(This transcription was prepared by
Andrew P. Magni--for which we express our great appreciation. To hear the audio of
this debate, go to:
Is the Doctrine of Common Grace
Reformed? )
Table of Contents
|
First Session - Speeches of Dr. Mouw
& Prof. Engelsma
|
1.1.I |
Opening remarks - Pastor Dale Kuiper
|
1.1.II |
Prayer |
1.1.III |
Scripture Reading, Psalm 119:89-96 Lamed.
|
1.1.IV |
Introduction of Mr.Rick Noorman as Moderator. |
1.2.I |
Prefatory -- Mr. Noorman
|
1.2.II |
Description of He Shines in All Thats Fair, by Dr. Mouw & 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: the three manifestations of common grace. |
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 seriously Calvins
positive evaluations of pagan thought, and his warning not to dishonor the Holy Ghost by despising the truth given to pagans.
|
1.3.VI |
Appreciation of Gods
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 |
Gods positive non-redemptive purposes are the basis of common grace ministries. |
1.3.VIII |
Prof. Engelsmas reduction of common grace to theological empiricism. |
1.3.IX |
Warnings against empiricism as basis
for theology is legitimate, because of the hearts proneness to deception and the
esteeming highly of that which God hates, cp. Jer.
17:9, Is. 5:20 but Dr. Mouw is not seeking
truth from empiricism, as much as deriving a stimulation for scripture study from an
activist ministry in the world.
|
1.3.X,XI |
Christian celebration of pagan athletics, response to Prof.Engelsmas critique thereof. |
1.3.XII,XIII |
Special status of the
Hebrews in God's redemptive economy; Revisiteds heart breaking response to heathen
tragedy, e.g.: God is the author of all such suffering and does not sympathize with the
subjects thereof, even as our natural feelings of empathy 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, 1 Peter 3:15-17: compassion upon indiscriminate suffering men express the love of the heart of God towards the same, and is by precept enjoined upon the saints. |
1.3.XVI |
P.R.C. 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.Mouws fair treatment of P.R.C.
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
P.R.C. for their three main reasons for objection to common grace
|
1.4.V |
First - Though allegedly an overriding axiomatic principle of Christian life and world-view, its significant utter absence in reformed symbols, except in the Canons wherein it is attributed to the universal potentiality of salvation doctrine of the Arminians: cp: Canons: Head III-IV, Rejection of Errors V |
1.4.VI |
Conflicts with symbols
explication of total depravity, rendering it hypothetical, that is, apart from common
grace it would have been an attribute of
mankind, had it not been for common grace: cp. Heidelberg
Catechism Q/A 8.
|
1.4.VII |
Conflicts with symbols definition
of grace in particular, and derived from election (by positing a universal grace which
renders the judgments of Rom. 3:9ff as
hypothetical--see above), 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, whereas wrath, death, and guilt are outside of Christ, [cp. Rom. 2:6-10]: common grace teaching of Gods
universal grace/favor upon men, even those outside of Christ, is anti-confessional by
contradicting the premises of their anthropology, soteriology, etc.
|
1.4.IX |
Second - Destroys of the doctrine of
the antithesis, that is, the perpetual 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 re rendered effective through opening themselves to the thinking
and conversation of the world cp. Augustines 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.Mouws speculation at the end of
He Shines, which latter doctrine is the
destruction of the gospel of Christ.
|
1.4.XIII |
Summary of PRC objections.
|
1.4.XIV-XVIII |
Four point clarification of P.R.C.
position.
|
1.4.XIV |
First - Gods good gifts to the
ungodly are a curse and judgment against them, cp. Psalm
73; alternatively, all things, even world sufferings and physical deprivation, are
blessings to the believers, 1 Cor .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 for ministry is by power
of grace of which the unbeliever is void; and thus there can be no common, ministerial
activity. P.R.C. contrariety to pietism based upon Lords creation
dominion; cp. 1 Cor.;10:26,28; 1 Tim. 4:4.
|
1.4.XVIII |
Fourth - Scripture knows only a single,
redemptive Christological 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. Engelsmas speech -- Dr.Mouw. |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.I |
Observations with respect to Psalm
singing together of P.R.C. & C.R.C. at debate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.II |
Primary
definition of symbolic doctrine of the works of the unconverted is understood by
Prof.Engelsma as the Heidelbergs earlier
any good, whereas Dr. Mouw
maintains it is the Canons later any
saving good.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.III |
Earl Palmer illustration -- all fall short of salvation, but not by the same degree--depravity is not absolute. |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.IV |
Total depravity exclusively means that men are incapable of saving themselves, i.e., we need someone to cast out the lifeline. |
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.V |
Gods pity of the suffering
depraved demonstrated as He empathically calls to them as candidates for a mollifying
salvation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VI |
Common grace is the necessary
implication of Christs 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 part from Christ.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VII |
Repudiation of universalism,
acknowledgment of a somewhat dangerous
and regrettable fruits exhibited from those who have embraced common grace.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.2.VIII |
Ghettoized
mentality/cultural mandate apathy as evil fruits of the P.R.C.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. Mouws speech --
Prof. Engelsma.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.I |
Reaction to Dr. Mouws rebuttal:
P.R.C. listens and considers the admonitions to it of common grace espousers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.II |
Calvins doctrine of providential
gifts to the pagans did not imply a work of the Spirit upon the ungodly, minimizing their
depravity, or legitimizing 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 |
Pagans 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 |
Gods 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, warranted from
the hand of God cp. Lamentations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.VII |
Praying for the peace of Babylon was
not for the sake of the welfare of the Babylonians, but for that of Judah, as the Old
Testament Church captive in the pagan city; cp. Jeremiah 29:7.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2.3.VIII |
The doctrine of a universal,
conditional, saving grace is the implication of the apparent interpretation of Luke 13:34 concluding Dr. Mouws speech;
which latter doctrine is a de facto denial of the gospel of grace for it implies that saving
grace is resistible, and so the gospel is conditioned upon mans
response, and thus it is not actually of grace, but is rather of works; [cp. Romans 11:6].
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Third Session - Prepared questions/answers
|
3.5.I |
Q. For Prof. Engelsma -- Was Barth
wrong that Mozarts compositions are heard in glory?
|
3.5.II |
A. Barths uncouth response to critics; believed Mozart was 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 -- Have there not been
harmful effects 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 Gods creative work are fair, and capable to glorify God, if only unintentionally. |
3.7.1 |
Q. for Prof. Engelsma -- Is
C.R.C.s humanitarian ministry ungodly?
|
3.7.II |
Reaction of Mouw, Noorman, Engelsma to question. |
3.7.III |
A. Answer to be circumscribed to
address debates issue vs. being a critique of a particular institution/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 an ungodly vehicle for generic humanitarian assistance, as the Red Cross, not
grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
|
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 exclusively are bad or worse, cp. WCF 16:7; Dr. Mouw demurs. |
4.3.I |
Q. for Dr. Mouw -- Was Christs passion unto the bestowal of grace upon the wicked? |
4.3.II |
A. Yes, for Christ came to mollify the cursedness of creation, Col. 1:16ff. |
4.4.I |
Q. for Prof. Engelsma -- Does P.R.C.
discern, and only minister to, the elect?
|
4.4.II |
A. As election is hidden, Christians
called to minister to neighbors indiscriminately.
|
4.4.III |
Love/empathy is applied
indiscriminately; fellowship/friendship is particular to believers.
|
4.4.IV |
Duty to hate (though not to violently oppose) those who manifest their enmity against God, cp. Ps. 139:21,22. |
4.5.I |
Q. for Dr. Mouw -- Have you considered employment of the natural law tradition to understand man's moral nature and so prevent the intrusion of worldly principles based on empiricism? |
4.5.II |
A. "I have." Natural law concepts updated by Roman Catholics influencing American jurisprudence. Reformed immigrants utilized natural law to identify cultural commonality unto assimilation. |
4.5.III |
Contrarily, contemporary cultural fragmentation provokes use of natural law to discern unity: parallels in contemporary secular sociological thought. |
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 prior to Hoeksema repudiates by contradiction Kuyper/Bavincks novel conceptions of gifts of grace administered by the internal working of the Spirit in the unregenerate unto the building of a Christian society through their good works. |
4.6.III |
Hoeksemas opposition to
new-fashioned Kuyperianism grounded in historic reformed dogmatics.
|
4.7.I |
Dr. Mouw comments concerning an anti-common grace precedence in 17th c. Scottish theology. |
|
|
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. |
The Debate
( Opening speaker: Pastor Dale Kuiper of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan.)
Pastor Kuiper: Good evening. On behalf of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, we welcome you to this program which is dedicated to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Its gratifying to see such a good turn out this evening. We know that there are weddings, football games, basketball games, other programs, and were very happy that you have decided, all that notwithstanding, to come here tonight. People are still arriving, and were going to give them an opportunity to find a seat.
Lets ask for Gods blessing upon our meeting tonight:
Our Father which art in heaven weve come together tonight as believers to hear the truth of Thy Word. Thy Word is truth. It is the truth of all things. It is the only truth in this sorry world of confusion and the Lie. Thy Word is light in this world of darkness, shining upon our pathway, showing us the way that is everlasting. Thy Word is clear, so that little children and the unlearned can readily grasp the sense of the Spirit. Thy Word is sufficient, so that the Church of the Elect out of all the nations is saved, and Thy name has all the Glory. Thy Word, Father, is unmistakable, just as when the lion roars, people know it, so when Thy Word is proclaimed, we know it, and tremble. Thy Word, Father, is inspired, and therefore profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, so that we are thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Thy Word is powerful, able to bring to faith those that ought to be saved, and to leave without excuse those who refuse to bow before King Jesus. Thy Word is authority for right doctrine and right living, for it comes to us from the mouth of the Sovereign of heaven and earth. Yes, we have come together to hear that Word. May it be spoken in truth and may the truth prevail. To that end supply the needs of those who participate in this program tonight, especially the needs of the professors of theology and make us as little children, who are teachable, and who have not lost a sense of wonder and awe when it comes to the gospel, and when it comes to Thy grace. Pardon in mercy our sins today, and keep us from every evil way. Hear our prayer, in the precious name of Jesus Christ, Who, from Thy right hand, rules all things, and Who intercedes for us, and Who blesses His church with every spiritual blessing. Amen.
Ive been asked to read a short portion of Psalm 119. The section called Lamed , that is, verses eighty-nine through ninety-six. Psalm 119:89-96:
For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven.
Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.
They continue this day according to Thine ordinances: for all are Thy servants.
Unless Thy law had been my [ delights ], I should then have perished in mine affliction.
I will never forget Thy precepts: for with them Thou hast quickened me.
I am thine, save me; for I have sought Thy precepts.
The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider Thy testimonies.
I have seen an end of all perfection: but Thy commandment is exceeding broad.
Thus far the word of God.
The moderator for the debate tonight is Mr. Rick Noorman who is well known to most of us here because he sings in a male quartet, which is called the Voices of Victory: a quartet that gives many, many programs throughout the year in this area. Especially well known to us, because for seven years he has been the principal of Covenant Christian High School in Walker, Michigan.
Mr. Noorman will introduce the speakers, and will explain the format tonight. Mr. Noorman... here he is.....
Mr. Noorman: Thank you Reverend Kuiper. Good evening and, again, welcome to tonights debate. In Gods Holy, Inspired Word, we are repeatedly called to be an understanding people: Psalm Forty-seven verse seven calls us to sing praises with understanding. This means that we are to know of what we sing, when we sing the praises of God. In a broader context, we must also live all of our lives with understanding. We cannot do lip service to our beliefs in living our lives any more than we can with our singing of praises. I believe that it is the hope of theEvangelism Committee of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church that tonights debate will help all of those who are exposed to this grow in their understanding of the doctrines that shape their view of Gods world, and better understand the relationships and the work that they find themselves in, as they complete their pilgrimage on this earth.
The question that will be debated tonight is: is the doctrine of common grace reformed? The topic of tonights debate is certainly not a new topic to reformed circles. The doctrine of common grace has been debated in synods, consistory rooms, church narthexes, living rooms, kitchens, and work places of reformed people for close to one hundred years. These debates center on the relationship that the redeemed people of God, and the one Church that they compose, can, or should have, with the unbelieving world.
Our debate tonight comes on the heels of the publication of two books, which have once again looked at this question. First published was the book form of a series of lectures given in the year two thousand at Calvin College Stob Lecture Series: this book is titled He Shines in All Thats Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Dr. Richard J. Mouw. The second book is the book form of a series of articles written in the Standard Bearer magazine as a response to Dr. Mouws book. This book by Prof. David Engelsma is titled Common Grace Revisited: A Response to Richard J. Mouws He Shines in All Thats Fair.
At this time Id like to formally introduce our two speakers, and also go over the format that we will follow here tonight. To my left is Dr. Richard J. Mouw. Dr. Mouw will be defending the position that the doctrine of common grace is reformed. He is a graduate of Houghton College, and completed graduate studies at Western Theological Seminary, University of Alberta, and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Chicago. Dr. Mouw is currently in his tenth year as president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Fuller is the largest multi-denominational seminary in the world. He joined the faculty of Fuller Seminary as a professor of Christian philosophy and ethics in nineteen eight-five after seventeen years as a professor at Calvin College here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1993 he was inaugurated as the fourth president of Fuller Seminary. Dr. Mouw is known throughout the world in evangelical circles, and has authored eleven books, as well as articles, reviews and essays that have appeared in more than thirty journals. He is a regular contributor to the Belief.net web magazine. He is here tonight with his wife Phyllis, and his son Dirk. Would you please join me in welcoming Dr. Richard Mouw.
To my right is Prof. David Engelsma. Prof. Engelsma will be defending the position that the doctrine of common grace is not reformed. Prof. Engelsma currently is professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament Studies at the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches in Grandville, Michigan. He has served in this position for the past fifteen years. Following his schooling in the Protestant Reformed Seminary, he served as pastor of Protestant Reformed Churches in Loveland, Colorado and South Holland, Illinois. He is a graduate of Calvin College, and he earned his Masters of Theology Degree at Calvin Theological Seminary. He has authored several books defending the historically reformed position on marriage, divorce and remarriage, Christian education, the covenant, and the end-times. Prof. Engelsma is also the editor of the reformed periodical the Standard Bearer published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Prof. Engelsma is married to his wife...Ruth, and he has many children. Please welcome with me tonight Prof. David Engelsma.
I ask as a courtesy to both speakers that there be no further applause or comments from the audience from this point. The format for tonights debate will include four segments. First, each speaker will have thirty minutes to present his case on the topic. Dr. Mouw, who will argue that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, will speak first, and Prof. Engelsma will follow. After the initial presentations, there will be a fifteen minute intermission giving the speakers time to prepare their rebuttals. Then each speaker will have fifteen minutes to rebut the others position. The third segment will involve Dr. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma answering questions that they have prepared for each other and exchanged in advance. The final segment will involve speakers answering questions prepared by you in the audience. In your program you will find a space to write your questions. It will be very important that you address your questions to one of the speakers, or to both of the speakers, if you wish. Dr. Mouw will receive all the questions addressed to Prof. Engelsma, and he will choose which questions he would like to have answered and it will work the same for questions addressed to Dr. Mouw. Questions that you would like to have both men respond to would go to me and I would choose those questions. My position as moderator will be to keep the speakers timely, and I can assure each speaker that I will cut them off after they have used the allotted time, plus a little bit, maybe. After dealing with high school kids all week, a couple of seminary professors should be a piece of cake. And then I will also present the questions to the speakers so that they can answer them. Our time keeper tonight is Mr. Jim Noorman, and he will show me when the allotted time is up.
So we will begin our first segment of the program tonight with Dr. Mouw.
Dr. Mouw : Thank you. Im delighted to be here. Feels like Im running for political office. I was thinking if I can hold my own with David Engelsma, I may go back and take on Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. When I delivered the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary in the fall of two thousand, several of my Christian Reformed friends expressed puzzlement as to why I had chosen to focus on the theology of common grace. It was clear that they saw this topic as lacking in any contemporary relevance. To be sure they would be quick to acknowledge that they subscribe to the common grace idea, but they also arent very interested in engaging in critical reflection on the issues that were debated heatedly by the Dutch American Calvinists in the early nineteen twenties. From their point of view the topic was dealt with adequately by the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 whose pronouncements on common grace lead to the expulsion of Herman Hoeksema and his followers, who in turn established the Protestant Reformed Churches.
The Protestant Reformed folks, on the other hand, have been eager to keep the discussions going, and they have been obviously frustrated by the larger reformed communitys lack of interest in pursuing the issues. Their frustration is understandable. Im convinced that the debates of the 1920s and the Protestant Reformed Churches continuing critique of the theology of common grace have importance for the entire body of Jesus Christ in the twenty-first century.
To engage in critical reflection on those matters for our present day situation is, or so I am convinced, to perform a significant service to the life and mission of the church in our own day. Given the interest that my book based on my Stob lectures has stimulated, not only in the broad evangelical movement, but also among Roman Catholics, and mainline Protestants, to say nothing of the recent release of a Chinese translation by the officially sanctioned Protestant churches of mainland China, who now know who Herman Hoeksema is, I am even more convinced of this hopeful assessment. So this discussion needs to continue. While Im firm in my belief that the theology of common grace is a solid basis for the proper understanding of the churchs mission in the world, I also know that there are important dangers associated with this topic. The idea of common grace can easily be misused to legitimize a blanket uncritical endorsement of culture, as such, anywhere, thus luring Christians into ungodly compromises with the forces of evil in the world. I personally have found it helpful, even necessary, for my own theological well-being, to continue to wrestle with the views of those folks who reject the theology of common grace. With this in mind, I want to offer my sincere thanks to the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church for the effort that they have put into planning this event. And I also want to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Engelsma for the careful attention that hes given to my thoughts on the subject of common grace. Ive learned much from his series of articles in which he sets forth an extensive critique of what I argued in my book. And Im immensely pleased that his reflections are now appearing in book form. Ive been looking forward to continuing our dialogue on this subject this evening. And while neither of us is likely to come away from this discussion completely convinced by the other, I do want to say, at the outset, that I have already learned much from Prof. Engelsma on a subject that we both care about very deeply.
The debates of the 1920s focused primarily on the teaching set forth in what came to be known as the Three Points of 1924, namely the Christian Reformed synodical declaration that there is, in addition to the saving grace that is imparted only to the elect, also a common grace, an attitude of Divine favor, that extends to all human beings, saved and unsaved alike, which is in turn manifested in three ways; these three ways:
one: the bestowal of natural gifts; such as rain and sunshine upon creatures in general.
two: the restraining of sin in human affairs, so that the unredeemed do not produce all of the evil that their depraved natures might otherwise bring about.
and three: the ability of unbelievers to perform acts of civic good.
Defenders of common grace like to appeal to John Calvin himself to defend their views. Calvins study of various Greek and Roman writers had left him with a sense of appreciation for several pagan thinkers, including, and especially, Seneca. This appreciation led Calvin to point to what he called a universal apprehension of reason and understanding that is by nature implanted in men, which, because it is bestowed indiscriminately upon the pious and the impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts. Indeed, he insists every human being ought to recognize this implanted rational nature as, these are his words, a peculiar grace of God.
Moreover, when we observe this gift of natural reason at work in secular writers, Calvin advises, we should, and Im going to quote him a little bit at length here, we should let that admirable light of truth shining in them, these are pagan thinkers now, teach us that the mind of man, though fallen, and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with Gods excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it where it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. Those men whom scripture calls natural men, were indeed sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. John Calvin.
Now, Herman Hoeksema and his followers, on the other hand, have been quick to point out that in spite of such praise, Calvin was also inclined to speak very negatively about the products of the unregenerate mind. When Calvin credits the unredeemed with some grasp of the principles of civic fairness, for example, he quickly adds that even when the human mind follows after truth, he says, it limps and staggers. In the lives of unbelievers, Calvin says, the civic virtues are so sullied that, before God, they lose all favor. So that anything in him that appears praiseworthy, he says, must be considered worthless. And while he acknowledges that, quote, some sparks still gleam in the fallen mind, that light is nonetheless chocked with dense ignorance so that it cannot come forth effectively.
Now we all agree that Calvin says these things, but we differ in how we assess the importance of his various remarks on the subject. The Protestant Reformed folks take Calvins negative comments as expressing his real view, and they dismiss his more positive assessments of pagan thought as unfortunate misstatements. On the other hand, while I do want to take his negative thoughts seriously, I also want to honor his positive evaluations, and, furthermore, Im convinced that the stakes are very high here. Since, as Calvin says, if we despise the truth when it comes to us from unbelievers, we run the real risk of dishonoring' he says, the Spirit of God.
In his helpful critique of my reflections on the subject, Prof. Engelsma takes me to task for emphasizing the fact that Gods goodness shines in all thats fair, without also giving due attention to the fact that the Lord also curses all thats foul. Well hes right to call attention to the cursedness of much that issues forth from depraved hearts and minds. But I want to respond by also expressing my dissatisfaction with the way he refuses to acknowledge how Gods creating purposes are often honored by people who do not acknowledge God as the source of the glory that is displayed in their thoughts and deeds. And I want to focus here on what I see as the basic points of contention between us on this matter.
As I read the situation, the crucial questions are these: what does God take delight in, and what does God hate? The critics of common grace insist that God takes delight in the saving of His elect people, and He hates everything that issues forth from the lives of the unredeemed. Im convinced that that assumption fails to do justice to the full scope of Gods complex interest in His creation. The God of the Bible certainly cares about more things than the issue of salvation. Even before human beings were created, God took satisfaction as He contemplated the swarms of non-human living things that He had called into being and the psalmist tells us that the Lord continues to take delight in the workings of His creation -- all the workings of His creation. Why should we doubt that God takes pleasure when a good poem is written, or when a no-hitter is pitched on Monday, or when a string-quartet performs a Mozart piece with splendid artistry, whether or not such things are accomplished by believers or unbelievers?
This issue of the more-than-redemptive scope of Gods positive purposes in the world has important practical implications, especially in connection with what I call common grace ministries. For example, a Calvinist involved in ministering to people in a hospital sponsored alcoholism recovery program once described this situation to me very poignantly. He says, I regularly see people move from a desperate kind of bondage to alcohol to new dimensions of freedom in their lives. The change is often very dramatic, yet it isnt at all obvious that, in experiencing this release from addiction, theyve been regenerated in the classic sense. Their lives have been transformed, but they have not come to know Jesus. I do want them to become Christians, he said, and I also want to celebrate what looks for all the world to me like a grace occurrence in their lives. Well heres another case that I used in my book to make my point. A Christian therapist counsels a non-Christian couple. Their marriage has been seriously wounded by the husbands adulterous affair. The therapist helps them to be honest about the hurts, fears, and angers that have surrounded this episode. Finally, a moment comes when the husband tearfully acknowledges the pain that he has caused, and he asks his wife to forgive him. She reaches out with a new found tenderness toward him. They embrace, both of them sobbing. Its clear that they intend to build a new life together. Now, they havent been saved in the process, but the therapist is convinced that she has witnessed, and has been privileged to be a human instrument in, a powerful display of healing grace. She senses that she has reinforced the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that God wants for human beings.
Now, in my book, I was very intentional insisting that we deal with concrete cases. Prof. Engelsma sees this as a basic defect in my approach. This means, he says, that my defense, and Im quoting him here, my defense of [c]ommon grace is based on what we see, feel, and think as we observe our neighbors [and] the world. When we take this approach, he concedes, the theory of common grace wins hands down. He goes on, [For] we critics of common grace also see fine, decent, moral, friendly, likable 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 him. And these experiences, he says, tempt the critic of common grace, quote,to suppose that the Christian is permitted, indeed called, to join with non-Christians in what would then seem the noblest of all causes: creating a society, a nation, a world, of justice, peace, beauty, and goodness. And to do so, he says, [w]ithout the gospel and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Now, Prof. Engelsma has commended me for my candor in stating just why it is that I embrace common grace theology and I want to return the compliment. I find these comments of his about what he finds tempting in the case for a common grace theology, I find these comments to be commendably candid. And I want to try to get this clearer this evening about just why it is that we move in such different directions from this common inclination to reach out to suffering unbelievers, and to enjoy the works of people who operate apart from redeeming grace.
As Prof. Engelsma sees it, my error is that I start with my feelings of sympathy and appreciation for unbelievers, and then I try to square these feelings with my reformed theology. He wishes that I would heed a word of advice that Herman Hoeksema once gave to his seminary students, referring to what was then the heart of Grand Rapids life: Hoeksema warned, Do not do your theology on the corner of Monroe and Division. And this is where Prof. Engelsma thinks I go wrong; he says, I spend much too much time doing my theology on the streets of Southern California. Now let me make it clear that I endorse what I think is the basic concern that Engelsma and Hoeksema are raising in stating the case this way. I think theyre saying that we must not get our theology from our experiences out there in the world. And thats an appropriate warning. We can see the real dangers of an experience based theology at work in the churches today. For example, people are defending all sorts of deviant behaviors and relationships on the grounds that they experience these patterns as fulfilling or nurturing.
When we encounter such theological moves, we must call people back to the teaching of Gods Word in clear recognition that the human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked [Jer.17:9] and that we are prone as sinners to call good evil and evil good [Isa.5:20]. So, the Protestant Reformed folks are issuing a legitimate warning. But its one thing to warn, again rightly so, against deriving our theology from our experiences, and its a very different thing to insist, as I want to do, that we must bring our theology to the street corners of Grand Rapids, and Los Angeles and Singapore, and Calcutta in the recognition that the God of the scriptures is the ruler over every square inch of creation and that His Word is, indeed, a lamp unto our feet[Ps.119:105] as we walk the city streets and the rain forest pathways, and hospital corridors, and putting greens that traverse the fullness of the world that has been made by the hands of our sovereign Lord.
In this sense I do want our students at Fuller Theological Seminary to learn to do theology on the street corners. Furthermore, when we do our theology out there on street corners, in this good sense, we will often be forced to take a new look at what the Word is teaching us. Discovering, on occasion, new wisdom that can be mined from the riches of Gods revelation to us. When were out there on street corners, we often discover new questions that we must bring back to the Word of God for guidance from above.
So heres what I want to do now. I want to probe two kinds of experiences out there in the world in the hope of further clarifying just where we really disagree about these matters. The first has to do with a fairly trivial case, the athletic accomplishments of the unregenerate (we call theology athletics now). In my book I offered the opinion that Christians can enjoy the putts of Tiger Woods, and home runs hit by unbelieving major leaguers. And that, furthermore, in doing so we can rest in the assurance that God Himself enjoys such things. Christianity Today used the God enjoys baseball theme in its feature about my book, and Prof. Engelsma, in his critique, had some fun with my Tiger Woods example, even as he chastised me for celebrating the accomplishments of a Sabbath-breaking golfer. Now I promise I will immediately repent of my sin if I am bearing false witness in saying what I am about to say, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Herman Hoeksema enjoyed watching the Detroit Tigers on television.
If so, I think I can understand what a non-common grace explanation for this enjoyment might look like. Here we have, the argument could go, not just one, but a whole team of Sabbath-breaking Tigers, who regularly defy the law of the Lord. They do not exercise their talents to the glory of God, but for all that, they do some things that show forth some of Gods creating handiwork. While the exploits of these often God-less major leaguers are indeed contributing to their own destruction, the elect can nonetheless appreciate signs of Gods creaturely goodness in these deeds. The critic of common grace, while insisting that theres no grace at work here, could still acknowledge that this activity does take place in a world created by God, and that even perversions of Gods good handiwork can serve godly purposes such as providing for the leisurely enjoyment of a baseball game by a hard working Protestant Reformed pastor-theologian.
Well, I think I could live with that kind of theology of baseball and golf if I had to, but it still seems to me to miss one important dimension. Namely, the way in which something that is not meant to be to the glory of God, nonetheless can bring glory to God. An Al Kaline and a Tiger Woods are, in fact, displaying some of the prowess and ability that God wanted the creation to display. The appearance of this kind of thing was one of Gods motives for creating a world that included, among other things, athletic talent, and the God who continues to take delight in the works of His hands does, in fact, enjoy these displays of His creative handiwork. In our own enjoyment of these things, then, we are honoring God as the one who shines in all that is fair in His creation.
The second experience is a much more serious one. In my book, I repeated a story, that Id read, about the brutal rape of a Muslim woman by soldiers in Eastern Europe, who had beheaded her newborn 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 Im sharing in Gods profound sympathy for her in her suffering. Prof. Engelsma responded to this example in two different ways:
First, he stated his own deep conviction that the God of the scriptures, does not, and I quote, does not...sympathize with the suffering of the wicked, including the wicked Muslim woman whose tragedy I described. But he also admitted that he can appreciate my own response to this horrible story. Indeed, he reports, he has his own experiences of this sort. And, as a case in point, he tells what is for him, and Im quoting,a particular incident of heartrending distress ; a story from the Nazi era, told by William Shirer in his well known book on the subject : The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
And heres Prof. Engelsmas description of the scene, Im quoting, There is the 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 the Nazis wait, cold, callous, even enjoying what they are about to do, cigarettes dangling out of their mouths, 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. Im so grateful for Prof. Engelsmas next words. He says, It breaks our heart.
But I also find it heart-breaking when he goes on to say that an event of this sort, quote, does not break the heart of God. Since, Im quoting, 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, murderers of babies, and slaughterers of old men and little boys 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 evildoers to punish the ungodly in righteousness.
Now if we had more time, I would want to argue for a more nuanced treatment of what I believe to be the continuing special status of the Jewish people in Gods redemptive economy. But for now Ill treat his example as He intends it, that is, as depicting the Jewish victims as persons who are outside the scope of Gods saving purposes. Prof. Engelsma thinks that my deep sense that God grieves over the terrible treatment of these Jewish folks at the hands of the Nazis is wishful thinking on my part. That I am allowing my feelings to shape my theological convictions without any Biblical support. Well, let me point in these concluding remarks to the kind of Biblical support that I would appeal to in support of my position.
I do not see in the scriptures any pattern that permits us to limit our Christian concern for the well being of others exclusively to other Christians. Nor do I think the scriptures depict God as being limited in that way. Its clear, for example, that the Lord called his people in the Old Testament to work for the well being of the larger Babylonian society in which he had placed them in the time of their exile. The prophet says, And seek the peace -- the shalom -- of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray to Jehovah for it: for in the peace thereof you shall have peace. Jeremiah 29 [verse seven]. And when I read the story of the good Samaritan, I feel no obligation to figure out whether the Samaritan or his victim, to whom he ministered, were numbered among the elect. The clear message seems to be that we do not have to make sure that our neighbors have the right theology before we know whether God wants us to reach out to them in their suffering.
The underlining principle here, I believe, is set forth nicely in First Peter 2 [verse twelve] where the apostle tells Gods elect people to perform good deeds among the Gentiles, so that even though the unbelieving world might presently accuse us of evil doing, they will glorify God on the day of visitation. And the Apostle Peter obviously sees these deeds as aimed at the good of unbelievers. In his four instructions in First Peter 2 [verse] seventeen he tells us that we are to fear, phobeo, fear the Lord, and we are to [show] 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 [in verse fifteen], Peter tells us that we should always be prepared to defend our convictions, quote, to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you. And that in doing so we should treat this anyone in a spirit of gentleness and reverence. In all of this, are we being commanded to deal gently and reverently with, and to show honor toward, people for whom God has nothing but hatred? Or are we being asked to look at others, as is so often the case in the scriptures, even as our Father in heaven sees them? I opt for the latter view. I believe that when we reach out in compassion to suffering unbelievers we are expressing a love that flows from the very heart of God.
I think that I know how my Protestant Reformed critics would respond to me on this: they would insist that my feelings are understandable ones, but that I am not honoring what they see as the strong Biblical teaching that all those who are outside of Christ are Gods enemies. As finite creatures, then, we must simply stand in awe before the mystery of a sovereign God who will have mercy on whom He will have mercy [Rom.9:15], and will harden the hearts of those whom He has chosen to pass over in their rebellion before His face. As a Calvinist myself, I cannot help but respect that kind of appeal to accept humbly the mystery of Gods sovereign ways.
But theres another mystery in whose presence I continually stand in awe, as a Calvinist, its the mystery of a Divine Savior who came from heaven to fulfill Gods electing purposes, and who one day stood grieving over the rebellious city of Jerusalem, crying out in His sorrow, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! [Luke 13:34] 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.
(Prof. David Engelsma) Mister moderator, my esteemed co-disputant and friends. All of us have honored reformed doctrine by our coming together tonight. What brings us together is a debate over the issue whether the grace of God is common or particular. And this issue is distinctively a reformed issue. For this discussion of the doctrine of common grace we have Dr. Richard Mouw to thank. And I thank him now face to face, as about a year ago I thanked him in writing. In his recent book, He Shines in All Thats Fair, Dr. Mouw has renewed the discussion of the doctrine of common grace. He has renewed the discussion, not only among reformed people, but also among evangelicals. Not long ago Christianity Today featured Dr. Mouws book and the doctrine of common grace in a lengthy article. Indeed, even the Protestant liberals join the discussion: University of Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish has written a lengthy review of Mouws book [in the Bulletin of the Institute of Reformed Theology , vol.3, no.2 , Spring/Summer 2003: reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/BulletinPDFs/Vol3No1.pdf].
In his treatment of common grace, Dr. Mouw has presented the Protestant Reformed rejection of common grace fairly, and even, with a certain respect. He is sensitive to the spiritual concern of the Protestant Reformed Churches: the conviction that the doctrine of common grace opens the church up to the corrupting influence of the wicked world. Mouw remarked that in their rejection of common grace, and in their insistence on the separation of the church and the world, the Protestant Reformed Churches may lay some claim to be true to the theology of John Calvin. Dr. Mouw himself, of course, enthusiastically endorses the common grace project. Indeed, he wants to spread the doctrine beyond the boundaries of reformed churches and he advocates a far more aggressive exercise of common grace than heretofore. He proposes what he calls, common grace ministries. Hence, our debate this evening.
All of us should understand that Dr. Mouw and I are limiting ourselves tonight to one aspect of the doctrine of common grace. That aspect which we are airing tonight is a grace of God supposedly shown to the non-elect or reprobate in which God gives them good gifts: such as rain and sunshine on the fields of an atheist farmer, and musical ability to W.A. Mozart, and in which God restrains sin in the reprobate so that they are not completely depraved, but partially good, and therefore are able to perform works that are truly good, even though they are not the highest form of good.
In addition, that aspect of common grace that we are discussing tonight holds that by virtue of the common grace of God, Christians can, may, and should form friendships with unbelievers. Especially in order to cooperate with unbelievers in building a good, even godly, culture. There is another, more important aspect of common grace: a love of God for all humans without exception in the preaching of the gospel of Christ, in which God sincerely desires the salvation of all humans without exception. This was not the subject of Dr. Mouws book, and this is not our subject tonight. Our subject tonight is what I might call, cultural common grace.
I deny that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, and I do so as a representative of the Protestant Reformed Churches. I put forward three main reasons why we object to the doctrine of common grace.
First of all the Reformed Faith is defined by the Reformed Confessions, and common grace is not taught in the Reformed Confessions. The reformed creeds mention common grace one time, and this mention attributes the doctrine of common grace to the Arminians, whose teaching the creed, the Canons of Dort, condemns as heresy. The Arminians used the doctrine of common grace in the service of their teaching that God on His part is, quote, ready to reveal Christ unto all men end of quote. In view of the great things that are ascribed to common grace by its defenders, it forms nothing less than a world view, the silence of the confessions is deafening. The complete absence of the doctrine of common grace in the creeds may not be decisive for the question: is the doctrine of common grace reformed? But the silence of the creeds certainly should give pause to those who want to proclaim the doctrine as important, even fundamental, reformed truth. The matters are worse for the doctrine of common grace as far as the creeds are concerned than that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort, and, I may add, the Westminster Standards as well, know absolutely nothing of this doctrine.
The doctrine of common grace conflicts with teachings that are found in the creeds. teachings that are fundamental. I mention two: common grace conflicts with the confessional teaching of total depravity: the Heidelberg Catechism in Question and Answer Eight is representative: I quote, Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness? Indeed we are; except [that] we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.end of quote. Common grace, however, teaches a work of God in all humans that restrains sin, so that all humans are partially good, and capable of doing good. The effect of the doctrine of common grace is to render the reformed doctrine of total depravity hypothetical, that is, unreal. Total depravity is what all of us would have been were it not for common grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, no one is totally depraved, except for, perhaps, such monsters as Nero, Hitler, and John Wayne Gasey. This, we charge, is a compromise of the offense of Calvinism, which is, in reality, the offense of the gospel.
The second fundamental doctrine of the confessions, with which the doctrine of common grace conflicts, is the teaching of the confessions that the grace of God is particular for the elect of God alone. The whole world knows that the hallmark of Calvinism, the hallmark of the reformed faith, is its teaching that the grace of God, with its source in predestination, is particular, not universal. And this is why most of the world has always detested Calvinism, and why much of the world still does detest Calvinism today. Common grace, however, universalizes the grace of God. It universalizes the grace of God both as regards a favorable attitude of God towards people, and as regards His mighty power within sinners delivering them from sin.
Granted, defenders of common grace have argued that common grace is a different kind of grace from Gods saving grace in Jesus Christ. The fact remains, the doctrine of common grace posits a grace of God that is general and universal, in diametrical opposition to the particularity of grace in the reformed confessions. In their teaching of total depravity and of the particularity of grace, the reformed confessions present the doctrine of scripture. In Romans Three verses nine and following, quoting Psalm Fourteen, the apostle passes a devastating judgment upon the entire human race without exception: all are under sin, none is righteous, there is none that doeth good, no not one. This is not hypothetical. This is not what we would have been had it not been for common grace. This is reality. This is the truth about everyone of us as we are in and of ourselves, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Common grace teaches a favor of God upon all humans without exception. But according to Romans One, verses sixteen and following, apart from the gospel of Christ, there is only wrath upon ungodly and unrighteous persons who hold the truth in unrighteousness. All the way through the Epistle to the Romans, which is recognized widely as a summary of the Christian gospel, the stark alternatives are grace, righteousness, and life in Jesus Christ, according to Gods sovereign election, or wrath, guilt and death, outside of Jesus Christ. One objection, then, to common grace is that it is not only un-confessional, but it is also anti-confessional.
Second, we oppose the doctrine of common grace, because the doctrine of common grace is destructive of the antithesis that God Himself has put between the Church, and the world of the ungodly, and between the Christian, and the unbeliever. Antithesis refers to spiritual separation, hostility and warfare. I emphasize this separation is spiritual, not physical. Although, often enough, the world of the ungodly has made the separation physical, by boycott, reproach, and persecution. The term antithesis may be unfamiliar to some who are here tonight, surely the reality is known by every Christian. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, God said at the very dawn of the history of the Church in the world in Genesis Three fifteen.
From then on there are two groups of people in the world, and they are at enmity by Gods appointment. Of the typical church in the Old Testament, Moses declared, Israel then shall dwell in safety alone, Deuteronomy Thirty-three verse twenty-eight. No more forceful insistence on the antithesis can be found anywhere in the Bible, than the New Testament exhortation of Paul to the church, and her members, in Second Corinthians Six verses fourteen and following. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? ...what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate.
Antithesis may be a strange word, but the doctrine is basic Christian doctrine. Augustine taught it long ago in his City of God. This doctrine we maintain, and observe, is compromised by the doctrine of common grace. The antithesis is fatally compromised. According to common grace, church and world now share grace, a grace of God. According to the doctrine of common grace, Christian and infidel now have sweet fellowship in grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, the Christian school must be open to the worlds thinking on matters of faith: for example, creation and of life: for example, sexual and marital ethics. According to the doctrine of common grace, the Church and the world can and should cooperate in the good work of creating a godly society on the basis, not of Jesus Christ, and His redemption, but on the basis of a grace and goodness found in the world itself.
The doctrine of common grace has destroyed, and is presently destroying, churches, and Christian institutions, especially Christian schools, that have embraced and practiced that doctrine, by opening those churches and schools to the thinking and the ways of the world that hates God. I refer specifically to evolutionary theory concerning origins, with the inescapable implication that Holy Scripture is not inspired, at least in the opening chapters. I refer to the repudiation, at this late date in history, after two thousand years of the Churchs thinking to the contrary, of the authoritative headship of the husband in marriage, reflected by the restriction of office in the Church to qualified males. I refer to the endorsement, and even the defense, of the filthiest, most violent movies and music, for the entertainment of the children and young people of the covenant, Gods children. I refer to the approval of friendship with unbelievers, which leads, among other things, to mixed marriages, that is, the marriages of believers and unbelievers. And I refer to the acceptance, at the present time, of homosexual behavior and relationships, and also an increasingly favorable judgment upon non-Christian religions. Where the doctrine of common grace has been emphasized, the very idea of antithesis has largely been lost.
Do not mistake it, common grace is not only a doctrine, it is also a mentality. The effects of common grace have been harmful. We do not stand tonight where our Fathers stood in the Netherlands one hundred years ago, and in Western Michigan eighty years ago. We stand where we can see with our own eyes the fruits of the doctrine of common grace, and the fruits are bitter! It is evident that the project and world view of common grace have failed. Society has not been Christianized, not in Amsterdam, not in Grand Rapids, not in Chicago, and also not in Northwest Iowa. But the churches and the schools have become worldly. Do not misunderstand; we who deny common grace are not, for that reason, immune to the danger of being swallowed up by the world. We, we ourselves, are fighting a life and death battle against the pressures and influences of a wicked world, now far advanced in unholiness. But adoption of the doctrine of common grace takes the weapons out of the hand of the Christian, takes the fight out of his soul, and indeed tells the Christian that there is no war at all.
Third, we object to the doctrine of common grace because it inevitably develops into a doctrine of universal saving grace. Despite the protestations of the advocates of common grace that this is an entirely different grace from the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ (and Abraham Kuyper emphasized that in the opening pages of his three volumes De Gemeene Gratie), the lesson of history is that, inevitably, common grace develops into universal saving grace; which is the destruction of the gospel of Christ. Either the advocates of common grace teach a love of God for all, and a desire of God to save all in the gospel, or they teach that in some sense Christ died for all, or, as is becoming more the case today, they outrightly teach that all will be saved, in the end. Dr. Mouw could not resist that tendency of the doctrine of common grace in his book. On the next to the last page of He Shines in All Thats Fair he wrote this: I quote, For all I know, much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be revealed to be saving grace. end of quote. It is to my mind ominous that in his favorable review of Dr. Mouws book, the University of Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish observes that the updating of the doctrine of common grace called for by Dr. Mouw requires a reexamination of the Calvinistic doctrine that, and now I quote Gerrish, the divine decrees divide humankind into the elect, and the non-elect. end of quote. That is not Dr. Mouws position, but that is Brian Gerrishs observation concerning the updating of common grace, for which Dr. Mouw has pleaded.
These are three main objections of ours to the doctrine of common grace. It is not confessional; it destroys the antithesis; and it threatens the doctrine of particular saving grace in Christ alone. Are these not worthy concerns for reformed people, indeed, for all Christian people? Are not these grave concerns that all should share with us? Is it fair, is it gracious, to dismiss these concerns as Anabaptist, those who deny common grace as Anabaptists? Something, again, Dr. Mouw does not do, and rebukes others for doing.
In the time remaining to me I will clarify our position regarding the doctrine of common grace in several important respects; the rules of this debate, you understand, demand brevity.
First, we freely acknowledge that God gives many good gifts to ungodly people. From rain and sunshine in season, to the ability of Beethoven to compose the Pastoral Symphony. These gifts are bounties of providence. To the non-elect ungodly, whoever he may be, say Emperor Nero living in luxury and gorging himself with every good thing creation affords, these good gifts are not blessings. They do not come to the reprobate wicked in the favor of God. Psalm 73 teaches otherwise. By lavishing upon the wicked such good things, God sets the wicked on slippery places, He casts them down into destruction. Let no wicked person conclude from his health and wealth that God loves him and is blessing him. Divine blessing is not identical with earthly prosperity. Just as Divine wrath and curse are not identical with poverty, troubles and grief.
That earthly good things and circumstances are not in themselves blessings is of vital importance for the comfort of Gods people. While Nero was feasting, the saints were burning as torches in his gardens, and were being torn in pieces in the Roman amphitheater. If Neros luxuries were a common grace blessing, the distresses of the saints were [a] 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 [them that] love God, he says in Romans Eight. And nothing is blessing to the impenitent unbeliever outside of Christ. All things work together for his eternal ruin, and this must be preached to the wealthy, prospering, unbeliever.
Second, we readily admit that the deeds of some non-Christians seem good to us, and that these deeds are useful to us and other people. To conclude, however, on the basis of this, that their works are good, truly good, good in Gods judgment, as the very fruits of His grace in them, is a mistake. We do not determine what is good, and what is evil. God determines good and evil. And God has made known in His Word that every work that leaves Him out, any work that does not have Him, the Triune Father of Jesus Christ, as its purpose and goal, any work that misses the mark of His glory, is sin : [for] whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23. This position is not a new, and strange teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ. Augustine saw the apparent good works of the wicked, and he called them glittering vices; an indictment echoed both by Luther and Calvin.
Third. Although we deny that common grace is the basis of the Christians active life in society, and the basis of the Christians association in everyday life with non-Christians, what Dr. Mouw calls the commonalty of Christian and non-Christian, we affirm and practice the active life of the Christian in all of creation, and the perfect right of the Christian to cooperate with non-Christians in everyday life: that is, at work, in the neighborhood, in the armed forces, and in politics. Christians must live in every sphere of earthly life: family, labor, government, and the rest. They may use and enjoy all their gifts: athletic, musical and mathematical. They may avail themselves of the products of the ungodly from Black and Decker tools, to Patrick OBrians great series on Aubrey and Maturin. They may associate closely with, and cooperate with, unbelievers in everyday life: Muslims, Buddhists, and the typical American pagan whose idea of Sabbath keeping is mowing his lawn on Sunday.
Denial of common grace does not mean withdrawal from society. The antithesis is not isolation. Rejection of cultural common grace does not secretly promote the life of pietism: met e'n bookje in e'n hoekje: (with a little book in a little corner). But the basis for the full active life of the Christian in the world is the doctrine of creation and providence, not the doctrine of common grace. When Paul condemns asceticism, world flight in First Timothy 4, 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. [verse four] end of quote. [For] the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof. [1 Cor.10:26] This is the basis of the Christians life and work in the ordinances of creation: associating with unbelievers at work, in the army, and in the neighborhood watch for burglars and abduction of children.
Basing the life of the Christian in the world on the doctrine of creation establishes the possibility of the Christians use and enjoyment of the creation, and of his associating with unbelievers, without compromising the spiritual antithesis. Christians live a full active life in the world, but, and mark this well, we live this life not by the power of a common grace, but by the power of the special, saving, sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ in the Spirit.
[bell chimes indicating end of allotted time]
Just a couple of minutes left, do I have that much grace?
The Christian does not live his life in the world on the basis, and by the power, of a common grace, but by the power of the special sanctifying grace of Christ in the Spirit. We live in the same world with the unbelievers, but we live by a different power -- grace. We live according to a different standard -- the law of God. We live with a different purpose -- the glory of God. Therefore the Christian man and the Christian woman are marked people, and they ought to be. This enables them to witness to the unbeliever. This makes the Christian the object of persecution.
Fourth, and finally, and very briefly, we confess that God has one all controlling purpose in history to which absolutely everything that happens in history is subordinated, from the standing still of the universe in the long day of Joshua, to Babe Ruths hitting sixty home runs in a season. That one purpose of God with absolutely everything is the honor of the worthy name of Jesus Christ, the Head and Savior of the Church, and thus the glory of God. In the eternal counsel of God, Jesus Christ is first before all things, Colossians 1:17. All things were created...for Him, Colossians 1:7. Everything serves His preeminence, Colossians 1:18. Common grace posits two distinct purposes of God with history -- Christ and culture. A culture that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, and a culture that inevitably overshadows Jesus Christ. We say no to common grace, because we are determined to say yes to Jesus Christ. Thank you.
Mr. Noorman: Thank you Dr. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma. Before we take our intermission, Id like to alert you to the fact that the books of both of our speakers tonight are available in the lobby. Prof. Engelsmas books will be found at the table of the Reformed Free Publishing Association. Dr. Mouws books will be found at the table of the William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. You are also invited to visit the table set up with materials from tonights host, the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church Evangelism Committee. We thank these organizations for their willingness to be here tonight. In approximately fifteen minutes we will be singing a song to begin the second portion of the program. We ask that you be seated again prior to the singing, if possible. We will take a fifteen-minute intermission.
I should announce too that tapes and videos will be available, and there is a form on your program, but I understand that not everyone has a program, so they do have some envelopes, and some paper in the back for you to put your name and address and what you would like to have and the Evangelism Committee will make sure that you receive that. The tape and the video will be the complete program with the opening remarks right through the questions. You can put those order forms in the donation boxes, which are outside the doors, and you can also, if you so desire, contribute to the expenses of the evening and help the Evangelism Committee out there, by making a contribution, if you desire. I should have made sure that I made this announcement, and I forgot, seein there [are] so many Hollanders in this room, refreshments will be served after the debate this evening; they still will be served after the debate, if theres anything left. At this time were going to sing Psalter number forty-eight which is A Call to Praise. Were going to sing three verses of that: five, six and seven. They will appear on the screens there. Please join in singing A Call to Praise.
The second portion of the debate, with the rebuttals. Therell be two fifteen-minute rebuttals. And well begin, first of all, with Dr. Mouw.
Dr. Mouw: Thank you. I just want to say how moved I am to be in a room where I think maybe for the first time in eighty some years Protestant Reformed people and Christian Reformed people sang a psalm together, I say, Praise the Lord. [Psalm 147:12] for that. And we are talking tonight about what it means to bring honor and glory to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords [Rev.19:16].
Prof. Engelsma asks, in raising his three deep concerns, what he considers the lack of a confessional basis for the doctrine of common grace, its destructive tendencies with regard to culture, and the antithesis and also its inevitability of leading in a direction of universalism: the doctrine of universal salvation. Yes, yes, are these not worthy concerns? Are these not grave concerns? And I want to say they are. Were talking about issues tonight that are of the utmost importance. And its about time that were talking together about these things. Im not gonna [sic] answer every, I wish I had the time, let me say that he and I simply disagree about the confessions. We both agree on this, that the Heidelberg Catechism, [using] a slightly older formulation, says that we are prone to all manner of evil and [are] incapable of any good, except we be regenerated by the Spirit of God, but that the Canons of Dort, when addressing a similar issue, said that were incapable of any saving good. And Prof. Engelsma takes the incapable of any good as the primary meaning, and I take the any saving good as the primary meaning.
A wonderful example given by Earl Palmer, the Pastor of University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, where hes talking about the sense in which all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23] and he says, Imagine theres a shipwreck and there are three people in the water, and theyre fifty miles from shore. One is an Olympic swimmer whos capable of doing twenty-five miles before he gives out, another is a person in reasonably good shape who may only be able to go three or four miles, and somebody else is in bad shape and probably isnt going to survive five minutes in the water. Theres a real difference between somebody who can swim twenty-five miles, somebody who can only swim two or three miles, and somebody who cannot swim at all. But this they have in common, none of ems going to make it to shore. They will all fall short.
And thats my understanding of total depravity. I think the doctrine of total depravity in the reformed tradition is primarily a salvific notion. And that is, we are totally incapable, here me on this, we are totally incapable of doing anything either to initiate or to contribute significantly to our own salvation. Were in terrible shape. Were drowning people. And unless somebody throws out the lifeline, unless the rescuer comes, were lost. We are totally incapable of saving ourselves. And we cannot compromise that. Now does that mean that all people who are totally [incapable] of saving themselves, are totally incapable of performing good deeds in the same sense, no. I think that theres a difference between Prof. Engelsma and Al Capone and Ghandi.
Prof. Engelsma and I are beneficiaries of the sovereign grace of God. Neither Al Capone nor Ghandi, as far as I know, were saved people. And yet there were differences in their deeds, and I think we can see something of Gods creating purposes, something of Gods renewing purposes, showing forth in some of the things that Ghandi did, that we see nothing of in the life of someone like Al Capone. So as long as we hang on to this notion that total depravity has to do with our total inability, our total worthlessness, when it comes to being able to do anything about our own salvation, salvation is by [the] sovereign grace of a God who has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and this is at the heart of reformed teaching.
Im a bit concerned about the way in which my Protestant Reformed friends constantly refer to the unredeemed as enemies of God. That little Jewish boy on the brink of that pit, facing those Nazis, is he an enemy of God? As a totally depraved creature he is an enemy of God, but Im not sure that we simply see people, or ought to see people, as enemies of God. People who are enemies of God get themselves into terrible messes. My son and I were riding some place this afternoon, he has a CD of gospel music, and we were playing, Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling O sinner come home. Ye who are weary come home. You know, the depiction of the sinner there, I think, is a profound one. The sinner, who is indeed an enemy of God, but has, in that enmity, gotten himself or herself into such a horrible condition that theyre often lonely people; theyre abused people; theyre suffering people; theyre homeless people; theyre wandering people; they dont know where theyre going. And so our primary response to them is to reach out in compassion and plead with them to come home, to point them to the place of safety, the place of security, to tell them that their only comfort in life and death can be that they are not their own, but they can belong to a faithful Savior. So Im not sure that enmity, and enemies of God is the primary category, the primary lens through which we ought to look at all unbelievers. I think that we can reach out in compassion to people who, in their enmity, have gotten themselves in such horrible places that theyre suffering and abused and the like.
Another thing that I just want to state a correction to here is that Prof. Engelsma constantly depicts the position that I hold, and many others in the reformed tradition, on common grace as one where somehow we think that there is a grace that is outside of Jesus Christ. I mean, he even uses the phrase, that we can look at people out there in the world and they have a grace and a goodness that is found apart from Jesus Christ. I want to say I reject that notion with all my whole heart. And I want to quote the same things he does, Colossians One [verse sixteen] for example, where Paul says that Jesus Christ is the one who whatever, principalities, [or] powers: all things were [created] by Him and for Him. And then He goes on to say, And He is the Head of the Body, the Church, but the one who is mysteriously out there in that larger creation. Missionaries testify to this, that the Spirit of Jesus Christ is there far ahead of them, preparing certain people, certain cultures, for the gospel. What I think of as common grace is a work of Jesus Christ. Its what Jesus Christ does in the creation.
You know, whether I run the risk of universal salvation, I hope not; I firmly reject universalism. And what I said was, perhaps, for all we know, much. but not all, of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be saving grace. That may be an overstatement, but let me say this, I have another couple of minutes? That this business of the fruits of the doctrine of common grace, [is a] very important issue. Has the doctrine of common grace been a dangerous doctrine? In the whole area of worldly amusements, for example, (see I believe that it was a good thing for the Christian Reformed Church, for example, at a certain point, to say we dont reject all film, we dont reject all television drama, but we have to be discerning about [it]), theres no question that, having opened that door, were watching a lot of stuff that we ought not to, and that were being polluted by it. Theres no question about that. Have the fruits of the doctrine of common grace, in the life of the reformed community in the Netherlands, and in North America, been somewhat dangerous and regrettable? Yes.
I want to ask another question though. Have the fruits of the denial of common grace had any dangerous and regrettable consequences? I was so thrilled to hear Prof. Engelsma say at the end, we affirm active involvement of Christians in all spheres of creation, to say, the denial of common grace does not mean the withdrawal from society. kay. And I dont see Protestant Reformed people actively involved in all spheres. I must say, as a person who taught seventeen years at Calvin College, some of the brightest students that I had, memorably so, at Calvin College, were Protestant Reformed students. Some of them felt an impulse to be active in all spheres of creation, and they ended up leaving the Protestant Reformed Church, being rejected by the Protestant Reformed Church. Others stayed in, and in their brilliance ended up talking to each other, and have had very little impact. I regret that. Because Im a faithful reader of the Standard Bearer, Im a faithful reader of the Theological [Journal] of the Protestant Reformed Church Seminary and I know the power of the intellect at work there. I know the power of the vision of Gods sovereignty at work there. But I really wonder after eighty some years whether we must also look at the ways in which the denial of the doctrine of common grace has had regrettable impact. So that the marvelous gifts that Protestant Reformed people have to offer to the larger reformed world, and the larger Christian world, have not been offered because of the way in which they have denied the teaching of common grace has created a kind of ghettoized mentality.
So I want to say that argument can go both ways, and I want to insist that it go both ways. I am willing to say that I deeply regret some of the ways in which the doctrine of common grace has operated in the reformed community. I deeply regret that. The answer, I think, is a discerning use of that doctrine. We have lacked the gift of discernment in our use of the doctrine of common grace. I would hope that the Protestant Reformed folks would begin to think about a discerning denial of the doctrine of common grace, because I dont think youve done nearly the kinds of things that you claim you are able to do on the basis of your denial of common grace. I think thats enough for now.
I understand my rebuttal to be a rebuttal of the speech of Dr. Mouw and not a rebuttal of his rebuttal. I said at the outset, and I meant that, that I am thankful to Richard J. Mouw for airing the issue of common grace, particularly cultural common grace. And I am grateful that in airing the issue which he considers important, he did not, as so many have done, ignore the Protestant Reformed position. Neither did he misrepresent the Protestant Reformed position. He stated it, and then expressed his objections to it. And although I am not going to offer a rebuttal of his rebuttal, I do want to assure him, and everyone else who writes or speaks on the issue of the Christians involvement in the world and who do that from the viewpoint of common grace, we listen to what you have to say, and consider what you have to say.
As far as my rebuttal of Dr. Mouws speech is concerned: in the first place, as regards his reference to John Calvin, we recognize that John Calvin on occasion, the rare occasion -- in comparison with the other great themes that he developed -- would speak of a certain grace of God to unregenerate people. Usually he would refer to splendid gifts that certain pagans, or unbelievers, had and displayed. Often, in the further context, Calvin will make plain, that what, in fact, he means is nothing more than Gods providential gifts to these persons. Regardless of that, the references by Calvin to a certain grace, in connection with splendid gifts that ungodly people display, those references by Calvin to a certain grace of God, never had in mind a restraint of sin within them, by the work of the Spirit upon them, to minimize the truth of total depravity. Much less did Calvin teach a common grace that he intended would produce a godly culture as the result of the cooperation of believers and unbelievers.
In the second place, and this is important to Dr. Mouws theological position in the matter, he raises the question, What does God take delight in? That, after all, is really embodied in the title of his book, He Shines in All Thats Fair. I call attention to the fact, that that hymn is referring to what is fair in the creation, which, even though it is spoiled by mans sin and is under the curse of God, nevertheless, displays in sunsets and mountains, and in the waves of the ocean, and many other ways, the glory of the Creator. That we affirm. Gods beauty shines in everything fair in creation, and we give Him the glory for it when we view it.
But to move from that to the proposition that God also shines with His grace in what is supposed to be fair in the lives of unregenerated people is a huge, and unwarranted, leap, and it is really to beg the question; the question is -- Does scripture reveal that there is anything fair, in the judgment of God, in the life of one who is alienated from him and opposed to him? With regard to the question -- What does God delight in? -- scripture itself answers that in much along the lines of, at least obliquely reflecting upon, a notion that God takes delight in the putts of Tiger Woods, or the fastball of Hal Neuhauser, or the home runs of Sammy Sosa: scripture says, God does not take delight in the legs of a man, but He takes delight in those who fear Him.
[Psalm 147:10,11].
It is our position that, in as much as whatever the unbeliever, does he does not to the glory of God, but at the very most for the glory of humanity or the welfare of humanity, and comes short of the glory of God. That activity of the unbeliever is abominable in the sight of God. Its abominable that, if thats the case (as I assume it is) Sammy Sosa hits sixty home runs this year, for his own glory, and not to the glory of God that he hits home runs, no matter how prodigious those home runs may be. Not to mention here that the fact that the activity of the wicked is sin, and therefore not delighted in by God, does not imply that the products of the activity of the wicked we think are sinful and off limits, not at all. If Beethoven was an unbeliever, it was sin for him when he composed the Ninth Symphony, and especially because he thought to encourage the unity of the human race apart from Jesus Christ. But once that symphony has been produced, as a beautiful piece of music, a Christian, who has a taste for that, may certainly hear that, and enjoy that, and by his own use of that, because Beethoven, of course, was working, after all, with the laws of God in creation having to do with music, the Christian glorifies God by his hearing of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, and if he doesnt glorify God with it, he ought not to be doing it. Because whatever we do, even eating and drinking, we ought to do it all to the glory of God [1 Cor.10:31].
But, I move on to something that I think is more important, and Dr. Mouw does too, and this takes us to a critically important issue between us, and thats the suggestion, and even statement, by Dr. Mouw, that Gods heart breaks at human suffering, all human suffering, including the suffering of idolaters, and ungodly people. Im going to talk about the difference between our love for our neighbor, and Gods love for that neighbor, in answer to one of the pointed questions that Dr. Mouw has put to me, so I wont speak of that now, but all ought to be aware of the fact that all of the human misery in the world, which we see and read about it and hear about, and which you can hardly stand to watch on the television set, or read about; child abuse, for example, things that break our hearts, because we Christians are human beings, and we have, to use Dr. Mouws word, empathy with other human beings. Besides that, we do, in obedience to Christ, love our neighbor. All those sufferings are inflicted by God upon a human race that has fallen away from him, in the fall of our first father. Thats the death, [the] horrible death, that God warned Adam he himself would die and plunge the whole human race into and God inflicted that death. That death is punishment for the sin of the human race. Gods heart doesnt break over the suffering that He himself inflicts, be it then sometimes through damn worthy agents, like the Nazis, or the soldiers who raped the Muslim woman and then brutally beheaded her child. A sovereign, holy God who hates sin, and will punish sin, inflicts these very things that break our hearts upon the human race, and we are all worthy of it, every last one of us. And were worthy of it from the moment were conceived and from the moment were born . Were guilty before this holy God. And theres no escape from it, the Bible tells us, apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ, regenerating grace, and faith in Christ.
Furthermore, regarding these atrocities, the Bible tells us, in so many words, that God Himself inflicts such atrocities as His punishments, not as atrocities, but as punishments, upon men and women. Read the book of Lamentations. All of these things that horrify us, the rape of the women, the killing of the children, the starving of many, Jeremiah was weeping over, as we do. And Jeremiah, at the same time, said the Lord did it, the Lord did it, and the Lord was just. I cannot see, as I also wrote, how the position that the heart of God breaks over human suffering can coexist with the doctrine of eternal hell. The suffering in hell will be far worse than any suffering that any human being suffers here. Gods heart doesnt break over the suffering of the wicked in hell for ever. To my mind, if I were to believe that God sympathizes, in that way, with the suffering of everybody, I would begin teaching that there is no hell, and that God would have to empty hell.
With regard to the Jeremiah Twenty-nine passage, Im glad Dr. Mouw brought that up because that was one part of his book that I did not respond to in my own articles on his book He Shines . He refers to the passage in Jeremiah Twenty-nine [verses five through seven] where to Judah in captivity the prophet says, Build houses, marry wives, have children and pray for the peace of the Babylonian city where you are, for in their peace, you will have peace.
I call attention to the fact that the reason why Israel or Judah was to pray for the earthly peace and prosperity of Babylon was because Judah was there! And if Babylon would not be disturbed by all kinds of uproar, then the people of God would have a certain earthly security and would be preserved to be returned, in the return from captivity. Judah did not pray for the peace, the earthly security, and order of the cities of Babylon for the sake of Babylon, but for the sake of the Church in Babylon. Then also, theres no question that we are to love our neighbor, and we are to love our neighbor whether our neighbor is godly or ungodly. We are to love our neighbor, as Luke Six [verses twenty-seven through thirty-five] tells us, when our neighbor is an ungodly person, who persecutes us, and curses us. But we dont love our neighbor by having fellowship with him. We love our neighbor by doing good to the neighbor, by praying for the neighbor, even that he may be saved.
Thats not the question, whether those who deny common grace believe that we should love our neighbor, and do all in our power for the good of the neighbor. We certainly believe that. Thats not a question among us. If our practice falls short of that, then were to repent of that, and to change our behavior. The question is -- does God love all the neighbors that we have, including reprobate, ungodly neighbors? And I noticed that at the end of his speech, he asks that question, but he did not give any proof of this, except for one text. And that was Luke Thirteen verse thirty-four, which has Christ exclaiming over the children of Jerusalem that He wished or willed to save them, and they would not. And I want to call attention to something extraordinarily important -- that which is to be proved is a common grace of God; thats whats to be proved tonight. A non-saving favor of God to the non-elect. If Luke Thirteen verse thirty-four proves the grace of God towards every human being, it isnt proving a non-saving love of God toward every human being, it is proving a saving grace of God to every human being. Its the desire then of the heart of Jesus, on behalf of God whose Messiah He is, to save every human being. If thats taught in that passage, that passage also teaches that the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ fails, and it fails because of the stubborn will of some whom God loves; that text proves too much interpreted as Dr. Mouw evidently interprets it. It doesnt prove a common grace of God to all, but a saving grace of God to all. And that is probably the deepest concern of us who deny common grace. As I pointed out in my speech, it invariably has an inner tendency to develop into an universal saving grace, and an 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?
Mr. Noorman: I warned you I would do that. Prior to tonights debate the speakers each exchanged three questions with each other that they were allowed to prepare an answer for: and I will ask these questions at this time, and they will respond. They will have a cumulative total of twelve minutes to answer these questions. They can use up as much time as they want on any question that they would like, but they will have twelve minutes total. Well start with a question from Prof. Engelsma to Dr. Mouw.
The question is this: does not the doctrine of common grace, particularly in its teaching of a restraint of sin in the unregenerated, and its teaching of the ability of the unbeliever to do good, significantly weaken, and indeed negate, the fundamental reformed doctrine of total depravity as taught by the creeds, specifically Question and Answer Eight of the Heidelberg Catechism. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, but are inclined to all wickedness. Indeed we are; except [that we are] regenerated [by the] Spirit of God.
Dr. Mouw : Ive already addressed that somewhat in my comments about the swimmers, and falling short of the glory of God. Calvin really struggled with this. You know, as the author of the doctrine, at least the reformation doctrine, of total depravity, Calvin himself struggled with this. In his debates with the Anabaptists he was very irritated with them because they basically said to him, that, you know, they were outCalvinisting him because he seemed to be weakening his own belief in total depravity by insisting that ungodly rulers could perform civic good, and teaching something like a doctrine of the restraint of sin. And Calvin simply argued that there were good things that, you know, the role of government could serve the will of God, that we should give thanks for rulers, whether godly or ungodly, who, whether they give God the glory for it or not, serve Gods purposes. And I think that if thats weakening the doctrine of total depravity, so be it. But I dont really think it is, because as Ive already argued, I think that the doctrine of total depravity is primarily about whether or not we have anything in us that allows us to either contribute to the initiation of or, in some sense, the expediting of our own salvation. And on that, Calvin stood firm. We are totally incapable of saving ourselves. We all fall short of the glory of God.
Theres also another wrinkle in a lot of reformed theology where many of us want to make a distinction between total depravity and absolute depravity. That not everything that the ungodly person does is depraved, but rather inevitably our sinfulness will show up in every area of our lives. Even the good that we do will fall short, it will fail to accomplish, what people want it to do. So we as Calvinists expect that the noblest intentions of the ungodly person will inevitably fail to deliver on what they claim, because we all fall short of the glory of God in that sense as well.
Mr. Noorman: Question for Prof. Engelsma: If I understand Prof. Engelsma correctly, he does think that I am not sinning when I feel compassion toward a Muslim woman who has been raped by soldiers in Eastern Europe. Indeed, he seems to agree that this is a case where I am fulfilling the Divine command to love people, even when they may be my enemies. Where I go wrong, as he sees it, is my thinking that I am sharing in Gods own compassion toward the Muslim woman, since God only has compassion toward the elect. This is my question: why would God command me to love people whom He Himself hates?
Prof. Engelsma: God does indeed command us Christians to love people whom He does not love, but hates. The Bible teaches that God hates persons. God hates some persons. Psalm Five verse five says that God hates all the workers of iniquity. In Romans Nine [ verse thirteen ] as everybody knows, [ scripture] teaches that God hated Esau. At the same time, the Bible teaches Christians that they are to love their enemies who curse them and persecute them, who may very well be these non-elect, or reprobate persons whom God hates. We are commanded to love persons, whom God, for all we know, hates.
The explanation of that is the difference between us and God. We are the neighbors of these ungodly persons, linked to them by a common humanity, a common blood. Besides, were commanded by Christ to view these people as originally created in the image of God, and to love them in the sense that we do good to them, pray for them, and bless them. God is not the neighbor of these persons. God is the Holy Judge of these persons. They dont appear in connection with Him as their neighbor, but they appear before Him as guilty and as depraved, and therefore as worthy objects of His hatred.
There is a ground in God for our love of the ungodly, pagan, idolatrous, and, for all we know, non-elect neighbor. That ground in God is not that God loves all human beings without exception. That ground in God for our activity of loving our personal neighbors, our personal enemies perhaps, is that the love of God is so wonderful, that the love of God is a love for persons who in themselves are His enemies. Not all persons who are in themselves His enemies, but persons, nevertheless, who in themselves are His enemies. Im one! I know the love of God, as the love of God for someone who in himself is a personal enemy of God, by nature hate Him and curse Him. And the love of God is so wonderful that it reached me. I show that by loving my own personal enemy, and thus I show the nature of the love of God. Not necessarily for that neighbor, but nevertheless the love of God towards people who were His personal enemies.
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?
Dr. Mouw : Its a very important question. Let me say that Prof. Engelsma puts a lot of emphasis on the doctrine of particular grace in Calvinism, and the Protestant Reformed folks, their publishing arm [the Reformed Free Publishing Association], has performed a wonderful service in issuing a new translation of Abraham Kuypers wonderful book on particular grace, Particular Grace -- A Defense of Gods Sovereignty in Salvation, which I think is a wonderful book. And yet heres a person who said everything that every Protestant Reformed person would ever want him to say about particular grace, but also believes in common grace, so that isnt an issue that divides us, certainly not those of us in the Kuyperian camp.
I think the real issue is once we have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, and were called to serve the cause of God, to bring glory to God in the larger creation, in all spheres of creation, what does it mean for us to glorify God? And this gets back to the basic question, what kinds of things does God care about, what kinds of things does God take delight in, and what kinds of things does God hate? You got to really get clear now about Prof. Engelsmas reading, for example, of that wonderful verse in Matthew Five [verses forty-four and forty-five; cp. Luke Six verse thirty-five]: 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, [and] is one who loves His enemies. -- that we are to imitate God. He agrees with that, but theres a kind of strange way of agreeing with it. He says, that God is an enemy lover, the whole notion of the imitatio Dei, the imitation of God, God is an enemy lover, and -- we have to be enemy lovers. But the enemies that God loves, are people like us, who have been redeemed, but God commands us to love people who havent been redeemed. And so you get this strange notion that God is commanding us to love people whom He hates. And I want to say, that is not the obvious meaning of all of that.
And so the question is, does it really fit the larger sense of the scriptures? And this is why I raise the question. I agree that the grieving Savior over Jerusalem is a somewhat different issue, but its a question, it is an important example of seeing the heart of God go out to people who are His enemies. And I want to insist, when Saddam Hussein opened the prisons (Ill never forget that), it was before the war, he opened the prisons, and people who had been cooped up in these cells for years, came out, and they were jumpin around, and I want to say, my instinct, now my instinct, my inclination, my feeling at that point, was to say, with all that scriptures say about the opening of the prisons to those who are bound, thats not just talking about Peter in the book of Acts, its talking about [how that] God rejoices, under certain conditions, when certain kinds of people are released from prison, and there was a joy of seeing people liberated from imprisonment by an unjust government, and I want to say, I think God delights in that. And that God wants me to delight in that, because God delights in that. I dont think that God is in the business of telling us to love people whom He hates, to have our compassion go out to people whose suffering He is causing! That just does not fit the sense of the scriptures, and we could spend a lot of time on Matthew Five, and other passages in that regard. But I just have to say Prof. Engelsma, I find that a very strange interpretation of what it means for us to love as our heavenly Father loves. Thats enough.
Mr. Noorman: Question for Prof. Engelsma. Assuming, as I think it is legitimate to do, that Mozart was not a believer, does Prof. Engelsma think that Karl Barth was simply wrong in his view that Mozarts music will be played in heaven? Is there any sense in which Mozarts compositions glorify God, even though he did not intentionally compose them to the glory of God? Suppose we found out that Mozart had a profound conversion just prior to his death. Would this make a difference in how we assess his music?
Prof. Engelsma: Karl Barth, of course, thought Mozart himself was going to be in heaven, and not only his music. As I recall, he became uncharacteristically indignant with Dutch Reformed theologians who denied Mozarts salvation, and said hard things about Mozart. He called them, stupid, and said they had hard and stony hearts.
As regards the question itself, probably behind that question is the suggestion of Kuyper and Bavinck, that cultural common grace implies that one day some of the great cultural products of our present time are going to find a place in the New World. And they appeal to [texts] in Revelation Twenty-one [verses twenty-four and twenty-six], as I recall, that [speak] 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 [also] and the works that are therein shall be burned up. end quote, Second Peter Three ten, and that nothing enters the New World that defileth, Revelation Twenty-one verse twenty-seven. The glory and the honor of the nations that go into the kingdom of God, according to Revelation Twenty-one, are the spiritual honor and glory that the nations have by the work of the regenerating Spirit of Jesus Christ in the elect of those nations. According to the Bible, the only works that find entrance into the New World are the works of the dead who die in the Lord. We read in Revelation Fourteen [verse thirteen] that their works do follow them, and even then they dont follow them as cultural products, a house that they built or a painting that they painted, but they follow the believer into heaven in the sense that God remembers their good works, and rewards them for it.
Id like to explore this question just a little bit further with you. The theory that the cultural products of unbelievers may find a place in heaven, leads to intolerable, painful possibilities. I suppose that Dr. Mouw and I would not object, in a foolish moment, to Mozarts music being in heaven. But what if theres a member of the church who has no taste for Mozarts music at all, must he put up with that music in the New World? And what about some church member, young church member probably, whose musical tastes are warped, who might propose that the music of some rock band also be included in heaven. Must I be open to suffering that hideous din in the New World? I address what I regard as the main point of the question. When the reformed faith condemns, as I believe it does, all works of the unbelievers as sin, it is referring to the activity itself of the unbeliever in performing that work. It is not condemning the cultural product: the car, the painting, the symphony, or whatever it may be. These God gives us in His great work of creation, just as He gives us a mountain to climb or to view, for us to use and enjoy to the glory of God.
I add this point, and Im addressing, really, Abraham Kuyper here, and Herman Bavinck, who were not nearly so cautious as Dr. Mouw is about this: I recall in his book that he warned, right at that point, against a certain triumphalism in those that made much of cultural common grace. Theres going to be a radical difference between this world and the new world. And the radical difference will be that the New World will be a spiritual world. Just like the spiritual, though substantial, Body of Christ, and the spiritual body of the Christian in the resurrection. We ourselves cant get in with flesh and blood, much less than can the earthly cultural products of this age be taken into heaven. Much better things are waiting for us there.
Mr. Noorman: Question for Dr. Mouw: Does Dr. Mouw acknowledge that there has been a harmful spiritual effect of the doctrine and practice of common grace upon the churches and schools that have enthusiastically embraced common grace, both in the Netherlands and in North America over the past eighty to one hundred years, especially as regards the young people?
Dr. Mouw : I want to make a distinction between [the] 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 a lot of us sociologists puzzle over how the Netherlands, as such a strong Calvinist community in the nineteenth century, could have turned out to be so secular. And he said, The real answer is that all the real Calvinists left and went to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And I think theres a kernel of truth in all of that. I think the Netherlands is a special case.
But, you know, the real issue there, and I want to come back to Revelation and the honor and the glory of the nations. I do reject the triumphalist version of that that Kuyper and many Kuyperians often espouse, but Ive argued in my book, which I notice is out on the table there, When the Kings Come Marching In, based on Isaiah Sixty, that the Revelation reference to the honor and the glory of the nations, is really repeating Isaiahs reference to the honor and the glory of the nations being brought into the New Jerusalem and then the ships of Tarshish, which are pagan ships, the rams of Nebaioth, which are consumer goods that were produced by the descendants of Ishmael, and others; really there is a gathering in of the fruits of pagan culture into the Holy City. And I do believe that, I suspect that, those of us who dont like Mozart may be able to watch replays of some of Sammy Sosas home runs in heaven.
But, I really do believe that the Spirit of God is out there. This is the fundamental question -- Is the Spirit of God preparing the creation for the new creation? Is there any continuity? And swords will be beaten into plowshares, perverse works of arts will be cleansed and transformed and that which was created to the glory of the creature, will now be transformed into that which glorifies the Creator. And so I really think that theres something to that line.
I think that the whole question of whether the schools, Christian schools, Christian colleges, Ive been on every one of the Dutch Reformed based colleges, certainly spent a lot of time at Calvin, continue to, Ive been at Dort College recently, Ive been at Redeemer, Kings College, Edmonton, and I must say, as I travel to these campuses, I am thrilled to see a younger generation of young people coming up, who really have a vision of Christ as the King of creation, and as the Lord of all things. There [are] a lot of mistakes, but I think there [are] a lot of mistakes in denying common grace. There [are] a lot of mistakes in refusing to engage. And I think that weve got to get beyond sort of taking potshots at this or that event that happens on a specific campus and really look at the totality of it. I think that the Protestant Reformed folks articulate a wonderful vision, but really havent done much to the development of a liberal arts tradition within a uniquely Christian perspective. And I praise the Lord for the kinds of things that Calvin and Dort, and Redeemer, and the Kings, and Trinity Christian and other colleges in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition that are remaining faithful to the reformed faith [are doing]. I praise the Lord for that, and I am very encouraged by a younger generation thats coming up.
And again, we make a lot of mistakes and we can avoid those mistakes by being more discerning, and, frankly, by having, even on those campuses, the kinds of dialogue that were having here this evening. But I want to affirm the importance of Christian liberal arts education, of the educating of primary schools, and high schools, of people who are discerning of whats happening in the larger culture, and who are willing to go out into that culture with a sense that we have to glorify God, and we also have to discern those things in the culture that contribute to the up-building of the Christian community, even though those who do them, who create their works, may not, themselves, be intending to glorify God.
I think I have a much more, you know, you ought to say, that He shines in all thats fair, that refers to the rustling grass, and sunsets and all the things, but human beings are created! I mean, we cant separate human beings, even fallen human beings, from Gods good creation. I once had a debate with the great Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder and he said, The difference between Mouw and my self is this. He wants to say, fallen but created, and I want to say, created but fallen. And, you know, Im not going to call you an Anabaptist, but I have a lot of respect for Anabaptists, so it wouldnt be an insult coming from me. I wont call you an Anabaptist, but I think there is that question of emphasis. When we read the scriptures are they telling us that fallen human beings are fallen but created, and that we still have to discern the work of the Creator there, or do we say of them theyre created but theyre fallen, and that means that the marks of their created capacity to glorify God, even when they dont intend to glorify God, are no longer there? I think thats the fundamental issue.
Mr. Noorman: Final Question for Prof. Engelsma. Suppose, just suppose, that by some miraculous Divine intervention, the Christian Reformed Synod this year were to announce that it was wrong in nineteen twenty-four and was now rejecting the doctrine of common grace. Suppose also that the C.R.C. pleaded with the Protestant Reformed to rejoin the C.R.C. with a special request to Prof. Engelsma, and other P.R. leaders, to help the C.R.C. 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 C.R.C., wwould he advocate the elimination of the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, with its extensive programs of feeding the hungry and providing disaster relief to people, Christians and non-Christians alike, around the world, or could there be a non-common grace theological basis for continuing these programs in some form?
Dr. Mouw: I want to say, Im really glad that I thought of that question.
Mr. Noorman: I should have let you read it. You probably would have enjoyed it.
Prof. Engelsma: I wish youd have watched more of Tiger Woods putting.
Im going to be extremely careful how I answer this question. And Im going to be extremely careful, not because I have any uncertainty about my answer, but because the question raises an explicit reference to an institution. I have avoided all mention of any institutions tonight, so that nobody would be able to say, which would not be true, that I was aiming what I said at any particular body. I am interested tonight, exclusively, in an issue, in a doctrine, in a practice in the matter of the basis and power of the Christians life in the world, as Dr. Mouw is interested in that question.
My answer about the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee is this -- if that committee is a common grace ministry, motivated by a general humanitarian impulse, rising no higher than helping suffering people, taking its place alongside the Red Cross, and other organizations of that kind, and not grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor testifying to Jesus Christ as it dispenses its mercies, I would recommend, and do everything in my power, if I should have any influence, which will never happen, that the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee be dissolved at once. If, on the other hand, as I charitably suppose, the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee is a diaconal ministry of Reformed Churches, motivated by the desire to exercise and show the mercies of Jesus Christ and always bestowing its help in the name of Jesus Christ, emphatically in the name of the unique Savior, then it has a right and honorable place, so long as it follows the Biblical injunction to do good, especially to the household of faith, and also, as opportunity arises, to all men. The bottom line, for me, is that the Church of Jesus Christ must do everything that it does in Christs name, and by the power of the, to use a tautology, saving grace of God.
Mr. Noorman: That concludes our session of the questions that were previously submitted. At this time were going to collect your questions. And Id ask that if you have those written out that youd pass them to the aisles. And the person at the aisle hold them out, so that the ushers can pick them up. While that is being done, we are going to sing a song. Were going to sing, Obligations of Grace, which you will find on your screen. By the way, our organist this evening is Mary Velthouse; we thank her for her work, and she will play this through to begin.
Dr. Mouw : We cant answer all these.
Mr. Noorman: No, no we cant answer all these. Just find a couple -- nice ones. If we could answer them all I know youd be envious because I have to go to a Cubs game tomorrow, so Im not going to be able to be here for too late.
Dr. Mouw: Did you sort these out?
Mr. Noorman: Yes these are for Prof. Engelsma, and you should chose which ones you would like him to answer. While they are taking just a minute to do that were going to be havin about, well about fifteen minutes, at the most, for these questions, I guess.
While they are taking a brief minute to look at that, Id like to... Dr. Mouw mentioned a book that was available in the back, that is put out by the Reformed Free Publishing Association, that is, Dr. Abraham Kuypers book Particular Grace that was first published in 1880, 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 1923 and soon became the center of the debate in the years [sic] leading up to 1924. The title of this book is Sin and Grace and that book is also available from the RFPA.
Maybe if you have one, we could start, and you could.... do you have one?
Prof. Engelsma: Can we agree on approximately how many of these we should pick out and make it fair?
Mr. Noorman: Lets pick out three questions...
Prof. Engelsma: Three questions...?
Mr. Noorman: ...and limit it to just a couple minutes. Alright?
Dr. Mouw: Wow. Can we just start it?
Mr. Noorman: Sure.
Dr. Mouw: If my, this is a question for you, if my unconverted neighbor gives me an honest exchange for my money, and doesnt steal from me, is that a good work?
Prof. Engelsma: No.
Dr. Mouw : Okay. I was just wondering.
Prof. Engelsma: But, it would be worse if he did steal from you.
Dr. Mouw: Yea, see, yea. Thats a very interesting phenomenon, because you want to say that there are bad and worse, but no good and better.
Prof. Engelsma: Thats right, as does the Westminster Confession in 1607.
Dr. Mouw: I argue differently than that.
Prof. Engelsma: I picked this one because its from my grandson. And its a serious question. Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that little grace to the wicked?
Dr. Mouw: Say that..Im sorry.
Prof. Engelsma: Would it be then that Jesus died to bestow that little grace, common grace, to the wicked?
Dr. Mouw: Is the sowing of common grace a part of the redemptive work of Christ? Well, you know, in the sense that, certainly Colossians [ One verse twenty ] is great on this, you know, that all things might ultimately be brought together in Christ. That not only is He the head of the body, the Church, but He is before all principalities and powers, and that Hes preparing the creation for its glorious transformation. Yeah, I would have to say that, you know, Ill keep quoting hymns on this, but the Christmas Carol, He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found. And Jesus Christ died to lift the cursedness from the creation. Now I want to say that there are Muslim women tonight who are experiencing the cursedness of the creation. There are homeless children who are experiencing the cursedness of creation. There are families who are being broken up by alcohol addictions, and that those Christian people who go out into those square inches of the creation and minister to relieve the cursedness of human beings who have been created by God, created to the glory of God, created to enjoy the good things of Gods creation, I want to say yes, thats a part of the blessings that flow from the one who came to make His blessings flow as far as the curse is found. And I think thats Biblical.
Could you clear up the misconception that so many have that Protestant Reformed folks try to determine whether or not someone is elect or reprobate before we reach out to help them. That because we are not God, we cannot determine a mans end, and therefore if Christs love is in us we help all in need. I think youve addressed that already...
Prof. Engelsma: I have.
Dr. Mouw : ...but I think that would be a good thing to clarify.
Prof. Engelsma: The Protestant Reformed do not, in fact, try to judge whether people are elect or reprobate, and make a decision whether to help them and love them on the basis of their apparent election or their apparent reprobation. That would be audacity of the highest degree. We believe that we are called to love all our neighbors, regardless whether the neighbor shows himself as a believer or an unbeliever, in so far as they are our neighbor, and in so far even as they may be our enemy personally. Their election and their reprobation have absolutely nothing to do with that, so far as we are concerned, whatsoever. What is important is that the person in our way is a neighbor.
I want to say, at the same time, that we show this love in a different way to a believer, than we do to an unbeliever. To an unbeliever we give whatever help is needed. We certainly testify of Jesus Christ to him, and we pray for his salvation, but we dont have friendship with him, nor do we let him think that we have fellowship with him, because scripture forbids the fellowshipping of believers and unbelievers. We do have fellowship with Gods people.
Furthermore, I want to add this too, that in so far as that same neighbor reveals himself as an enemy of God, we can find it in ourselves to hate him, which is also a Biblical injunction. Psalm one hundred and thirty-nine [ verses twenty-one and twenty-two ], Do not I hate those who that hate Thee, O LORD? I hate them with a perfect hatred. I count them mine enemies. And that doesnt have to do with doing any physical harm to him, but it does have to do with abhorring him in his present condition of rebelling against the Most High God, profaning His name, and making himself worthy of damnation, if he doesnt repent. But to get back to the question -- we do not base the calling we have to love our neighbor on any judgement about anybodys election or reprobation.
Mr. Noorman: Your question.
Prof. Engelsma: This is an interesting one and thats why I pick it out for you. And Ill be interested in your answer too. Have you considered engaging the once vibrant reformed natural law tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to come to a more precise definition of the moral nature of mankind and thereby avoid inadvertently slipping in worldly principles based on human experience? Have you considered engaging the once vibrant reformed natural law tradition...
Dr. Mouw : Yeah. Yeah. No, I... Yes, I have, and I think that its very interesting that theres a very wide spread interest in natural law today. A number of Roman Catholics are doing some very good work on updating natural law, having an influence on some legal theorists in the United States , I think thats a very important thing. Whats very interesting, you know, about all of this, and I hint at this a little bit in my book, but let me be very explicit about it tonight. Is that when the C.R.C. 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, that we have so much in common with neighbors that we thought we were standing over against, and so the common grace doctrine was used in the nineteen teens and twenties very much as an instrument of assimilation of the reformed community into the larger culture, trying to explain how we...yea, trying to give a theological explanation to what it is that we sense we have in common with our American neighbors.
Were living in a time now where its almost the reverse [of ] the agenda. What in the world do we have in common with a lot of these people that we see around us, I mean, lifestyles that are so repellent to godly people, and the diversity of religions, world religions coming to North America? So now the question isnt, How do we explain theologically what appears to us to be our commonalities?, but, How do we find any kind of commonality in a world in which it looks like theres such fragmentation that people are having a hard time affirming any kind of commonality at all? You know, theres all this talk in post-modernism about theres no meta-narrative, we each, you know...and were seeing new tribalisms and fragmentations, so the question of commonality is a very important one today, in a very different sense, and its in that context that notions like natural law, and common grace, and general revelation are being looked at again as possibilities for discerning things that simply arent obvious to...you know, as we look around us. And this topic is very much on top of the cultural agendas, so that in many ways the common grace notion has its parallels even in secular thought. People are saying, What could possibly hold us together as a nation in which our diversity runs so deep? yeah...
Another question: Would Prof. Engelsma please list all the reformed theologians prior to Hoeksema who denied common grace doctrine? I think thats an important question about the...you know, yeah, thats an important question.
Prof. Engelsma: I believe that the common grace doctrine that were talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim virtually every reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on Gods part in the preaching of the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldnt hesitate to claim, every orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication. When I say that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, bounties of providence, whether Mozarts musical ability, or Platos intellectual ability or whatever it may be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that theyre partially good, and can even do works that are truly good, because theyre done by Gods grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to Christianize society. That was Abraham Kuypers terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that: Christianizing society by a common grace of God.
So I am not at all willing to grant, if thats the assumption of the question, that Herman Hoeksema bursts on the scene with a novel and entirely unheard of opposition to Kuyperian common grace. I dont believe that for a moment. I believe that the Protestant Reformed position, in this matter, has solid grounding in powerful strains of the reformed tradition going back to Calvin. To go no further.
Dr. Mouw: Let me just add, that I think that you can see denial of common grace in a lot of Scottish theology in the seventeenth century, so I think youre, youre right there are precedents.
Mr. Noorman: Are we even with questions? O.K. That brings us to the close of the program tonight. Its been a long evening, but a wonderful and informative evening and I would like to acknowledge the work tonight of these two men, if you would please.
Mr. Noorman: Thank you.
Dr. Mouw : Youre welcome.
Id also would [sic] like to thank the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church Evangelism Committee for organizing and putting this program together, and I thank you all for coming and being such a big part of this too. And I was standing out in the lobby beforehand, and as I look out now, Im really amazed at what I see here, because the average age in this auditorium is by no means elderly. This is a young group, and I think that is so important that the future of our church be involved with activities like this, and I encourage you to continue.
At this time Id like to have, Ill call him pastor-elect, Bill Langerak of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church to come and close with prayer.
Pastor-elect Langerak: We should praise God and give thanks that some several thousand came out this evening to hear a discussion, a serious discussion, about crucial matters of the reformed faith and life. Lets give thanks to that God:
Our Father which art in heaven we come unto Thee not only as the God of our salvation, but the God of all things in heaven and in earth. The One, True and Triune God whom we worship, God our Father, the Father of the Son of our salvation and the Holy Spirit in our sanctification. We pray that the event this evening, and what went on, and the discussion that we had was no mere intellectual exercise, or a trivial discussion, but one that we took, that we were moved by, in a heart felt spiritual way, for it concerns our faith, and our relationship to Thee our God and more importantly what kind of God. Bless us, keep us, and forgive that which is done in sin. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.