Is the Doctrine of Common
Grace Reformed? 
Is the Doctrine of Common
Grace Reformed? Prof. David J. Engelsma presents the negative position in the debate
Introduction by Mr. Rick Noorman:
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.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
(We
are indebted to brother Andrew Magni for providing this transcription of the
debate. The following represents that part of the transcription of the debate
as presented by Dr. Richard Mouw. For the entire transcription, see "Debate on
Common Grace." The audio can be downloaded by using the figure: 
; or it can be streamed using the figure: .)
Table of Contents
First Session - Speeches of Dr.Mouw & Prof.Engelsma
(a continuation of debate in which Dr. Mouw presented the affirmative position)
1.4.I-XVIII Speech of Prof.David J.Engelsma contra
cultural common grace
1.4.I
He Shines has instigated broad renewal of the discussion of common grace
amongst Protestants
1.4.II
Dr.Mouw’s fair treatment of PRC concerns that common grace teaching opens the
church
to the wicked influences of the world
1.4.III
Debate limited to cultural common grace as distinguished from evangelical
common grace and its related concepts of the so-called ‘free offer of the
gospel‘
and a sincere divine desire for the realization of
universalism
1.4.IV
Prof.Engelsma speaks as spokesman of PRC for their three main reasons for
objection to common grace
1.4.V
First - Allegedly an overriding axiomatic principle of Christian life and world-view,
its significant utter absence in reformed symbols, except in the Canons
wherein
it is attributed to the universal potentiality of salvation doctrine of the
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 :
cp. Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 8
1.4.VII
Conflicts with symbols’ definition of grace as particular, and derived from
election
(by positing a universal grace which renders the judgments of Rom.3:9ff as
hypothetical ), thereby perverting the gospel, and dissipating its
offense
1.4.VIII
Wrath alone upon unbelievers, cp. Rom.1:16ff, grace, life, and righteousness
in
Christ, wrath, death, and guilt outside of Christ, [cp. Rom.2:6-10]: common
grace teaching of God’s universal favor upon men is anti-confessional by
contradicting the premises of their anthropology, soteriology, etc.
1.4.IX
Second - Destruction of the Antithesis, that is, the enmity between the seed of
Christ, and the seed of the serpent, cp. Gen.3:15, Deut.33:28, 2 Cor.6:14ff
1.4.X
Fatally antithetical to the antithesis, common grace posits a fellowship in grace
between the two seeds, such that Christian churches/institutions are effectively
destroyed by opening themselves to the thinking and conversation of the world cp.
Augustine’s City of God
1.4.XI
Bitter fruits of worldliness in Churches and schools mature, and Christians
are
enervated in their struggle with the wicked world, wherever the doctrine of
common grace has been embraced over the last century as unambiguously
demonstrated in the history of the Netherlands, and U.S.
1.4.XII Third
- Inevitable tendency to universalism, ex. Dr.Mouw’s speculation at the
end
of He Shines, which latter doctrine is the destruction of the gospel of Christ
1.4.XIII
Summary of PRC objections
1.4.XIV-XVIII Four point
clarification of PRC Position
1.4.XIV
First - God’s good gifts to the ungodly as judgment, cp. Psalm 73, all things, even
world sufferings and physical deprivation, are blessings to the believers
1Cor.3:21,
Rom.8:28
1.4.XV Second
- Every work of unbelievers is sin, cp. Rom.14:23, “glittering vices“
Augustine
1.4.XVI, Third - Doctrine of creation the basis of an
active Christian life in the ordinances
XVII thereof without compromising the
antithesis; for Christians activity is by power
of grace of which the unbeliever is void. PRC contrariety to pietism based upon
Lord’s creation dominion cp. 1 Cor.10:26,28; 1 Tim.4:4.
1.4.XVIII Fourth - Scripture knows only a single,
redemptive Christological historical-purpose,
cp. Col.1:16-18, common grace posits two, Christ and a Christ-less culture
which
invariably exceeds Him in preeminence.
1.4.I
Mister moderator, my esteemed co-disputant and friends. All of us have honored reformed
doctrine by our coming together tonight. What brings us together is a debate over
the issue whether the grace of God is common or particular. And this issue is
distinctively a reformed issue. For this discussion of the doctrine of common grace we
have Dr. Richard Mouw to thank. And I thank him now face to face, as about a year ago I
thanked him in writing. In his recent book, He Shines in All That’s Fair, Dr. Mouw
has renewed the discussion of the doctrine of common grace. He has renewed the discussion,
not only among reformed people, but also among evangelicals. Not long ago Christianity
Today featured Dr. Mouw’s book and the doctrine of common grace in a lengthy
article. Indeed, even the Protestant liberals join the discussion : University of
Chicago theologian Brian Gerrish has written a lengthy review of Mouw’s book.
1.4.II
In his treatment of common grace, Dr. Mouw has presented the Protestant Reformed rejection
of common grace fairly , and even, with a certain respect. He is sensitive to the
spiritual concern of the Protestant Reformed Churches : the conviction that the doctrine
of common grace opens the church up to the corrupting influence of the wicked world. Mouw
remarked, that in their rejection of common grace, and in their insistence on the
separation of the church and the world, the Protestant Reformed Churches may lay
some claim to be true to the theology of John Calvin. Dr. Mouw himself, of course,
enthusiastically endorses the common grace project. Indeed, he wants to spread the
doctrine beyond the boundaries of reformed churches and he advocates a far more aggressive
exercise of common grace than heretofore. He proposes what he calls, “ common grace
ministries “. Hence, our debate this evening.
1.4.III
All of us should understand that Dr. Mouw and I are limiting ourselves tonight to one
aspect of the doctrine of common grace. That aspect which we are airing tonight is a grace
of God supposedly shown to the non-elect or reprobate, in which God gives them good gifts,
such as rain and sunshine on the fields of an atheist farmer, and musical ability to
W.A.Mozart. And in which God restrains sin in the reprobate so that they are not
completely depraved, but partially good, and therefore are able to perform works
that are truly good, even though they are not the highest form of good. In addition
that aspect of common grace that we are discussing tonight holds that by virtue of
the common grace of God, Christians can, may, and should form friendships with
unbelievers. Especially in order to cooperate with unbelievers in building a good, even
godly, culture. There is another, more important aspect of common grace. A love of
God for all humans without exception in the preaching of the gospel of Christ in which God
sincerely desires the salvation of all humans without exception. This was not the
subject of Dr. Mouw’s book, and this is not our subject tonight. Our subject
tonight is what I might call, cultural common grace.
1.4.IV
I deny that the doctrine of common grace is reformed, and I do so as a
representative of the Protestant Reformed Churches. I put forward three main reasons
why we object to the doctrine of common grace.
1.4.V
First of all the Reformed Faith is defined by the Reformed Confessions, and common grace
is not taught in the Reformed Confessions. The reformed creeds mention common grace one
time, and this mention attributes the doctrine of common grace to the Arminians, whose
teaching the creed, the Canons of Dort, condemns as heresy. The Arminians used the
doctrine of common grace in the service of their teaching that God on His part is, quote,
“ ready to reveal Christ unto all men “ end of quote. In view of the great
things that are ascribed to common grace by its defenders, it forms nothing less
than a world view, the silence of the confessions is deafening. The complete absence of
the doctrine of common grace in the creeds may not be decisive for the question : is the
doctrine of common grace reformed ? But the silence of the creeds certainly should
give pause to those who want to proclaim the doctrine as important, even fundamental
reformed truth. The matters are worse for the doctrine of common grace as far as the
creeds are concerned than that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the
Canons of Dort, and, I may add, the Westminster Standards as well, know absolutely
nothing of this doctrine.
1.4.VI
The doctrine of common grace conflicts with teachings that are found in the creeds.
Teachings that are fundamental. I mention two : Common grace conflicts with the
confessional teaching of total depravity : the Heidelberg Catechism in question and answer
eight is representative : I quote, “ Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly
incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness ? Indeed, we are, except we
are regenerated by the Spirit of God. “ end of quote. Common grace, however,
teaches a work of God in all humans that restrains sin, so that all humans are
partially good, and capable of doing good. The effect of the doctrine of common
grace, is to render the reformed doctrine of total depravity hypothetical, that is,
unreal. Total depravity is what all of us would have been, were it not for common
grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, no one is totally depraved, except for
perhaps such monsters as Nero, Hitler, and John Wayne Gasey. This, we charge, is a
compromise of the offense of Calvinism, which is, in reality, the offense of the gospel.
1.4.VII
The second fundamental doctrine of the confessions, with which the doctrine of common
grace conflicts, is the teaching of the confessions that the grace of God is particular
for the elect of God alone. The whole world knows that the hallmark of Calvinism,
the hallmark of the reformed faith, is its teaching that the grace of God, with its source
in predestination, is particular, not universal. And this is why most of the world has
always detested Calvinism, and why much of the world still does detest Calvinism today.
Common grace, however, universalizes the grace of God. It universalizes the grace of God
both as regards a favorable attitude of God towards people, and as regards His
mighty power within sinners delivering them from sin.
Granted, defenders of common grace, have argued that common grace is a different kind of
grace from God’s saving grace in Jesus Christ. The fact remains, the doctrine of
common grace posits a grace of God that is general and universal, in diametrical
opposition to the particularity of grace in the reformed confessions. In their
teaching of total depravity and of the particularity of grace, the reformed
confessions present the doctrine of scripture. In Romans Three verses nine and following
quoting Psalm Fourteen, the apostle passes a devastating judgment upon the entire human
race without exception : “ all are under sin “, “ none is righteous “,
“ there is none that doeth good, no not one”. This is not hypothetical, this is
not what we would have been had it not been for common grace. This is reality. This is the
truth about everyone of us as we are in and of ourselves, apart from the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
1.4.VIII
Common grace teaches a favor of God upon all humans without exception. But according to
Romans One, verses sixteen and following, apart from the gospel of Christ, there is only
wrath upon ungodly and unrighteous persons who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
All the way through the epistle to the Romans, which is recognized widely as a
summary of the Christian gospel, the stark alternatives are grace, righteousness,
and life in Jesus Christ according to God’s sovereign election, or wrath, guilt and
death outside of Jesus Christ. One objection then, to common grace, is that it is not
only un-confessional, but it is also anti-confessional.
1.4.IX
Second, we oppose the doctrine of common grace, because the doctrine of common grace is
destructive of the antithesis that God Himself has put between the Church, and the world
of the ungodly , and between the Christian, and the unbeliever. ‘ Antithesis
‘ refers to spiritual separation, hostility and warfare. I emphasize, this
separation is spiritual, not physical. Although often enough, the world of the ungodly has
made the separation physical, by boycott, reproach, and persecution. The term ‘
antithesis ‘ may be unfamiliar to some who are here tonight, surely the
reality is known by every Christian. “ I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. “ God said at the very
dawn of the history of the Church in the world in Genesis Three fifteen. From then
on there are two groups of people in the world, and they are at enmity
by God’s appointment. Of the typical church in the Old Testament, Moses
declared, “ Israel then shall dwell in safety alone.” Deuteronomy
Thirty-three verse twenty-eight. No more forceful insistence on the antithesis can be
found anywhere in the Bible, than the New Testament exhortation of Paul to the
church, and her members, in Second Corinthians Six verses fourteen and following. “
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness ? what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ?
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate. “
1.4.X
‘ Antithesis ‘ may be a strange word, but the doctrine is basic Christian
doctrine. Augustine taught it long ago, in his City of God. This doctrine we maintain, and
observe, is compromised by the doctrine of common grace. The antithesis is
fatally compromised. According to common grace church and world now share grace, a
grace of God. According to the doctrine of common grace, Christian and infidel now
have sweet fellowship in grace. According to the doctrine of common grace, the Christian
school must be open to the world’s thinking on matters of faith, for example creation
and of life, for example, sexual and marital ethics. According to the doctrine of common
grace, the Church and the world, can and should cooperate, in the good work of creating a
godly society on the basis, not of Jesus Christ, and His redemption, but on
the basis of a grace and goodness found in the world itself. The doctrine of common grace
has destroyed, and is presently destroying churches, and Christian institutions,
especially Christian schools, that have embraced and practiced that doctrine,
by opening those churches and schools to the thinking and the ways of the world that
hates God. I refer specifically to evolutionary theory concerning
origins, with the inescapable implication that Holy Scripture is not inspired, at
least in the opening chapters. I refer to the repudiation, at this late date in history,
after two thousand years of the Church’s thinking to the contrary, of the
authoritative headship of the husband in marriage, reflected by the restriction of
office in the Church to qualified males. I refer to the endorsement, and even the defense,
of the filthiest, most violent movies and music, for the entertainment of the children and
young people of the covenant, God’s children. I refer to the approval of friendship
with unbelievers, which leads, among other things, to mixed marriages, that is, the
marriages of believers and unbelievers. And I refer to the acceptance, at the
present time, of homosexual behavior and relationships, and also, an increasingly
favorable judgment, upon non-Christian religions. Where the doctrine of common grace has
been emphasized, the very idea of antithesis has largely been lost.
1.4.XI
Do not mistake it, common grace is not only a doctrine, it is also a mentality. The
effects of common grace have been harmful. We do not stand tonight where our Fathers stood
in the Netherlands one hundred years ago, and in Western Michigan eighty years ago.
We stand where we can see with our own eyes, the fruits of the doctrine of common grace
and the fruits are bitter ! It is evident that the project and world view of common grace
have failed. Society has not been Christianized, not in Amsterdam, not in Grand
Rapids, not in Chicago, and also not in Northwest Iowa. But the churches and the schools
have become worldly. Do not misunderstand, we who deny common grace, are not, for
that reason, immune to the danger of being swallowed up by the world.
We, we ourselves, are fighting a life and death battle against the pressures and
influences of a wicked world, now far advanced in unholiness. But adoption of the doctrine
of common grace takes the weapons out of the hand of the Christian, takes the fight out of
his soul, and indeed tells the Christian that there is no war at all.
1.4.XII
Third, we object to the doctrine of common grace because it inevitably develops into
a doctrine of universal saving grace. Despite the protestations of the advocates of common
grace, that this is an entirely different grace, from the saving grace of God in
Jesus Christ; and Abraham Kuyper emphasized that in the opening pages of his three volumes
De Gemeene Gratie. The lesson of history is that inevitably common grace develops
into universal saving grace, which is the destruction of the gospel of Christ. Either the
advocates of common grace teach a love of God for all, and a desire of God to save all in
the gospel, or they teach that in some sense Christ died for all, or, as is becoming more
the case today, they outrightly teach that all will be saved, in the
end. Dr. Mouw could not resist that tendency of the doctrine of common grace in his book.
On the next to the last page of He Shines in All That’s Fair he wrote this, I quote,
“ For all I know, much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end
time be revealed to be saving grace. “ end of quote. It is to my mind ominous that in
his favorable review of Dr. Mouw’s book, the University of Chicago theologian
Brian Gerrish observes that the updating of the doctrine of common grace called for by Dr.
Mouw requires a reexamination of the Calvinistic doctrine that, and now I quote Gerrish,
“ the divine decrees divide humankind into the elect, and the non-elect.” end of
quote. That is not Dr. Mouw’s position, but that is Brian Gerrish’s observation
concerning the updating of common grace, for which Dr. Mouw has pleaded.
1.4.XIII
These are three main objections of ours to the doctrine of common grace. It is not
confessional, it destroys the antithesis, and it threatens the doctrine of particular
saving grace in Christ alone. Are these not worthy concerns for reformed people, indeed,
for all Christian people ? Are not these grave concerns that all should share with us ? Is
it fair, is it gracious, to dismiss these concerns as “ Anabaptist “, those who
deny common grace as Anabaptists ? Something again Dr. Mouw does not do, and rebukes
others for doing.
1.4.XIV
In the time remaining to me, I will clarify our position regarding the doctrine of common
grace in several important respects, the rules of this debate, you understand, demand
brevity. First we freely acknowledge that God gives many good gifts to
ungodly people. From rain and sunshine in season, to the ability of Beethoven to
compose the Pastoral Symphony. These gifts are bounties of providence. To the non-elect
ungodly, whoever he may be, say Emperor Nero living in luxury and gorging
himself with every good thing creation affords, these good gifts are not blessings.
They do not come to the reprobate wicked in the favor of God. Psalm Seventy- three
teaches otherwise. By lavishing upon the wicked such good things, God sets the wicked on
“ slippery places “. He “ casts them down into destruction “. Let no
wicked person conclude from his health and wealth that God loves him and is blessing him.
Divine blessing is not identical with earthly prosperity. Just as Divine wrath and
curse are not identical with poverty, troubles and grief. That earthly good things and
circumstances are not in themselves blessings is of vital importance for the comfort of
God’s people. While Nero was feasting, the saints were burning as torches in his
gardens, and were being torn in pieces in the Roman amphitheater. If Nero’s luxuries
were a common grace blessing, the distresses of the saints were common wrath curse. The
truth is that everything is blessing to the elect. Everything is blessing to the one who
believes in Jesus Christ. “ All things are yours “, says the apostle in First
Corinthians Three. “ All things work together for good to those who love God “,
he says in Romans Eight. And nothing is blessing to the impenitent unbeliever outside of
Christ. All things work together for his eternal ruin. And this must be preached to the
wealthy, prospering, unbeliever.
1.4.XV
Second, we readily admit that the deeds of some non-Christians seem good to us. And
that these deeds are useful to us and other people. To conclude, however, on the basis of
this, that their works are good, truly good, good in God’s judgment, as the
very fruits of His grace in them, is a mistake. We do not determine what is good,
and what is evil. God determines good and evil. And God has made known in His Word, that
every work that leaves Him out, any work that does not have Him, the Triune Father of
Jesus Christ, as its purpose and goal, any work that misses the mark of His
glory is sin. “ Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. “ Romans 14:23.
This position is not a new, and strange teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ. Augustine
saw the apparent good works of the wicked, and he called them “ glittering
vices “, an indictment echoed both by Luther and
Calvin.
1.4.XVI
Third. Although we deny that common grace is the basis of the Christian’s
active life in society, and the basis of the Christian’s association in
everyday life with non-Christians, what Dr. Mouw calls the “ commonalty “
of Christian and non-Christian, we affirm and practice the active life of the Christian in
all of creation. And the perfect right of the Christian to cooperate with non-Christians
in everyday life. That is, at work, in the neighborhood, in the armed forces, and in
politics. Christians must live, in every sphere of earthly life, family ,
labor, government, and the rest. They may use and enjoy all their gifts,
athletic, musical and mathematical. They may avail themselves of the products
of the ungodly from ‘ Black and Decker ‘ tools, to Patrick
O’Brian’s great series on Aubrey and Maturin. They may associate
closely with, and cooperate with unbelievers in everyday life : Muslims, Buddhists,
and the typical American pagan whose idea of Sabbath keeping is mowing his lawn on Sunday.
Denial of common grace does not mean withdrawal from society. The antithesis is not
isolation. Rejection of cultural common grace does not secretly promote the life of
pietism : ‘ met e'n bookje in e'n hoekje’ : with a little book in a little
corner. But the basis for the full active life of the Christian in the world is the
doctrine of creation and providence, not the doctrine of common grace. When Paul condemns
asceticism, world flight, in First Timothy Four [ verse four ], he grounds his warning,
not at all in a doctrine of common grace, but in the doctrine of creation : quote, “
Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused. “ end of quote. “
The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. “ [ 1 Cor.10:26,28
] This is the basis of the Christian’s life and work in the ordinances of creation :
associating with unbelievers at work, in the army, and in the neighborhood watch for
burglars and abduction of children.
1.4.XVII
Basing the life of the Christian in the world on the doctrine of creation establishes the
possibility of the Christians’s use and enjoyment of the creation, and of his
associating with unbelievers, without compromising the spiritual antithesis.
Christian’s live a full active life in the world, but, and mark this well, we live
this life, not by the power of a common grace, but by the power of the special,
saving, sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ in the Spirit.
[ bell chimes indicating end of allotted time ]
Just a couple of minutes left, do I have that much grace ?
The Christian does not live his life in the world on the basis, and by the power, of a
common grace, but by the power of the special sanctifying grace of Christ in the
Spirit. We live in the same world with the unbelievers, but we live by a different
power - grace. We live according to a different standard - the law of God. We live with a
different purpose - the glory of God. Therefore the Christian man and the Christian woman
are marked people, and they ought to be. This enables them to witness to the unbeliever.
This makes the Christian the object of persecution.
1.4.XVIII
Fourth and finally, and very briefly, we confess that God has one all controlling
purpose in history. To which, absolutely everything that happens in history, is
subordinated, from the standing still of the universe in the long day of Joshua, to
Babe Ruth’s hitting sixty home runs in a season. That one purpose of God with
absolutely everything is the honor of the worthy name of Jesus Christ, the Head and
Savior of the Church, and thus the glory of God. In the eternal counsel of God Jesus
Christ is first “ before all things “, Colossians One seventeen. “ All
things were created for him “, Colossians One verse sixteen. Everything serves
his “ preeminence “, Colossians One eighteen. Common grace posits two distinct
purposes of God with history - Christ and culture. A culture that has nothing to do with
Jesus Christ, and a culture that inevitably overshadows Jesus Christ. We say
“ no “ to common grace, because we are determined to say “ yes “
to Jesus Christ. Thank you.
Go to the rebuttals of the debaters
Last modified: 16-Oct-2003