THERE IS NOTHING COMMON ABOUT GRACE

De: Guillermo Santamaria

Narrado por: Virtual Voice

This bookt is essentially a compact “case file” arguing that the phrase “common grace” is a later theological label that often blurs biblical categories, and that Old School Baptists should reject the label while still affirming God’s real providence in the world.

It starts by defining “common grace” the way Reformed writers typically do: God’s non-saving kindness and restraint broadly experienced by humanity (sun/rain, civic order, gifts, restraint of evil), sharply distinguished from saving grace in Christ. Then it notes the Old School Baptist objection: call those realities providence, goodness, forbearance, longsuffering, restraint—but reserve “grace” for saving favor in Christ.

Historically, it argues that while related wording shows up earlier (including Latin gratia communis), the term as a recognizable doctrinal “brand” is most associated with Abraham Kuyper, later amplified in Dutch neo-Calvinism (with Bavinck as an important landmark), and that Berkhof cautions against crediting Calvin as the origin of the technical label.

Biblically, it lists the standard pro-common-grace proof texts (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:16–17; Psalm 145:9; Romans 2:4; restraint themes; Romans 13; “relative good” among unbelievers; Noahic preservation), then answers each from an Old School Baptist perspective: these passages teach God’s providential government and patience, not shared saving favor, and calling them “grace” risks thinning the gospel category of grace (regeneration, justification, adoption, etc.).

Finally, it explores a “drift” argument: certain forms of common-grace thinking (especially when framed as universal divine favor or a well-meant saving desire toward all) can create pressure toward broader atonement language (unlimited atonement or “hypothetical universalism”) and other Arminian-leaning instincts. It gives examples where that logic shows up historically, including Amyraldian/Saumur debates, the Marrow-era offer/atonement tensions, and later controversies (like the Dekker debate) where broader “love/favor” language was used to push for broader atonement claims.