Grace Not Common, by Scott Price

Rain of Grace or Reign of Grace?

Scott Price

“That sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:21

God gives His people grace based on the one and only foundation of the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who being God in the flesh, established a perfect, everlasting righteousness by  paying the penalty and curse of the law in His death and made a complete atonement and satisfaction for all the demands of God’s holiness.

This is the ONLY way grace is given for God to remain faithful to Himself. This grace is both particular and effectual, which means that it was purposed for the elect only and it does work for every one of them without fail, without exception. The scriptures as a whole tell us that grace is saving grace from a sovereign God.

There are many who promote a false idea that God gives a “common grace” to all people on the earth without exception. They say this in many times in the context of God providing rain for both the just and the unjust, for the saved and lost. But God’s grace is His  promise to save based on the death of Christ alone, NOT by sending rain from the sky, but by sending His Son from the throne of Heaven. Sinners who receive rainwater from  God are not helped spiritually one bit.

Some will take this false idea another step further in saying it is “common grace” that God offers the gospel universally, to the elect and non elect, and gives men a space of time to repent. They think the longer God waits for the sinner and the more times the sinner hears the gospel God is giving out more common grace to him.

This is NOT the case with God. The God of the Bible does NOT wait on the non-elect to repent but rather God goes after the elect sinner to give the gifts of faith and repentance by His sovereign grace.

Grace reigns through the righteousness of Christ. Grace does not come in the form of rain from the sky for anybody. Religious men will think up so many schemes trying to remove the offense of the cross. Remove the offense and you remove the glory of God only to replace it with the glory of man. Grace is saving, not common.

Explore posts in the same categories: election


You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

7 Comments on “Grace Not Common, by Scott Price”

  1. David Bishop Says:

    The common grace gospel opens directly to the emergent church gospel. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, there’s really no difference. Whether love your enemy because God is gracious to him, or be gracious to your enemy because God loves him, there really is no difference.

  2. Gods grace is indeed particular to his elect. There is no such thing that I have heard of as common grace.
    Salvation is of the Lord.
    Thanks for the article I find no fault and much comfort in it.

    Kenneth Hurst

  3. Thank you for the article it is so clear.

  4. Kirk Dennis Says:

    Thank you for the article I am caught in between as of now leaning more towards what you have said.
    Would it not be grace if the sinners (Elect and Reprobate alike chosen to be created and fallen) deserved Hell and yet God instead determines to give them rain which produces a crop for the people to eat or would you say something else? I know Romans 2 speaks of what happens when people take advantage of God’s kindness they just keep storing up for themselves the wrath of God which consumes.

    I suppose the two words Kindness and Grace are different from one another?

  5. markmcculley Says:

    why does Matthew 5:48 come after Matthew 5:43-47.

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    It’s not because verses 43 to 47 have commands which we cannot keep. Make no mistake, verses 43 to 47 do have laws which we cannot keep. But we cannot keep any of God’s law, because to do that we need to keep those laws perfectly.

    Verse 48 does not come after verses 43 to 47 because those commands are more difficult or impossible to obey than other commands. In context, what is commanded in verse 48 is our being indiscriminate, our not making a distinction between those who are enemies and those who are not enemies.

    Even though we are all enemies of God before justification, God does discriminate by electing in Christ some to be justified in Christ. But when verse 45 describes God sending rain on the just and the unjust, that is not describing God sending justification on the just and unjust. Nor is it describing God’s “desire to send justification to all of God’s enemies. The goodness of God is indiscriminate in sending rain on those who are justified and also on those who are not justified.

    We are not commanded to send justification to anybody. We cannot send justification to anybody. Nor can we send rain. But we are commanded to be indiscriminate, to NOT RETURN EVIL FOR EVIL, to not send evil to those who are evil, and good to those who are good. But we don’t like to be indiscriminate in this way.

  6. Alien Pebble Says:

    The notion of “common grace” reveals a fundamental confusion of law and gospel. The earth and its fruits, the physical body and moral conscience of humanity, and the presence of Israel among the nations… these things are not grace, but law. Why? They do not come “freely”, but demands man’s correct use of them, and misuse of them results in condemnation. Law is not something abstract, but is precisely revealed in the actual situations created by God.

    I suspect many people are antinomians in the sense that they think law is “bad” and God must give some grace to everybody. But such thinking is not only anti-law but also anti-grace, by making grace into a softer law (as soft as their own fallen conscience deems enough).

  7. markmcculley Says:

    Matthew 23:37 is commonly misquoted as if it read, “how often would I have gathered you … and ye would not.” The text does not make a contrast between the Lord’s will and the wills of those whom he would gather, but between his compassion for Jerusalem’s children and the opposition of their leaders who have been denounced in the preceding passage. The sympathy of the Saviour is the expression of his humanity which he assumed in order that he might become a High Priest that could be touched with a feeling of our infirmities. To draw inferences as to what his divine nature might be in back of this distinctive feature of his sacred humanity is surely unwarrantable speculation into what has not been revealed.

    To combine these passages and to add texts like Matthew 5:45 which do not refer to the way of salvation, but common mercies like rain and sunshine, is hardly to present cumulative evidence for a thesis nowhere plainly taught in Scripture, and contrary to Scripture when intended to conflict with the immutability of God’s counsel. The accumulation of a series of zeros, however elaborated, is, after all, only zero.

    The desire to avoid extremes in declaring the truth is no doubt commendable, but yielding to the tempting claims of the opposite extreme even in minor matters has proved repeatedly in the history of the Church to be a step in the downward path to apostasy. The rampant evils of Arminianism among Evangelicals and Amyraldianism among Calvinists are only encouraged by adopting and even stressing the pet slogans with which they attack or obscure the doctrines of grace. Strangely, one favorite text of those who have throughout the history of Christianity insisted that God wants all men to be saved is not appealed to at present by Calvinists who use such expressions. Can it be that they realize that to take 1 Timothy 2:4 in a universalistic sense requires understanding verses 5 and 6 to teach a universal atonement, even if the will in 2:4 were taken as simply the will of command? Exegetically, as well as systematically, the thesis of Amyraldian universal grace issues in the assertion of universal redemption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: