Evangelism
Society of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church
Grand Rapids, Michigan
(This
transcription was prepared by Andrew P. Magni--for which we express our great
appreciation. To hear the audio of this debate, go to:
Is the Doctrine of Common
Grace Reformed? )
Table of Contents
|
First
Session - Speeches of Dr. Mouw & Prof. Engelsma |
1.1.I |
Opening
remarks - Pastor Dale Kuiper
|
1.1.II |
Prayer |
1.1.III |
Scripture
Reading, Psalm 119:89-96 Lamed
|
1.1.IV |
Introduction
of Mr.Rick Noorman as Moderator
|
1.2.I |
Prefatory - Mr.Noorman
|
1.2.II |
Description of He Shines in All Thats Fair, by Dr.Mouw &
|
1.2.III,IV |
Introductions
of Dr.Richard J.Mouw & Prof. David J.Engelsma
|
1.2.V |
Format of debate explained
|
1.3.I - XVII |
Speech
of Dr.Mouw defending cultural common grace
|
1.3.I,II |
Introductory remarks |
1.3.III |
The Three Points of 1924 and their manifestations |
1.3.IV |
John Calvin stipulates universal gifts
of reason and understanding as a peculiar
|
1.3.V |
Dr.Mouw takes
Calvins positive evaluations of pagan thought, and warning
|
1.3.VI |
Appreciation of Gods
multi-faceted engagement with and delight in His creation is
|
1.3.VII |
Gods positive non-redemptive purposes basis of common grace ministries |
1.3.VIII |
Prof.
Engelsmas reduction of common grace to theological empiricism
|
1.3.IX |
Warnings against empiricism legitimate,
because of the hearts proneness to deception
and the esteeming highly of that which God hates, cp. Jer.17:9, Isa.5:20 but his is a theologically founded activism which stimulates scripture study
|
1.3.X,XI |
Christian
celebration of pagan athletics, response to Prof.Engelsmas critique
|
1.3.XII,XIII |
Unbelieving Hebrews participants is
Gods salvific program; Revisiteds heart breaking response to heathen
tragedy: God is the author of all such suffering and
|
1.3.XIV |
1)
Humanitarian activism as precept, cp. Jeremiah
29:7; Luke 10:30ff
|
1.3.XV |
2) Humanitarian activism as N.T.
principle, cp. 1 Peter 2:17, 3:15-17: our
|
1.3.XVI |
PRC objection based upon acknowledgment
of the immutable hatred of God
|
1.3.XVII |
The pathetic
heart of God vis. the wicked, cp. Luke 13:34
|
1.4.I-XVIII |
Speech of Prof.David J.Engelsma contra cultural common grace |
1.4.I |
He
Shines has instigated broad renewal of the discussion of common grace
|
1.4.II |
Dr.Mouws fair treatment of PRC
concerns that common grace teaching opens the
|
1.4.III |
Debate limited to cultural common grace
as distinguished from evangelical
|
1.4.IV |
Prof.Engelsma speaks as spokesman of
PRC for their three main reasons for
|
1.4.V |
First - Allegedly an overriding axiomatic principle of Christian life and world-view, its significant utter absence in reformed symbols, except in the Canons wherein it is attributed to the universal potentiality of salvation doctrine of the Arminians: cp: Canons: Head III-IV Rejection of Errors V |
1.4.VI |
Conflicts with symbols
explication of total depravity, rendering it hypothetical, that is, apart from common
grace it would have been an attribute of
mankind:
|
1.4.VII |
Conflicts with symbols definition
of grace as particular, and derived from election (by positing a universal grace which renders the
judgments of Rom.3:9ff as
|
1.4.VIII |
Wrath alone
upon unbelievers, cp. Rom.1:16ff, grace, life,
and righteousness in
|
1.4.IX |
Second - Destruction of the Antithesis,
that is, the enmity between the seed of
|
1.4.X |
Fatally antithetical to the antithesis,
common grace posits a fellowship in grace between the two seeds, such that Christian
churches/institutions are effectively destroyed
by opening themselves to the thinking and
conversation of the world cp.
|
1.4.XI |
Bitter fruits of worldliness in
Churches and schools mature, and Christians are enervated
in their struggle with the wicked world, wherever the doctrine of
|
1.4.XII |
Third - Inevitable tendency to universalism, ex. Dr.Mouws speculation at
the end of He Shines, which
latter doctrine is the destruction of the gospel of Christ
|
1.4.XIII |
Summary of PRC objections
|
1.4.XIV-XVIII |
Four point
clarification of PRC Position
|
1.4.XIV |
First -
Gods good gifts to the ungodly as judgment, cp. Psalm 73, all things, even
|
1.4.XV |
Second - Every work of unbelievers is sin, cp. Rom.14:23, glittering vices
|
1.4.XVI, XVII |
Third - Doctrine of creation the basis
of an active Christian life in the ordinances thereof
without compromising the antithesis; for Christians activity is by power of grace of which the unbeliever is void.
PRC contrariety to pietism based upon
|
1.4.XVIII |
Fourth - Scripture knows only a single,
redemptive Christiological historical-purpose,
|
1.5.I |
Closure-
Mr.Noorman
|
Second Session -
Rebuttals
|
2.1.I,II |
Prefatory - Mr.Noorman |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.I-IX |
Rebuttal of
Prof.Engelsmas speech - Dr.Mouw
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.I |
Observations
with respect to Psalm singing together of PRC & CRC at debate
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.II |
Primary definition of symbolic doctrine of the works of
the unconverted is
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.III |
Earl Palmer illustration - all fall short of salvation, but not by the same degree |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.IV |
Total depravity exclusively means that men are incapable of saving themselves, i.e., we need someone to cast out the lifeline |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.V |
Gods
pity of the suffering depraved demonstrated as He empathically calls to them as
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VI |
Common grace necessary implication of Christs universal
creation-economy , cp.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VII |
Repudiation of universalism,
acknowledgment of a somewhat dangerous and
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VIII |
Ghettoized mentality / cultural mandate
apathy as evil fruits of the PRCs denial of
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.IX |
Regrets lack of discernment in use of
both the doctrine of common grace, and the
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.I-VIII |
Rebuttal of Dr.Mouws speech -
Prof.Engelsma
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.I |
Reaction to
Dr.Mouws rebuttal, PRC listens and considers the admonitions to it of common grace espousers
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.II |
Calvins doctrine of providential
gifts to the pagans, did not imply a work of the Spirit
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.III |
Nothing fair,
including athletics, in life of unregenerates, cp. Psalm
147:10,11
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.IV |
Pagans activities, including
athletics, an abomination , but products
thereof may be
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.V |
Gods righteous, ardent
infliction, even if by means of damnable
agents, of all
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.VI |
Concept of divine sympathy for the
suffering of the wicked contradicts the indubitable
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.VII |
Pray ing for the peace of Babylon was
not for the sake of the Babylonians, but
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.VIII |
The doctrine of a universal saving
grace is the implication of the apparent |
||||||||||||||||||||
Third Session - Prepared questions/answers
|
3.5.I |
Q. for
Prof.Engelsma- Was Barth wrong that Mozarts compositions are heard in glory?
|
3.5.II |
A. Barths uncouth response to critics; believed Mozart redeemed |
3.5.III |
Not the cultural products of the age,
but only memory of the works of the redeemed
|
3.5.IV |
Activity of pagans, not the products thereof, are necessarily sin |
3.5.V |
Flesh and blood, so earthly cultural products thereof, may not enter spiritual New World
|
3.6.I |
Q. for
Dr.Mouw - Harmful effect in churches / schools which embraced common grace
|
3.6.II |
A. Effects in Netherlands not comparable with those in United States |
3.6.III |
Fruits of
pagan culture enter Holy City, any perversity cleansed, cp. Isaiah 60:7,9
|
3.6.IV |
Contemporary Dutch Reformed
colleges fervor for promoting / fulfilling cultural mandate
|
3.6.V |
Broad liberal arts curriculum critical
for profitably effective Christian education unto
|
3.6.VI |
Men are not created but fallen , but fallen but created , so that fallen men qua Gods creative work are fair , and capable to glorify God, if only unintentionally |
3.7.1 |
Q. for
Prof.Engelsma - Is CRC humanitarian ministry ungodly?
|
3.7.II |
Reaction of Mouw, Noorman, Engelsma to question |
3.7.III |
A. Answer to be circumscribed to
address debates issue vs. being a critique of a
|
3.7.IV |
Godly
ministry is diaconal, doing good in
the name of the unique Savior, especially to
|
3.8.1 |
Closure - Mr.Noorman |
Fourth Session - Questions from audience |
4.1.I, III |
Informal preparatory comments - Mr. Noorman, Dr. Mouw, Prof. Engelsma |
4.1.II |
Description of Particular Grace, by Abraham Kuyper & Sin and Grace by Henry Danhof and Herman Hoeksema - Mr. Noorman |
4.2.I |
Q. for
Prof.Engelsma - Is honesty of unconverted a
good work?
|
4.2.II |
Pagan works are bad or worse, cp. WCF 16:7; Dr.Mouw demurs |
4.3.I |
Q. for Dr.Mouw - Was Christs passion unto the bestowal of grace upon the wicked? |
4.3.II |
A. Yes, for Christ came to mollify the cursedness of creation, Col.1:16ff |
4.4.I |
Q. for
Prof.Engelsma - Does PRC discern, and only minister
to, the elect?
|
4.4.II |
A. Election
is hidden; Christians called to minister to neighbors indiscriminately
|
4.4.III |
Love/empathy is universal; fellowship / friendship is
particular to believers
|
4.4.IV |
Duty to hate those who manifest their enmity against God, cp. Ps.139:21,22 |
4.5.I |
Q. for Dr.Mouw, Employment of natural law tradition to prevent worldly moralism |
4.5.II |
Immigrants
utilized natural law to identify cultural commonality
unto assimilation
|
4.5.III |
Contemporary
cultural fragmentation provokes use of natural law to discern unity
|
4.6.I |
Q. for Prof.Engelsma - Who were anti-common grace theologians prior to Hoeksema? |
4.6.II |
A. Preceding doctrine of the gifts of providence to the unregenerate of the orthodox consensus repudiates by contradiction Kuyper/Bavincks novel conceptions of gifts of grace administered by the internal working of the Spirit unto the building of a Christian society in the unregenerate |
4.6.III |
Hoeksemas
opposition to Kuyperianism grounded in historic reformed dogmatics
|
4.7.I |
Anti-common
grace precedence in 17th c. Scottish theology -
Dr.Mouw
|
5.1.I-III |
Closure; call
to Pastor-elect Bill Langerak - Mr.Noorman
|
5.2.I,II |
Preparatory
for and articulation of prayer - Pastor-elect Langerak
|
Pastor Kuiper: Good evening. On behalf
of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast
Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, we welcome you to this program which is
dedicated to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its gratifying to see such a
good turn out this evening. We know that there are weddings, football games, basketball
games, other programs, and were very happy that you have decided, all that notwithstanding,
to come here tonight. People are still arriving, and were going to give them an
opportunity to find a seat.
Lets ask for Gods blessing
upon our meeting tonight:
Our Father which art in heaven
weve come together tonight as believers to hear the truth of Thy Word. Thy Word is truth. It is the truth of all
things. It is the only truth in this sorry
world of confusion and the Lie. Thy Word is
light in this world of darkness, shining upon our pathway, showing us the way that is
everlasting. Thy Word is clear, so that little children and the unlearned can readily
grasp the sense of the Spirit. Thy Word is sufficient so that the Church of the Elect out
of all the nations is saved, and Thy name has all the Glory. Thy Word, Father, is
unmistakable, just as when the lion roars, people know it, so when Thy Word is proclaimed,
we know it, and tremble. Thy Word, Father, is inspired, and therefore profitable for
doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, so that we are thoroughly
furnished unto all good works. Thy Word is powerful, able to bring to faith those that ought to be saved, and to leave without
excuse those who refuse to bow before King Jesus. Thy
Word is authority for right doctrine and right living, for it comes to us from the
mouth of the Sovereign of heaven and earth. Yes, we have come together to hear that Word.
May it be spoken in truth and may the truth
prevail. To that end supply the needs of those who participate in this program tonight,
especially the needs of the professors of
theology and make us as little children, who
are teachable, and who have not lost a sense of wonder and awe when it comes to the
gospel, and when it comes to Thy grace.
Pardon in mercy our sins today, and keep us
from every evil way. Hear our prayer, in the
precious name of Jesus Christ, who, from Thy right
hand, rules all things, and who intercedes for us, and who blesses His church with every spiritual blessing. Amen.
Ive been asked to read a short
portion of Psalm one hundred nineteen. The
section called Lamed , that is,
verses eighty-nine through ninety-six. Psalm
one nineteen eighty-nine through ninety-six:
For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in
heaven.
Thy faithfulness
is unto all generations: Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.
They
continue this day according to Thine
ordinances: for all are Thy servants.
Unless
Thy law had been my [ delights ], I should
then have perished in mine affliction.
I
will never forget Thy precepts: for with them Thou hast quickened me.
I
am thine, save me; for I have sought Thy precepts.
The wicked have waited for me to destroy me:
but I will consider Thy testimonies.
I
have seen an end of all perfection: but Thy commandment is exceeding broad.
Thus far the word of God.
The moderator for the debate tonight is
Mr.Rick Noorman who is well known to most of us here because he sings in a male quartet,
which is called the [Voices] of Victory: a
quartet that gives many many programs
throughout the year in this area. Especially well
known to us, because for seven years he has been the principal of Covenant Christian High School in Walker,
Michigan.
Mr.Noorman will introduce the speakers,
and will explain the format tonight. Mr.Noorman... here he is.....
Mr.Noorman: Thank you Rev. Kuiper. Good
evening and, again, welcome to tonights debate. In Gods Holy, Inspired Word,
we are repeatedly called to be an
understanding people: Psalm Forty-seven verse seven calls us to sing praises with
understanding. This means that we are to know of what we sing, when we sing the praises of
God. In a broader context, we must also live all of our lives with understanding. We
cannot do lip service to our beliefs in living our lives any more than we can with our
singing of praises. I believe that it is the hope of the Evangelism Committee of the
Southeast Protestant Reformed Church that tonights debate will help all of those who
are exposed to this grow in their understanding of the doctrines that shape their view of
Gods world, and better understand the relationships and the work that they find themselves in, as they complete their pilgrimage on this earth.
The question that will be debated
tonight is: is the doctrine of common grace reformed? The topic of tonights debate
is certainly not a new topic to reformed
circles. The doctrine of common grace has been debated in synods, consistory rooms, church narthexes, living rooms, kitchens,
and work places of reformed people for close to one hundred years. These debates center on
the relationship that the redeemed people of God, and the one church that they compose, can, or should have, with the
unbelieving world.
Our debate tonight comes on the heels
of the publication of two books, which have once again looked at this question. First
published was the book form of a series of lectures given in the year two thousand at
Calvin College Stob Lecture Series: this book is titled He Shines in All Thats Fair: Culture and Common
Grace by Dr. Richard J. Mouw. The second
book is the book form of a series of articles written in the Standard Bearer magazine as a response to Dr.
Mouws book. This book by Prof. David
Engelsma is titled Common Grace Revisited: A Response to Richard J. Mouws He Shines in All Thats Fair
At this time Id like to formally introduce our two speakers, and also go over the
format that we will follow here tonight. To my left
is Dr. Richard J. Mouw. Dr. Mouw will be defending the position that the doctrine of
common grace is reformed. He is a graduate of Houghton College, and completed graduate
studies at Western Theological Seminary, University of
Alberta, and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from
the University of Chicago. Dr. Mouw is currently in his tenth year as president of Fuller
Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Fuller is the largest multi-denominational
seminary in the world. He joined the faculty of
Fuller Seminary as a professor of Christian
philosophy and ethics in nineteen eight-five after seventeen years as a professor at
Calvin College here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In nineteen ninety-three he was inaugurated
as the fourth president of Fuller Seminary. Dr. Mouw is known throughout the world in
evangelical circles, and has authored eleven books, as well as articles, reviews and
essays that have appeared in more than thirty journals. He is a regular
contributor to the Belief.net web magazine. He is here tonight with his wife
Phyllis, and his son Dirk. Would you please join me in welcoming Dr. Richard Mouw.
To my
right is Prof. David Engelsma. Prof. Engelsma will be defending the position that
the doctrine of common grace is not reformed. Prof. Engelsma currently is professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament Studies at the Theological School of
the Protestant Reformed Churches in Girardville, Michigan. He has served in this position for the past
fifteen years. Following his schooling in the Protestant Reformed Seminary, he served as
pastor of Protestant Reformed Churches in Loveland, Colorado and South Holland, Illinois. He is a graduate of
Calvin College, and he earned his Masters of Theology
Degree at Calvin Theological Seminary. He
has authored several books defending the historically
reformed position on marriage, divorce and remarriage, Christian education, the
covenant, and the end-times. Prof. Engelsma is also the editor of the reformed periodical the
Standard Bearer published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Prof.
Engelsma is married to his wife...Ruth, and he has many
children. Please welcome with me tonight Prof. David Engelsma.
I ask as a courtesy to both speakers
that there be no further applause or comments from the audience from this point. The
format for tonights debate will include four segments. First, each speaker will have
thirty minutes to present his case on the topic. Dr. Mouw, who will argue that the
doctrine of common grace is reformed, will speak first, and Prof. Engelsma will follow. After the initial presentations, there will be a
fifteen minute intermission giving the speakers time to prepare their rebuttals. Then each
speaker will have fifteen minutes to rebut the others position. The third segment
will involve Dr. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma answering questions that they have prepared for each other and exchanged in
advance. The final segment will involve speakers answering questions prepared by you in the audience. In your program you will find
a space to write your questions. It will be very important
that you address your questions to one of the speakers, or to both of the speakers, if you
wish. Dr. Mouw will receive all the questions addressed to Prof. Engelsma, and he will
choose which questions he would like to have answered and it will work the same for
questions addressed to Dr. Mouw. Questions that you would like to have both men respond to
would go to me and I would choose those questions. My
position as moderator will be to keep the speakers timely, and I can assure each
speaker that I will cut them off after they have used the allotted time, plus a little bit,
maybe. After dealing with high school kids all week, a couple of seminary professors should be a piece of cake. And then I
will also present the questions to the speakers so that they can answer them. Our time keeper tonight is Mr.
Jim Noorman, and he will show me when the allotted time is up.
So we will begin our first segment of
the program tonight with Dr. Mouw.
Dr.Mouw: Thank you. Im delighted
to be here. Feels like Im running for political office. I was thinking if I can hold
my own with David Engelsma I may go back and take on Arnold Schwarzenegger in
California. When I delivered the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary in the fall of two thousand, several of my Christian Reformed friends expressed puzzlement as
to why I had chosen to focus on the theology of
common grace. It was clear that they saw this topic as lacking in any contemporary
relevance. To be sure they would be
quick to acknowledge that they subscribe to the common grace idea, but they also arent very interested in engaging in critical reflection on the issues that were
debated heatedly by the Dutch American Calvinists in the early
nineteen twenties. From their point of view the topic was dealt with adequately by the
Christian Reformed Synod of nineteen twenty-four whose pronouncements on common grace lead
to the expulsion of Herman Hoeksema and his followers who in turn established the
Protestant Reformed Churches.
The Protestant Reformed folks, on the
other hand, have been eager to keep the discussions going, and they have been obviously frustrated by the larger reformed communitys
lack of interest in pursuing the issues. Their frustration is understandable. Im
convinced that the debates of the nineteen twenties and the Protestant Reformed
Churchs continuing critique of the theology of
common grace have importance for the entire body of
Jesus Christ in the twenty first century.
To engage in critical reflection on
those matters for our present day situation is, or so I am convinced, to perform a
significant service to the life and mission
of the church in our own day. Given the interest that my
book based on my Stob lectures has
stimulated, not only in the broad evangelical movement, but also among Roman Catholics,
and mainline Protestants, to say nothing of
the recent release of a Chinese translation by
the officially sanctioned protestant churches
of mainland China, who now know who Herman
Hoeksema is, I am even more convinced of this hopeful assessment. So this discussion needs
to continue. While Im firm in my belief
that the theology of common grace is a solid
basis for the proper understanding of the churchs mission in the world, I also know
that there are important dangers associated with this topic. The idea of common grace can
easily be misused to legitimize a blanket uncritical endorsement of culture as such
anywhere. Thus, luring Christians into ungodly compromises with the forces of evil in the
world. I personally have found it helpful, even necessary, for my own theological well being to continue to wrestle
with the views of those folks who reject the theology of common grace. With this in mind,
I want to offer my sincere thanks to the
Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church for the effort that they have put into planning this event. And I also want
to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Engelsma for the careful attention that hes
given to my thoughts on the subject of common
grace. Ive learned much from his series of articles in which he sets forth an
extensive critique of what I argued in my book.
And Im immensely pleased that his
reflections are now appearing in book form. Ive been looking forward to continuing
our dialogue on this subject this evening. And while neither of us is likely to come away
from this discussion completely convinced
by the other, I do want to say, at the
outset, that I have already learned much
from Prof. Engelsma on a subject that we both care about very deeply.
The debates of the nineteen twenties
focused primarily on the teaching set forth
in what came to be known as the Three Points of Nineteen Twenty-four , namely the Christian Reformed synodical declaration that
there is in addition to the saving grace, that is imparted only to the elect, also a common grace, an attitude of
divine favor that extends to all human beings, saved and unsaved alike, which is in turn
manifested in three ways, these three ways:
one: the bestowal of natural gifts;
such as rain and sunshine upon creatures in general.
two: the restraining of sin in human
affairs, so that the unredeemed do not produce all of the evil that their depraved natures
might otherwise bring about.
and three: the ability of unbelievers
to perform acts of civic good.
Defenders of common grace like to
appeal to John Calvin himself to defend their views. Calvins study of various Greek and Roman writers had left him
with a sense of appreciation for several pagan thinkers, including, and especially,
Seneca. This appreciation led Calvin to point to what he called a universal
apprehension of reason and understanding that is by
nature implanted in men, which because it is bestowed indiscriminately, upon the
pious and the impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts. Indeed he insists every human being ought to recognize this implanted
rational nature as, these are his words, a peculiar grace of God .
Moreover, when we observe this gift of
natural reason at work in secular writers, Calvin advises, we should, and Im going
to quote him a little bit at length here, we should let that admirable light of
truth shining in them , these are pagan thinkers now, teach us that the mind
of man, though fallen, and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and
ornamented with Gods excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole
fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it where it shall
appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. Those men whom scripture calls
natural men, were indeed sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things,
let us accordingly, learn by their example, how many
gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.
John Calvin.
Now, Herman Hoeksema and his followers,
on the other hand, have been quick to point out that in spite of such praise, Calvin was also inclined to speak very negatively about the products of the unregenerate mind. When
Calvin credits the unredeemed with some grasp of the principles of civic fairness, for
example, he quickly adds that even when the
human mind follows after truth, he says, it limps and staggers . In the lives
of unbelievers, Calvin says, the civic virtues are so sullied, that before God they lose all favor. So that anything in him that
appears praiseworthy, he says, must be considered worthless. And while he
acknowledges, that , quote, some sparks still gleam in the fallen
mind, that light is nonetheless chocked with dense ignorance so that it cannot come forth
effectively.
Now, we all agree that Calvin says
these things, but we differ in how we assess the importance of his various remarks on the subject. The Protestant
Reformed folks take Calvins negative comments as expressing his real view, and they
dismiss his more positive assessments of pagan thought as unfortunate misstatements. On
the other hand, while I do want to take his negative thoughts seriously, I also want to
honor his positive evaluations, and furthermore, Im convinced that the stakes are
very high here. Since as Calvin says, if we despise the truth when it comes to us from
unbelievers, we run the real risk of
dishonoring , he says, the Spirit of God. In his helpful critique of my reflections on the
subject, Prof. Engelsma takes me to task for emphasizing the fact that Gods goodness
shines in all thats fair, without also giving due attention to the fact that the
Lord also curses all thats foul. Well hes right to call attention to the
cursedness of much that issues forth from depraved hearts and minds. But I want to
respond, by also expressing my dissatisfaction with the way he refuses to
acknowledge how Gods creating purposes
are often honored by people who do not
acknowledge God as the source of the glory that
is displayed in their thoughts and deeds. And I want to focus here on what I see as the
basic points of contention between us on this matter.
As I read the situation, the crucial questions are these: what does God take delight
in, and what does God hate. The critics of common grace insist that God takes delight in
the saving of His elect people, and He hates everything that issues forth from the lives
of the unredeemed. Im convinced that that assumption fails to do justice to the full
scope of Gods complex interest in His creation. The God of the Bible certainly cares about more things than the issue of
salvation. Even before human beings were created, God took satisfaction as He contemplated
the swarms of non-human living things that He had called into being and the Psalmist tells
us that the Lord continues to take delight in the workings of His creation, all the
workings of His creation. Why should we doubt that God takes pleasure when a good poem is
written, or when a no-hitter is pitched on Monday, or when a string quartet performs a
Mozart piece with splendid artistry. Whether or not such things are accomplished by believers or unbelievers.
This issue of the more-than-redemptive
scope of Gods positive purposes in the world has important practical implications,
especially in connection with what I call
common grace ministries . For example, a Calvinist involved in ministering to
people in a hospital sponsored alcoholism recovery program once described this situation
to me very poignantly . He says, I regularly see people move from a desperate kind of bondage
to alcohol to new dimensions of freedom in their lives. The change is often very dramatic, yet it isnt at all obvious that
in experiencing this release from addiction, theyve been regenerated in the classic
sense. Their lives have been transformed, but they have not come to know Jesus. I do want
them to become Christians, he said, and I also want to celebrate what looks
for all the world to me like a grace occurrence in their lives. Well heres
another case that I used in my book to make
my point. A Christian therapist counsels a
non-Christian couple. Their marriage has been seriously wounded by the husbands adulterous affair. The
therapist helps them to be honest about the hurts, fears and angers that have surrounded
this episode. Finally, a moment comes when the husband tearfully acknowledges the pain that he has caused, and he
asks his wife to forgive him. She reaches out with a new found tenderness toward him. They embrace, both of them sobbing. Its clear
that they intend to build a new life together. Now, they
havent been saved in the process, but the therapist is convinced that she has
witnessed, and has been privileged to be a human instrument in a powerful display of healing grace. She senses that she has
reinforced the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that God wants for human beings.
Now in my book, I was very
intentional insisting that we deal with concrete cases. Prof. Engelsma sees this as
a basic defect in my approach. This means, he
says, that my defense , and Im quoting him here, my defense of common grace is based on what we see,
feel and think as we observe our neighbors in the world. When we take this approach
, he concedes, the theory of
common grace wins hands down. He goes on, We critics of common grace also
see fine, decent, moral, friendly, likeable unbelievers. We too see good in the ungodly,
much good; sympathizing with the suffering neighbor who worships another god or no god at
all. We too wonder why God does not feel pity for them. And these experiences, he says,
tempt the critic of common grace
quote, to suppose that the Christian is permitted, is indeed called, to join with
non-Christians in what would seem to be the noblest of all causes, creating a society, a
nation, a world of justice, peace, beauty and
goodness, and to do so, he says, without the gospel and the Spirit of Jesus
Christ. Now Prof. Engelsma has commended me for my
candor in stating just why it is that
I embrace common grace theology and I want to return the compliment. I find these comments
of his about what he finds tempting in the case for a common grace theology, I find these
comments to be commendably candid. And I want to try to get this clearer this evening
about just why it is that we move in such
different directions from this common inclination to reach out to suffering unbelievers,
and to enjoy the works of people who operate
apart from redeeming grace.
As Prof. Engelsma sees it, my error is that
I start with my feelings of sympathy and appreciation for unbelievers, and then I try to square these feelings with my reformed
theology. He wishes that I would heed a word of advice that Herman Hoeksema once gave to
his seminary students, referring to what was then the heart of Grand Rapids life,
Hoeksema warned, Do not do your theology on the corner of Monroe and Division.
And this is where Prof. Engelsma
thinks I go wrong, he says, I spend much too much time doing my theology on
the streets of Southern California. Now, let me make it clear, that I endorse what
I think is the basic concern that Engelsma and Hoeksema are raising in stating the case
this way. I think theyre saying that
we must not get our theology from our experiences out there in the world.
And thats an appropriate warning. We can see the real dangers of an experience based
theology at work in the churches today. For
example, people are defending all sorts of deviant behaviors and relationships on the
grounds that they experience these patterns
as fulfilling or nurturing . When we encounter such theological
moves, we must call people back to the teaching of Gods Word. In clear recognition
that the human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked
and that we are prone as sinners to call good evil and evil good . So, the
Protestant Reformed folks are issuing a legitimate warning. But its one thing to
warn, again rightly so, against deriving our
theology from our experiences, and its a very different thing to insist, as I want to do, that
we must bring our theology to the street
corners of Grand Rapids, and Los Angeles and Singapore, and Calcutta in the recognition
that the God of the scriptures, is the ruler over every
square inch of creation and that His Word is, indeed, a lamp unto our feet
as we walk the city streets and the rain forest pathways, and hospital corridors,
and putting greens that traverse the fullness of the world that has been made by the hands
of our sovereign Lord. In this sense I do want our students at Fuller Theological Seminary
to learn to do theology on the street
corners. Furthermore, when we do our theology out
there on street corners, in this good sense, we will often be forced to take a new look at
what the Word is teaching us. Discovering, on occasion, new wisdom that can be mined from
the riches of Gods revelation to us. When we re out there on street corners,
we often discover new questions that we must bring back to the Word of God for guidance
from above.
So heres what I want to do now. I
want to probe two kinds of experiences out there in the world in the hope of further
clarifying just where we really disagree about these matters. The first has to do with a
fairly trivial case, the athletic accomplishments of the unregenerate ( we call theology athletics now ). In my book I offered the opinion that Christians can
enjoy the putts of Tiger Woods, and home runs
hit by unbelieving major leaguers. And that
furthermore in doing so we can rest in the
assurance that God Himself enjoys such things. Christianity
Today used the God enjoys baseball theme in its feature about my book,
and Prof. Engelsma in his critique had some fun with my
Tiger Woods example, even as he chastised me for celebrating the accomplishments of
a Sabbath breaking golfer . Now, I promise I will immediately repent of my sin if I am bearing false witness in saying what
I am about to say, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Herman Hoeksema enjoyed
watching the Detroit Tigers on television.
If so, I think I can understand what a
non-common grace explanation for this enjoyment might look like. Here we have, the
argument could go, not just one, but a whole team of Sabbath breaking Tigers, who
regularly defy
the law of the Lord. They do not
exercise their talents to the glory of God, but for all that, they do some things that
show forth some of Gods creating handiwork. While the exploits of these often
God-less major leaguers are indeed contributing to their own destruction, the elect can
nonetheless appreciate signs of Gods creaturely
goodness in these deeds. The critic of common grace, while insisting that
theres no grace at work here, could still acknowledge that this activity does take place in a world created by God, and that even perversions of Gods good
handiwork can serve godly purposes such as
providing for the leisurely enjoyment of a
baseball game by a hard working Protestant Reformed pastor-theologian.Well, I think I
could live with that kind of theology of
baseball and golf if I had to, but it still seems to me to miss one important dimension.
Namely, the way in which something that is
not meant to be to the glory of God,
nonetheless can bring glory to God. An Al
Kaline and a Tiger Woods are in fact displaying some of the prowess and ability that God
wanted the creation to display. The appearance of this kind of thing was one of Gods
motives for creating a world that included among, other things, athletic talent, and the
God who continues to take delight in the works of his hands, does in fact enjoy these displays of His creative handiwork in our
own enjoyment of these things, then we are honoring God as the one who shines in all that
is fair in His creation.
The second experience is a much more
serious one. In my book I repeated a story, that Id read, about the brutal rape of a
Muslim woman, by soldiers in Eastern Europe who had beheaded her new-born child. I used
this horrible example, to illustrate my strong
sympathy for an unbeliever in a specific
situation. And I argued that in my positive concern for her, I believe strongly that I
m sharing in Gods profound sympathy for
her in her suffering. Prof. Engelsma responded to this example in two different ways:
First, he stated his own deep
conviction that the God of the scriptures does not, and I quote, does not sympathize with the suffering of
the wicked , including the wicked Muslim woman whose tragedy I described. But he also admitted that he can
appreciate my own response to this horrible
story. Indeed, he reports, he has his own experiences of this sort. And as a case in point, he tells what is for him,
and Im quoting, a particular instance of, or incident of,
heartrending distress. A story from the Nazi era, told by William Shirer in his
well known book on the subject. And heres Prof. Engelsmas description of the
scene, Im quoting, Theres a great hole containing the bodies of many
Jews already machine-gunned by the S.S. In the new batch of Jews lined up at the edge of
the pit [is]a little Jewish boy, about ten years old. As Nazis wait, cold, callous, even
enjoying what they are about to do, the
little boy, not comprehending, but fearful, clings to his father. Looking down on his
sons anxious, but trusting face, the helpless father tries to comfort his child. In
a moment father and son will go down into the huge grave, atop the mass of dead bodies, to
be shot. end quote. Im so
grateful for Prof. Engelsmas next words, he says, It breaks our heart.
But I also find it heart breaking, when
he goes on to say, that an event of this sort, quote, does not break the heart of
God. Since God, Im quoting, Since God Himself inflicts their suffering
by His Almighty power of providence as punishment for their sins.
referring to the Jewish father and son. To be sure, he quickly adds, the Nazis are fully responsible for their sinful deeds, he says,
Let these rapists, these murderers of babies,
and slaughterers of old men and little boys, let them be damned. He rightly says that. But in the bigger picture, we must
recognize, he insists, and I quote that in His sovereignty God acts through these
despicable murderers, and evil doers to punish the ungodly
in righteousness. Now if we had more time, I would want to argue for a more
nuanced treatment of what I believe to be the continuing special status of the Jewish
people in Gods redemptive economy. But for now Ill treat his example as He
intends it, that is, as depicting the Jewish victims as persons who are outside the scope
of Gods saving purposes. Prof. Engelsma thinks that my deep sense that God grieves over the terrible
treatment of these Jewish folks at the hands of the Nazis is wishful thinking on my part. That I am allowing my feelings to shape my theological convictions without any Biblical
support. Well, let me point in these concluding remarks to the kind of Biblical support
that I would appeal to in support of my position.
I do not see in the scriptures any pattern that permits us to limit our Christian
concern for the well being of others, exclusively to
other Christians. Nor do I think the scriptures depict God as being limited in that way.
Its clear, for example, that the Lord called his people in the Old Testament to work for the well being of the
larger Babylonian society in which he had
placed them in the time of their exile. The prophet says, And seek the peace, the
shalom, of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and
pray to Jehovah for it, for in the peace
thereof, you shall have peace. Jeremiah
Twenty-nine [ verse seven ]. And when I read the story of the good Samaritan I feel no
obligation to figure out whether the Samaritan or his victim, to whom he ministered, were
numbered among the elect. The clear message seems to be that we do not have to make sure
that our neighbors have the right theology before
we know whether God wants us to reach out to them in their suffering.
The underlining principle here, I
believe, is set forth nicely in First Peter Two where the apostle tells Gods
elect people, to perform good deeds among the Gentiles. So that even though the
unbelieving world might presently accuse us
of evil doing, they will glorify God on the day
of visitation. And the apostle Peter obviously sees these deeds as aimed at the
good of unbelievers. In his four instructions in First
Peter Two seventeen he tells us that we are to fear, fobaeo, fear the
Lord, and we are to love, agapao , agape love, to our fellow believers, while
also showing honor, timao, which means having regard for the well being of, honor, both to
those who govern us and to all human beings. In this same spirit, in the next chapter,
Peter tells us that we should always be
prepared to defend our convictions, quote, to anyone who demands from you an
accounting for the hope that is in you. And
that in doing so we should treat this anyone in a spirit of gentleness and reverence. In
all of this, are we being commanded to deal gently and reverently with, and to show honor toward, people for whom
God has nothing but hatred? Or are we being asked to look at others, as is so often the
case in the scriptures, even as our Father in heaven sees them? I opt for the latter view. I believe that when we reach out in
compassion to suffering unbelievers, we are expressing a love that flows from the very heart of God.
I think that I know how my Protestant
Reformed critics would respond to me on this: they would insist that my feelings are understandable ones, but that I am
not honoring what they see as the strong
Biblical teaching that all those who are outside of Christ are Gods enemies. As
finite creatures then, we must simply stand
in awe, before the mystery of a sovereign God
who will have mercy on whom He will
have mercy and will harden the hearts
of those whom He has chosen to pass over in their rebellion before His face. As a
Calvinist myself, I cannot help, but respect that kind of appeal to accept humbly the mystery of Gods sovereign ways.
But theres another mystery in whose presence I continually stand in awe, as a Calvinist, its the
mystery of a divine Savior who came from
heaven to fulfil Gods electing purposes, and who one day stood grieving over the rebellious city of Jerusalem, crying out in His sorrow, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how
often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathered her brood under her
wings, and you would not. I simply cannot
avoid the conviction that we are being given here, in this picture of a grieving Savior, a
profound glimpse into the very heart of God. The fact that requires, as I see things, the
insights offered by the theology of common grace. Thank you very much.
Mister moderator, my esteemed
co-disputant and friends. All of us have honored reformed doctrine by our coming together tonight. What brings us
together is a debate over the issue whether
the grace of God is common or particular. And this issue is distinctively a reformed
issue. For this discussion of the doctrine of common grace we have Dr. Richard Mouw to
thank. And I thank him now face to face, as about a year ago I thanked him in writing. In
his recent book, He Shines in All Thats Fair,
Dr. Mouw has renewed the discussion of the doctrine of common grace. He has renewed the
discussion, not only among reformed people, but also among evangelicals. Not long ago Christianity Today featured Dr. Mouws book
and the doctrine of common grace in a lengthy article.
Indeed, even the Protestant liberals join the discussion: University of Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish has written a
lengthy review of Mouws book.
In his treatment of common grace, Dr.
Mouw has presented the Protestant Reformed rejection of common grace fairly , and even, with a certain respect. He is sensitive
to the spiritual concern of the Protestant Reformed Churches: the conviction that the
doctrine of common grace opens the church up to the corrupting influence of the wicked
world. Mouw remarked, that in their rejection of common grace, and in their insistence on
the separation of the church and the world, the Protestant Reformed Churches may lay some claim to be true to the theology of John Calvin. Dr. Mouw himself, of course,
enthusiastically endorses the common grace
project. Indeed, he wants to spread the doctrine beyond the boundaries of reformed
churches and he advocates a far more aggressive exercise of common grace than heretofore.
He proposes what he calls, common grace ministries . Hence, our debate this
evening.
All of us should understand that Dr.
Mouw and I are limiting ourselves tonight to one aspect of the doctrine of common grace.
That aspect which we are airing tonight is a grace of God supposedly shown to the
non-elect or reprobate, in which God gives them good gifts, such as rain and sunshine on
the fields of an atheist farmer, and musical ability to W.A.Mozart. And in which God
restrains sin in the reprobate so that they are not completely depraved, but partially good, and therefore are
able to perform works that are truly good,
even though they are not the highest form of good. In addition that aspect of common grace
that we are discussing tonight holds that by virtue
of the common grace of God, Christians can, may, and should form friendships with
unbelievers. Especially in order to cooperate with unbelievers in building a good, even
godly, culture. There is another, more important aspect of common grace. A love of God for all humans without exception in the
preaching of the gospel of Christ in which God sincerely
desires the salvation of all humans without exception. This was not the subject of
Dr. Mouws book, and this is not our subject
tonight. Our subject tonight is what I might call, cultural common grace.
I deny
that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, and I do so as a representative of
the Protestant Reformed Churches. I put forward three main reasons why we object to the doctrine of common grace.
First of all the Reformed Faith is
defined by the Reformed Confessions, and common grace is not taught in the Reformed
Confessions. The reformed creeds mention common grace one time, and this mention
attributes the doctrine of common grace to the Arminians, whose teaching the creed, the Canons of Dort, condemns as heresy. The Arminians
used the doctrine of common grace in the service of their teaching that God on His part
is, quote, ready to reveal Christ unto
all men end of quote. In view of the great things that are ascribed to common grace
by its defenders, it forms nothing less than
a world view, the silence of the confessions is deafening. The complete absence of the
doctrine of common grace in the creeds may not be decisive for the question: is the
doctrine of common grace reformed? But the silence of the creeds certainly should give pause to those who want to proclaim
the doctrine as important, even fundamental reformed truth. The matters are worse for the
doctrine of common grace as far as the creeds are concerned than that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort, and, I may add, the Westminster
Standards as well, know absolutely nothing of this doctrine.
The doctrine of common grace conflicts
with teachings that are found in the creeds. Teachings that are fundamental. I mention
two: Common grace conflicts with the confessional teaching of total depravity: the Heidelberg Catechism in question and answer eight
is representative: I quote, Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all
wickedness? Indeed, we are, except we are regenerated by
the Spirit of God. end of quote. Common grace, however, teaches a work of
God in all humans that restrains sin, so that all humans are partially good, and capable of doing good. The effect of the
doctrine of common grace, is to render the reformed doctrine of total depravity
hypothetical, that is, unreal. Total depravity is
what all of us would have been, were it not for
common grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, no one is totally depraved,
except for perhaps such monsters as Nero,
Hitler, and John Wayne Gasey. This, we charge, is a compromise of the offense of
Calvinism, which is, in reality, the offense of the gospel.
The second fundamental doctrine of the
confessions, with which the doctrine of common grace conflicts, is the teaching of the
confessions that the grace of God is particular for the elect of God alone. The whole world knows that the hallmark of
Calvinism, the hallmark of the reformed faith, is its teaching that the grace of God, with
its source in predestination, is particular, not universal. And this is why most of the
world has always detested Calvinism, and why much of the world still does detest Calvinism
today. Common grace, however, universalizes the grace of God. It universalizes the grace
of God both as regards a favorable attitude of God towards people, and as regards His
mighty power within sinners delivering them
from sin.
Granted, defenders of common grace,
have argued that common grace is a different kind of grace from Gods saving grace in
Jesus Christ. The fact remains, the doctrine of common grace posits a grace of God that is
general and universal, in diametrical
opposition to the particularity of grace in
the reformed confessions. In their teaching of total depravity and of the particularity of grace, the reformed confessions present the
doctrine of scripture. In Romans Three verses
nine and following quoting Psalm Fourteen, the
apostle passes a devastating judgment upon the entire human race without exception:
all are under sin , none is righteous , there is none that doeth
good, no not one. This is not hypothetical, this is not what we would have been had
it not been for common grace. This is reality. This is the truth about everyone of us as
we are in and of ourselves, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Common grace teaches a favor of God
upon all humans without exception. But according to Romans One, verses sixteen and
following, apart from the gospel of Christ, there is only wrath upon ungodly and unrighteous persons who hold the truth in
unrighteousness. All the way through the
epistle to the Romans, which is recognized widely as a summary of the Christian gospel, the stark alternatives
are grace, righteousness, and life in Jesus Christ according to Gods sovereign
election, or wrath, guilt and death outside of Jesus Christ. One objection then, to common
grace, is that it is not only un-confessional,
but it is also anti-confessional.
Second, we oppose the doctrine of
common grace, because the doctrine of common grace is destructive of the antithesis that
God Himself has put between the Church, and the world of the ungodly , and between the Christian, and the unbeliever.
Antithesis refers to spiritual separation, hostility and warfare. I emphasize, this separation is
spiritual, not physical. Although often enough, the world of the ungodly has made the
separation physical, by boycott, reproach,
and persecution. The term antithesis may
be unfamiliar to some who are here tonight, surely
the reality is known by every Christian. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed. God said at the very dawn
of the history of the Church in the world in Genesis Three fifteen. From then on there are two
groups of people in the world, and they are
at enmity by
Gods appointment. Of the typical church in the Old Testament, Moses declared, Israel then
shall dwell in safety alone. Deuteronomy Thirty-three
verse twenty-eight. No more forceful insistence on the antithesis can be found anywhere in
the Bible, than the New Testament exhortation of Paul
to the church, and her members, in Second
Corinthians Six verses fourteen and following. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? what part hath he that believeth with
an infidel? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate.
Antithesis may be a strange word, but the doctrine is basic
Christian doctrine. Augustine taught it long ago, in his City of God. This doctrine we maintain, and
observe, is compromised by the doctrine of
common grace. The antithesis is fatally compromised.
According to common grace church and world now share grace, a grace of God. According to the doctrine of common grace,
Christian and infidel now have sweet fellowship in grace. According to the doctrine of
common grace, the Christian school must be open to the worlds thinking on matters of
faith, for example creation and of life, for example, sexual and marital ethics. According
to the doctrine of common grace, the Church and the world, can and should cooperate, in
the good work of creating a godly society on the basis, not of Jesus Christ, and His
redemption, but on the basis of a grace and goodness found in the world itself. The
doctrine of common grace has destroyed, and is presently
destroying churches, and Christian institutions, especially Christian schools, that have embraced and
practiced that doctrine, by opening those
churches and schools to the thinking and the ways of the world that hates God. I refer
specifically to evolutionary theory concerning
origins, with the inescapable implication that Holy Scripture
is not inspired, at least in the opening chapters. I refer to the repudiation, at this
late date in history, after two thousand years of the Churchs thinking to the
contrary, of the authoritative headship of the husband in marriage, reflected by the restriction of office in the Church to
qualified males. I refer to the endorsement, and
even the defense, of the filthiest, most violent movies and music, for the entertainment
of the children and young people of the covenant, Gods children. I refer to the
approval of friendship with unbelievers, which leads, among other things, to mixed
marriages, that is, the marriages of believers
and unbelievers. And I refer to the acceptance, at the present time, of homosexual
behavior and relationships, and also, an increasingly
favorable judgment, upon non-Christian religions. Where the doctrine of common
grace has been emphasized, the very idea of
antithesis has largely been lost.
Do not mistake it, common grace is not
only a doctrine, it is also a mentality. The
effects of common grace have been harmful. We do not stand tonight where our Fathers stood
in the Netherlands one hundred years ago, and in Western Michigan eighty years ago. We stand where we can see with our own
eyes, the fruits of the doctrine of common grace and the fruits are bitter ! It is evident
that the project and world view of common grace have failed. Society has not been Christianized, not in Amsterdam, not
in Grand Rapids, not in Chicago, and also not in Northwest Iowa. But the churches and the
schools have become worldly. Do not misunderstand, we who deny common grace, are not, for that reason, immune to
the danger of being swallowed up by the
world. We, we ourselves, are fighting a life and death battle against the pressures and
influences of a wicked world, now far advanced in unholiness. But adoption of the doctrine
of common grace takes the weapons out of the hand of the Christian, takes the fight out of
his soul, and indeed tells the Christian that there is no war at all.
Third, we object to the doctrine of
common grace because it inevitably develops
into a doctrine of universal saving grace.
Despite the protestations of the advocates of common grace, that this is an entirely different grace, from the saving grace of God in
Jesus Christ; and Abraham Kuyper emphasized that in the opening pages of his three volumes
De Gemeene Gratie. The lesson of history is that inevitably common grace develops into
universal saving grace, which is the destruction of the gospel of Christ. Either the
advocates of common grace teach a love of God for all, and a desire of God to save all in
the gospel, or they teach that in some sense Christ died for all, or, as is becoming more the case today, they outrightly teach that all will be saved, in the end. Dr. Mouw could
not resist that tendency of the doctrine of common grace in his book. On the next to the
last page of He Shines in All Thats Fair he
wrote this, I quote, For all I know, much of what we now think of as common grace
may in the end time be revealed to be saving
grace. end of quote. It is to my mind ominous that in his favorable review of Dr.
Mouws book, the University of Chicago
theologian Brian Gerrish observes that the updating of the doctrine of common grace called
for by Dr. Mouw requires a reexamination of the Calvinistic doctrine that, and now I quote
Gerrish, the divine decrees divide humankind into the elect, and the
non-elect. end of quote. That is not Dr. Mouws position, but that is Brian
Gerrishs observation concerning the updating of common grace, for which Dr. Mouw has
pleaded.
These are three main objections of ours
to the doctrine of common grace. It is not confessional, it destroys the antithesis, and
it threatens the doctrine of particular saving grace in Christ alone. Are these not worthy concerns for reformed
people, indeed, for all Christian people? Are not these grave concerns that all should
share with us? Is it fair, is it gracious, to dismiss these concerns as Anabaptist
, those who deny common grace as
Anabaptists? Something again Dr. Mouw does not do, and rebukes others for doing.
In the time remaining to me, I will
clarify our position regarding the doctrine of common grace in several important respects,
the rules of this debate, you understand, demand brevity. First we freely acknowledge that God gives many good gifts to ungodly people. From rain and sunshine in season, to the
ability of Beethoven to compose the Pastoral
Symphony. These gifts are bounties of providence. To the non-elect ungodly, whoever he
may be, say
Emperor Nero living in luxury and gorging himself with every good thing creation affords, these good gifts are
not blessings. They do not come to the
reprobate wicked in the favor of God. Psalm
Seventy- three teaches otherwise. By lavishing upon the wicked such good things, God sets
the wicked on slippery places . He casts them down into destruction
. Let no wicked person conclude from his health and wealth that God loves him and is
blessing him. Divine blessing is not identical with earthly prosperity. Just
as Divine wrath and curse are not identical with poverty, troubles and grief. That
earthly good things and circumstances are not in themselves blessings is of vital
importance for the comfort of Gods people. While Nero was feasting, the saints were
burning as torches in his gardens, and were being torn in pieces in the Roman
amphitheater. If Neros luxuries were a common grace blessing, the distresses of the
saints were common wrath curse. The truth is that everything is blessing to the elect.
Everything is blessing to the one who believes in Jesus Christ. All things are
yours , says the apostle in First Corinthians
Three. All things work together for good to those who love God , he says in Romans Eight. And nothing is blessing to the
impenitent unbeliever outside of Christ. All things work together for his eternal ruin.
And this must be preached to the wealthy, prospering, unbeliever.
Second, we readily admit that the deeds of some non-Christians seem
good to us. And that these deeds are useful to us and other people. To conclude, however,
on the basis of this, that their works are good, truly
good, good in Gods judgment, as the very
fruits of His grace in them, is a mistake. We do not determine what is good, and
what is evil. God determines good and evil. And God has made known in His Word, that every
work that leaves Him out, any work that does not have Him, the Triune Father of Jesus
Christ, as its purpose and goal, any work
that misses the mark of His glory is sin.
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23. This position is not a new, and
strange teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ. Augustine saw the apparent good works of
the wicked, and he called them
glittering vices , an indictment echoed both by
Luther and Calvin.
Third. Although we deny that common grace is the basis of the
Christians active life in society, and the basis of the Christians association
in everyday life with non-Christians, what
Dr. Mouw calls the commonalty of Christian and non-Christian, we affirm and
practice the active life of the Christian in all of creation. And the perfect right of the
Christian to cooperate with non-Christians in everyday life. That is, at work, in the
neighborhood, in the armed forces, and in politics. Christians must live, in every sphere of earthly
life, family , labor, government, and
the rest. They may use and enjoy
all their gifts, athletic, musical and mathematical. They may avail
themselves of the products of the ungodly from
Black and Decker tools, to Patrick OBrians great series on
Aubrey and Maturin. They may associate closely with, and cooperate with
unbelievers in everyday life: Muslims,
Buddhists, and the typical American pagan whose idea of Sabbath keeping is mowing his lawn
on Sunday. Denial of common grace does not mean withdrawal from society. The antithesis is
not isolation. Rejection of cultural common grace does not secretly promote the life of
pietism: met e'n bookje in e'n hoekje: with a little book in a little corner.
But the basis for the full active life of the Christian in the world is the doctrine of
creation and providence, not the doctrine of common grace. When Paul condemns asceticism,
world flight, in First Timothy Four [ verse four ], he grounds his warning, not at all
in a doctrine of common grace, but in the doctrine of creation: quote, Every
creature of God is good and nothing to be refused. end of quote. The earth is the Lords and the fulness
thereof. [ 1 Cor.10:26,28
] This is the basis of the Christians life and work in the ordinances of creation:
associating with unbelievers at work, in the army, and in the neighborhood watch for
burglars and abduction of children.
Basing the life of the Christian in the
world on the doctrine of creation establishes the possibility of the Christianss use
and enjoyment of the creation, and of his associating with unbelievers, without
compromising the spiritual antithesis. Christians live a full active life in the
world, but, and mark this well, we live this
life, not by the power of a common grace, but by the
power of the special, saving, sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ in the Spirit.
[ bell chimes indicating end of
allotted time ]
Just a couple of minutes left, do I
have that much grace?
The Christian does not live his life in
the world on the basis, and by the power, of a common grace, but by the power of the special sanctifying grace of
Christ in the Spirit. We live in the same world with the unbelievers, but we live by a different power - grace. We live according to a
different standard - the law of God. We live with a different purpose - the glory of God.
Therefore the Christian man and the Christian woman are marked people, and they ought to
be. This enables them to witness to the unbeliever. This makes the Christian the object of
persecution.
Fourth and finally, and very briefly, we confess that God has one all
controlling purpose in history. To which, absolutely
everything that happens in history, is subordinated, from the standing still of the
universe in the long day of Joshua, to Babe
Ruths hitting sixty home runs in a season. That one purpose of God with absolutely
everything is the honor of the worthy name of
Jesus Christ, the Head and Savior of the Church, and thus the glory of God. In the eternal counsel of God Jesus Christ
is first before all things , Colossians
One seventeen. All things were created for him , Colossians One verse sixteen. Everything serves
his preeminence , Colossians One
eighteen. Common grace posits two distinct purposes of God with history - Christ and
culture. A culture that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, and a culture that inevitably overshadows Jesus Christ. We say no to common grace, because we are
determined to say yes to Jesus
Christ. Thank you.
Mr.Noorman: Thank you Dr.Mouw and Prof.
Engelsma. Before we take our intermission, Id like to alert you to the fact that the
books of both of our speakers tonight are available in the lobby. Prof. Engelsmas
books will be found at the table of the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Dr.
Mouws books will be found at the table of the William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company. You are also invited to visit the table set up with materials from tonights
host, the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church Evangelism Committee. We thank these organizations for their
willingness to be here tonight. In approximately fifteen
minutes we will be singing a song to begin the second portion of the program. We ask that
you be seated again prior to the singing if possible. We will take a fifteen minute
intermission.
I should announce too that tapes and
videos will be available, and there is a form on your program, but I understand that not
everyone has a program, so they do have some envelopes, and some paper in the back for you
to put your name and address and what you would like to have and the Evangelism Committee
will make sure that you receive that. The tape and the video will be the complete program
with the opening remarks right through the questions. You can put those order forms in the
donation boxes, which are outside the doors, and you can also, if you so desire,
contribute to the expenses of the evening and help the Evangelism Committee out there, by making a contribution, if you desire. I should
have made sure that I made this announcement, and I forgot, seein there [are] so
many Hollanders in this room, refreshments
will be served after the debate this evening, they still will be served after the debate,
if theres anything left. At this time were going to sing Psalter number
forty-eight which is A Call to Praise.
Were going to sing three verses of that, five, six and seven: they will appear on the screens there. Please join in
singing A Call to Praise.
The second portion of the debate, with
the rebuttals. Therell be two fifteen minute rebuttals. And well begin, first
of all, with Dr. Mouw.
Dr.Mouw: Thank you. I just want to say how moved I am to be in a room where I think maybe
for the first time in eighty some years Protestant Reformed people and Christian Reformed
people sang a psalm together, I say, Praise the Lord. [ Psalm 147:12 ] for
that. And we are talking tonight about what it means to bring honor and glory to the
King of Kings and Lord of Lords [ Rev.19:16] .
Prof. Engelsma asks, in raising his
three deep concerns , what he considers the
lack of a confessional basis for the doctrine of common grace, its destructive tendencies
with regard to culture and the antithesis and also its inevitability of leading in a
direction of universalism, the doctrine of universal salvation. Yes, yes, are these not
worthy concerns? Are these not grave
concerns? And I want to say they are. Were talking about issues tonight that
are of the utmost importance. And its about time that were talking
together about these things. Im not gonna [sic] answer every, I wish I had the time,
let me say that he and I simply disagree
about the confessions. We both agree on this that the Heidelberg Catechism
use a slightly older formulation says that we are prone to all manner of evil and
incapable of any good, except we be
regenerated by the Spirit of God, but that
the Canons of Dort, when addressing a similar
issue, said that were incapable of
any saving good . And Prof. Engelsma
takes the incapable of any good
as the primary meaning, and I take the
any saving good as the primary meaning.
A wonderful example given by Earl Palmer, the Pastor of University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, where hes
talking about the sense in which all have sinned and come short of the glory of God , and hes says, Imagine
theres a shipwreck and there are three people
in the water, and theyre fifty miles from shore. One is an Olympic swimmer
whos capable of doing twenty-five miles before he gives out, another is a person in
reasonably good shape who may only be able to go three or four miles, and somebody else is in bad shape and probably isnt going
to survive five minutes in the water. Theres a real difference between somebody who
can swim twenty-five miles, somebody who can
only swim two or three miles, and somebody who
cannot swim at all. But this they have in common, none of ems going to make it
to shore. They will all fall short.
And thats my understanding of
total depravity. I think the doctrine of total depravity
in the reformed tradition is primarily a
salvific notion. And that is, we are totally incapable,
here me on this, we are totally incapable of doing anything either to initiate or to contribute significantly to our own salvation. Were in terrible
shape. Were drowning people. And unless somebody
throws out the lifeline, unless the rescuer comes, were lost. We are totally
incapable of saving ourselves. And we cannot compromise that. Now does that mean that all
people who are totally [incapable] of saving themselves, are totally incapable of performing good deeds in the same
sense, no. I think that theres a difference between Prof. Engelsma and Al Capone and
Ghandi. Prof. Engelsma and I are beneficiaries of the sovereign grace of God. Neither Al
Capone nor Ghandi, as far as I know, were saved people. And yet there were differences in
their deeds, and I think we can see something of Gods creating purposes, something
of Gods renewing purposes, showing forth in some of the things that Ghandi did that
we see nothing of, in the life of someone like Al Capone. So as long as we hang on to this
notion that total depravity has to do with
our total inability, our total worthlessness when it comes to being able to do anything
about our own salvation. Salvation is by sovereign
grace of a God who has mercy on whom He will
have mercy, and this is at the heart of reformed teaching.
Im a bit concerned about the way in which my Protestant Reformed friends constantly refer to the unredeemed as enemies of God
. That little Jewish boy on the brink
of that pit, facing those Nazis, is he an enemy of
God? As a totally depraved creature he is an
enemy of God, but Im not sure that we simply see
people, or ought to see people, as enemies of God. People who are enemies of God get
themselves into terrible messes. My son and I
were riding some place this afternoon, he has a CD of gospel music, and we were playing,
Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling O sinner come home. Ye
who are weary come home. , you know,
the depiction of the sinner there I think is a profound one. The sinner, who is indeed an
enemy of God, but has, in that enmity , has gotten himself or herself into such a
horrible condition that they re often lonely people,
they re abused people, theyre suffering people, theyre homeless people,
theyre wandering people, they dont
know where theyre going. And so our primary response
to them is to reach out in compassion and plead with them to come home, to point them to
the place of safety, the place of security.
To tell them that their only comfort in life
and death can be that they are not their own but they can belong to a faithful Savior. So Im not sure that enmity , and enemies of God is the primary category, the primary lens through which we ought to look at all
unbelievers. I think that we can reach out in compassion to people who, in their enmity ,
have gotten themselves in such horrible places, that they re suffering and abused
and the like.
Another thing that I just want to state
a correction to here is that Prof. Engelsma constantly depicts the position that I hold,
and many others in the reformed tradition, on
common grace as one where somehow we think that there is a grace that is outside of Jesus
Christ. I mean, he even uses the phrase, that we can look at people out there in the world
and they have a grace and a goodness that is found apart from Jesus Christ. I want to say I reject that notion with all my whole heart. And I want to quote the same things
he does, Colossians One for example. Where Paul
says that Jesus Christ is the one who whatever, principalities, powers, all things
were made by Him and for Him. And then He
goes on to say, And He is the Head of the Body, the Church , but the one who
is mysteriously out there in that larger
creation. Missionaries testify to this, that
the Spirit of Jesus Christ is there far ahead
of them, preparing certain people, certain cultures, for the gospel. What I think of as
common grace is a work of Jesus Christ. Its what Jesus Christ does in the creation.
You know, whether I run the risk of
universal salvation, I hope not, I firmly reject
universalism, and what I said was, perhaps, for all we know, much, but not all, of what we now
think of as common grace may in the end time
be saving grace. That may be an
overstatement, but let me say this, I have another couple of minutes? That this business
of the fruits of the doctrine of common grace, very important
issue. Has the doctrine of common grace been a dangerous doctrine? In the whole area of
worldly amusements, for example, theres
no question that , see I believe that it was a
good thing for the Christian Reformed Church, for example, at a certain point, to say we dont reject all film, we dont
reject all television drama, but we have to be discerning about, theres no question
that having opened that door, were watching allot of stuff that we ought not to, and
that were being polluted by it.
Theres no question about that. Have the fruits of the doctrine of common grace, in
the life of the reformed community in the Netherlands, and in North America, been somewhat
dangerous and regrettable? Yes.
I want to ask another question though.
Have the fruits of the denial of common grace had any
dangerous and regrettable consequences. I was so thrilled to hear Prof. Engelsma
say at the end, we affirm active involvement of Christians in all spheres of
creation , to say, the denial of common grace does not mean the withdrawal
from society . kay. And I dont see Protestant Reformed people actively involved in all spheres. I must say as a person who taught seventeen years at Calvin
College, some of the brightest students that I had, memorably so, at Calvin College, were
Protestant Reformed students. Some of them felt an impulse to be active in all spheres of
creation, and they ended up leaving the
Protestant Reformed Church, being rejected by the
Protestant Reformed Church. Others stayed in, and in their brilliance ended up talking to
each other, and have had very little impact.
I regret that. Because, Im a faithful reader of the
Standard Bearer, Im a faithful
reader of the Theological Review of the Protestant Reformed Church Seminary and
I know the power of the intellect at work there. I know the power of the vision of
Gods sovereignty at work there. But I
really wonder after eighty some years,
whether we must also look at the ways in which the denial of the doctrine of common grace
has had regrettable impact. So that the marvelous gifts that Protestant Reformed people
have to offer to the larger reformed world, and the larger Christian world, have not been
offered, because of the way in which they have denied the teaching of common grace has created a kind of
ghettoized mentality.
So I want to say that argument can go both ways, and I want to
insist that it go both ways. I am willing to say that
I deeply regret some of the ways in which the doctrine of common grace has operated in the
reformed community. I deeply regret that. The answer, I think, is a discerning use of that
doctrine. We have lacked the gift of discernment in our use of the doctrine of common
grace. I would hope that the Protestant Reformed folks would begin to think about a
discerning denial of the doctrine of common grace, because I dont think youve
done nearly the kinds of things that you
claim you are able to do on the basis of your denial of common grace. I think thats
enough for now.
I understand my rebuttal to be a
rebuttal of the speech of Dr. Mouw and not a rebuttal of his rebuttal. I said at the
outset, and I meant that, that I am thankful to Richard J. Mouw for airing the issue of
common grace, particularly cultural common grace. And I am grateful that in airing the
issue which he considers important, he did not, as so many have done, ignore the
Protestant Reformed position. Neither did he misrepresent the Protestant Reformed
position. He stated it, and then expressed his objections to it. And although I am not
going to offer a rebuttal of his rebuttal, I do want to assure him, and everyone else who
writes or speaks on the issue of the Christians involvement in the world and who do
that, from the viewpoint of common grace, we listen to what you have to say, and consider
what you have to say .
As far as my rebuttal of Dr.
Mouws speech is concerned - in the first place, as regards his reference to John
Calvin, we recognize that John Calvin on occasion, the rare occasion - in comparison with
the other great themes that he developed, would speak of a certain grace of God to
unregenerate people. Usually, he would refer
to splendid gifts that certain pagans, or unbelievers, had and displayed.
Often, in the further context, Calvin will make plain, that what, in fact, he means is
nothing more than Gods providential gifts to these persons. Regardless of that, the
references by Calvin to a certain grace, in
connection with splendid gifts that ungodly people display, those references
by Calvin to a certain grace of God, never
had in mind a restraint of sin within them by the
work of the Spirit upon them, to minimize the truth of total depravity. Much less did Calvin teach a common
grace that he intended would produce a godly culture
as the result of the cooperation of believers and unbelievers.
In the second place, and this is
important to Dr. Mouws theological position in the matter, he raises the question,
What does God take delight in? That, after all, is really embodied in the title of his book, He
Shines in All Thats Fair . I call intention, to the fact, that that hymn is
referring to what is fair in the creation, which even though it is spoiled by mans sin, and is under the curse of God,
nevertheless displays in sunsets and mountains, and in the waves of the ocean, and many other ways,
the glory of the Creator. That we affirm.
Gods beauty shines in everything fair
in creation, and we give Him the glory for it
when we view it. But to move from that to the proposition that God also shines with His
grace, in what is supposed to be fair in the lives of unregenerated people, is a huge, and
unwarranted, leap, and it is really to beg
the question; the question is - Does scripture reveal that there is anything fair, in the
judgment of God, in the life of one who is alienated from him and opposed to him? With
regard to the question - What does God delight in? Scripture itself answers
that in much along the lines of, at least obliquely reflecting
upon, a notion that God takes delight in the putts of Tiger Woods, or the fastball of Hal
Neuhauser, or the home runs of Sammy Sosa,
scripture says God does not take delight in the legs of a man, but He takes delight
in those who fear Him.[ Psalm 147: 10, 11
].
It is our position that in as much as
whatever the unbeliever does, he does not to the glory
of God, but at the very most for the glory of
humanity or the welfare of humanity, and
comes short of the glory of God
. That activity of the unbeliever is
abominable in the sight of God. Its abominable, that, if thats the case, as I
assume it is, Sammy Sosa hits sixty home runs
this year, for his own glory, and not to the glory of
God, that he hits home runs, no matter how prodigious those home runs may be. Not to
mention here, that the fact that the activity of the wicked is sin, and therefore not
delighted in by God, does not imply that the
products of the activity of the wicked, we think are sinful and off limits, not at all. If
Beethoven was an unbeliever, it was sin for him when he composed the Ninth Symphony, and especially because he thought to encourage the unity of the human race apart from Jesus Christ. But
once that symphony has been produced, as a beautiful piece of music, a Christian, who has
a taste for that, may certainly hear
that, and enjoy that, and by his own use of that, because Beethoven, of course,
was working after all with the laws of God in creation, having to do with music, the Christian glorifies God by his hearing of
Beethovens Ninth Symphony, and if he
doesnt glorify God with it, he ought
not to be doing it. Because whatever we do, even eating and drinking, we ought to do it all to the glory of God [ 1 Cor.10:31 ].
But, I move on to something that I
think is more important, and Dr. Mouw does too, and this
takes us to a critically important issue between us, and thats the
suggestion, and even statement, by Dr. Mouw
that Gods heart breaks at human suffering, all human suffering, including the
suffering of idolaters, and ungodly people. Im going to talk about the difference
between our love for our neighbor, and Gods love for that neighbor, in answer to one of the pointed questions that Dr. Mouw has
put to me, so I wont speak of that now, but all ought to be aware of the fact that
all of the human misery in the world, which
we see and read about it and hear about, and which you can hardly stand to watch on the
television set, or read about; child abuse, for example, things that break our hearts,
because we Christians are human beings, and we have, to use
Dr. Mouws word, empathy
with other human beings. Besides that, we do in obedience to Christ, love our neighbor.
All those sufferings are inflicted by God
upon a human race that has fallen away from
him, in the fall of our first father, thats the death, horrible death, that God
warned Adam, he himself would die and plunge the whole human race into and God inflicted
that death. That death is punishment for the sin of the human race. Gods heart
doesnt break over the suffering that He himself inflicts, be it then sometimes
through damn worthy agents, like the Nazis,
or the soldiers who raped the Muslim woman and then brutally beheaded her child. A sovereign, holy God who
hates sin, and will punish sin, inflicts these very things
that break our hearts upon the human race, and we are all worthy of it, every last one of
us. And were worthy of it from the
moment were conceived and from the moment were born . Were guilty
before this holy God. And theres
no escape from it, the Bible tells us, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, regenerating
grace, and faith in Christ.
Furthermore, regarding these
atrocities, the Bible tells us in so many words, that God Himself inflicts such atrocities
as His punishments, not as atrocities, but as punishments, upon men and women. Read the
book of Lamentation. All of these things that
horrify us, the rape of the women, the
killing of the children, the starving of many, Jeremiah was weeping over, as we do. And
Jeremiah at the same time said, the Lord did it, the Lord did it, and the Lord was just. I
cannot see, as I also wrote, how the position that the heart of God breaks over human
suffering can coexist with the doctrine of eternal hell. The suffering in hell will be far
worse than any suffering that any human being suffers here. Gods heart
doesnt break over the suffering of the wicked in hell for ever. To my mind, if I were to believe that God sympathizes,
in that way, with the suffering of everybody, I would begin teaching that there is no
hell, and that God would have to empty hell.
With regard to the Jeremiah Twenty-nine passage, Im glad Dr.
Mouw brought that up because that was one
part of his book that I did not respond to in my own articles on his book He
Shines . He refers to the passage in Jeremiah Twenty-nine where to Judah in captivity
the prophet says, Build houses, marry wives, have children and pray for the peace
of the Babylonian city where you are, for in their peace, you will have peace. I
call attention to the fact, that the reason why Israel
or Judah was to pray for the earthly peace and prosperity of Babylon was because Judah was there ! And if
Babylon would not be disturbed by all kinds
of uproar, then the people of God would have a certain earthly security and
would be preserved to be returned, in the return from captivity. Judah did not pray for the peace, the earthly security, and order of the cities of Babylon for
the sake of Babylon, but for the sake of the church in Babylon. Then also, theres no
question that we are to love our neighbor, and we are to love our neighbor whether our neighbor is godly or ungodly. We are to love our neighbor, as Luke Six tells us, when our neighbor is an ungodly
person, who persecutes us, and curses us. But we dont love our neighbor by having fellowship with him, we love our neighbor
by doing good to the neighbor, by praying for the neighbor,even that he may be saved.
Thats not the question, whether
those who deny common grace believe that we
should love our neighbor, and do all in our power for the good of the neighbor. We
certainly believe that. Thats not a question among us. If our
practice falls short of that, then were to repent of that, and to change our
behavior. The question is - Does God love all the neighbors that we have, including
reprobate, ungodly neighbors? And I noticed that at the end of his speech, he asks that
question, but he did not give any proof of this, except
for one text. And that was Luke Thirteen verse
thirty-four, which has Christ exclaiming over the children of Jerusalem that He wished or
willed to save them, and they would not. And I want to call attention to something
extraordinarily important - that which is to
be proved is a common grace of God, thats whats to be proved tonight. A
non-saving favor of God to the non-elect. If Luke
Thirteen verse thirty-four proves the grace of God towards every human being, it isnt proving a non-saving
love of God toward every human being: it is
proving a saving grace of God to every human being. Its the desire then of the heart
of Jesus, on behalf of God whose Messiah He is, to save every human being. If thats taught in that
passage, that passage also teaches that the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ fails, and
it fails because of the stubborn will of some whom God loves. That text proves too much,
interpreted as Dr. Mouw evidently interprets it, it doesnt prove a common
grace of God to all, but a saving grace of God to all. And that is probably the deepest
concern of us who deny common grace. As I
pointed out in my speech, it invariably has an inner tendency, to develop into a universal
saving grace, and a universal saving grace is ipso facto a denial of the gospel of the
grace and glory of God in Jesus Christ. Men are saved by
a sovereign, almighty, irresistible, unfailing grace. Alright?
3.1.I
Mr.Noorman: I warned you I would do
that. Prior to tonights debate the
speakers each exchanged three questions with each other that they were allowed to prepare
an answer for: and I will ask these questions at this time, and they will respond. They
will have a cumulative total of twelve minutes to answer these questions. They can
use up as much time as they want on any question that they
would like, but they will have twelve
minutes total. Well start with a question from Prof. Engelsma to Dr. Mouw.
The question is this: Does not the
doctrine of common grace, particularly in its teaching of a restraint of sin in the
unregenerated, and its teaching of the ability of
the unbeliever to do good, significantly weaken,
and indeed negate, the fundamental reformed doctrine of total depravity as taught by the
creeds, specifically question and answer eight of the Heidelberg Catechism. Are we then so
corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good,
but are inclined to all wickedness. Indeed we are, except [ we be ] regenerated [ by the ] Spirit of God.
Dr.Mouw: Ive already addressed that somewhat in my comments about the swimmers, and falling
short of the glory of God . Calvin really struggled
with this. You know, as the author of the doctrine, at least the reformation doctrine, of
total depravity, Calvin himself struggled with this, in his debates with the Anabaptists
he was very irritated with them because they
basically said to him, that, you know, they
were outCalvinisting him because he seemed to be weakening his own belief in
total depravity, by insisting that ungodly rulers
could perform civic good, and teaching something like a doctrine of the restraint of sin.
And Calvin simply argued that there were
good things that, you know, the role of government could serve the will of God, that we
should give thanks for rulers, whether godly or
ungodly, who, whether they give God the glory for it or not, serve Gods purposes. And I
think that if thats weakening the doctrine of total depravity, so be it, but I
dont really think it is, because as
Ive already argued, I think that the
doctrine of total depravity is primarily about
whether or not we have anything in us that allows us to either contribute to the
initiation of or in some sense the expediting of our own salvation. And on that, Calvin
stood firm. We are totally incapable of
saving ourselves. We all fall short of the glory of God . Theres also
another wrinkle in allot of reformed theology where many
of us want to make a distinction between total depravity and absolute depravity . That not everything that the ungodly person does
is depraved, but rather inevitably our sinfulness
will show up in every area of our lives. Even
the good that we do will fall short, it will fail to accomplish what people want it to do.
So we as Calvinists expect that the noblest intentions of the ungodly person will inevitably fail to deliver on what
they claim, because we all fall short
of the glory of God in that sense as
well.
Mr.Noorman: Question for Prof.
Engelsma: If I understand Prof. Engelsma correctly, he does think that I am not sinning when I feel compassion toward a Muslim
woman who has been raped by soldiers in
Eastern Europe. Indeed, he seems to agree that this is a case where I am fulfilling the
Divine command to love people, even when they may be
my enemies. Where I go wrong, as he sees it,
is my thinking that I am sharing in
Gods own compassion toward the Muslim woman, since God only has compassion toward the elect. This is my question - Why would God command me to love people whom He Himself hates?
Prof. Engelsma: God does indeed command
us Christians to love people whom He does not love, but hates. The Bible teaches that God
hates persons. God hates some persons. Psalm
Five verse five says that God hates all the workers of iniquity. In Romans Nine [ verse thirteen ] as everybody knows,
[ scripture] teaches that God hated Esau. At the same time, the Bible teaches Christians
that they are to love their enemies who curse
them and persecute them, who may very well be these non-elect, or reprobate persons whom
God hates. We are commanded to love persons, whom God, for all we know, hates.
The explanation of that is the
difference between us and God. We are the neighbors of these ungodly persons, linked to them by a common humanity, a
common blood. Besides, were commanded by Christ
to view these people as originally created in
the image of God, and to love them in the sense that we do good to them, pray for them,
and bless them. God is not the neighbor of these
persons. God is the Holy Judge of these persons. They
dont appear in connection with Him as their neighbor, but they appear before Him as guilty and as depraved, and
therefore as worthy objects of His hatred.
There is a ground in God for our love of the ungodly, pagan, idolatrous, and, for all we
know, non-elect neighbor. That ground in God is not that God loves all human beings
without exception. That ground in God for our activity
of loving our personal neighbors, our personal enemies perhaps, is that the love of God
is so wonderful, that the love of God is a love for persons who in themselves are His
enemies. Not all persons who are in themselves His enemies, but persons, nevertheless, who
in themselves are His enemies. Im one !
I know the love of God, as the love of God for someone who in himself is a personal enemy
of God, by nature hate Him and curse Him. And
the love of God is so wonderful that it reached me. I show that by loving my own
personal enemy , and thus I show the nature of
the love of God. Not necessarily for that neighbor, but nevertheless the love of God
towards people who were his personal enemies.
Mr.Noorman: Question for Dr. Mouw: With
regard to the teaching of the advocates of common grace that Christians can and must
cooperate with unbelievers to Christianize society, or build a godly culture, by virtue
of common grace, does not the Bible call the Christians to live all his or her life in the
world by the power of the new life of Christ
in him or her? That is, how can Dr. Mouw justify common grace ministries in the light of the Biblical mandate to the
Christian to live in all spheres of society by the special grace of regeneration?
Dr.Mouw: Its a very important question. Let me say that Prof. Engelsma
puts allot of emphasis on the doctrine of particular grace in Calvinism, and the
Protestant Reformed folks, their publishing arm, has performed a wonderful service in
issuing a new translation of Abraham
Kuypers wonderful book on particular grace, which I think is a wonderful book. And
yet heres a person who said everything
that every Protestant Reformed person would
ever want him to say about particular grace,
but also believes in common grace, so that isnt an issue that divides us, certainly not those of us in the Kuyperian camp.
I think the real issue is once we have
been regenerated by the Spirit of God, and
were called to serve the cause of God, to bring glory to God in the larger creation, in all spheres of creation. What does it
mean for us to glorify God? And this gets
back to the basic question, what kinds of things does God care about, what kinds of things
does God take delight in, and what kinds of things does God hate? You got to really get
clear now about Prof. Engelsmas reading, for example, of that wonderful verse in Matthew Five[ and Luke Six ]: where Jesus says, Love your enemies,
and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, for your reward shall be great. For
He, your heavenly Father, is kind, is one who
loves His enemies. That we are to imitate God. He agrees with that, but theres a
kind of strange way of agreeing with it. He
says,that God is an enemy lover, the whole notion of the imitatio Dei , the
imitation of God, God is an enemy lover, and
--- we have to be enemy lovers. But the
enemies that God loves, are people like us, who have been redeemed, but God commands us to
love people who havent been redeemed. And so you get this strange notion that God is
commanding us to love people whom He hates. And I want to say, that is not the obvious
meaning of all of that.
And so the question is, does it really fit the larger sense of the scriptures? And this
is why I raise the question. I agree that the grieving Savior over Jerusalem is a somewhat
different issue, but its a question, it is an important example of seeing the heart of God
go out to people who are His enemies. And I want to insist, when Saddam Hussein opened the
prisons, Ill never forget that, it was before the war, he opened the prisons, and
people who had been cooped up in these cells for years, came out, and they were jumpin around, and I want to say, my
instinct, now my instinct, my inclination, my feeling
at that point, was to say, with all that scriptures say
about the opening of the prisons to those who are bound, thats not just
talking about Peter in the book of Acts, its
talking about God rejoices, under certain conditions, when certain kinds of people are
released from prison, and there was a joy of
seeing people liberated from imprisonment by an unjust government, and I want to say, I
think God delights in that. And that God wants me to delight in that, because God delights
in that. I dont think that God is in the business of telling us to love people whom
He hates, to have our compassion go out to people whose
suffering He is causing ! That just does not fit the sense of the scriptures, and we
could spend allot of time on Matthew Five, and
other passages in that regard. But I just have to say
Prof. Engelsma, I find that a very strange
interpretation of what it means for us to love as our heavenly Father loves. Thats enough.
Mr.Noorman: Question for Prof.
Engelsma. Assuming as I think it is legitimate to do, that Mozart was not a believer, does
Prof. Engelsma think that Karl Barth was simply wrong in his view that Mozarts music
will be played in heaven? Is there any sense
in which Mozarts compositions glorify God,
even though he did not intentionally compose them to the glory of God? Suppose we found out that Mozart had a
profound conversion just prior to his death. Would this make a difference in how we assess
his music?
Prof. Engelsma: Karl Barth, of course,
thought Mozart himself was going to be in heaven, and not only his music. As I recall, he
became uncharacteristically indignant with
Dutch Reformed theologians who denied Mozarts salvation, and said hard things about
Mozart. He called them, stupid , and said they
had hard and stony hearts.
As regards the question itself,
probably behind that question is the
suggestion of Kuyper and Bavinck, that
cultural common grace implies that one day some
of the great cultural products of our present
time are going to find a place in the New World. And they
appeal to a text in Revelation
Twenty-one, as I recall, that speaks of the nations bringing their honor and glory , and the kings bringing their honor and glory , into the New World. Scripture gives no reason to
think that the cultural products of the present age, whether of unbelievers or believers,
will be taken into the New World. Rather the Bible teaches that , quote, the earth and the works that are
therein shall be burned up. end quote, Second
Peter Three ten, and that nothing enters the New World that defileth , Revelation Twenty-one verse twenty-seven. The
glory and the honor of the nations that go
into the kingdom of God, according to Revelation Twenty-one,
are the spiritual honor and glory that the
nations have by the work of the regenerating
Spirit of Jesus Christ in the elect of those nations. According to the Bible, the only works that find entrance into the New World are
the works of the dead who die in the Lord. We read in Revelation Fourteen [ verse thirteen ] that
their works do follow them , and even then they dont follow them as cultural
products, a house that they built or a
painting that they painted, but they follow
the believer into heaven in the sense that God remembers their good works, and rewards
them for it.
Id like to explore this question
just a little bit further with you. The theory that
the cultural products of unbelievers may find
a place in heaven, leads to intolerable, painful possibilities. I suppose that Dr. Mouw
and I would not object, in a foolish moment, to Mozarts music being in heaven. But
what if theres a member of the church who has no taste for Mozarts music at
all, must he put up with that music in the New World? And what about some church member,
young church member probably, whose musical tastes are warped, who might propose that the
music of some rock band also be included in heaven. Must I be open to suffering that
hideous din in the New World? I address what I regard as the main point of the question.
When the reformed faith condemns, as I believe it does, all works of the unbelievers as
sin, it is referring to the activity itself of
the unbeliever in performing that work. It is not condemning the cultural product: the
car, the painting, the symphony, or whatever it may
be. These God gives us in His great work of creation, just as He gives us a
mountain to climb or to view, for us to use and enjoy to the glory of God.
I add this point, and Im
addressing, really, Abraham Kuyper here, and Herman Bavinck, who were not nearly so
cautious as Dr. Mouw is about this: I recall in his book that he warned, right at that
point, against a certain triumphalism in those that made much of cultural common grace.
Theres going to be a radical difference between this world and the new world. And
the radical difference will be that the New World will be a spiritual world. Just like the
spiritual, though substantial, Body of
Christ, and the spiritual body of the Christian in the resurrection. We ourselves cant get in with flesh and blood,
much less than can the earthly cultural
products of this age be taken into heaven. Much better things are waiting for us there.
Mr.Noorman: Question for Dr. Mouw: Does
Dr. Mouw acknowledge that there has been a harmful spiritual effect of the doctrine and
practice of common grace upon the churches and schools that have enthusiastically embraced common grace, both in the Netherlands and
in North America over the past eighty to one
hundred years, especially as regards the
young people.
Dr.Mouw: I want to make a distinction
between Netherlands and the United States first of all. I gave a lecture at Boston College
to the Jesuit community a couple of months
ago, and I was introduced by a secular Jew,
Alan Wolf, a very well known sociologist,
who, when he introduced me, said, You got to understand that Mouw taught for a
while at Calvin College, and allot of us sociologists puzzle over how the Netherlands as
such a strong Calvinist community in the nineteenth century
could have turned out to be so secular. And he said, The real answer
is that all the real Calvinists left and went to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
And I think theres a kernel of truth in all of that. I think the
Netherlands is a special case.
But, you know, the real issue there,
and I want to come back to Revelation and the honor and the glory of the nations. I do reject the triumphalist version of that that Kuyper and
many Kuyperians often espouse, but Ive
argued in my book, which I notice is out on
the table there, When
the Kings Come Marching In, based on Isaiah
Sixty, that the Revelation reference to the
honor and the glory of the nations, is really repeating Isaiahs reference to the honor and
the glory of the nations being brought into
the New Jerusalem and then the ships of Tarshish, which are pagan ships, the rams of
Nebaioth, which are consumer goods that were produced by
the descendants of Ishmael, and others, really
there is a gathering in of the fruits of pagan culture into the Holy City. And I do believe that. I suspect that those
of us who dont like Mozart, may be able to watch replays of some of Sammy Sosas home runs in heaven. But, I really do
believe that the Spirit of God is out there. This is the fundamental question - Is the
Spirit of God preparing the creation for the new creation? Is there any continuity? And
swords will be beaten into plowshares, perverse works of arts will be cleansed and
transformed and that which was created to the glory of the creature, will now be
transformed into that which glorifies the Creator. And so I really think that
theres something to that line.
I think that the whole question of
whether the schools, Christian schools, Christian colleges, Ive been on every one of
the Dutch Reformed based colleges, certainly spent
allot of time at Calvin, continue to, Ive been at Dort college recently, Ive
been at Redeemer, Kings College, Edmonton, and I must say, as I travel to these
campuses, I am thrilled to see a younger generation of young people coming up, who really
have a vision of Christ as the King of creation, and as the Lord of all things. There
[are] allot of mistakes, but I think there [are] allot of mistakes in denying common grace. There [are ]allot of mistakes
in refusing to engage. And I think that
weve got to get beyond sort of taking potshots at this or that event that happens on
a specific campus and really look at the
totality of it. I think that the Protestant Reformed folks articulate a wonderful vision,
but really havent done much to the development of a liberal arts tradition within a
uniquely Christian perspective. And I praise
the Lord for the kinds of things that Calvin and Dort, and Redeemer, and the Kings, and
Trinity Christian and other colleges in the
Reformed Presbyterian tradition that are remaining faithful to the reformed faith [ are
doing ]. I praise the Lord for that, and I am very encouraged
by a younger generation thats coming
up.
And again, we make allot of mistakes
and we can avoid those mistakes, by being
more discerning, and frankly by having, even on those campuses, the kinds of
dialogue that were having here this evening. But I want to affirm the importance of
Christian liberal arts education, of the educating of primary schools, and high schools,
of people who are discerning of whats happening in the larger culture, and who are
willing to go out into that culture with a sense that we have to glorify God, and we also have to discern those things in
the culture that contribute to the up building of the Christian community, even though
those who do them, who create their works, may not, themselves, be intending to glorify God.
I think I have a much more, you know,
you ought to say, that He shines in all thats fair , that refers to the
rustling grass, and sunsets and all the things, but human
beings are created ! I mean, we cant separate human beings, even fallen human
beings from Gods good creation. I once had a debate with the great Mennonite
theologian John Howard Yoder and he said, The difference between Mouw and my self
is this. He wants to say, Fallen but created., and I want to say,
Created but fallen. And, you know, Im not going to call you an
Anabaptist, but I have allot of respect for Anabaptists, so it wouldnt be an insult
coming from me. I wont call you an Anabaptist, but I think there is that question of
emphasis. When we read the scriptures are they telling
us that fallen human beings are fallen but created,
and that we still have to discern the work of the Creator there, or do we say of them
theyre created but theyre fallen,
and that means that the marks of their created capacity to glorify God,even when they dont intend to glorify
God, are no longer there. I think thats the fundamental issue.
Mr.Noorman: Final Question for Prof.
Engelsma. Suppose, just suppose, that by some
miraculous divine intervention, the Christian Reformed Synod this year were to announce
that it was wrong in nineteen twenty-four and
was now rejecting the doctrine of common grace. Suppose also that the CRC pleaded with the
Protestant Reformed to rejoin the CRC with a special request to Prof. Engelsma, and other
PR leaders, to help the CRC make the necessary theological
and programmatic adjustments. And suppose the Protestant Reformed folks accepted this
invitation, with the results that Prof. Engelsma suddenly
found himself in a position to provide effective, positive, theological guidance to
the CRC. Would he advocate the elimination of the Christian Reformed World Relief
Committee, with its extensive programs of feeding the hungry and providing disaster relief to people,
Christians and non-Christians alike, around the world, or could there be a non-common
grace, theological basis for continuing these programs in some form?
Dr.Mouw: I want to say, Im really glad that I thought of that question.
Mr.Noorman: I should have let you read
it. You probably would have enjoyed it.
Prof. Engelsma: I wish youd have
watched more of Tiger Woods putting.
Im going to be extremely careful how I answer this question. And Im
going to be extremely careful, not because I
have any uncertainty about my answer, but because the question raises
an explicit reference to an institution. I have avoided all mention of any institutions tonight, so that nobody would be able
to say, which would not be true, that I was aiming what I said at any particular body. I am interested tonight,
exclusively in an issue, in a doctrine, in a
practice in the matter of the basis and power of the Christians life in the world,
as Dr. Mouw is interested in that question.
My
answer about the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee is this - if that
committee is a common grace ministry ,
motivated by a general humanitarian impulse,
rising no higher than helping suffering people; taking its place alongside the Red Cross,
and other organizations of that kind, and not grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor
testifying to Jesus Christ as it dispenses its mercies, I would recommend, and do
everything in my power, if I should have any influence, which will never happen, that the
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee be dissolved at once. If on the other hand, as I
charitably suppose, the Christian Reformed
World Relief Committee is a diaconal ministry of Reformed Churches, motivated by the desire to exercise and show the mercies of
Jesus Christ and always bestowing its help in the name of Jesus Christ, emphatically in the name of the unique Savior then it has a
right and honorable place, so long as it follows the Biblical injunction to do good,
especially to the household of faith, and
also, as opportunity arises, to all men. The
bottom line, for me, is that the Church of Jesus Christ must do everything that it does in
Christs name, and by the power of the,
to use a tautology, saving grace of God.
Mr.Noorman: That concludes our session
of the questions that were previously submitted. At this time were going to collect
your questions. And Id ask that if you have those written out that youd pass
them to the aisles. And the person at the aisle hold them out, so that the ushers can pick
them up. While that is being done, we are
going to sing a song. Were going to sing, Obligations
of Grace, which you will find on your screen. By
the way , our organist this evening is
Mary Velthouse, we thank her for her work, and she will play this through to begin.
Dr.Mouw: We cant answer all
these.
Mr.Noorman: No, no we cant answer
all these. Just find a couple - nice ones. If we could answer them all I know youd
be envious because I have to go to a Cubs game tomorrow, so Im not going to be able
to be here for too late.
Dr.Mouw: Did you sort these out?
Mr.Noorman: Yes these are for Prof. Engelsma, and you should chose which
ones you would like him to answer. While they are
taking just a minute to do that were going to be havin about, well about
fifteen minutes, at the most, for these questions, I guess.
While they are taking a brief minute to look at that,
Id like to... Dr. Mouw mentioned a book that was available in the back, that is put
out by the Reformed Free Publishing
Association, that is, Dr. Abraham Kuypers book Particular Grace that was first published in
eighteen eighty and that has recently been translated into English. The other is a book,
an English translation of the book written by Henry Danhof and Herman Hoeksema that was
published in nineteen twenty-three and soon became the center of the debate in the years
[sic] leading up to nineteen twenty-four. The title of this book is Sin and Grace and that book is also available from
the RFPA.
Maybe if you have one, we could start, and you could.... do you have
one?
Prof. Engelsma: Can we agree on
approximately how many of these we should pick out and make it fair?
Mr.Noorman: Lets pick out three
questions...
Prof. Engelsma: Three questions...?
Mr.Noorman:...and limit it to just a
couple minutes. Alright?
Dr.Mouw: Wow. Can we just start it?
Mr.Noorman: Sure.
Dr.Mouw: If my , this is a question for you, if my unconverted neighbor gives me an honest exchange
for my money, and doesnt steal from me,
is that a good work?
Prof. Engelsma: No.
Dr.Mouw: Okay. I was just wondering.
Prof. Engelsma: But, it would be worse
if he did steal from you.
Dr.Mouw: Yea, see, yea. Thats a
very interesting phenomenon, because you want
to say that there are bad and worse, but no
good and better.
Prof. Engelsma: Thats right, as
does the Westminster Confession in Sixteen
seven.
Dr.Mouw: I argue differently than that.
Prof. Engelsma: I picked this one
because its from my grandson. And
its a serious question. Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that little grace
to the wicked?
Dr.Mouw: Say that..Im sorry.
Prof. Engelsma: Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that
little grace, common grace, to the wicked?
Dr.Mouw: Is the sowing of common grace
a part of the redemptive work of Christ? Well, you know, in the sense that, certainly Colossians
is great on this, you know, that all things might ultimately be brought together in Christ . That not
only is He the head of the body , the Church, but He is before all principalities
and powers, and that Hes preparing the creation for its glorious transformation.
Yeah, I would have to say that, you know, Ill keep quoting hymns on this, but the Christmas Carol, He comes to make His
blessings flow far as the curse is found.
And Jesus Christ died to lift the cursedness from the creation. Now I want to say that there are Muslim women tonight who are
experiencing the cursedness of the creation. There are homeless children who are
experiencing the cursedness of creation. There are families who are being broken up by alcohol addictions, and that those Christian
people who go out into those square inches of the creation and minister to relieve the
cursedness of human beings who have been created by God, created to the glory of God, created to enjoy the good things of Gods creation. I want to
say yes,
thats a part of the blessings that flow from the one who came to make His blessings
flow as far as the curse is found. And I think thats Biblical.
Could you clear up the
misconception that so many have that
Protestant Reformed folks try to determine whether or not someone is elect or reprobate
before we reach out to help them. That because we are not God, we cannot determine a
mans end, and therefore if Christs love is in us we help all in need. I
think youve addressed that already...
Prof. Engelsma: I have.
Dr.Mouw:...but I think that would be a
good thing to clarify.
Prof. Engelsma: The Protestant Reformed
do not, in fact, try to judge whether people
are elect or reprobate, and make a decision whether to help them and love them on the
basis of their apparent election or their apparent reprobation. That would be audacity of the highest degree. We believe that we are
called to love all our neighbors, regardless
whether the neighbor shows himself as a
believer or an unbeliever, in so far as they are
our neighbor, and in so far even as they may be
our enemy personally. Their election and
their reprobation have absolutely nothing to
do with that, so far as we are concerned, whatsoever. What is important is that the person
in our way is a neighbor.
I want to say at the same time, that we show this love in a
different way to a believer, than we do to an
unbeliever. To an unbeliever we give whatever help is needed. We certainly testify of Jesus Christ to him, and we pray for his salvation, but we dont have
friendship with him, nor do we let him think that we have fellowship with him, because
scripture forbids the fellowshipping of believers and unbelievers. We do have fellowship
with Gods people.
Furthermore, I want to add this too,
that in so far as that same neighbor reveals himself as an enemy of God, we can find it in ourselves to hate him,
which is also a Biblical injunction. Psalm a
hundred and thirty-nine [ verses twenty-one and twenty-two ], Do not I hate those
who that hate Thee, O LORD? I hate them with a perfect hatred. I count them mine enemies.
And that doesnt have to do with doing any
physical harm to him, but it does have to do with abhorring him in his present
condition of rebelling against the Most High God, profaning His name, and making himself
worthy of damnation, if he doesnt
repent. But to get back to the question, we do not base the calling we have to love our
neighbor on any judgement about
anybodys election or reprobation.
Mr.Noorman: Your question.
Prof. Engelsma: This is an interesting
one and thats why I pick it out for
you. And Ill be interested in your answer too. Have you considered engaging the once
vibrant reformed natural law tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to come
to a more precise definition of the moral nature of mankind and thereby avoid inadvertently
slipping in worldly principles based
on human experience. Have you considered engaging the once vibrant reformed natural law
tradition...
Dr.Mouw: Yeah. Yeah. No, I... Yes, I have, and I think that its very interesting that theres a very wide spread interest in natural law, today. A
number of Roman Catholics are doing some very good work on updating natural law, having an
influence on some legal theorists in the United States ,
I think thats a very important thing.
Whats very interesting, you know, about
all of this,and I hint at this a little bit in my book,
but let me be very explicit about it tonight.
Is that when the CRC debated the question of common grace, when the Protestant Reformed Churches were formed in the nineteen twenties, the
reigning view in the intelligentsia in much of the reformed community was this notion that
as we look around us we see, as a people who came here as an immigrant community, we see
that we have so much in common with neighbors that we thought we were standing over
against, and so the common grace doctrine was used in the nineteen teens and twenties very
much as an instrument of assimilation of the reformed community into the larger culture,
trying to explain how we...yea, trying to give a theological explanation to what it is
that we sense we have in common with our
American neighbors.
Were living in a time now where
its almost the reverse [of ] the agenda. What in the world do we have in common with
allot of these people that we see around us, I mean, lifestyles that are so repellent to
godly people, and the diversity of religions,
world religions coming to North America, so now the question isnt, How do we
explain theologically what appears to us to be our commonalities?,
but, How do we find any kind of
commonality in a world in which it looks like
theres such fragmentation that people are having a hard time affirming any kind of commonality
at all? You know, theres all this talk in post-modernism about
theres no meta-narrative, we each, you know...and were seeing new tribalisms
and fragmentations, so the question of commonality is
a very important one today, in a very different sense, and its in that context
that notions like natural law, and common grace, and general revelation are being looked
at again as possibilities for discerning things that simply
arent obvious to...you know, as we look around us. And this topic is very much on top of the cultural agendas, so that in
many ways the common grace notion has its
parallels even in secular thought, people are saying what could possibly hold us together as a nation in which our
diversity runs so deep. yeah...
Another question: Would Prof. Engelsma
please list all the reformed theologians prior to Hoeksema who denied common grace
doctrine? I think thats an important question about the...you know, yeah,
thats an important question.
Prof. Engelsma: I believe that the
common grace doctrine that were talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and
Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not
afraid to claim, virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very
least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed
to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on Gods part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldnt
hesitate to claim every orthodox reformed
theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper, as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by
implication.When I say that, I readily
acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and
including Calvin, to refer to what I call, bounties of providence , whether
Mozarts musical ability, or Platos intellectual ability or whatever it may
be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize
that. But that does not put those theologians in
the camp of those who think that there is an
operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so
that theyre partially good, and can
even do works that are truly good, because
theyre done by Gods grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to
Christianize society . That was Abraham Kuypers terminology, and
Abraham Kuyper was after that. Christianizing
society by
a common grace of God.
So I am not at all willing to grant, if
thats the assumption of the question, that Herman Hoeksema bursts on the scene with
a novel and entirely unheard of opposition to Kuyperian common grace. I dont believe
that for a moment. I believe that the Protestant Reformed position, in this matter, has
solid grounding in powerful strains of the reformed tradition going back to Calvin. To go
no further.
Dr.Mouw: Let me just add, that I think
that you can see denial of common grace in allot of Scottish theology in the seventeenth
century, so I think youre, youre right there are precedents.
Mr.Noorman: Are we even with questions?
O.K. That brings us to the close of the program tonight. Its been a long evening,
but a wonderful and informative evening and I would like to acknowledge the work tonight
of these two men, if you would please.
Mr.Noorman: Thank you.
Dr.Mouw: Youre welcome.
Id also to thank the Southeast
Protestant Reformed Church Evangelism Committee for organizing and putting this program
together, and I thank you all for coming and being such a big part of this too. And I was
standing out in the lobby beforehand, and as
I look out now, Im really amazed at
what I see here, because the average age in this auditorium is by no means elderly. This is a young group, and I
think that is so important that the future of our church be involved with activities like
this, and I encourage you to continue.
At this time Id like to have,
Ill call him pastor-elect, Bill Langerak of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church to
come and close with prayer.
Pastor-elect Langerak: We should praise God and give thanks that some
several thousand came out this evening to hear a discussion, a serious discussion, about
crucial matters of the reformed faith and life. Lets give thanks to that God:
Our Father which art in heaven we come
unto Thee not only as the God of our salvation, but the God of all things in heaven and in
earth. The One, True and Triune God whom we worship, God our Father, the Father of the Son
of our salvation and the Holy Spirit in our
sanctification. We pray that the event this evening, and what went on, and the discussion
that we had was no mere intellectual exercise, or a trivial discussion, but one that we
took that we were moved by in a heart felt, spiritual way, for it concerns our faith, and
our relationship to Thee our God and more importantly what kind of God, bless us, keep us,
and forgive that which is done in sin. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.