Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them
salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov.
1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21; Luke 6:35: Rom. 2:4;
I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would
seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God’s revelation is not dependable on
this subject.
4. Anabaptists object to the doctrine of common grace, because it involves the
recognition of good elements in the natural order of things, and this is contrary to their
fundamental position. They regard the natural creation with contempt, stress the fact
that Adam was of the earth earthy, and see only impurity in the natural order as such.
Christ established a new supernatural order of things, and to that order the regenerate
man, who is not merely a renewed, but an entirely new man, also belongs. He has
nothing in common with the world round about him and should therefore take no part
in its life: never swear an oath, take no part in war, recognize no civil authority, avoid
worldly clothing, and so on. On this position there is no other grace than saving grace.
This view was shared by Labadism, Pietism, the Moravian brethren, and several other
sects. Barth’s denial of common grace seems to be following along these same lines. This
is no wonder, since for him too creaturliness and sinfulness are practically identical.
Brunner gives the following summary of Barth’s view: “It follows from the
acknowledgment of Christ as the only saving grace of God that there exists no creative
and sustaining grace which has been operative ever since the creation of the world and
which manifests itself to us in God’s maintenance of the world, since in that case we
should have to recognize two or even three kinds of grace, and that would stand in
contradistinction with the singleness of the grace of Christ. . . . Similarly, the new
creation is in no wise a fulfilment but exclusively a replacement accomplished by a
complete annihilation of what went before, a substitution of the new man for the old.
The proposition, gratia non tollit naturam sed perficit, is not true in any sense but is
altogether an arch-heresy.” 36 Brunner rejects this view and is more in line with the
Reformed thought on this point.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Do the Hebrew and Greek words for ‘grace’ always
denote saving grace? Are they ever used as a designation of what we call ‘common
grace’? Does the doctrine of common grace presuppose the doctrine of universal
atonement? Does it imply a denial of the fact that man is by nature subject to the wrath
of God? Does it involve a denial of man’s total depravity, and of his inability to do
36 Natur und Gnade, p. 8.
493