Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

1. DO SPECIAL AND COMMON GRACE DIFFER ESSENTIALLY OR ONLY IN DEGREE?
Arminians recognize alongside of sufficient (common) grace the grace of evangelical
obedience, but aver that these two differ only in degree and not in essence. They are
both soteriological in the sense that they form part of the saving work of God. The
former makes it possible for man to repent and believe, while the latter, in co-operation
with the will, causes man to repent and believe. Both can be resisted, so that even the
latter is not necessarily effectual unto salvation. Reformed theology, however, insists on
the essential difference between common and special grace. Special grace is supernatural
and spiritual: it removes the guilt and pollution of sin and lifts the sentence of
condemnation. Common grace, on the other hand, is natural; and while some of its
forms may be closely connected with saving grace, it does not remove sin nor set man
free, but merely restrains the outward manifestations of sin and promotes outward
morality and decency, good order in society and civic righteousness, the development
of science and art, and so on. It works only in the natural, and not in the spiritual
sphere. It should be maintained therefore that, while the two are closely connected in
the present life, they are yet essentially different, and do not differ merely in degree. No
amount of common grace can ever introduce the sinner into the new life that is in Christ
Jesus. However, common grace does sometimes reveal itself in forms that can hardly be
distinguished by man from the manifestations of special grace as, for instance, in the
case of temporal faith. Dr. Shedd does not seem to bear the essential difference between
the two in mind especially when he says: “The non-elect receives common grace, and
common grace would incline the human will if it were not defeated by the human will.
If the sinner should make no hostile opposition, common grace would be equivalent to
saving grace.” In a note he adds: “To say that common grace, if not resisted by the
sinner, would be equivalent to regenerating grace, is not the same as to say that
common grace, if assisted by the sinner, would be equivalent to regenerating grace. In
the first instance, God would be the sole author of regeneration; in the second He would
not be.” 25 This reminds one of Lutheran theology, but the author’s meaning is not
entirely clear, for elsewhere he also ascribes the non-resistance of the sinner to the
operation of the Holy Spirit. 26
2. WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS PRIMARY, COMMON OR SPECIAL GRACE? To this question it
must be answered that in a temporal sense neither one of them can be said to be prior to
the other. The third chapter of Genesis clearly reveals that both of them go into
25 Dogm. Theol. II, p. 483.
26 Calvinism Pure and Mixed, p. 101.
485