return to my point that many of the issues we discuss are ultimately about semantics and I think we need to be very cautious there. The words don't matter -- the meaning behind the words matter. The Bard nailed it: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

Example: say you hang your hat on why one should reject Protestant tradition on a set of words that appear mangled in English. And then you end up a Jesuit missionary to the Congo (yeah, I know, but just imagine) -- and their words don't work that way... Then what?

Perhaps the Reformed world would be better off calling Common Grace something else, say, "ecarg nommoc." But, having changed the word does nothing to the meaning. The bigger question: does God work only through supernatural means or, as the first cause, does all the natural workings of the world also depend on his providence? And, if they do, what shall we call those natural workings upheld by God's will?
Jason said…
Tim,

My concern is why there is a "Reformed world" at all, if we may find our differences largely semantic and linguistic. But this is not the case. Our forefathers did not regard the distinctions as minor differences in words. What we must forthrightly ask (in addition to the question of whether they were right) is whether the stakes are high enough to sustain a protest whose positions we cannot reasonably vindicate.
Hi, JK,

Well, I do think we can vindicate our forefathers' positions (and I continue to maintain the responsibility for schism falls upon the corrupt, not those who depart under moral compulsion). But, my semantic point is this: our differences exist, but are smaller than the language suggests. Common grace is a case in point. If you reject the idea because grace is a saving act, and common grace does not save, your rejection is based on a narrower use of the term "grace" than the English language's standard usage (and, I would content, the Reformer's usage). Now, whether the underlying idea of God's providential care needs to be debated is another matter. But, I think recognizing the linguistic and semantic issues are important, because otherwise we spend our time as a divided church debating using (effectively) different languages. It is much better if we figure out how we might "translate" each other and then discuss the substantive differences.

I.e. it is better to debate the signified than the signifier.
Bryan Cross said…
Tim,

The problem with the term 'common grace' is that it conflates nature and grace, by treating what is of nature, as though it is of grace. Even if referring to homosexual unions as 'marriage' becomes common, that won't make it marriage. The term 'marriage' will, in that case, be being misused. Likewise, the use of the term 'common grace' to refer to nature, is a misuse of the term 'grace,' because it does not correspond to reality, but misrepresents reality.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Bryan,
But again, we must ask what we mean by grace. The English word is not by any means the opposite of nature. (Nor should it be, I suspect.) As Mat 5.44-45 notes, both the sun's light and rain come by God's provision. Nevertheless, we would not deny these are natural phenomena. As Hamlet says, "There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow."

I think the problem, again, is a lexical one. Hence, why I refer back to the OED, which is far more of an authority on English than you or I. Now, if marriage were changed as a term, we would be forced to find a new term, but we could hardly say the term was being misused. Words throughout history have come and gone. Now if someone says a Biblical view of marriage includes homosexual marriage, that is a different matter.

But, if God's providential care preserves our natural world, is that not grace? I posted a short quote about this on my blog earlier, before I saw your reply, incidentally.

The peace of Christ be with you also.

Tim

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un