**Transcription of A Debate On Common Grace 9/12/ 03
distributed by the Evangelism Society of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church
Grand Rapids, Michigan**

(This transcription was prepared by Andrew P. Magni--for which we express our great appreciation. To hear the audio of this debate, go to:
Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed? )

First Session - Speeches of Dr. Mouw & Prof. Engelsma

1.1.I	Opening remarks - Pastor Dale Kuiper
1.1.II	Prayer
1.1.III	Scripture Reading, Psalm 119:89-96 Lamed.
1.1.IV	Introduction of Mr.Rick Noorman as Moderator.
1.2.I	Prefatory -- Mr. Noorman
1.2.II	Description of He Shines in All That’s Fair, by Dr. Mouw & Common Grace Revisited, by Professor Engelsma
1.2.III,IV	Introductions of Dr. Richard J. Mouw & Prof. David J. Engelsma.
1.2.V	Format of debate explained.
1.3.I - XVII	Speech of Dr.Mouw defending cultural common grace.
1.3.I,II	Introductory remarks .

1.3.III	The ‘Three Points of 1924’: 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 Calvin’s 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 God’s multi-faceted engagement with and delight in His creation is critical for a nuanced comprehension of His responses/relationship to the unconverted and their works.
1.3.VII	God’s positive non-redemptive purposes are the basis of “common grace ministries.”
1.3.VIII	Prof. Engelsma’s reduction of common grace to theological empiricism.
1.3.IX	Warnings against empiricism as basis for theology is legitimate, because of the heart’s 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.Engelsma’s critique thereof.
1.3.XII,XIII	“Special status” of the Hebrews “in God's redemptive economy”; Revisited’s ‘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.Mouw’s 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 God’s 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. Augustine’s City of God.
1.4.XI	Bitter fruits of worldliness in Churches and schools mature, and Christians are enervated in their struggle with the wicked world, wherever the doctrine of common grace has been embraced over the last century, as unambiguously demonstrated in the history of the Netherlands and U.S.
1.4.XII	Third - Inevitable tendency to universalism, ex. Dr.Mouw’s speculation at the end of He Shines, which latter doctrine is the destruction of the gospel of Christ.
1.4.XIII	Summary of PRC objections.
1.4.XIV-XVIII	Four point clarification of P.R.C. position.
1.4.XIV	First - God’s 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 Lord’s 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

Prefatory - Mr. Noorman

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

Observations with respect to Psalm singing together of P.R.C. & C.R.C. at debate.

Primary definition of symbolic doctrine of the works of the unconverted is understood by Prof.Engelsma as the Heidelberg’s earlier “any good,” whereas Dr. Mouw maintains it is the Canons later “any saving good.”

Earl Palmer illustration -- all fall short of salvation, but not by the same degree--depravity is not absolute.

Total depravity exclusively means that men are incapable of saving themselves, i.e., we need someone “to cast out the lifeline.”

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

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

Repudiation of universalism, acknowledgment of a “somewhat dangerous and regrettable” fruits exhibited from those who have embraced common grace.

‘Ghettoized’ mentality/cultural mandate apathy as evil fruits of the P.R.C.’s denial of common grace.

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

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

Reaction to Dr. Mouw’s rebuttal: P.R.C. listens and considers the admonitions to it of common grace espousers.

Calvin’s 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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

The doctrine of a universal, conditional, saving grace is the implication of the apparent interpretation of Luke 13:34 concluding Dr. Mouw’s speech; which latter doctrine is a de facto denial of the gospel of grace for it implies that saving ‘grace’ is resistible, and so the gospel is conditioned upon man’s response, and thus it is not actually of grace, but is rather of works; [cp. Romans 11:6].

Third Session - Prepared questions/answers

3.1.I	Prefatory -- Mr. Noorman.
3.2.I	Q. for Dr. Mouw -- Does not the doctrine of ‘pagan good works’ negate the creedal doctrine of total depravity?
3.2.II	A. Calvin claimed civil officers serve will of God; ‘total’ is distinct from ‘absolute’ depravity, that is, sinfulness enters all spheres of activity of the unregenerate, so that it does not accomplish what they would, but not all the unregenerate does is depraved.
3.3.I	Q. for Prof. Engelsma -- Why does God command me to love people He hates?
3.3.II	A. God hates some persons, cp. Psalm 5:5, Romans 9:13.
3.3.III	God’s love for some of His enemies reflected as believers love all their enemies.
3.4.I	Q. for Dr. Mouw -- Are not “common grace ministries” contrary conceptually to the doctrine of particular regenerating grace being the basis for any and all Christian works, as opposed to a grace allegedly shared in common with unregenerate men?
3.4.II	A. Kuyper was orthodox vis. particular grace, though maintained common grace, and thus common grace ministries are not, de facto, a repudiation or even modification of the teaching that Christians are animated by a salvific grace that is particular to the regenerate.
3.4.III	Because God commands Christians to love the unredeemed without qualification, ipso facto, He does as well, cp. Matthew 5:42-48, Luke 6:35.
3.4.IV	Unjust men who inflict suffering are alone responsible for it: God hates injustice, inhumanity, and misery and is delighted when men are released from experiencing of the same, and/or when men act as agents of such releases, and He “wants” us to have the same delight with Him, cp. Mat. 5:43ff.

3.5.I	Q. For Prof. Engelsma -- Was Barth wrong that Mozart’s compositions are heard in glory?
3.5.II	A. Barth’s uncouth response to critics; believed Mozart 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 God’s 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 debate’s 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 Christ’s passion unto the bestowal of grace upon the wicked?
4.3.II	A. Yes, for Christ came to mollify the ‘cursedness’ of creation, Col. 1:16ff.
4.4.I	Q. for Prof. Engelsma -- Does 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/Bavinck’s 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	Hoeksema’s 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.)

1.1.I

Pastor Kuiper: Good evening. On behalf of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, we welcome you to this program which is dedicated to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s gratifying to see such a good turn out this evening. We know that there are weddings, football games, basketball games, other programs, and we’re very happy that you have decided, all that notwithstanding, to come here tonight. People are still arriving, and we’re going to give them an opportunity to find a seat.

1.1.II

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

Our Father which art in heaven we’ve come together tonight as believers to hear the truth of Thy Word. Thy Word is truth. It is the truth of all things. It is the only truth in this sorry world of confusion and the Lie. Thy Word is light in this world of darkness, shining upon our pathway, showing us the way that is everlasting. Thy Word is clear, so that little children and the unlearned can readily grasp the sense of the Spirit. Thy Word is sufficient, so that the Church of the Elect out of all the nations is saved, and Thy name has all the Glory. Thy Word, Father, is unmistakable, just as when the lion roars, people know it, so when Thy Word is proclaimed, we know it, and tremble. Thy Word, Father, is inspired, and therefore profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, so that we are thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Thy Word is powerful, able to bring to faith those that ought to be saved, and to leave without excuse those who refuse to bow before King Jesus. Thy Word is authority for right doctrine and right living, for it comes to us from the mouth of the Sovereign of heaven and earth. Yes, we have come together to hear that Word. May it be spoken in truth and may the truth prevail. To that end supply the needs of those who participate in this program tonight, especially the needs of the professors of theology and make us as little children, who are teachable, and who have not lost a sense of wonder and awe when it comes to the gospel, and when it comes to Thy grace. Pardon in mercy our sins today, and keep us from every evil way. Hear our prayer, in the precious name of Jesus Christ, Who, from Thy right hand, rules all things, and Who intercedes for us, and Who blesses His church with every spiritual blessing. Amen.

1.1.III

I’ve been asked to read a short portion of Psalm 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.

1.1.IV

The moderator for the debate tonight is Mr. Rick Noorman who is well known to most of us here because he sings in a male quartet, which is called the Voices of Victory: a quartet that gives many, many programs throughout the year in this area. Especially well known to us, because for seven years he has been the principal of Covenant Christian High School in Walker, Michigan.

Mr. Noorman will introduce the speakers, and will explain the format tonight. Mr. Noorman... here he is.....

1.2.I

Mr. Noorman: Thank you Reverend Kuiper. Good evening and, again, welcome to tonight’s debate. In God’s Holy, Inspired Word, we are repeatedly called to be an understanding people: Psalm Forty-seven verse seven calls us to sing “praises with understanding.” This means that we are to know of what we sing, when we sing the praises of God. In a broader context, we must also live all of our lives with understanding. We cannot do lip service to our beliefs in living our lives any more than we can with our singing of praises. I believe that it is the hope of theEvangelism Committee of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church that tonight’s debate will help all of those who are exposed to this grow in their understanding of the doctrines that shape their view of God’s world, and better understand the relationships and the work that they find themselves in, as they complete their pilgrimage on this earth.

The question that will be debated tonight is: is the doctrine of common grace reformed? The topic of tonight’s debate is certainly not a new topic to reformed circles. The doctrine of common grace has been debated in synods, consistory rooms, church narthexes, living rooms, kitchens, and work places of reformed people for close to one hundred years. These debates center on the relationship that the redeemed people of God, and the one Church that they compose, can, or should have, with the unbelieving world.

1.2.II

Our debate tonight comes on the heels of the publication of two books, which have once again looked at this question. First published was the book form of a series of lectures given in the year two thousand at Calvin College Stob Lecture Series: this book is titled He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Dr. Richard J. Mouw. The second book is the book form of a series of articles written in the Standard Bearer magazine as a response to Dr. Mouw’s book. This book by Prof. David Engelsma is titled Common Grace Revisited: A Response to Richard J. Mouw’s He Shines in All That’s Fair.

1.2.III

At this time I’d like to formally introduce our two speakers, and also go over the format that we will follow here tonight. To my left is Dr. Richard J. Mouw. Dr. Mouw will be defending the position that the doctrine of common grace is reformed. He is a graduate of Houghton College, and completed graduate studies at Western Theological Seminary, University of Alberta, and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Chicago. Dr. Mouw is currently in his tenth year as president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Fuller is the largest multi-denominational seminary in the world. He joined the faculty of Fuller Seminary as a professor of Christian philosophy and ethics in nineteen eight-five after seventeen years as a professor at Calvin College here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 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.

1.2.IV

To my right is Prof. David Engelsma. Prof. Engelsma will be defending the position that the doctrine of common grace is not reformed. Prof. Engelsma currently is professor of Dogmatics and Old Testament Studies at the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches in 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.

1.2.V

I ask as a courtesy to both speakers that there be no further applause or comments from the audience from this point. The format for tonight’s debate will include four segments. First, each speaker will have thirty minutes to present his case on the topic. Dr. Mouw, who will argue that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, will speak first, and Prof. Engelsma will follow. After the initial presentations, there will be a fifteen minute intermission giving the speakers time to prepare their rebuttals. Then each speaker will have fifteen minutes to rebut the other’s position. The third segment will involve Dr. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma answering questions that they have prepared for each other and exchanged in advance. The final segment will involve speakers answering questions prepared by you in the audience. In your program you will find a space to write your questions. It will be very important that you address your questions to one of the speakers, or to both of the speakers, if you wish. Dr. Mouw will receive all the questions addressed to Prof. Engelsma, and he will choose which questions he would like to have answered and it will work the same for questions addressed to Dr. Mouw. Questions that you would like to have both men respond to would go to me and I would choose those questions. My position as moderator will be to keep the speakers timely, and I can assure each speaker that I will cut them off after they have used the allotted time, plus a little bit, maybe. After dealing with high school kids all week, a couple of seminary professors should be a piece of cake. And then I will also present the questions to the speakers so that they can answer them. Our time keeper tonight is Mr. Jim Noorman, and he will show me when the allotted time is up.

So we will begin our first segment of the program tonight with Dr. Mouw.

1.3.I

Dr. Mouw : Thank you. I’m delighted to be here. Feels like I’m running for political office. I was thinking if I can hold my own with David Engelsma, I may go back and take on Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. When I delivered the Stob lectures at Calvin College and Seminary in the fall of two thousand, several of my ‘Christian Reformed’ friends expressed puzzlement as to why I had chosen to focus on the theology of common grace. It was clear that they saw this topic as lacking in any contemporary relevance. To be sure they would be quick to acknowledge that they subscribe to the common grace idea, but they also aren’t very interested in engaging in critical reflection on the issues that were debated heatedly by the Dutch American Calvinists in the early nineteen twenties. From their point of view the topic was dealt with adequately by the Christian Reformed Synod of 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 community’s lack of interest in pursuing the issues. Their frustration is understandable. I’m 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.

1.3.II

To engage in critical reflection on those matters for our present day situation is, or so I am convinced, to perform a significant service to the life and mission of the church in our own day. Given the interest that my book based on my Stob lectures has stimulated, not only in the broad evangelical movement, but also among Roman Catholics, and mainline Protestants, to say nothing of the recent release of a Chinese translation by the officially sanctioned Protestant churches of mainland China, who now know who Herman Hoeksema is, I am even more convinced of this hopeful assessment. So this discussion needs to continue. While I’m firm in my belief that the theology of common grace is a solid basis for the proper understanding of the church’s mission in the world, I also know that there are important dangers associated with this topic. The idea of common grace can easily be misused to legitimize a blanket uncritical endorsement of culture, as such, anywhere, thus luring Christians into ungodly compromises with the forces of evil in the world. I personally have found it helpful, even necessary, for my own theological well-being, to continue to wrestle with the views of those folks who reject the theology of common grace. With this in mind, I want to offer my sincere thanks to the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church for the effort that they have put into planning this event. And I also want to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Engelsma for the careful attention that he’s given to my thoughts on the subject of common grace. I’ve learned much from his series of articles in which he sets forth an extensive critique of what I argued in my book. And I’m immensely pleased that his reflections are now appearing in book form. I’ve been looking forward to continuing our dialogue on this subject this evening. And while neither of us is likely to come away from this discussion completely convinced by the other, I do want to say, at the outset, that I have already learned much from Prof. Engelsma on a subject that we both care about very deeply.

1.3.III

The debates of the 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.

1.3.IV

Defenders of common grace like to appeal to John Calvin himself to defend their views. Calvin’s study of various Greek and Roman writers had left him with a sense of appreciation for several pagan thinkers, including, and especially, Seneca. This appreciation led Calvin to point to what he called ‘a universal apprehension of reason and understanding’ that is by nature implanted in men, which, because it is bestowed indiscriminately upon the pious and the impious, it is rightly counted among natural gifts. Indeed, he insists every human being ought to recognize this implanted rational nature as, these are his words, “a peculiar grace of God.”

Moreover, when we observe this gift of natural reason at work in secular writers, Calvin advises, we should, and I’m going to quote him a little bit at length here, “we should let that admirable light of truth shining in them,” these are pagan thinkers now, “teach us that the mind of man, though fallen, and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it where it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. Those men whom scripture calls natural men, were indeed sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.” John Calvin.

Now, Herman Hoeksema and his followers, on the other hand, have been quick to point out that in spite of such praise, Calvin was also inclined to speak very negatively about the products of the unregenerate mind. When Calvin credits the unredeemed with some grasp of the principles of civic fairness, for example, he quickly adds that even when the human mind follows after truth, he says, “it limps and staggers.” In the lives of unbelievers, Calvin says, the civic virtues are so sullied that, before God, they lose all favor. So that anything in him that appears praiseworthy, he says, “must be considered worthless.” And while he acknowledges that, quote, “some sparks still gleam in the fallen mind, that light is nonetheless chocked with dense ignorance so that it cannot come forth effectively.”

1.3.V

Now we all agree that Calvin says these things, but we differ in how we assess the importance of his various remarks on the subject. The Protestant Reformed folks take Calvin’s negative comments as expressing his real view, and they dismiss his more positive assessments of pagan thought as unfortunate misstatements. On the other hand, while I do want to take his negative thoughts seriously, I also want to honor his positive evaluations, and, furthermore, I’m convinced that the stakes are very high here. Since, as Calvin says, if we despise the truth when it comes to us from unbelievers, we run the real risk of “dishonoring'” he says, “the Spirit of God.”

In his helpful critique of my reflections on the subject, Prof. Engelsma takes me to task for emphasizing the fact that God’s goodness “shines in all that’s fair,” without also giving due attention to the fact that the Lord also curses all that’s foul. Well he’s right to call attention to the ‘cursedness’ of much that issues forth from depraved hearts and minds. But I want to respond by also expressing my dissatisfaction with the way he refuses to acknowledge how God’s creating purposes are often honored by people who do not acknowledge God as the source of the glory that is displayed in their thoughts and deeds. And I want to focus here on what I see as the basic points of contention between us on this matter.

1.3.VI

As I read the situation, the crucial questions are these: what does God take delight in, and what does God hate? The critics of common grace insist that God takes delight in the saving of His elect people, and He hates everything that issues forth from the lives of the unredeemed. I’m convinced that that assumption fails to do justice to the full scope of God’s complex interest in His creation. The God of the Bible certainly cares about more things than the issue of salvation. Even before human beings were created, God took satisfaction as He contemplated the swarms of non-human living things that He had called into being and the psalmist tells us that the Lord continues to take delight in the workings of His creation -- all the workings of His creation. Why should we doubt that God takes pleasure when a good poem is written, or when a no-hitter is pitched on Monday, or when a string-quartet performs a Mozart piece with splendid artistry, whether or not such things are accomplished by believers or unbelievers?

1.3.VII

This issue of the more-than-redemptive scope of God’s positive purposes in the world has important practical implications, especially in connection with what I call “common grace ministries.” For example, a Calvinist involved in ministering to people in a hospital sponsored alcoholism recovery program once described this situation to me very poignantly. He says, “I regularly see people move from a desperate kind of bondage to alcohol to new dimensions of freedom in their lives. The change is often very dramatic, yet it isn’t at all obvious that, in experiencing this release from addiction, they’ve been regenerated in the classic sense. Their lives have been transformed, but they have not come to know Jesus. I do want them to become Christians,” he said, “and I also want to celebrate what looks for all the world to me like a grace occurrence in their lives.” Well here’s another case that I used in my book to make my point. A Christian therapist counsels a non-Christian couple. Their marriage has been seriously wounded by the husband’s adulterous affair. The therapist helps them to be honest about the hurts, fears, and angers that have surrounded this episode. Finally, a moment comes when the husband tearfully acknowledges the pain that he has caused, and he asks his wife to forgive him. She reaches out with a new found tenderness toward him. They embrace, both of them sobbing. It’s clear that they intend to build a new life together. Now, they haven’t been saved in the process, but the therapist is convinced that she has witnessed, and has been privileged to be a human instrument in, a powerful display of healing grace. She senses that she has reinforced the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that God wants for human beings.

1.3.VIII

Now, in my book, I was very intentional insisting that we deal with concrete cases. Prof. Engelsma sees this as a basic defect in my approach. This means, he says, that my defense, and I’m quoting him here, my defense of “[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.

1.3.IX

As Prof. Engelsma sees it, my error is that I start with my feelings of sympathy and appreciation for unbelievers, and then I try to square these feelings with my reformed theology. He wishes that I would heed a word of advice that Herman Hoeksema once gave to his seminary students, referring to what was then the heart of Grand Rapids’ life: Hoeksema warned, “Do not do your theology on the corner of Monroe and Division.” And this is where Prof. Engelsma thinks I go wrong; he says, “I spend much too much time doing my theology on the streets of Southern California.” Now let me make it clear that I endorse what I think is the basic concern that Engelsma and Hoeksema are raising in stating the case this way. I think they’re saying that we must not get our theology from our experiences out there in the world. And that’s an appropriate warning. We can see the real dangers of an experience based theology at work in the churches today. For example, people are defending all sorts of deviant behaviors and relationships on the grounds that they experience these patterns as “fulfilling” or “nurturing.”

When we encounter such theological moves, we must call people back to the teaching of God’s Word in clear recognition that the human “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” [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 it’s one thing to warn, again rightly so, against deriving our theology from our experiences, and it’s 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 God’s revelation to us. When we’re out there on street corners, we often discover new questions that we must bring back to the Word of God for guidance from above.

1.3.X

So here’s what I want to do now. I want to probe two kinds of experiences out there in the world in the hope of further clarifying just where we really disagree about these matters. The first has to do with a fairly trivial case, the athletic accomplishments of the unregenerate (we call theology athletics now). In my book I offered the opinion that Christians can enjoy the putts of Tiger Woods, and home runs hit by unbelieving major leaguers. And that, furthermore, in doing so we can rest in the assurance that God Himself enjoys such things. Christianity Today used the ‘God enjoys baseball’ theme in its feature about my book, and Prof. Engelsma, in his critique, had some fun with my Tiger Woods example, even as he chastised me for celebrating the accomplishments of a “Sabbath-breaking golfer.” Now I promise I will immediately repent of my sin if I am bearing false witness in saying what I am about to say, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Herman Hoeksema enjoyed watching the Detroit Tigers on television.

1.3.XI

If so, I think I can understand what a ‘non-common grace’ explanation for this enjoyment might look like. Here we have, the argument could go, not just one, but a whole team of Sabbath-breaking Tigers, who regularly defy the law of the Lord. They do not exercise their talents to the glory of God, but for all that, they do some things that show forth some of God’s creating handiwork. While the exploits of these often God-less major leaguers are indeed contributing to their own destruction, the elect can nonetheless appreciate signs of God’s ‘creaturely’ goodness in these deeds. The critic of common grace, while insisting that there’s no grace at work here, could still acknowledge that this activity does take place in a world created by God, and that even perversions of God’s good handiwork can serve godly purposes such as providing for the leisurely enjoyment of a baseball game by a hard working Protestant Reformed pastor-theologian.

Well, I think I could live with that kind of theology of baseball and golf if I had to, but it still seems to me to miss one important dimension. Namely, the way in which something that is not meant to be to the glory of God, nonetheless can bring glory to God. An Al Kaline and a Tiger Woods are, in fact, displaying some of the prowess and ability that God wanted the creation to display. The appearance of this kind of thing was one of God’s motives for creating a world that included, among other things, athletic talent, and the God who continues to take delight in the works of His hands does, in fact, enjoy these displays of His creative handiwork. In our own enjoyment of these things, then, we are honoring God as the one who shines in all that is fair in His creation.

1.3.XII

The second experience is a much more serious one. In my book, I repeated a story, that I’d read, about the brutal rape of a Muslim woman by soldiers in Eastern Europe, who had beheaded her 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 I’m sharing in God’s profound sympathy for her in her suffering. Prof. Engelsma responded to this example in two different ways:

First, he stated his own deep conviction that the “God” of the scriptures, “does not, and I quote, “does not...sympathize with the suffering of the wicked,” including the wicked Muslim woman whose tragedy I described. But he also admitted that he can appreciate my own response to this horrible story. Indeed, he reports, he has his own experiences of this sort. And, as a case in point, he tells what is for him, and I’m quoting,“a particular 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 here’s Prof. Engelsma’s description of the scene, I’m 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. I’m so grateful for Prof. Engelsma’s next words. He says, “ It breaks our heart.”

1.3.XIII

But I also find it heart-breaking when he goes on to say that an event of this sort, quote, “does not break the heart of God.” Since, I’m 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 God’s redemptive economy. But for now I’ll treat his example as He intends it, that is, as depicting the Jewish victims as persons who are outside the scope of God’s saving purposes. Prof. Engelsma thinks that my deep sense that God grieves over the terrible treatment of these Jewish folks at the hands of the Nazis is wishful thinking on my part. That I am allowing my feelings to shape my theological convictions without any Biblical support. Well, let me point in these concluding remarks to the kind of Biblical support that I would appeal to in support of my position.

1.3.XIV

I do not see in the scriptures any pattern that permits us to limit our Christian concern for the well being of others exclusively to other Christians. Nor do I think the scriptures depict God as being limited in that way. It’s clear, for example, that the Lord called his people in the Old Testament to work for the well being of the larger Babylonian society in which he had placed them in the time of their exile. The prophet says, “And seek the peace -- the “shalom” -- of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away 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.

1.3.XV

The underlining principle here, I believe, is set forth nicely in First Peter 2 [verse twelve] where the apostle tells God’s elect people to perform good deeds among the Gentiles, so that even though the unbelieving world might presently accuse us of evil doing, they will glorify God on the day of visitation. And the Apostle Peter obviously sees these deeds as aimed at the good of unbelievers. In his four instructions in First Peter 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.

1.3.XVI

I think that I know how my Protestant Reformed critics would respond to me on this: they would insist that my feelings are understandable ones, but that I am not honoring what they see as the strong Biblical teaching that all those who are outside of Christ are God’s enemies. As finite creatures, then, we must simply stand in awe before the mystery of a sovereign God who will have mercy on whom He will have mercy [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 God’s sovereign ways.

1.3.XVII

But there’s another mystery in whose presence I continually stand in awe, as a Calvinist, it’s the mystery of a Divine Savior who came from heaven to fulfill God’s electing purposes, and who one day stood grieving over the rebellious city of Jerusalem, crying out in His sorrow, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! ”[Luke 13:34] I simply cannot avoid the conviction that we are being given he

Transcription of A Debate On Common Grace 9/12/ 03 distributed by the Evangelism Society of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church Grand Rapids, Michigan

Table of Contents

First Session - Speeches of Dr. Mouw & Prof. Engelsma

Opening remarks - Pastor Dale Kuiper

Prayer

Scripture Reading, Psalm 119:89-96 Lamed.

Introduction of Mr.Rick Noorman as Moderator.

Prefatory -- Mr. Noorman

Description of He Shines in All That’s Fair, by Dr. Mouw & Common Grace Revisited, by Professor Engelsma

Introductions of Dr. Richard J. Mouw & Prof. David J. Engelsma.

Format of debate explained.

Speech of Dr.Mouw defending cultural common grace.

Introductory remarks .

The ‘Three Points of 1924’: the three ‘manifestations’ of common grace.

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.

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

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

God’s positive non-redemptive purposes are the basis of “common grace ministries.”

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

Christian celebration of pagan athletics, response to Prof.Engelsma’s critique thereof.

1) Humanitarian activism as precept, cp. Jeremiah 29:7; Luke 10:30ff.

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.

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

The pathetic heart of God vis. the wicked, cp. Luke 13:34.

Speech of Prof.David J. Engelsma contra cultural common grace.

He Shines has instigated broad renewal of the discussion of common grace amongst Protestants.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. Augustine’s City of God.

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.

Third - Inevitable tendency to universalism, ex. Dr.Mouw’s speculation at the end of He Shines, which latter doctrine is the destruction of the gospel of Christ.

Summary of PRC objections.

Four point clarification of P.R.C. position.

First - God’s 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.

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

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.

Closure- Mr. Noorman