We Need Another Bible Translation

You might be forgiven for thinking that the last thing we need is ye t another Bible translation in English. There are already a plethora or committee and single-author translations of the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are some 56 versions available on the Biblegateway website alone. There are estimated to be somewhere around 900 English translations in total of either the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are translations of every stripe from the historical King James Version on the one hand to "The Message" paraphrase on the other.

There are MANY excellent mainstream translations widely available in print or online including the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Amercian Standard Bible, New King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation and others.

Why on earth would anyone claim we need another one?

I have one good reason why we could do with at least one more.

Of all the versions widely available today and produced by a translation committee as opposed to the work of a single individual, there are two based on the historic Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (this is the text published at the time of the Reformation and on which the King James Version is based - as well as similar translations in other languages such as Luther's Bible in German). These are the King James Version (1611) and the New King James Verion (1982). The Textus Receptus reflects the majority of Greek manuscripts most of the time, but also includes a number of "minority" readings, and a few with little or no Greek support at all.

All other modern committee translations are based on what is known as the "Critical text" of the New Testament. The critical text, in places where there are textual variants in the Greek, tends to follow a low number of the oldest manuscripts rather than vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

There are currently NO versions produced by a committee based entirely on what could be called either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text. This Greek text reproduces the text which the great majority of Greek manuscripts contain. In most variants, the Byzantine Text represents 95% or more of the existing Greek manuscripts. The Critical Text tends to accept the evidence of a very small number of witnesses (sometimes as little as one or two manuscripts) and often under 5% of the manuscripts.

The difficulty is that the oldest manuscripts that tend to be given more weight by textual critics are few in number while the Byzantine Text has the support of the great majority of manuscripts, but these are later in date. Which one is favoured is a complex issue. The question is which text represents to original authentic text? Is the few earliest witnesses (1-5% of the Greek evidence) or the majority of later witness (frequently 95%+ of the Greek manuscripts)?

I have always found it difficult to accept that the correct original text lay largely undiscovered to the church at large for over a thousand years before being recovered in the 19th century and reconstructed over the course of 100 years from the 1880s onwards. Equally, I find it very difficult that when the manuscripts are examined, often 95-99% of manuscripts are deemed WRONG (even where they frequently agree with one another) and the correct text is deemed to be found in a small handful of early manuscripts. Yet all modern translations widely available are based on this Critical Text (except the NKJV as noted).

To give a couple of examples to show how the weight of the evidence is ignored in many modern translations, consider these examples from the Gospels:

Luke 2:14

NIV: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests."

ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased."

The NIV does not even footnote this, while the ESV footnote says that "some manuscripts" read "peace, good will among men."

The truth is that the ESV and NIV readings are based on around 0.4% of the manuscripts, and the "some manuscripts" represent 98.8% of the available evidence.

Here, the Textus Receptus underying the KJV follows the majority Byzantine text and reads in the familiar words:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Matthew 6:13

Most modern translations end the Lord's prayer at "deliver us from evil" (ESV) or "deliver us from the evil one" (NIV).

The NIV footnote says "Some late manuscripts" read "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen"

The ESV says "Some manuscripts add" before quoting the familiar ending.

Note the choice of words - "some", "late" and "add".

In fact, 92.6% of manuscripts have the extended ending to the prayer and only 1.2% lack it. 90% of anything is not "some". At the very least the footnotes should say "most" not "some".

John 3:13

Here the NIV reads: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

ESV is similar: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

The footnotes here read in the NIV that "some manuscripts" read "the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

ESV footnote: "Some manuscripts add..."

Here only 1.1% of manuscripts omit the extra words and 97.6% of manuscripts support having the extra words.

The NKJV reads, following the Textus Receptus and by extension the Byzantine majority text:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

There are hundreds of such texts in the New Testament where we are told that "some" or "a few" manuscripts read something which really means the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts favour the footnoted text.

So beware the footnotes in most bibles, they can be misleading as to the balance of the evidence.

Yet my point is not really which Greek text is more likely to be the original. The point is that it would be very useful to have a good English translation of this Majority or Byzantine text that reflects what by far the most Greek manuscripts indicate.

There are some good one-man translations out there, but they have the limitations and biases of the translator, and are unlikely to have a large impact on the churches.

I think it would be good to have a formal equivalent translation of the Byzantine text produced by a qualified committee of translators and backed up with the resources needed to get the translation on the main bible websites as well as produce a range of hard copies such as we have from Crossway for the ESV or Zondervan for the NIV.

If you are interested in an English translation from the Byzantine text there is one I would recommend and that is the "The Text Critical English New Testament" translated by one man, Robert Adam Boyd. I am grateulf to Boyd's work which not only translates the Majority text but has extensive footnotes on how this compares to a number of other Greek texts including the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. The percentages referred in my examples come from this NT edition.

I would recommend reading Boyd's version alongside either the New King James Version, which also has good textual notes though not fully comprehensive, and the NIV or ESV to see where the variations lie and the real percentages of evidence rather that the misleading notes too frequently used in our main translations.

Supralapsarian Links

The following is a list of links to supralapsarian resources online. It should not be presumed that I agree either with the contents of these links, far less with other things these authors may have written, but I think they are useful in seeing what supralapsarians really believe. My own views are what I term a kind of "modified supralapsarianism" as outlined here which seeks to take into account some of the infralapsarian criticisms of standard supralapsarianism.

"Supralapsarianism" by Bernard Woudenberg: https://sb.rfpa.org/supralapsarianism/

"Suprlapsarianism is not a dirty word": https://www.apostolictheology.org/2013/01/supralapsarianism-its-not-dirty-word.html 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism The Correct View": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/21-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-the-correct-view/ 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism An Important Issue?": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/22-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-an-important-issue/

 "Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Bavinck: https://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html. Note that Bavinck gives pros and cons for each view and ultimately rejects both attempts to put the decrees in any order as all are eternal.

"Did God Foreordain Evil and Evil Doers?" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/did-god-foreordain-evil-and-evil-doers/

"Super Supralapsarianism" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/articles/2010/super-supralapsarianism/

"Supralapsarianism Preferable" by Herman Hoeksema: https://cprc.co.uk/articles/supralapsarianism/ 

"Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications" by Ward Fenley: https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=768 

"Supralapsarianism" by Vincent Cheung: https://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/05/11/supralapsarianism/ 

"The Counsel of God (11): Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Veldman: https://sb.rfpa.org/the-counsel-of-god-11-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/

A List of Supralapsarians: https://www.semperreformanda.com/theology/eschatology/list-of-supralapsarians-by-supralapsarian/

These links were working at the time this post was published. 

Why I Am Not an Arminian

Why I Am Not an Arminian
Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2004

This very useful book is written by two Reformed theologians, both professors of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, Missouri. The book's purpose is to explain in some detail the problems these scholars have with Arminian theology and, indeed, the problems Arminian theology has with the biblical testimony.

The authors say in the Introduction that they would have preferred to have written a biblical defence of Calvinism and entitled the book Why I Am a Calvinist but the publisher wanted a polemical work against Arminianism to counterbalance another book they published called Why I Am Not a Calvinist written by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell that was published around the same time. However, they state that the real answer to the question why are you not an Arminian is because they are Calvinists and so their treatment of the various subjects under discussion is to present the Arminian viewpoint as fairly as they can, to explain what's the problem with it, and thirdly to present a Calvinist alternative.

The book features a mixture of two types of chapters. Chapters Two and Five deal with historical theology, with Chapter Two exploring the fundamental difference between the theology of Augustine and Pelagius in the Fifth century AD, and Chapter Five exploring the 17th-century controversy between Jacob Arminius and the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed churches, culminating in the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 which condemned Arminianism (though this happened some years after Arminius's death in 1609).

The remaining chapters cover subjects including predestination, perseverance, inability, freedom, grace and atonement in which they examine the problems with the Arminian view of each of these topics and explain the Calvinist view.

The authors are careful to present Arminian views carefully, often quoting from primary sources such as the writings of Arminius himself, as well as the likes of John Wesley, H. Orton Wiley, Carl Bangs, Ray Dunning, Kenneth Grider, and Clark Pinnock.

I also appreciated the gracious tone of the book as both authors affirm Arminians as fellow Christian believers. "We do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate" (p.13) and "the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ." Yet they are clear that "at certain points Arminianism presents a skewed picture of the gospel" (p.13)

Earlier, I said that the authors present a Calvinist viewpoint and I say so deliberately because there are places where not all Calvinists would agree with Peterson and Williams' views. For example, the authors clearly sympathise in some ways with Arminius's rejection of Beza's supralapsarianism, which they also seem to strongly reject, though of course they believe Arminius went too far. I'm also sure not every Calvinist would entirely agree with their treatment of how divine sovereignty and human responsiblity and free will co-exist.

Having said this, this remains a useful guide to the problems with Arminian theology from a Calvinist perspective.

John 3:16 and the Free Offer of the Gospel

This piece is an extract from my book, The World of John 3:16, which explains why a Calvinist interpretation of the John 3:16 is fully consistent with the a sincere and free offer of salvation in the gospel to all sinners.

One of the main arguments against a Calvinist interpretation of the Bible in general and of John 3:16 in particular, is the claim by many that only if God loves everyone without exception (with the saving love of John 3:16) and only if Christ died to save everyone, can it be possible for us to make a free offer of salvation to all sinners without exception. This is the stark claim of Arminianism: Calvinists have no gospel to preach except to elect sinners.

It is a claim that is totally refuted not only by the actual views of Calvinists over against the straw men set up by Arminians, but by the plain historical evidence that Calvinist preachers have been at the forefront of evangelistic ministries and missions from the time of the Reformation onwards. We need look no further than the Reformers themselves—who had a Calvinistic view of salvation to a man—yet who took the gospel to the four corners of Europe and changed the world by their preaching. This is not to mention others such as Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Lloyd Jones and countless others since. It is simply not the case that Calvinist theology leads to truncated or hampered gospel preaching.

On the contrary, the interpretation of John 3:16 offered by Calvinists as a whole, and as we have outlined, strongly supports evangelistic efforts and the free offer of the gospel because of what it affirms about God and also because of what it actually teaches about Christ’s atonement and the free offer.

The starting point for a discussion of John 3:16 and the free offer of the gospel lies in the interpretation of ‘world’ or kosmos that we have advocated, that kosmos refers to the elect world of believers. This electing and redeeming love that God the Father has for a world he has chosen to save is the impetus for all our evangelistic efforts. Because God has chosen a multitude of people for salvation from every nation, class, race and language, we can be certain that our work, in preaching the gospel to sinners, in spreading God’s word all over the world, and in drawing people to Christ by our love and care, is never in vain. God’s word will always accomplish God’s purposes for it. The prophet Isaiah says this very clearly:

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.[1]

Preaching the gospel will lead to the salvation of the world, because we know that Christ’s mission to save the world will be completely effective and successful.

No one except a Calvinist can truly agree with that. Every other position regards those who are saved as a mere subset of the totality of the world loved and which God would like to save but cannot manage to save. The Calvinist alone can appeal to sinners to be reconciled to God with boldness and confidence that God’s word will not fail and not one of those people for whom Christ died will be lost. Quite simply, that makes for powerful evangelistic preaching. It is the fuel that inspires us to go out into the world to save sinners.

The fact that we identify the world of John 3:16 with the elect may explain the zeal with which a Calvinist can preach the gospel, but the gospel he can preach to sinners also relies on the definition of ‘world’ that we have advocated.

Since ‘world’ is such a general term, we can offer Christ to every sinner without exception. As we noted at the beginning of our discussions, though the saving purpose of God is toward his elect only, Calvinists do not deny that there is also a design in the atonement to bring salvation to everyone who hears the gospel on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ. These twin intentions, to save the elect and to make a genuine offer of salvation to the non-elect are not in conflict. In fact, they are in total harmony.

We can preach this gospel to everyone in the human race, no matter where they come from in the world and no matter what they have done in their life. It is precisely because God loves ‘sinners from all the nations’ that it is good news for any sinner from any nation. All need the Saviour and all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ will have that need met. Christ is the crucified Saviour for any sinner who wants him. The Calvinist can and does say to anyone and everyone ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.’ (Acts 16:31).

The fact that the gospel offer is genuine to the non-elect serves a grim purpose of leaving them without excuse and ultimately increasing their guilt.

This is exactly the evangelistic line that no less a Calvinist than John Calvin himself took concerning John 3:16. Calvin writes:

He has used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is the significance of the term ‘world’ which He has used before. For though there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed entry into life. Moreover, let us remember that although life is promised generally to all who believe in Christ, faith is not common to all. Christ is open to all and displayed to all, but God opens the eyes only of the elect that they may seek Him by faith.[2]

There is a tendency to misrepresent what the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement (or particular redemption) actually teaches. It is not the case that Calvinists simply state Christ died for the elect and no others without any qualification or explanation. On the contrary, although we Calvinists maintain that Christ died intending to save only the elect, we also maintain—in line with the Bible although perhaps not with mere human logic—that Christ did indeed die in some sense for the non-elect also.

In Reformed theology, it has long been recognised that although the saving benefits of Christ’s atoning work are intended by God for the elect only, there is a sense in which certain benefits also accrue to the non-elect because Christ died. No less a Reformed theologian than Charles Hodge states: ‘There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect only.’[3] 

We wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

This understanding is spelt out clearly by another Reformed theologian, R. B. Kuiper:

The Reformed faith also insists that in other important respects [the atonement] is universal. It can be shown without the slightest difficulty that certain benefits of the atonement, other than the salvation of individuals, are universal. That being the case, it follows of necessity that God designed that this should be so...Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died only for the elect must be rated a careless one. To be sure, if by ‘for’ be meant in the place of, the statement is accurate enough, for those in whose stead Christ suffered the penalty of sin will not themselves have to suffer that penalty, and therefore their salvation from that penalty is assured. If, however, by ‘for’ be meant in behalf of, it is inaccurate, to say the least. Certain benefits of the atonement accrue to men generally, including the non-elect.[4]

Although we agree with Hodge and Kuiper, we are clear that the way in which John 3:16 speaks of God’s love and Christ’s death, it is not referring to these non-saving benefits that flow to every human being. But that does not mean we reject that such benefits do accrue to all of humanity without exception.

The views of Hodge and Kuiper are shared by the vast majority of Calvinist theologians whether in the Presbyterian or Continental Reformed traditions.

Evangelicals do not believe in a commercial type of atonement, but in penal substitutionary atonement. The difference between these two views is marked. In the first, to save a million people, Christ would have had to suffer on the cross twice as much as he would have to save half a million people; in the second view (the one we hold), Christ would have had to suffer on the cross exactly as much to save every human being as he would have to save one individual sinner.

Christ’s person is of infinite worth, and so the atonement rendered by his death is infinite in value. It could not be otherwise. The cross is sufficient to save every human being without exception in this or ten million other worlds. The difference between the authentic Calvinist view and the Arminian view of universal redemption lies not in the sufficiency of the atonement, but only in its intended application. The Arminians argue that the intent was to save all equally; the Calvinists argue that the intent of this infinite, sufficient-for-all atonement, was nevertheless to save only the elect while allowing the free offer of salvation to be made to everyone without exception.

Charles Hodge explains it well and is worth quoting at some length:

It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of plants and animals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.[5]

It does not follow from the assertion of [the atonement] having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel...It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them.[6]

Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance. These are universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design.[7]

Reformed orthodoxy strongly maintains that although Christ’s atoning work was only intended to save the elect and does only save the elect (and hence our understanding that God’s saving love is only for the elect), yet the atonement is sufficient and suitable for all and is freely offered to everyone without exception. As Hodge put it very well, just as for God to give light to Adam he decided to create a sun that gives light to billions in his extravagant provision, so in saving his people through the cross, he gave a Saviour who made an atonement sufficient to save this and a million other worlds entire, now in his extravagant saving grace.

A. A. Hodge in his excellent book The Atonement, outlines what the Calvinist doctrine of the atonement does and does not state regarding sufficiency, suitability and the capability of Christ’s atoning work being offerable to everyone without exception.

The question [of the extent of the atonement]...does not relate to the SUFFICIENCY of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to secure the salvation of all men. The Reformed Churches have uniformly taught that no man has ever yet perished, or ever will perish, for want of an atonement. All Calvinists agree in maintaining earnestly that Christ’s obedience and sufferings were of infinite intrinsic value in the eye of the law, and that there was no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever lived...We all heartily believe that after eighteen hundred years the stream of Atonement is found unexhausted alike in its volume and its virtues...It will be none the less true after eighteen millions of years.[8]

The question [of the extent of the atonement] does not relate to the APPLICABILITY of the satisfaction rendered by Christ to the exact legal relations and to the necessities in order to the salvation of every lost sinner in the world. Christ did and suffered precisely what the law demanded of each man personally and of every man indiscriminately, and it may be at any time applied to the redemption of one man as well as to another, as far as the satisfaction itself is concerned…The death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God’s saving any man he pleases. In this sense, if you please, Christ did make the salvation of all men indifferently possible, a parte Dei.[9]

The question [of the extent of the atonement] does not relate to the UNIVERSAL OFFER in perfect good faith of a saving interest in Christ’s work on the condition of faith. This is admitted by all. Since, then, the work of Christ is exactly adapted to the legal relations and need of each, and since it is abundantly sufficient for all, and since, in perfect good faith, it is offered to all men indiscriminately, it necessarily follows that whosoever believes on him, non-elect (if that were subjectively possible) just as truly as the elect, would find a perfect atonement and cordial welcome ready for him when he comes.[10]

Nor does the question relate to the design of Christ in dying as it stands related to all the benefits secured to mankind by his death. It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation, and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected...Hence all that happens to the human race other than that which is incidental to the instant damnation of Adam and Eve is part of the consequences of Christ’s satisfaction as the second Adam.[11]

The question does truly and only relate to the design of the Father and of the Son in respect to the persons for whose benefit the Atonement was made; that is, to whom in the making of it they intended it should be applied. We contend that the following heads absolutely exhaust every possible question as to what is called the extent of the Atonement: (a) Its essential nature, involving its exact adaption to the legal relations and necessities of each and every man indifferently; (b) its intrinsic sufficiency for all; (c) its honest and authoritative offer to all; (d) its actual application; (e) its intended application. We defy our opponents to show that this statement does not exhaust the case. The first three, all agree, are without any limit, thank God; the fourth, all agree, is limited to believers; the fifth all Calvinists must believe to be limited to the elect.[12]

It is interesting that no less a proponent of limited atonement than John Owen, often castigated by non-Calvinists as a Protestant scholastic and often horribly misrepresented as a man who put his rigid Calvinistic system over against Scripture, is happy to make the point that not only is the value and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement the truth, but being the truth it must also be the case that it was God’s purpose and intention that it should be so.

Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father to be. It was, then, the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it for that purpose; yea, and of other worlds also, if the Lord should freely make them, and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world.[13]

Owen was a far better exegete and biblical theologian than most of his opponents. His point is critical to the discussion. We must not think that because God intended to save the elect and only the elect that he does not then also have other intentions. Yes, those intentions do not mean that God intended to save everyone without exception; but it would seem to follow that God therefore has other intentions no less real in providing an atonement sufficient for all. We need not speculate much on what those intentions are. Suffice to say that when a non-elect person rejects Christ and the gospel offer, and in doing so rejects an atonement that was sufficient and able to save him, his guilt and wickedness are all the more magnified and clarified for all to see, rendering the final judgment all the more clearly right and just.   

It is important to realise that the free offer does not rely on forcing an Arminian interpretation of John 3:16 or any other verse for that matter. As A. A. Hodge explains in these excerpts the gospel can be preached to all because the atonement is sufficient for all, suitable for the needs of all and offered to all, just as the bronze snake in Numbers 21:4-9 was available to save anyone who looked upon it in faith. In the same way, Christ is available to any sinner who wants him and desires to be saved. As Revelation 22:17 (KJV) says, ‘Whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’

Our definition of the world in John 3:16 is fully consistent with this.

For both these reasons—the sense in which the atonement is sufficient for all, suitable for all and is offered to all and the all-inclusive sense of world indefinitely and generally—the understanding of kosmos put forward in this book is not only fully consistent but hugely supportive of the free offer of the gospel.

[1] Isaiah 55:10–11.

[2] John Calvin, The Gospel According to St John 1-10 (1553) (Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. David W. Torrance & Thomas F. Torrance, Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh 1959): 74–75.

[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III (1871-73) (Eerdmans): 546.

[4] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?: 78.

[5] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 544–545.

[6] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 545.

[7] Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III: 558.

[8] A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (1867) (Evangelical Press, London 1974): 355–56.

[9] A. A. Hodge: 356–57.

[10] A. A. Hodge: 357–58.

[11] A. A. Hodge: 358–59.

[12] A. A. Hodge: 359–60.

[13] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: 183–84.

The Biblical Doctrine of Common Grace

Reformed theology is often regarded as a theology of particularism. We believe that God unconditionally elects a particular people for salvation. We believe Christ with the intention of saving only the elect. We believe the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and that irresistible grace draws the elect to saving faith. The whole focus of our doctrine of salvation is on the saving grace of God shown to a particular people chosen by God from every nation, tongue and tribe on earth to be his own.

Yet in viewing the world as it is and the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures, Reformed theology also teaches the doctrine of common grace, to account for all the goodness God gives to people indiscriminately, elect and non-elect alike.

In this piece we have three objectives:

1. To define what we mean by common grace.

2. To explain the content of common grace

3. To present the biblical basis for common grace.

1. Defining Common Grace

Common grace is essentially the goodness and kindness God shows to all people, elect and non-elect alike, out of his love for them as his creatures, in this world.

I agree with the Presbyterian theologian, John Murray, who said that common grace is 'every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.' (from 'Common Grace' in Murray's Collected Writings, Vol. 2).

Each part of Murray's definition is significant. Common grace covers every good things of any kind and to any extent that God gives to the world other than instant judgment and destruction. Yet the 'boundary' of common grace is, as Murray says, that these favours or gifts given by God are those 'falling short of salvation.'

The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, provides a similar definition to Murray. Berkhof says that common grace is 'the natural blessings which God showers upon man in this present life, in sprite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the sentence of death.' (Systematic Theology, p. 435).

The Reformed Baptist theologian, Wayne Grudem, makes the point that everything human beings receive from God other than immediate judgment must be considered gracious on God's part. He says:

Once people sin, God's justice would require only one thing—that they be eternally separated from God, cut off from experiencing any good from him, and that they live forever in hell, receiving only his wrath eternally. In fact this was what happened to the angels who sinned, and it could justly have happened to us as well. (Systematic Theology, p. 657)

Why didn't this happen? Grudem asks the pertinent questions: 'How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death—not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also to millions who will never be saved, whose sins will never be forgiven?' (p. 657).

The answer, of course, is common grace, which Grudem simply defines as 'the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation.'

The pastor-theologian, Sam Storms, helpfully defines 'common grace' like this:

Common grace, as an expression of the goodness of God, is every favor, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God; this includes the delay of wrath, the mitigation of our sin-natures, natural events that lead to prosperity, and all gifts that human use and enjoy naturally. ("The Goodness of God and Common Grace" at The Gospel Coalition).

A world of fallen, totally depraved sinners would soon dissolve into absolute mayhem, chaos and wickedness without common grace. Life in such a world would be as the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, put it, one of 'continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' (Leviathan, I. xiii. 9).

The fact that the world is not, in general, like this, is accounted for in Reformed theology by common grace. The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, put it this way:

[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men. (Systematic Theology, p. 434)

Yet, common grace has limitations. As it does not provide saving benefits, it only consists of 'temporary benefits' in this life. Although that does not make God's goodness or kindness any less real, they merely cover a temporary postponement of God's justice to come in the future. As Thomas Boston put it, such blessings are 'a mere temporary and permissive right, as a condemned man has to nourishment, as long as it pleases the king to postpone the execution, but this is a very uncertain and sad possession' (quoted by G. H. Kersten in his Dogmatic Theology, p.75).

Kersten, a Dutch Reformed theologian, says common grace has a threefold purpose:

• It glorifies God in the goodness and kindness he continues to show to humanity as his creatures.
• It supports God's good pleasure and purpose in bringing forth God's elect for salvation
• It exalts the righteouness of God in his judgment of the wicked (so they are utterly without excuse in rejecting God).

Having reviewed this material, I offer the following definition of common grace. 

Common grace is all temporal blessings given to human beings as creatures, proceeding from the goodness and love of God, furthering God's purpose in saving the elect and consistent with God's purpose in rejecting the reprobate.

2. The Content of Common Grace

Since common grace encompasses everything humanity receives from God other than immediate judgment and condemnation, the content of common grace is hugely extensive and it is not possible to cover every conceivable instance of common grace.

Yet theologians have put forward a number of broad categories of common grace, which we will briefly summarise.

1. Sustaining Life and the World - since the death sentence on sinners is delayed on average for 70 or more years, every day of life given to human beings from their birth is common grace. Sustaining the existence of the world is also part of God's providential care, as are things necessary to life such as the water cycle, seedtime and harvest, sunshine and rain.

2. Providing Good Things - this would include giving us family and friends, resources such as food, shelter, work, money, enjoyment, work, leisure, which are all enjoyed by the elect and non-elect alike.

3. Providential Restraint of Sin - instituting civil government to promote good and punish evil, limiting sinful behaviour, maintaining civil order, peace, police and armed forces, giving people a conscience .

4. Providing Civil, Cultural and Scientific Advances - this would include music, art, medical, scientific and technological advances to improve human life and flourishing.

3. The Biblical Basis of Common Grace

There are many Bible verses that speak to the type of non-saving gracious goodness and kindness extended to all people, that we call 'common grace.' The following verses all speak to aspects of common grace and most of them can be listed without additional comment. All verses are quoted from the New Heart English Bible simply because it is a modern translation in the public domain.

Psalm 145:8-9: "The LORD is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and of great loving kindness. The LORD is good to all. His tender mercies are over all his works."

Acts 14:16-17: "In the generations gone by [He] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness."

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7: "Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way."

Speaking here of the "Man of Lawlessness," Paul states that God is restraining sin, which of one of the central aspects of common grace, which accounts for how a world of totally depraved sinners is not as evil as we might expect it to be.

Romans 2:4: ""Or do you despise the riches of his goodness [or "kindness"], forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness [or "kindness"] of God leads you to repentance?"

Romans 2:14-15: "For when the non-Jews who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, since they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

These verses in Romans 2 make it clear that even pagan non-believers have a conscience which is a gift from God, a particular part of his common grace to restrain sin and leave everyone without excuse.

The following passage is part of Paul's sermon at the Areopagus in Athens. Among other points, Paul is clear that every in our lives, including our lives themselves, come from God. Agreeing with a pagan poet, Paul says "in him we live, and move, and have our being."

Acts 17:24-31: "The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. He made from one blood every nation of the human race to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by human art and design. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Matthew 5:43-48: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do than others? Do not even the non-Jews do the same? You therefore are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

This is one of the most relevant passages regarding common grace and is the direct teaching of Jesus himself. Clearly Christ links the command for us to love our enemies with the fact that God loves everyone and that from this love he sends good gifts to the righteous and unrighteous alike. This is practically the definition of what we mean by common grace. A similar but not identical version of Christ's teaching occurs in the next passage from Luke.

Luke 6:35-36: "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful."

Christ links us loving our enemies and doing good to them with being children of God—which includes being like God since "he is kind" to all, even the unthankful and evil.

1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge those who are rich in this present world that they not be haughty, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy."

James 1:17: "All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow."

The Five Points of Calvinism - 5. Perseverance of the Saints

The fifth of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" is known in theology as perseverance of the saints or sometimes as the preservation of the saints or the eternal security of believers.

Of the five points, two of them are widely accepted by evangelicals, even non-Calvinists. The two that many accept are total depravity and this doctrine, the perseverance of the saints. The three central points, the heart of Calvinism, are the three middle points—unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. We therefore end this series with what is a fairly uncontroversial doctrine. 

The perseverance or preservation of the saints is the doctrine that those whom God has chosen for salvation and saved by Christ and who have been brought to saving faith, cannot lose their salvation, will persevere in faith and in the Christian life. It should come as no surprise that this doctrine is true, given the other doctrines we have already looked at. If God the Father chooses who is saved unconditionally, if Christ died to save them (not merely to make them savable), and if the Holy Spirit can irresistibly bring them to saving faith, then it is no leap to conclude that such people can never be lost. Their salvation is guaranteed since God has done everything to bring that salvation about. 

The doctrine is laid out in chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, part of which reads as follows:

1. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Sometimes this doctrine is caricatured as "once saved always saved," which is true as far as it goes, but can miss some of the subtlety of the doctrine.

There are two errors to avoid in proclaiming this great doctrine, First, perseverance of the saints does not mean that a genuine Christian cannot fall for a time into sin, even including the sin of unbelief, but only that they will never fully and finally reject God. Secondly, this does not mean that a person who has made a profession of faith can then live a life of constant, unrepentant sin and still be assured they are saved. The doctrine is perseverance of the "saints" which means God's holy ones.

Yet the doctrine is of tremendous assurance to all who do genuinely believe in Christ and seek to follow him can be assured they can never lose their salvation because they did nothing to achieve it in the first place. It is also a deeply reassuring doctrine since it means that God will ensure the true believer endures to the end, not only in faith but in the changed life brought about in the Holy Spirit.

There is an abundance of biblical material teaching that the elect cannot lose their salvation, but we do have to acknowledge their are also some verses and passages that seem to indicate a person can lose their salvation and so Reformed theology has to account for these passages as well.

John 6:37, 39-40, 44 -47 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out...And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

John 10:27-30 - "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

We have looked at these words of Jesus in John 6 and John 10 as relevant to several of the Five Points of Calvinism, but they are clearly relevant to this doctrine as well. Christ himself taught he would lose none of those given to him by the Father, but would raise them up on the last day and that none of the sheep would be snatched from his hand.

Romans 8:29-32 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?"

Another passage we have looked at before. The application here is obvious. How can there be a golden thread from foreknowledge and predestination to glorification if the thread can be broken by saved people becoming unsaved again? 

Romans 8:35-39 - "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, 'For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This passage from a few verses later in Romans 8 could hardly be more clear. The "us" here is obviously the elect believers. For Paul, the answer to his rhetorical question "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" is "nothing in all creation." Nothing can separate the elect from the love of God in Christ. How could it then be that any of the elect could end up separated from God in hell?

Ephesians 1:13-14 - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

In this passage Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit is the guarantee we currently possess that we will one day acquire full possession of our inheritance.

Philippians 1:6 - "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."

This verse straightforwardly states that once God is at work in the life of a believer, he will (not might) bring it to completion when Christ returns ("the day of Jesus Christ"). 

Philippians 2:12-13 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

We quote these verses to show that although there are many exhortations in the New Testament as to how Christians are to have faith and live out their faith ("work out your own salvation with fear and trembling") alongside this Paul teaches that we can do these things because God is constantly at work in us so we can achieve what he calls us to be and to do.

2 Timothy 4:18 - "The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

This verse does not need much comment. Paul certainly believed that he would be brought "safely into his heavenly kingdom."

Hebrews 7:25 - "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."

Since Christ is alive and making intercession on his people's behalf and is "able to save to the uttermost" how could anyone be lost who has been saved?

1 Peter 1:3-5 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Peter teaches that our inheritance is "kept in heaven for you" and not only that but we are guarded by God's power for salvation. This seems implicitly (and almost explicitly) that believers are secure in their salvation and cannot be lost.

1 John 3:9 - "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God."

This is an interesting verse in this discussion. The verse does not teach that Christians never sin. Not only do we know that experientially to be untrue, but earlier in the same letter, John wrote: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). Having clarified that, the verse does teach that Christians do not make a practice of sinning—it is no longer our way of life and when we sin we go against what we are in Christ—John then gives the reason why this is the case. It is because God's seed lives in us. If final apostasy is a sin (and it is) then this verse teaches that those who have been born again cannot make a practice of apostasy and therefore cannot fully or finally fall away from Christ and salvation.

Jude 24-25 - "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever." 

Jude teaches that God is able to keep us from falling and can ensure we are presented blameless before the presence of his glory. It is difficult to reconcile Jude's words with the Arminian doctrine that a saved Christian can later fall away from the faith and be lost.

The Bible also makes it clear that there can be people who profess faith at one point and then fall away from the faith. However, Calvinism teaches that anyone in this category was never truly saved to begin with, as stated in this passage from John's First Letter:

1 John 2:18-19 - "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

There are a number of passages in the Bible which seem to teach that Christians can fall away from the faith. We need to look at a representation selection of these verses and passages. If we remember John's teaching above that those who fall away were never truly part of us to begin with, the passages can be fully reconciled with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

These are known as the so-called "warning passages," some of which are texts like these:

Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Matthew 13:18-23 - "Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."

John 8:31-32 - "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'"

2 Corinthians 13:5 - " Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!"

1 Timothy 4:1 - "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons."

Hebrews 3:12-14 - "Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today', that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."

Hebrews 6:4-6 - " For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt."

We believe that passages like these have a threefold purpose. First, the warnings are one of the ways God uses to ensure the elect remain faithful. In this sense they are warn of hypothetical consequences were the elect to reject Christ, which in turn draws the wavering Christian back towards Christ as he or she is under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the passages encourages the elect to avoid complacency and pay heed to their Christian walk.

Thirdly, these passages genuinely warn any who profess faith appear to be Christians and then fall away. In effect the passages apply to reprobates in the visible church, or those whom Christ identified as "tares" sown among the "wheat" or "goats" amid the flock of "sheep".

What these passages do not teach is that someone who has been elected for salvation can lose his or her salvation.