Sir:

     The letters from Messers Spanner and Buzzard concerning common grace reveal problems in defining and understanding the term. Mr Spanner refers to its non-saving scope, quoting John Murray in support. However, Murray disagrees radically with Spanner, seeing common grace as offering “nothing less than salvation in its richness and fullness.” Sir Anthony sets the scene entirely in a saving capacity and rebukes Calvin for not seeing eye to eye with him. Actually Calvin agrees with all Sir Anthony’s texts but accepts their particular context.  

     The current common grace debate goes beyond these views. Murray, Hulse etc., rid the term of its common properties and affirm that saving grace is to be found in it, providing what Malcolm Watts calls ‘everybody’s Saviour’. This view makes the atonement superfluous and preaching unnecessary as studying the weather is superstitiously accepted as a way of finding God’s salvation. Paul in Romans 1-2 teaches that common grace, alias natural law, reveals the wrath of God from heaven on a people who are condemned whereas the righteousness of God is revealed through His justifying certain ones by faith. Grace in the Scriptures is always particular for a particular purpose and never common in a saving capacity. Furthermore, the Murrayites would have us believe that though God reveals His will to save via common grace, He is impotent in carrying out what he desires. They also teach that Christ disagrees with the Father. This is a religion of blasphemous scepticism. Our triumphant gospel is “All that the Father giveth me; shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” May I thus recommend Bunyan’s Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ (not the BOT ‘version’) as an outline of God’s grace to sinful men?