Jack, Common Grace is a concept which is generally associated with Reformed theology. Common Grace is understood to be that which brings the “rain upon the unjust as well as upon the just.” In other words, Common Grace is seen was the well out of which spiritual benefits can and does bring life and blessing to all universally – sinner and saint alike. In contrast, saving grace is alone experienced by each one of God’s chosen elect – whereby in the context of hearing the gospel an elect person is regenerated, enabling them to repent and believe. As I noted, these things come in theological packages – so in this case, it is full of Reformed theology – particularly soteriology. I find the whole of Reformed theology lacking and unbiblical at several points – with a series of practical problems, as well. And because it is a theological package, a misunderstanding of eschatology, a denial of a future for national Israel.

In general, reformed writings must be read carefully – because there is also much truth in it that is true. You will find that they would hold to limited atonement and believe that Christ died only for the elect.

IF I can be of any more help, please let me know.

Jack, (sorry for the typos – I should have proofread better before I sent the last reply):

Reformed / Calvinist theology holds that Christ died only for the elect rather than for all men. There are several passages they use to defend this, but in responding to those who believe in unlimited atonement, as I do, they must rely on some very forced and unlikely meanings for the word “world.”

In conjunction with this, they state that God does not love the non-elect in the same way he loves the elect. Another way to put it would be to say that God does not love all sinners equally. In part, they try to defend this with “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated” – which I think both handles this passage incorrectly, and does make God a respecter of persons.

As I mentioned, things come in theological packages, so another part of the package usually involves what is known as “double-predestination” – which means that God not only elects some to eternal life and “elects” some to eternal damnation. This would seem to be a logical deduction from the fact that God does elect some to eternal life – but the problem is that the Bible states the one, but not the other. Therefore, we must be careful to not draw these kinds of theological conclusions – which seem to involve things that only an omniscient and eternal person could comprehend in terms of “the mechanics” of how election works.

Yet another part of the Calvinistic theological package, that flows out of the way they hold to election, is that regeneration precedes faith. In other words, in the context of having heard the gospel (at some point in their life), God regenerates an elect person, enabling him to believe in Christ and repent of his sins. This seems contrary to any number of passages that seem to clearly teach that regeneration is *contingent* upon faith – and that we are saved by grace *through faith.*

One other thing I might mention is that “Lordship salvation” is also a part of this package – which essentially adds promises of good works as a condition of salvation, which I think is biblically very problematic. This doesn’t mean I hold to what amounts to and is derisively called “easy-believism.” Saving faith is more than mere mental assent to the facts of the gospel, but rather it is sincerely embracing Christ as one’s Savior from sin by faith plus nothing.

In the big scheme of things, I would be Calvinistic as opposed to Arminian – but I prefer not to describe myself as a “4-point Calvinist” as some do (holding to unlimited atonement – as opposed to all 5 points of the acronym T.U.L.I.P.) or 3 1/2-point because the 5 points are inextricably interconnected – and therefore to be a 4-point Calvinist really means you have to define those 4 in a way that isn’t really Reformed.

Hope this helps.

Andrew,

Thanks for writing.

The Sabbath was given to the Jews as part of the Law of Moses, which Christ fulfilled with his death on the cross. Also, we find in Hebrews that we experience our “Sabbath rest” in Christ, so we are not obligated to keep the Sabbath on a weekly basis.

Since the resurrection of Christ was on Sunday, and we read in Acts that the believers met on the first day of the week, the church has commonly met on Sunday since the first century. Because this is the day of meeting, Sunday has traditionally been called the Sabbath for the church. However, the New Testament does not indicate this. Therefore, it would seem that it is appropriate for the church to meet on Sunday, the first day of the week, (which is Sunday, not Monday as we often treat it). However, we probably shouldn’t refer to Sunday as the Sabbath if we want to be technically correct.

At the same time, the Seventh Day Adventists, which sounds like this might be your wife’s church, have a practice of meeting on Saturday (7th day) as they believe this was never changed by God as the day of rest and worship. This is very much a minority view. However, Paul states in Romans that we are free to choose one day or another – so there is nothing inherently right or wrong about meeting on either Saturday or Sunday.

My concern about Sabbath-keeping churches is that they also tend to teach that we are also obligated to keep other laws, such as dietary laws, which the Bible indicates have been ended (Acts 10).

I understand what it means to struggle with various issues that can be damaging to our faith. However, the Lord is faithful and desires to have a close relationship with you. It can be difficult when a husband and wife have different views on matters of faith. I would encourage you both to carefully search the Scriptures to determine what they teach and then find a church that consistently teaches those truths. We must be careful that we don’t simply follow denominational teachings if they conflict with the Scriptures.

Concerning communion and foot-washing. The Bible does give freedom in these areas – so there isn’t necessarily a right or wrong frequency or mode of practice. Some churches practice foot-washing, while others, as myself, don’t see this as specifically an ordinance that we must follow in the church. However, I’m fine with those who do and understand why they do.

Hope this helps, some. If you have more questions, you can email me personally at dave@jamesjournal.org.

Dave

Hi Jack,

I honestly don’t know anything at all. I would be glad to do some research and get back with you, but my plate is spilling over at the moment. It would be a few days.