William said:
Some believe if I understand correctly that common grace goes much further than God raining on the just and the unjust. The idea of a common grace leads to the idea that there is some kind of a special grace in the preaching of the gospel and that God has a desire (though fleeting) to save all even the reprobate.
Unfortunately, that caricature of the doctrine of "Common Grace" is inaccurate. No mainline Calvinist that I have ever come across, either in person or via writing, has ever hinted at never mind advocated any kind of "special grace in the preaching", etc. The "desire" element has always been hotly debated also due to much misunderstanding. That God "desires" [preceptive will] that all men repent and believe upon Christ cannot be disputed, with the exception of classic hyper-Calvinists. Again, I know of no mainline Calvinist who has ever advocated that God "desires", i.e., "wills" the salvation of all men without discrimination. If God "desired" the salvation of all men, then all men would be infallibly saved.
William continues:
The conditional covenant gives a child born in the covenant a blank check from God and he can cash it at any time based on his faith and repentance.
From my own understanding of "conditional covenant", it holds that covenant children are born in sin and unless they repent and believe upon Christ, the promises of the covenant are inaccessible. In short, there is no "unconditional promise" made to covenant children which to them is granted union with Christ and all the salvific benefits that flow from His vicarious substitutionary work to them de facto because they are born of a parent who professes faith. And, that this union with Christ is theirs unless they at some time deny the faith; aka: the Faith.
From my own reading, again, those who are most adamantly opposed to "conditional covenant", in the end,
practice that which they oppose.
This is basically an "in house" debate, i.e., among Reformed churches of the paedobaptist persuasion. An example of the hypocrisy of those most opposed is that they too use the official
Form for the Baptism of Infants (emphasis mine) which clearly teaches that ALL covenant children are united to Christ, have their sins remitted in His blood, etc., etc.... because they are born into a covenant household.
William then sums up with:
So I suppose the idea is that arminianism has lifted it's slippery head through these doctrines and has won the battle destroying both church and state.
It is all too common to hear/see this type of statement wherein if someone holds to
biblical "Common Grace" and/or holds that covenant children, although privileged in that they are given the
means of grace whereby they
may be saved IF they repent and believe, are by nature children of wrath and subject to damnation unless the Holy Spirit regenerates their corrupt nature and brings them to Christ, then they can be said to embrace Arminianism to some degree.
And lastly William concludes:
After all if the church or nation have a god who is not a potter over the clay isn't it a matter of time before they live like it.
I'm with you all the way on this one.
In His grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
