This is how it has been explained to me:
Calvin said that the elect are born with common grace, which gives them the ability to live righteously. It is intrinsic to human nature, not imputed by God.
Wesley disagreed and said that all people are imputed with prevenient grace by God, but are otherwise graceless. This prevenient grace gives the person the capacity to say 'yes' to God's calling. Accusations of being Pelagian are false. In fact, it was Calvin who did not support Total Depravity, as he said that the elect have common grace as a natural feature of the human soul. Wesley said that we are totally depraved, lacking any grace of own own but that which God grants us.
---------
I am a bit skeptical of this explanation. This is why:
It would seem that Calvin's common grace directly contradicts his doctrine of Total Depravity.
Also, I have noticed that in Internet debates between Calvinists and Arminians, Calvinsts are fond of erecting Pelagian strawmen of Wesleyan/Arminian theology, and then demolishing them. They attack a misrepresentation of Wesleyan/Arminian soteriology.
Given this debating tendency and the profound contradiction between common grace and the rest of Calvinist theology, I wonder if the explanation given to me is an accurate representation of the Calvinist understanding of common grace.
Could anyone illuminate me?
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not a Calvinist, but what you offer is certainly not the idea I've gotten of their teaching on Common Grace. Instead, CG is God's goodness freely shared with all - like when Jesus describes God sending rain on the just and the unjust.
Thank you for these explanations.
So does Common Grace originate from God or man? That, I think, would determine whether Calvin or Wesley has a stronger view of Total Depravity.
John,
I believe that Common Grace (like all good things) is ultimately from God. However it is shared with man as a part of being made in His gracious image. Common Grace is the Calvinist explanation for how evil men can still give good gifts to their children.
I found Crofford's suggestion that prevenient grace might be construed "cosmologically" interesting. I wonder why Wesleyans would need such a doctrine, since they don't believe humanity is that depraved (i.e. totally), so it isn't in need of such restraint... unless, "Total Depravity" is the improvement on Wesley Crofford is suggesting!
Anyway, as I commented elsewhere in response:
Common Grace refers to at least three things:
1. Despite the totally corrupting effects of the fall on humanity, and the curse of God upon the world because of sin, God continues to uphold order in His creation.
2. Despite humanity's utter unworthiness, God gives good things to the wicked and unjust, such as sun and rain.
3. Despite humanity's total depravity, God enables even the unelect to know certain (partial) truths, and to do certain (externally) good things.
This view in no way contradicts Total Depravity, which holds that since Adam, all persons (other than Christ) are born corrupt in their whole selves, hating God, spiritually dead, guilty and worthy of everlasting condemnation, and willfully sinning... and utterly incapable of saying "yes" to God.
The only kind of "special" (in distinction from "common") grace God gives is effectual to salvation (i.e., it actually and definitively saves and is therefore irresistable and irreversable). Without this special grace, a sinner cannot be saved. God give this special grace to whomever He freely chooses (i.e. "the elect").
Common grace is 'common' because it is given by God to both the elect and unelect. It is 'grace' because it is undeserved & unearned gifts. Common Grace contributes nothing to salvation, and therefore does not contradict Total Depravity.
Post a Comment