Herman Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace”: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. VII, 1909, p. 437.

Dr. Herman Kuiper has made us his debtor for his comprehensive and careful work, Calvin on Common Grace, Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, Goes, Netherlands and Smitter Book Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1928. He has furnished us with a complete survey of Calvin's teaching on this subject as set forth in the Institutes and in his commentaries.

Inst. II, 3, 4.

Inst. II, 2, 16.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 654.

Idem, p. 667.

Idem, p. 668.

Idem, p. 670.

Cf. idem, pp. 671, 674.

Idem, p. 666.

Idem, p. 655.

A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, Chapter XXVIII, Section 13.

Op. cit., p. 179.

Ibid.

Ibid.

It is scarcely necessary to mention the fact that the sphere of common grace is posterior to the fall of man. There was grace manifested prior to the fall and this grace may be spoken of as common. But in theological terminology the term “common grace” must be restricted to the postlapsarian and pre-consummation period. It is the fact of the fall that introduces the need for this kind of grace. The word “common” is synonymous with non-saving, and so the whole construction and formulation of the doctrine of “common grace” is in contrast with, and in relation to, saving or redemptive grace. But saving grace did not begin to operate until there was the need for it, namely, the fall. The grace that was in operation prior to the fall was not “saving” grace, and neither was it, in the sense of the doctrine we are now discussing, “common” grace.

Cf. Romans 1:18–32. Even in such cases it is probably necessary to posit a certain kind of restraint. Otherwise the persons concerned would have been consigned immediately to eternal perdition and thus have been separated from all the tokens of God's favour.

Jonathan Edwards, Works, Vol. IV, p. 315, New York, 1881. Cf. John Calvin, Inst. II, 3, 3.

“Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Rom. 2:4). “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

In connection with this proposition we have to recognise what may be called the paradox of common grace. This paradox appears in the teaching of Scripture itself as well as in the discussions of the greatest exponents of the doctrine. The paradox consists in making apparently contradictory statements. On the one hand, there is the undeniable witness of Scripture to the fact that by nature “there is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10–12). The mind of those unrenewed by the Spirit is enmity against God and is not only not subject to the law of God but also cannot be. They that are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:7, 8). Yet on the other hand, as is shown in the text of this article, good is attributed to unregenerate men. The paradox is real but it does not involve a real contradiction. The good attributed to unregenerate men is after all only relative good. It is not good in the sense of meeting in motivation, principle and aim the requirements of God's law and the demands of His holiness. The fundamental character of the unregenerate man, however much relative good he may perform, is still unholy, just as the fundamental character of the regenerate man, however imperfect he may be, is nevertheless that of holiness.

The Westminster Confession of Faith expresses the distinction when it says, “Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet, their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God” (Chapter XVI, Section VII). The ploughing of the wicked is sin, but it is more sinful for the wicked not to plough.

The seeming contradiction is unavoidable if we are to declare the whole counsel of God. It is for this reason that seeming contradiction appears in all the great expositions of the doctrine. The paradox does not deny the doctrine of total depravity on the one hand nor the doctrine of common grace on the other.

See 2 Chron. 24:17–27.

If the truth here clearly taught by Paul is true in the case of those who are outside the pale of special revelation, how much more must this be true of those who have not only the work of the law written in their hearts but also the added reinforcement of the work of the law as revealed in the Scriptures.

The remarks of Dr. Charles Hodge on this subject are pertinent. “No strictness of inward scrutiny, no microscopic examination or delicacy of analysis, can enable an observer, and rarely the man himself, to distinguish these religious exercises from those of the truly regenerated. The words by which they are described both in the Scriptures and in ordinary Christian discourse, are the same. Unrenewed men in the Bible are said to repent, to believe, to be partakers of the Holy Ghost, and so taste the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come. Human language is not adequate to express all the soul's experiences. The same word must always represent in one case, or in one man's experience, what it does not in the experience of another. That there is a specific difference between the exercises due to common grace, and those experienced by the true children of God, is certain. But that difference does not reveal itself to the consciousness, or at least, certainly not to the eye of an observer. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ This is the test given by our Lord. It is only when these experiences issue in a holy life, that their distinctive character is known” (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 673).

In this connection it must not be forgotten that the truth-content of the gospel that is brought to the attention of unregenerate men through the various means of propagation and proclamation is not itself the product of common grace. It is the product of special revelation in deed and word. All that has been said above is simply that the operations in the individual and subjective sphere whereby that truth-content has become the property of consciousness, prior to the acts of regeneration and faith, are operations that are not in themselves saving and therefore belong to the category of common grace.