Musings On Common Grace

“Christ is indeed the savior of all people prior to the day of judgment (I Tim. 4:10). Christ sustains the whole universe (Col. 1:17). Without Him, no living thing could survive. He grants to His creatures such gifts as time, law, order, power, and knowledge. He grants all of these gifts to Satan and his rebellious host. The answer to the question, ‘Does God show His grace and mercy to all creation, including Satan?’ is emphatically yes. Satan is given time and power to do his evil work. To the next question, ‘Does this mean that God in some way demonstrates an attitude of favor towards Satan?’ the answer is emphatically no. God is no more favorable toward Satan and his demons than he is to Satan’s human followers. But this does not mean that He does not bestow gifts upon them — gift that they in no way deserve.

Thus the doctrine of common grace must apply not only to men but also to Satan and the fallen angels. This is what Van Til denies, because he defines common grace as favor in general rather than gifts in general. The second concept does not imply the first.

God does not favor ‘mankind’ as such. He showers favors on all men, but this does not mean that he favors men in general. Man in general rebelled against Him in the garden. Adam and Eve, mankind’s representative, brought the entire human race under God’s wrath. God in His grace gave them time and covenant promises, for He looked forward to the death of His Son on the cross. On this basis and only on this basis, men have been given life in history. Some have been give life in order to extend God’s Kingdom, while others have been give life (like Pharaoh) to demonstrate God’s power, and to heap coals of fire eternally on their head.”

Dr. Gary North
Dominion and Common Grace — The Biblical bases of progress –pg. 44-45

Whether or not common grace really exists has been a bone of contention for centuries. If common grace exists then the seeming problem is that we are insisting that God loves those that Scripture teaches he has hated before they were born. A genuine contradiction. If common grace doesn’t exist then the seeming problem is that it is difficult to see how it could be true that “the goodness of God to the reprobate was intended to lead them to repentance,” or how in despising this genuine goodness of God towards them they were storing up God’s wrath. If God never had any inclination of goodness towards them that was to issue in repentance then how could they be storing up God’s wrath by living in defiance of that goodness?

The answer to this is in making distinctions between God’s gifts (favors) given and God’s favor given. Perhaps common grace should be defined as God giving gifts (favors) to those (reprobate) whom He has no favor towards. If we could use this definition then we could say that God extends favors towards the reprobate without extending favor to the reprobate. By extending His favors towards the reprobate, He superintends how His eternal decree works out in time so that the reprobate who have been differentiated from the elect from eternity by God differentiate themselves from the elect in time and history.

Try to imagine the reprobate as Christmas Geese set apart for the day of destruction by Farmer John. Over the course of the year Farmer John gives the Christmas Geese the best of gifts in the way of feed that will fatten them up. On the outside it may even look that Farmer John favors the Christmas Geese even more then the other Geese of the barnyard.

Despite the gifts of Farmer John the Christmas Geese despise Farmer John. Through their despite of Farmer John they are storing up wrath. In all of this Farmer John gave gifts to the Geese without having any intention of favor.

By dividing common grace up in this fashion we avoid the contradiction that God loves those He has set apart for destruction while at the same time we avoid denying that God gives good gifts to the reprobate. We would also be able to truthfully teach that the reprobate despise the goodness of God, that the reprobate have only themselves to blame for not repenting in the face of God’s goodness, that the reprobate, by not repenting have stored up for themselves God’s wrath because of their hardness of heart.

Some might insist (with understandable reasons) that this is equivocating on the traditional definition of common grace. Perhaps we should call this God’s “common benevolence.” If we did that then we could deny common grace while insisting upon common benevolence.

To America’s Anonymous Philanthropist

It has come to my attention that some generous Philanthropist in America has given away millions and millions of dollars away to several Universities on the condition that the University receiving the millions not try to discover who the benefactor is.

So, in the spirit of openness about the ability to be discrete I wanted to publicly declare to this anonymous philanthropist that should (s)he decide that (s)he wants to donate millions of dollars to Charlotte Christian Reformed Church that your secret is safe with us. Indeed, so safe is your secret that even if you only give $250,000.00 to the Charlotte Christian Reformed church we still won’t investigate your secret anonymity.

And, the bonus for you is in knowing that we will use your money far more wisely and for far better educational efforts than any University your giving your money to.

The Homosexual Push

Two examples that the homosexualization of our culture continues apace.

1.) The Miss America contest was determined because one of the contestants insisted that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

2.) The government schools just recently held their “day of silence” event. This is an yearly event that uses the masquerade of homosexuals being harassed to recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality. If you doubt that ask yourself if students would be encouraged to have a day where it is emphasized that they shouldn’t harass students who are into necrophilia or bestiality.

Obviously, no such days would ever yet be established. Homosexuals get a day of silence in order to create compassion for them and their movement and in order to convince students that homosexuality should be treated as “normal.”

A New Pledge Of Allegiance

While attending the Lansing Tea party, and while listening to reports of other tea parties it became apparent that Americans are hopelessly in love with saying the pledge of allegiance. The irony of hundreds of thousands of Americans gathering to protest government oppression all the while reciting a pledge that was created and legislatively exalted with the express purpose of uniting people to the unitary state was overwhelming. It was like viewing people who gathered to protest their enslavement opening their ceremony with a ritual that sang the praise of chains.

I hate the pledge of allegiance for the following reason,

1.) It was written by a Baptist minister (Francis Bellamy) who identified himself as a Socialist and was even defrocked for preaching that “Jesus was a socialist.”

2.) Francis Bellamy once admitted that one purpose of the pledge was to help achieve the totalitarian (socialist) fantasy that his cousin (Edward Bellamy) once wrote about in one of his novels.

3.) By forcing generations to plight their trough to the Nation State more important bonds of loyalty to family and church were implicitly superseded. As such a civil religion and nation state family were created.

4.) The Constitution does not, and never has taught, that the nation is indivisible.

5.) Between 1892 when the pledge was written until 1942 the pledge was said with the right arm stiffly held out with the right hand palm up. Can you say Hail Caesar? Heil Hitler?

6.) The pledge of allegiance is a paean of praise to the borg Nation State.

Since Americans are apparently hopelessly stuck on sentimental pledges, allow me to suggest a pledge for the next batch of tea parties.

I pledge allegiance to the U.S. Constitution
And to the Constitutional Republic it created
Sovereign states
bound, by a dissoluble compact
committed to limiting the actions of tyrannical government
against all

Pluralization as a Monolithic Faith System

Pluralization is the process by which the number of options in the private sphere of modern society gives the appearance of rapid multipication at all levels, especially at the level of Worldviews, faiths and ideologies.

Now apart from considering pluralization as it pertains to Worldviews, faiths and ideologies no one can doubt for a second the vast plethora of choices that we are confronted with daily. A trip down any grocery store aisle will give you so many types of toothpastes or deodorants to choose from that there can be no doubt that pluralization succeeds at the most fundamental of levels.

Or to extend the illustration one can look at the Television set. When I grew up there was ABC, CBS, NBC and that was it. Now the stations and programming runs into the hundreds if not thousands. We have pluralization in entertainment.

But what is exciting at the level of the kind of soap you put in your mouth or the kind of chemical you put under your arms becomes dangerous when applied to Worldviews, faiths or religions.

Nothing dangerous is going to happen to you if you use Colgate one week and Aquafresh the next week and Crest the next week and the Amway brand the following week. But when this approach to what we believe ends up being applied to Worldviews or faith systems it becomes a little dicier.

The fact that has indeed happened to some degree can be seen in the way that people do Church in various seasons or phases of their lives. I have met many people who tell me they grew up Reformed and now they are Wesleyan or Church of Christ or something else and when they vacation in Florida they attend a Lutheran Church. When I ask them what happened that they would have such a change they look at me with what I call the ‘dumb cow’ look.

The question doesn’t even make sense to them because all of these different Churches are just like so many different tubes of toothpaste to them. They, and the Churches they attend, have been smitten by the idea of pluralization. In the thinking of those I have spoken with who have made what I would have considered drastic changes in their Church homes all they have done is to switch brand names. They have gone from using Crest to using Colgate.

The Churches they attend are part of this equation also because the Churches they attend, in order to compete for a shrinking number of consumers have standardized so that even though you have different brand names out there all of them are pretty much the same.

Here we find the irony of pluralization as it pertains to the realm of Worldviews, faiths or religions. Because pluralization in a consumer setting must respond to consumer desire what ends up happening is that the real differences that you would expect to find among different worldviews gets washed out so that the competing Worldviews, and distinctives can be competitive. The differences that exist are reduced to the way the Church markets itself.

Let’s take for example the issue of denominations. In Charlotte alone we have 23 different Churches last time I counted.

That is quite a choice for such a little city. Indeed we would contend that pluralization is alive and well in Charlotte.

But is it really?

If it was real pluralization then you could go to each of those 23 Churches and it wouldn’t take you long to realize what the distinctives were. You would learn that Nazarenes have a doctrine of perfect love or entire sanctification that teaches a person can reach a point where they never sin. You would learn that the Church of Christ doesn’t think you’re saved unless you were baptized as an adult. You would learn that the Assembly of God Church believes that unless you speak in tongues you are not saved, you would learn that in a Reformed Church we teach a kind of thing called predestination and on and on it would go.

Real pluralization in the area of Worldviews, faiths and ideologies would bring these matters to the forefront just as the differences of food are brought to the forefront when one goes to various ethnic restaurants.

The fact that doesn’t happen and that the real distinctives among these putatively competing faith systems is not accentuated is perhaps indicative that pluralization in the area of Worldviews, Faiths, and beliefs systems is just a smokescreen created to hide the reality that pluralization itself is our monolithic belief system.

Pluralization thus is the sacred canopy or global umbrella for Americans. Pluralization is our common faith that unites us into one whole. Ironically, our unity is provided by the myth of diversity.

It is the kind of unity of ancient Rome where all the gods were welcomed into the pantheon.