Basic HTML Version
427
falls short, however, of 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.”[Natur und Gnade, p. 8.] 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 spiritual good? Is the good which the natural
man can do good only in the sight of man or also in the sight of God? Does the doctrine of
common grace destroy the antithesis between the world and the kingdom of God? If not, how
do you explain this?