Piper's Guarantee

Life, breath, and all things, rain on the just and unjust, etc. In other words, the only basis for God's not immediately destroying every sinful thing is the atonement of Christ. God can not deal with sinful humanity in anyway apart from the contemplation of his satisfaction. Common grace is what it is usually called. </font>[/QUOTE]But were not the people in the Old Testament not under the atonement of Christ? They were not imediately killed. Where is your Scriptural support for common grace, whereby non-elect still benefit from the atonement of Christ?

 

Larry,

Also, where does it ever say that Christ died for common grace? Did Jesus have to die so God would'nt have to immediatly destroy all sinful beings.

This does not explain how a Calvinist can honestly say to an non-elect person, "Christ died for you." Can Christ's death for an individual provide eternal salvation for some and only common grace for others? Did Christ die to appease the wrath of God for the elect for all eternity, but also die to at least temporary postpone the wrath of God for the non-elect until they had a opportunity to deny the God they never had the spritual capasity to understand or obey? Come on! Where is this in the scripture?

 

The atonement of Christ was from eternity past, though it was worked out in time. OT believers were saved on the basis of the atonement of Christ. Common grace is a theological understanding, drawn from a number of verses/passages. You can find a good discussion of it in a number of different places. When I have time, I will give some of those places and a short explanation of it.

 

Are you seriously asking this?? If you are a former calvinist, maybe this is why. This is a common theological issue. If you have not learned it, it is no wonder you left calvinism. I did not know something so basic would be questioned this much.

Sure it does. You just don't like it because it disproves one of your objections.

Yes.

Yes. As I say, this is a theological issue built from a number of different issues and passages. Right now, I do not have time to get into it. For someone who is so opposed to it, you would think you had studied it out enough to know what it's arguments are and why you rejected it.

It seriously amazes me (in general without specific reference to you, Bill) that people who are so opposed to a particular issue are so unfamiliar with why it's opponents hold it. If I was going to reject a position, I would study it out to know what they believe and have arguments against it. If I were deadset opposed to it, I would not have to be asking why someone believed something. I would already know because I would have a knowing rejection. I see this all the time in the Bible versions debate ... people so adamantly opposed to something they know nothing about. It is just remarkable to me ...

As I told Scott, as I have time, I will formulate a more coherent defense of common grace. As for now, just get out some of your theologies and do some reading on it.

See Grudem's Systematic Theology (pp. 657-665). He differs from me slightly, but ends up at the same position essentially.

See Reymond's Systematic Theology (pp. 402ff).

As for its necessity in this regard, I cannot find a theological basis for God showing any mercy on sinful man apart from the atoning work of Christ. Perhaps you can find a basis for that. I simply cannot. Sin deserves immediate and final death. Any postponement of that must be rooted in some satisfaction of the wrath on some basis.

Some argue that common grace flows indirectly from the atonement in that God's purpose to save sinners in time necessitates the forbearance against sinners to save his elect (Rom 9:22ff. -- Just agree with me for the sake of argument that this verse addresses that. I know you disagree but understand how it supports the argument I am making from our viewpoint).

Ultimately, the atonement's sufficiency for the whole world means that any Calvinist can rightly say to any person that Christ died for them. Your objection is a philosophical one, not a scriptural one. If someone differs from me on the issue of common grace being involved in that, that is fine. That is not a revealed truth; the fact that Christ died for all sins for all time is a revealed truth.

 

I read Louis Berkhof's explanation of Common Grace. There are many problems with the terminology, especially when one tries to link comon grace specifically with the sacrifice of Christ. Berkhof seems to intimate that the doctrine of common grace came about as a result of Calvinism. The early church fathers speak of it, adn even Augustine doesn't mention it. I find that quite striking. Common grace seems to flow out of Reformed logic, not out of Scriptural basis.

 

I have not read his. In fact, I have not read anything on it in a while except for about 2 paragraphs today when I looked in a couple of books to give a reference.

I would argue that common grace flows from passages such as Matt where it says God causes it to rain on the just and unjust alike or Acts 17 where God gives life and breath to all things. Other similar passages could be offered in support. As well there seems a theological necessity to explain why a holy God can respond in anything but judgment on sinners.

 

But why should we consider that as specific "grace" to a non-believing world?

 

What I don't see is the link between common grace and the atonement. I looked at the Reymond reference last night and don't remember seeing that link. I agree with the concept of common grace but I don't know what the atonement has to do with it.

Andy

 

You have the time to write all of this non-sense but you don't have time to throw out a couple of scriptures that link common grace to the atonement?

Revealing.

That is so ironic because I was going to say the same thing in specific reference to you. You have admitted on this board to having never studied Arminius and you have clearly displayed in your dealing with me not to have any kind of a grasp of his most basic arguments. In fact, you have continually dismissed the arguments as being irrelevant only further revealing you lack of understanding of the issues that truly seperate us. I hope you will take your own advice and learn that with which you so adamently disagree.

This is not the part I have issue with. I agree that the atonement allows for time. The question is, Time for What? The issue is why would God postpone anything? He is longsuffering as he awaits man's response. Your system doesn't really allow for that (I know you say you do, but in all practicality you don't) You have God postponing his wrath as he waits for himself to respond for the elect.

Your tone has changed. You start by ridiculing me for not knowing this basic thing, and you end up saying its not really revealed in the bible, its all philosophical.

 

But why should we consider that as specific "grace" to a non-believing world? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]You shouldnt. It is common grace, not specific or special grace. Common means that all men experience it.

 

On what basis can God deal with sinners with anything but what they justly deserve??? I think the answer is the atonement. There is no way that God can deal with sin in any fashion apart from that.

 

It would help if you read some of this "non-sense." This nonsense explained that linking common grace to the atonement is a theological necessity. It is not expressly revealed. You mocked that in the end of your post, revealing much about you ... that you don't understand basic distinctions.

Not understanding things is fine Bill. But don't pretend like you know everything about it when you don't.

Nice try, but major faux pas. I don't need to understand and study Arminius to know arminianism. I have rejected arminianism because it disagrees with Scripture. I understand his most basic arguments. But just as it is not necessary to delve into CAlvin to be a calvinist, so it is not necessary to delve into arminius to be an arminian.

Furthermore, I specifically said that I was not addressing that to you. I was addressing in general to people who have formed firm opinions in ignorance.

My first paragraph did address it to you. You, a professsed former Calvinist, seem to have missed an awful lot of things in your Calvinism. That seems very telling to me about how solid your knowledge was. Being a current calvinist, and being exposed to those which convinced you to reject it, I find them totally off base. I am not even swayed in the least. Maybe that tells us that your "former Calvinism" was an untaught Calvinism and that you rejected it because you did not know enough. Who knows ... and who cares.

Here again, Scripture answers your questions. 2 Peter 3 says that the time is the time for salvation. 2 Tim 2 tells us that Paul was enduring all things for the sake of hte elect so that they might be saved. Salvation takes place in time. The elect were elect from eternity past (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13); but they were not born then. Therefore, time had to pass for those elect to be saved in time.

You, yet again, twist my words. What I said was unrevealed was the link of atonement to common grace. I have shown the theological necessity for it. It is not philosophical; it is theological. And I did not ridicule you for not knowing this basic thing. I expressed amazement that a former calvinist who claims to know so much about it did not know about this. That is all.

You have managed to take a very good and irenic conversation and send it down hill. That is disappointing. With all the rancor at times on this forum, this was a conversation that was going pretty well. Now this ... how disappointing ... Go ahead and make your customary self-defense comments and then let's be done with it.

 

Can't God choose to pass over sin temporarily and justly condemning it in his own timing. Where is there any link to the atonement being needed for God to wait and pour out his wrath.

This whole discussion is centered around the benefit of the atonement for Calvinism's non-elect ones and I still haven't seen any scriptural support for your claims.

In fact, Romans 3 says: 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Its in God's "forbearance" that He passed over sins previously committed, not by the atonement.

I still don't see how you can honestly say, "Christ died for you," and honestly mean it in the same way as scripture means it when it speaks of the benefits of Christ's death.

When the bible speaks of Christ's death the benefit refered to is atonement, if you spoke of Christ dying for a group of people some of which were non-elect you would have to mean the benefit as being merely his waiting a while before he condemns some of them. This is not supported anywhere.

 

My understanding is that Paul IS saying that Christ's propitiary atonement was the reason that God could be just in appearing to pass over the sins of OT saints. But this does not apply to the non-elect, specifically.

I thought Larry already said that he didn't have specific Scripture but that he was making a logical connection.


I jumped into this thread because I had never heard of the atonement/common grace connection before and was intriged. I, too, wonder is there might be some other explaination other than the atonement for common grace. Pastor Larry, if I wanted to study this idea further, are you aware of any other writers who discuss this connection? Do you know if James White deals with it in any of his writings?

In my experience, the Calvinists that I know are very carefull NOT to arbitrarily say that Christ died for *you*. Pastor Larry, do you know if your position is common (no pun intended ) among Calvinists?

Thanks, Andy

 

Bump