Transcription of  A Debate On Common Grace 9/12/ 03 Distributed by  the

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 That’s Fair, by  Dr.Mouw & Common Grace Revisited, by  Professor Engelsma

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 grace of God ,“ though admitting the pagan mind is “ chocked with dense ignorance, “ and even his civic virtues lose all favor before God.

1.3.V

Dr.Mouw takes Calvin’s positive evaluations of pagan thought, and warning not to dishonor the Holy  Ghost  by  despising the truth given to pagans, seriously

1.3.VI

Appreciation of God’s multi-faceted engagement with and delight in His creation is critical for a nuanced comprehension of His responses / relationship to the unconverted and their works 

1.3.VII 

God’s positive non-redemptive purposes  basis of  “ common grace ministries “

1.3.VIII

Prof. Engelsma’s reduction of common grace to theological empiricism

1.3.IX

Warnings against empiricism legitimate, because of the heart’s 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.Engelsma’s critique 

1.3.XII,XIII

Unbelieving Hebrews participants is God’s salvific program; Revisited’sheart breaking’ response to heathen tragedy: God is the author of all such suffering and does not sympathize with the subjects thereof: our natural feelings are not reflective of the Divine pathos: Dr.Mouw demurs with two points:

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 preceptively  enjoined indiscriminate compassion upon suffering men expresses the love of the heart of God towards the same

1.3.XVI

PRC objection based upon acknowledgment of the immutable hatred of God manifested in reprobation, cp. Romans 9:18 

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 amongst Protestants

1.4.II

Dr.Mouw’s fair treatment of PRC concerns that common grace teaching opens the church to the wicked influences of the world 

1.4.III

Debate limited to cultural common grace as distinguished from evangelical common grace and its related concepts of the so-called ‘free offer of the gospel‘ and a sincere divine desire for the realization of universalism 

1.4.IV

Prof.Engelsma speaks as spokesman of PRC for their three main reasons for objection to common grace

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 Arminianscp: 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: cp. Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 8    

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 hypothetical), thereby perverting the gospel, and dissipating its offense   

1.4.VIII

Wrath alone upon unbelievers, cp. Rom.1:16ff, grace, life, and righteousness in Christ, wrath, death, and guilt outside of Christ, [cp. Rom.2:6-10]: common grace teaching of God’s universal favor upon men is anti-confessional by contradicting the premises of their anthropology, soteriology, etc.

1.4.IX

Second - Destruction of the Antithesis, that is, the enmity  between the seed of Christ, and the seed of the serpent, cp. Gen.3:15, Deut.33:28, 2 Cor.6:14ff

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.  Augustine’s  City of God      

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 common grace has been embraced over the last century  as unambiguously demonstrated in the history of the Netherlands, and U.S

1.4.XII 

Third - Inevitable tendency  to universalism, ex. Dr.Mouw’s 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 - God’s good gifts to the ungodly as judgment, cp. Psalm 73, all things, even world sufferings and physical deprivation, are blessings to the believers 1Cor.3:21,   Rom.8:28 

1.4.XV

Second - Every  work of unbelievers is sin, cp. Rom.14:23, “ glittering vices “ Augustine      

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 Lord’s creation dominion cp. 1 Cor.10:26,28; 1 Tim.4:4.

1.4.XVIII 

Fourth - Scripture knows only a single, redemptive Christiological historical-purpose, cp. Col.1:16-18, common grace posits two, Christ and a Christ-less culture which invariably exceeds Him in preeminence.  

1.5.I 

Closure- Mr.Noorman

Second Session - Rebuttals

2.1.I,II

Prefatory - Mr.Noorman

2.2.I-IX

Rebuttal of Prof.Engelsma’s 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 understood by  Prof.Engelsma as the Heidelberg’s earlier “ any  good,"  whereas Dr.Mouw maintains it is the Canons  “ any  saving good “

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

God’s pity of the suffering depraved demonstrated as He empathically  calls to them as candidates for a mollifying salvation 

2.2.VI

Common grace necessary  implication of Christ’s universal creation-economy , cp. Col.1:16ff, i.e. it is a work of Christ, those who partake of it, therefore, do not have a goodness and grace that is ‘ outside of ’ or ‘ apart from Christ ‘

2.2.VII

Repudiation of universalism, acknowledgment  of  a “ somewhat dangerous and regrettable “ effect upon those who have embraced common grace

2.2.VIII

Ghettoized mentality / cultural mandate apathy as evil fruits of the PRC’s denial of common grace

2.2.IX 

Regrets lack of discernment in use of both the doctrine of common grace, and the denial thereof 

2.3.I-VIII

Rebuttal of Dr.Mouw’s speech - Prof.Engelsma

2.3.I

Reaction to Dr.Mouw’s rebuttal, PRC listens and considers the admonitions to it of common grace espousers

2.3.II

Calvin’s doctrine of providential gifts to the pagans, did not imply a work of the Spirit upon the ungodly minimizing their depravity, or legitimation of cooperation between Christians and pagans to institute a godly  culture 

2.3.III

Nothing fair, including athletics, in life of unregenerates, cp. Psalm 147:10,11

2.3.IV

Pagan’s activities, including athletics, an abomination , but products thereof may  be used to the glory  of God by the Christian: cp. 1 Cor.10:31

2.3.V

God’s righteous, ardent infliction, even if by  means of damnable agents, of all suffering experienced by men is on account of the sin of Adam, and all subsequent sins, and thus all have justly  incurred it 

2.3.VI

Concept of divine sympathy for the suffering of the wicked contradicts the indubitable scriptural doctrine of the eternal conscious torment that constitutes damnation; all tragedy , even atrocities, warrantably from the hand of God cp. Lamentations.

2.3.VII

Pray ing for the peace of Babylon was not for the sake of the Babylonians, but Judah, as the Old Testament Church, which was captive therein, cp. Jeremiah 29:7   

2.3.VIII

The doctrine of a universal saving grace is the implication of the apparent interpretation of Luke 13:34 concluding Dr.Mouw’s speech; which latter doctrine is a de facto denial of the gospel of grace      

Third Session - Prepared questions/answers 

3.1.I

Prefatory - Mr.Noorman

3.2.I     

Q. for Dr.Mouw - Pagan good works negate creedal doctrine of total depravity

3.2.II

A. Calvin - civil officers serve will of God; ‘total‘ is distinct from 'absolute‘ depravity, that is, depravity  effects all spheres of activity, but is not complete     

3.3.I

Q. for Prof.Engelsma - Why does God command me to love people He hates?

3.3.II

A. God hates some persons, cp. Psalm 5:5, Romans 9:13

3.3.III

God’s love for  some of His enemies reflected as believers love all their enemies

3.4.I 

Q. for Dr.Mouw - “ Common grace ministries “ contra regenerating grace as basis for Christian works 

3.4.II

A. Kuyper was orthodox vis. particular grace, though maintained common grace, and thus “ common grace ministries    are not, de facto, a repudiation or even modification of the teaching that Christians are animated by  a salvific grace that is particular to the regenerate       

3.4.III

Because God commands Christians to love the unredeemed without qualification, ipso facto He does as well, cp. Matthew 5:42-48, Luke 6:35

3.4.IV

Unjust men who inflict suffering are alone responsible for it: God hates injustice, inhumanity, and misery  and is delighted when men are released from it, and when men act as agents of the latter, and He “ wants “ us to be of like mind cp. Mat. 5:43ff

3.5.I

Q. for Prof.Engelsma- Was Barth wrong that Mozart’s compositions are heard in glory?

3.5.II

A. Barth’s 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 enter glory, cp. 2 Peter 3:10, Rev.14:13

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 having the discernment to properly  engage the wider culture for the strengthening of the ‘Christian community‘. 

3.6.VI

Men are not ‘ created but fallen ‘, but ‘ fallen but created ‘, so that fallen men qua God’s 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 debate’s issue vs. being a critique of a particular body

3.7.IV

Godly  ministry  is diaconal, doing good in the name of the unique Savior, especially to the household of faith, as opposed to being a vehicle for purely  humanitarian assistance, as the Red Cross.

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 Christ’s 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/Bavinck’s 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

Hoeksema’s 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
( Opening speaker: Pastor Dale Kuiper of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan.)


The Debate

1.1.I

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. It’s gratifying to see such a good turn out this evening. We know that there are weddings, football games, basketball games, other programs, and we’re very  happy  that you have decided, all that notwithstanding, to come here tonight. People are still arriving, and we’re going to give them an opportunity to find a seat.

 

1.1.II

Let’s ask for God’s blessing upon our meeting tonight:

 

Our Father which art in heaven we’ve 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.

 

1.1.III

I’ve 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.

 

1.1.IV

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.....

 

1.2.I

Mr.Noorman: Thank you Rev. Kuiper. Good evening and, again, welcome to tonight’s debate. In God’s 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 tonight’s debate will help all of those who are exposed to this grow in their understanding of the doctrines that shape their view of God’s 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 tonight’s 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.

 

1.2.II

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 That’s 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. Mouw’s book. This book by  Prof. David Engelsma is titled “ Common Grace Revisited: A Response to Richard J. Mouw’s He Shines in All That’s Fair  

 

1.2.III

At this time I’d 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.

 

1.2.IV                                  

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.

 

1.2.V

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 tonight’s 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 other’s 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.

 

1.3.I

Dr.Mouw: Thank you. I’m delighted to be here. Feels like I’m 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 aren’t 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 community’s lack of interest in pursuing the issues. Their frustration is understandable. I’m convinced that the debates of the nineteen twenties and the Protestant Reformed Church’s continuing critique of the theology  of common grace have importance for the entire body  of Jesus Christ in the twenty first century.

1.3.II

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 I’m firm in my  belief that the theology  of common grace is a solid basis for the proper understanding of the church’s 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 he’s given to my  thoughts on the subject of common grace. I’ve learned much from his series of articles in which he sets forth an extensive critique of what I argued in my  book. And I’m immensely  pleased that his reflections are now appearing in book form. I’ve 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.

1.3.III

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.

1.3.IV

Defenders of common grace like to appeal to John Calvin himself to defend their views. Calvin’s 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 I’m 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 God’s 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. “

1.3.V

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 Calvin’s 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, I’m 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 God’s goodness shines in all that’s fair, without also giving due attention to the fact that the Lord also curses all that’s foul. Well he’s 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  God’s 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.

1.3.VI

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. I’m convinced that that assumption fails to do justice to the full scope of God’s 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.

1.3.VII

This issue of the more-than-redemptive scope of God’s 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 isn’t at all obvious that in experiencing this release from addiction, they’ve 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 here’s 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 husband’s 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. It’s clear that they intend to build a new life together. Now, they  haven’t 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.

1.3.VIII

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 I’m 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.

1.3.IX

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 they’re saying that we must not get our theology  from our experiences out there in the world. And that’s 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 God’s 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 it’s 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 God’s 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.

1.3.X

So here’s 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.

1.3.XI

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 God’s 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 God’s creaturely  goodness in these deeds. The critic of common grace, while insisting that there’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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.

1.3.XII

The second experience is a much more serious one. In my book I repeated a story, that I’d 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 God’s 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 I’m 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 here’s Prof. Engelsma’s description of the scene, I’m quoting, “ There’s 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 son’s 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. I’m  so grateful for Prof. Engelsma’s next words, he says, “ It breaks our heart.“

1.3.XIII

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, “ I’m 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 God’s redemptive economy. But for now I’ll treat his example as He intends it, that is, as depicting the Jewish victims as persons who are outside the scope of God’s 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.

1.3.XIV

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. It’s 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. 

1.3.XV

The underlining principle here, I believe, is set forth nicely  in First Peter Two where the apostle tells God’s 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.

1.3.XVI

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 God’s 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 God’s sovereign ways.

1.3.XVII

But there’s another mystery  in whose presence I continually  stand in awe, as a Calvinist, it’s the mystery  of a divine Savior who came from heaven to fulfil God’s 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.

1.4.I                      

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 That’s 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. Mouw’s 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 Mouw’s book.

1.4.II

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.

1.4.III

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. Mouw’s book, and this is not our  subject tonight. Our subject tonight is what I might call, cultural common grace.

1.4.IV

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.

1.4.V

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.

1.4.VI

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.

1.4.VII

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 God’s 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.

1.4.VIII

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 God’s 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.

1.4.IX

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  God’s 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. “

1.4.X

‘ 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 world’s 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 Church’s 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, God’s 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.

1.4.XI

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.

1.4.XII

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 That’s 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. Mouw’s 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. Mouw’s position, but that is Brian Gerrish’s observation concerning the updating of common grace, for which Dr. Mouw has pleaded.

1.4.XIII

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.

1.4.XIV      

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 God’s 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 Nero’s 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.

1.4.XV

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 God’s 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.    

1.4.XVI

Third. Although we deny  that common grace is the basis of the Christian’s active life in society, and the basis of the Christian’s 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 O’Brian’s 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 Lord’s and the fulness thereof. “  [  1 Cor.10:26,28 ] This is the basis of the Christian’s 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.

1.4.XVII

Basing the life of the Christian in the world on the doctrine of creation establishes the possibility of the Christians’s use and enjoyment of the creation, and of his associating with unbelievers, without compromising the spiritual antithesis. Christian’s 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.

1.4.XVIII

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 Ruth’s 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.

1.5.I

Mr.Noorman: Thank you Dr.Mouw and Prof. Engelsma. Before we take our intermission, I’d like to alert you to the fact that the books of both of our speakers tonight are available in the lobby. Prof. Engelsma’s books will be found at the table of the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Dr. Mouw’s 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 tonight’s 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.

2.1.I

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 there’s anything left. At this time we’re going to sing Psalter number forty-eight which is A Call to Praise. We’re 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.

2.1.II

The second portion of the debate, with the rebuttals. There’ll be two fifteen minute rebuttals. And we’ll begin, first of all, with Dr. Mouw.

2.2.I

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] .

2.2.II

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. We’re talking about issues tonight that are of the utmost importance.  And its about time that we’re talking together about these things. I’m 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 we’re 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.

2.2.III

A wonderful example given by  Earl Palmer, the Pastor of University  Presbyterian Church in Seattle, where he’s talking about the sense in which “ all have sinned and come short of the glory  of God “, and he’s says, ‘ Imagine there’s a shipwreck and there are three  people in the water, and they’re fifty miles from shore. One is an Olympic swimmer who’s 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  isn’t  going to survive five minutes in the water. There’s 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 ‘em’s going to make it to shore. They  will all fall short. ‘ 

2.2.IV

And that’s 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. We’re in terrible shape. We’re drowning people. And unless somebody  throws out the lifeline, unless the rescuer comes, we’re 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 there’s 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 God’s creating purposes, something of God’s 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.

2.2.V

I’m 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 I’m 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, they’re suffering people, they’re homeless people, they’re wandering people, they  don’t know where they’re 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 I’m 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.

2.2.VI

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.

2.2.VII

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, there’s 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 don’t reject all film, we don’t reject all television drama, but we have to be discerning about, there’s no question that having opened that door, we’re watching allot of stuff that we ought not to, and that we’re being polluted by  it. There’s 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.

2.2.VIII

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 don’t 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, I’m a faithful reader of the  Standard Bearer, I’m 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 God’s 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.

2.2.IX

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 don’t think you’ve 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 that’s enough for now.    

2.3.I

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 Christian’s 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  .

2.3.II

As far as my rebuttal of Dr. Mouw’s 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 God’s 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.

2.3.III

In the second place, and this is important to Dr. Mouw’s 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 That’s 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  man’s 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. God’s 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 ].   

2.3.IV

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. It’s abominable, that, if that’s 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 Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, and if he doesn’t 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 ].

2.3.V

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 that’s the suggestion, and even statement, by  Dr. Mouw that God’s heart breaks at human suffering, all human suffering, including the suffering of idolaters, and ungodly people. I’m going to talk about the difference between our love for our neighbor, and God’s love for that neighbor, in answer  to one of the pointed questions that Dr. Mouw has put to me, so I won’t 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. Mouw’s 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, that’s 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. God’s heart doesn’t 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 we’re worthy  of it from the moment we’re conceived and from the moment we’re born . We’re guilty  before this holy  God. And there’s no escape from it, the Bible tells us, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, regenerating grace, and faith in Christ.

2.3.VI

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. God’s heart doesn’t 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.

2.3.VII

With regard to the Jeremiah Twenty-nine passage, I’m 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, there’s 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 don’t 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.

2.3.VIII

That’s 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.  That’s not a question among us. If our practice falls short of that, then we’re 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, that’s what’s 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 isn’t proving a non-saving love of God toward every  human being: it is proving a saving grace of God to every human being. It’s the desire then of the heart of Jesus, on behalf of God whose Messiah He is, to save every  human being. If that’s 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 doesn’t 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 tonight’s 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. We’ll start with a question from Prof. Engelsma to Dr. Mouw.

3.2.I

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. “

3.2.II

Dr.Mouw: I‘ve 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 God’s purposes. And I think that if that’s weakening the doctrine of total depravity, so be it, but I don’t really  think it is, because as I’ve 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 ‘. There’s 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.

3.3.I

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 God’s 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?        

3.3.II

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.

3.3.III

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, we’re 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  don’t 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.  I’m 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.

3.4.I

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?     

3.4.II

Dr.Mouw: It’s 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 Kuyper’s wonderful book on particular grace, which I think is a wonderful book. And yet here’s 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 isn’t an issue that divides us, certainly  not those of us in the Kuyperian camp.

 

3.4.III

I think the real issue is once we have been regenerated by  the Spirit of God, and we’re 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. Engelsma’s 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 there’s 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 haven’t 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.

3.4.IV

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, I’ll 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, that’s not just talking about Peter  in the book of Acts,  it’s 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 don’t 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. That’s enough.

3.5.I

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 Mozart’s music will be played in heaven? Is there any  sense in which Mozart’s 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?

3.5.II

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 Mozart’s salvation, and said hard things about Mozart. He called them, ‘ stupid ‘, and said they  had hard and stony hearts.

3.5.III

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 don’t 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.

3.5.IV

I’d 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 Mozart’s music being in heaven. But what if there’s a member of the church who has no taste for Mozart’s 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.

3.5.V

I add this point, and I’m 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. There’s 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 can’t 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.

3.6.I

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.

3.6.II

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  there’s  a kernel of truth in all of that. I think the Netherlands is a special case.

3.6.III

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 I’ve 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 Isaiah’s 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 don’t like Mozart, may be able to watch replays of some of Sammy  Sosa’s 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 there’s something to that line.

3.6.IV

I think that the whole question of whether the schools, Christian schools, Christian colleges, I’ve been on every one of the Dutch Reformed based colleges, certainly  spent allot of time at Calvin, continue to, I’ve been at Dort college recently, I’ve been at Redeemer, King’s 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 we’ve 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 haven’t 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 that’s coming up.

3.6.V

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 we’re 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 what’s 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.

3.6.VI

I think I have a much more, you know, you ought to say, that ‘ He shines in all that’s fair ‘, that refers to the rustling grass, and sunsets and all the things, but human beings are created ! I mean, we can’t separate human beings, even fallen human beings from God’s 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, I’m not going to call you an Anabaptist, but I have allot of respect for Anabaptists, so it wouldn’t be an insult coming from me. I won’t 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 they’re created but they’re fallen, and that means that the marks of their created capacity to glorify  God,even when they don’t intend to glorify God, are no longer there. I think that’s the fundamental issue.

3.7.I

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?

3.7.II

Dr.Mouw: I want to say, I’m 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 you’d have watched more of Tiger Wood’s putting.

3.7.III

I’m going to be extremely  careful how I answer this question. And I’m 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 Christian’s life in the world, as Dr. Mouw is interested in that question.

3.7.IV

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 Christ’s name, and by the power  of the, to use a tautology, saving grace of God.

3.8.1

Mr.Noorman: That concludes our session of the questions that were previously submitted. At this time we’re going to collect your questions. And I’d ask that if you have those written out that you’d 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. We’re 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.

4.1.I

Dr.Mouw: We can’t answer all these.

Mr.Noorman: No, no we can’t answer all these. Just find a couple - nice ones. If we could answer them all I know you’d be envious because I have to go to a Cubs game tomorrow, so I’m 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 we’re going to be havin’ about, well about fifteen minutes, at the most, for these questions, I guess.

4.1.II

While they  are taking a brief minute to look at that, I’d 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 Kuyper’s 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.

4.1.III

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: Let’s 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.

4.2.I

Dr.Mouw: If my , this is a question for you, if my  unconverted neighbor gives me an honest exchange for my  money, and doesn’t steal from me, is that a good work?

4.2.II

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. That’s a very  interesting phenomenon, because you want to say  that there are bad and worse, but no good and better.

Prof. Engelsma: That’s right, as does the Westminster Confession in Sixteen seven.

Dr.Mouw: I argue differently than that.

4.3.I

Prof. Engelsma: I picked this one because it’s from my  grandson. And it’s a serious question. Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that little grace to the wicked?

Dr.Mouw: Say  that..I’m sorry.

Prof. Engelsma: Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that little grace, common grace, to the wicked?

4.3.II

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 He’s preparing the creation for its glorious transformation. Yeah, I would have to say that, you know, I’ll 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 God’s creation. I want to say  yes, that’s 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 that’s Biblical.

4.4.I

“ 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 man’s end, and therefore if Christ’s love is in us we help all in need. “ I think you’ve addressed that already...

Prof. Engelsma: I have.

Dr.Mouw:...but I think that would be a good thing to clarify.

4.4.II

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.

4.4.III

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 don’t 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 God’s people.

4.4.IV

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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t repent. But to get back to the question, we do not base the calling we have to love our neighbor on any  judgement about anybody’s election or reprobation.

4.5.I

Mr.Noorman: Your question.

Prof. Engelsma: This is an interesting one and that’s why  I pick it out for you. And I’ll 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...

4.5.II

Dr.Mouw: Yeah. Yeah. No, I... Yes, I have, and I think that it’s very  interesting that there’s 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 that’s a very  important thing. What’s 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.

4.5.III

We’re living in a time now where it’s 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 isn’t, ‘ 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 there’s such fragmentation that people are having a hard time affirming any  kind of commonality  at all?’ You know, there’s all this talk in post-modernism about there’s no meta-narrative, we each, you know...and we’re seeing new tribalisms and fragmentations, so the question of commonality  is a very  important one today, in a very  different sense, and it’s 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  aren’t 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...

4.6.I

Another question: Would Prof. Engelsma please list all the reformed theologians prior to Hoeksema who denied common grace doctrine? I think that’s an important question about the...you know, yeah, that’s an important question.

4.6.II

Prof. Engelsma: I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re 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 God’s part in the preaching of  the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t 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 Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s 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 they’re partially  good, and can even do works that are truly  good, because they’re done by  God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to Christianize society . That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that. Christianizing society  by  a common grace of God.

4.6.III

So I am not at all willing to grant, if that’s 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 don’t 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.

4.7.I

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 you’re, you’re right there are precedents.

5.1.I

Mr.Noorman: Are we even with questions? O.K. That brings us to the close of the program tonight. It’s 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: You’re welcome.

5.1.II

I’d 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, I’m 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.

5.1.III

At this time I’d like to have, I’ll call him pastor-elect, Bill Langerak of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church to come and close with prayer.

5.2.I

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. Let’s give thanks to that God:

5.2.II

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.