Questions on the Subject: "Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed?"

Dr. Richard Mouw and Prof. David J. Engelsma answer various questions on this subject.

Mr. Rick Noorman, principal of Covenant Christian High School, moderates the debate between Dr. Richard Mouw and Prof. David Engelsma.

Transcription of  A Debate On Common Grace 9/12/ 03 Distributed by  the Evangelism Society of Southeast Protestant Reformed Church;
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 above figure:  ; or it can be streamed using the above figure: .)

Third Session - Prepared questions/answers

Fourth Session - Questions from audience  

Third Session -- Prepared Questions and Answers 

3.1.I

Mr.Noorman: I warned you I would do that.  Prior to tonight’s debate the speakers each exchanged three questions with each other that they were allowed to prepare an answer for: and I will ask these questions at this time, and they  will respond. They  will have a cumulative total of twelve minutes to answer these questions. They can use up as much time as they want on any question that they  would like, but they  will have twelve minutes total. We’ll start with a question from Prof. Engelsma to Dr. Mouw.

3.2.I

The question is this: Does not the doctrine of common grace, particularly in its teaching of a restraint of sin in the unregenerated, and its teaching of the ability  of the unbeliever to do good, significantly  weaken, and indeed negate, the fundamental reformed doctrine of total depravity as taught by the creeds, specifically question and answer eight of the Heidelberg Catechism. “ Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any  good, but are inclined to all wickedness. Indeed we are, except [ we be ] regenerated [ by  the ] Spirit of God. “

3.2.II

Dr.Mouw: I‘ve already  addressed that somewhat in my  comments about the swimmers, and ‘ falling short of the glory of God ‘. Calvin really   struggled with this. You know, as the author of the doctrine, at least the reformation doctrine, of total depravity, Calvin himself struggled with this, in his debates with the Anabaptists he was very  irritated with them because they basically  said to him, that, you know, they were ‘ outCalvinisting’ him because he seemed to be weakening his own belief in total depravity, by insisting that ungodly  rulers could perform civic good, and teaching something like a doctrine of the restraint of sin. And Calvin simply  argued that there were good things that, you know, the role of government could serve the will of God, that we should give thanks for rulers, whether godly  or ungodly, who, whether they  give God the glory   for it or not, serve God’s purposes. And I think that if that’s weakening the doctrine of total depravity, so be it, but I don’t really  think it is, because as I’ve already  argued, I think that the doctrine of total depravity is primarily  about whether or not we have anything in us that allows us to either contribute to the initiation of or in some sense the expediting of our own salvation. And on that, Calvin stood firm. We are totally  incapable of saving ourselves. We ‘ all fall short of the glory of God ‘. There’s also another wrinkle in allot of reformed theology where many  of us want to make a distinction between total depravity and absolute depravity . That not everything that the ungodly person does is depraved, but rather  inevitably  our  sinfulness will show up in every  area of our lives. Even the good that we do will fall short, it will fail to accomplish what people want it to do. So we as Calvinists expect that the noblest intentions of the ungodly  person will inevitably fail to deliver on what they  claim, because we ‘ all fall short of the glory  of God ‘ in that sense as well.

3.3.I

Mr.Noorman: Question for Prof. Engelsma: If I understand Prof. Engelsma correctly, he does think that I am not sinning when I feel compassion toward a Muslim woman who has been raped by  soldiers in Eastern Europe. Indeed, he seems to agree that this is a case where I am fulfilling the Divine command to love people, even when  they  may  be my  enemies. Where I go wrong, as he sees it, is my  thinking that I am sharing in God’s own compassion toward the Muslim woman, since God only   has compassion toward the elect. This is my   question - Why would God command me to love people whom He Himself hates?        

3.3.II

Prof. Engelsma: God does indeed command us Christians to love people whom He does not love, but hates. The Bible teaches that God hates persons. God hates some persons. Psalm Five verse five says that God hates all the workers of iniquity. In Romans Nine [ verse thirteen ] as everybody knows, [ scripture] teaches that God hated Esau. At the same time, the Bible teaches Christians that they  are to love their enemies who curse them and persecute them, who may  very  well be these non-elect, or reprobate persons whom God hates. We are commanded to love persons, whom God, for all we know, hates.

3.3.III

The explanation of that is the difference between us and God. We are the neighbors of these ungodly  persons, linked to them by a common humanity, a common blood. Besides, we’re commanded by   Christ to view these people as originally   created in the image of God, and to love them in the sense that we do good to them, pray for them, and bless them. God is not the neighbor of these persons. God is the Holy Judge of these persons. They  don’t appear in connection with Him as their neighbor, but they  appear before Him as guilty and as depraved, and therefore as worthy  objects of His hatred. There is a ground in God for our love of the ungodly, pagan, idolatrous, and, for all we know, non-elect neighbor. That ground in God is not that God loves all human beings without exception. That ground in God for our activity  of loving our personal neighbors, our personal enemies perhaps, is that the love of God is so wonderful, that the love of God is a love for persons who in themselves are His enemies. Not all persons who are in themselves His enemies, but persons, nevertheless, who in themselves are His enemies.  I’m one ! I know the love of God, as the love of God for someone who in himself is a personal enemy of God, by  nature hate Him and curse Him. And the love of God is so wonderful that it reached me. I show that by  loving my  own personal enemy , and thus I show the nature of the love of God. Not necessarily for that neighbor, but nevertheless the love of God towards people who were his personal enemies.

3.4.I

Mr.Noorman: Question for Dr. Mouw: With regard to the teaching of the advocates of common grace that Christians can and must cooperate with unbelievers to Christianize society, or build a godly  culture, by  virtue of common grace, does not the Bible call the Christians to live all his or her life in the world by   the power of the new life of Christ in him or her? That is, how can Dr. Mouw  justify  “ common grace ministries “  in the light of the Biblical mandate to the Christian to live in all spheres of society  by  the special grace of regeneration?      

3.4.II

Dr.Mouw: It’s a very  important question. Let me say that Prof. Engelsma puts allot of emphasis on the doctrine of particular grace in Calvinism, and the Protestant Reformed folks, their publishing arm, has performed a wonderful service in issuing a new  translation of Abraham Kuyper’s wonderful book on particular grace, which I think is a wonderful book. And yet here’s a person  who said everything that every  Protestant Reformed person would ever want him to say  about particular grace, but also believes in common grace, so that isn’t an issue that divides us, certainly  not those of us in the Kuyperian camp.

3.4.III

I think the real issue is once we have been regenerated by   the Spirit of God, and we’re called to serve the cause of God, to bring glory to God in the larger  creation, in all spheres of creation. What does it mean for us to glorify   God? And this gets back to the basic question, what kinds of things does God care about, what kinds of things does God take delight in, and what kinds of things does God hate? You got to really get clear now about Prof. Engelsma’s reading, for example, of that wonderful verse in Matthew Five[ and Luke Six ]: where Jesus says, Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, for your reward shall be great. For He, your heavenly  Father, is kind, is one who loves His enemies. That we are to imitate God. He agrees with that, but there’s a kind of strange way  of agreeing with it. He says,that God is an enemy lover, the whole notion of the ‘ imitatio Dei ‘, the imitation of God, God is an enemy  lover, and --- we have to be enemy  lovers. But the enemies that God loves, are people like us, who have been redeemed, but God commands us to love people who haven’t been redeemed. And so you get this strange notion that God is commanding us to love people whom He hates. And I want to say, that is not the obvious meaning of all of that.

3.4.IV

And so the question is, does it really  fit the larger sense of the scriptures? And this is why I raise the question. I agree that the grieving Savior over Jerusalem is a somewhat different issue, but its a question, it is an important example of seeing the heart of God go out to people who are His enemies. And I want to insist, when Saddam Hussein opened the prisons, I’ll never forget that, it was before the war, he opened the prisons, and people who had been cooped up in these cells for years, came out, and they  were jumpin’ around, and I want to say, my instinct, now my   instinct, my  inclination, my  feeling at that point, was to say, with all that scriptures say   about the opening of the prisons to those who are bound, that’s not just talking about Peter  in the book of Acts,  it’s talking about God rejoices, under certain conditions, when certain kinds of people are released from prison, and there was a joy  of seeing people liberated from imprisonment by an unjust government, and I want to say, I think God delights in that. And that God wants me to delight in that, because God delights in that. I don’t think that God is in the business of telling us to love people whom He hates, to have our compassion go out to people whose suffering He is causing ! That just does not fit the sense of the scriptures, and we could spend allot of time on Matthew Five, and other passages in that regard. But I just have to say   Prof. Engelsma, I find that a very  strange interpretation of what it means for us to love as our heavenly  Father loves. That’s enough.

3.5.I

Mr.Noorman: Question for Prof. Engelsma. Assuming as I think it is legitimate to do, that Mozart was not a believer, does Prof. Engelsma think that Karl Barth was simply wrong in his view that Mozart’s music will be played in heaven? Is there any  sense in which Mozart’s compositions glorify  God, even though he did not intentionally compose them to the glory  of God? Suppose we found out that Mozart had a profound conversion just prior to his death. Would this make a difference in how we assess his music?

3.5.II

Prof. Engelsma: Karl Barth, of course, thought Mozart himself was going to be in heaven, and not only his music. As I recall, he became uncharacteristically   indignant with Dutch Reformed theologians who denied Mozart’s salvation, and said hard things about Mozart. He called them, ‘ stupid ‘, and said they  had hard and stony hearts.

3.5.III

As regards the question itself, probably  behind that question is the suggestion of  Kuyper and Bavinck, that cultural common grace implies that one day   some of  the great cultural products of our present time are going to find a place in the New World. And they  appeal to a text in Revelation Twenty-one, as I recall, that speaks of the nations bringing their honor and glory , and the kings bringing their honor and glory , into the New World. Scripture gives no reason to think that the cultural products of the present age, whether of unbelievers or believers, will be taken into the New World. Rather the Bible teaches that , quote, “ the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. “ end quote, Second Peter Three ten, and that nothing enters the New World that “ defileth “, Revelation Twenty-one verse twenty-seven. The glory  and the honor of the nations that go into the kingdom of God, according to Revelation Twenty-one, are the spiritual honor and glory  that the nations have by  the work of the regenerating Spirit of Jesus Christ in the elect of those nations. According to the Bible, the only  works that find entrance into the New World are the works of the dead who die in the Lord. We read in Revelation Fourteen [ verse thirteen ] that “ their works do follow them “, and even then they don’t follow them as cultural products, a house that they  built or a painting that they  painted, but they follow the believer into heaven in the sense that God remembers their good works, and rewards them for it.

3.5.IV

I’d like to explore this question just a little bit further with you. The theory  that the cultural products of unbelievers may  find a place in heaven, leads to intolerable, painful possibilities. I suppose that Dr. Mouw and I would not object, in a foolish moment, to Mozart’s music being in heaven. But what if there’s a member of the church who has no taste for Mozart’s music at all, must he put up with that music in the New World? And what about some church member, young church member probably, whose musical tastes are warped, who might propose that the music of some rock band also be included in heaven. Must I be open to suffering that hideous din in the New World? I address what I regard as the main point of the question. When the reformed faith condemns, as I believe it does, all works of the unbelievers as sin, it is referring to the activity itself of the unbeliever in performing that work. It is not condemning the cultural product: the car, the painting, the symphony, or whatever it may  be. These God gives us in His great work of creation, just as He gives us a mountain to climb or to view, for us to use and enjoy to the glory  of God.

3.5.V

I add this point, and I’m addressing, really, Abraham Kuyper here, and Herman Bavinck, who were not nearly so cautious as Dr. Mouw is about this: I recall in his book that he warned, right at that point, against a certain triumphalism in those that made much of cultural common grace. There’s going to be a radical difference between this world and the new world. And the radical difference will be that the New World will be a spiritual world. Just like the spiritual, though substantial, Body  of Christ, and the spiritual body of the Christian in the resurrection. We ourselves can’t get in with flesh and blood, much less than can the earthly   cultural products of this age be taken into heaven. Much better things are waiting for us there.

3.6.I

Mr.Noorman: Question for Dr. Mouw: Does Dr. Mouw acknowledge that there has been a harmful spiritual effect of the doctrine and practice of common grace upon the churches and schools that have enthusiastically  embraced common grace, both in the Netherlands and in North America over the past eighty  to one hundred years, especially  as regards the young people.

3.6.II

Dr.Mouw: I want to make a distinction between Netherlands and the United States first of all. I gave a lecture at Boston College to the Jesuit community   a couple of months ago, and I was introduced by  a secular Jew, Alan Wolf, a very  well known sociologist, who, when he introduced me, said, “ You got to understand that Mouw taught for a while at Calvin College, and allot of us sociologists puzzle over how the Netherlands as such a strong Calvinist community in the nineteenth century  could have turned out to be so secular. “ And he said, “ The real answer is that all the real Calvinists left and went to Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “ And I think  there’s  a kernel of truth in all of that. I think the Netherlands is a special case.

3.6.III

But, you know, the real issue there, and I want to come back to Revelation and the honor and the glory  of the nations. I do reject  the triumphalist version of that that Kuyper and many  Kuyperians often espouse, but I’ve argued in my  book, which I notice is out on the table there,  When the Kings Come Marching In, based on Isaiah Sixty, that the Revelation reference to the honor and the glory  of the nations, is really  repeating Isaiah’s reference to the honor and the glory  of the nations being brought into the New Jerusalem and then the ships of Tarshish, which are pagan ships, the rams of Nebaioth, which are consumer goods that were produced by   the descendants of Ishmael, and others, really  there is a gathering in of the fruits of pagan culture into the Holy  City. And I do believe that. I suspect that those of us who don’t like Mozart, may be able to watch replays of some of Sammy  Sosa’s home runs in heaven. But, I really do believe that the Spirit of God is out there. This is the fundamental question - Is the Spirit of God preparing the creation for the new creation? Is there any continuity? And swords will be beaten into plowshares, perverse works of arts will be cleansed and transformed and that which was created to the glory of the creature, will now be transformed into that which glorifies the Creator. And so I really  think  that there’s something to that line.

3.6.IV

I think that the whole question of whether the schools, Christian schools, Christian colleges, I’ve been on every one of the Dutch Reformed based colleges, certainly  spent allot of time at Calvin, continue to, I’ve been at Dort college recently, I’ve been at Redeemer, King’s College, Edmonton, and I must say, as I travel to these campuses, I am thrilled to see a younger generation of young people coming up, who really have a vision of Christ as the King of creation, and as the Lord of all things. There [are] allot of mistakes, but I think there [are] allot of mistakes in denying common grace. There [are ]allot of mistakes in refusing to engage. And I think that we’ve got to get beyond sort of taking potshots at this or that event that happens on a specific campus and really  look at the totality of it. I think that the Protestant Reformed folks articulate a wonderful vision, but really haven’t done much to the development of a liberal arts tradition within a uniquely  Christian perspective. And I praise the Lord for the kinds of things that Calvin and Dort, and Redeemer, and the Kings, and Trinity  Christian and other colleges in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition that are remaining faithful to the reformed faith [ are doing ]. I praise the Lord for that, and I am very  encouraged by   a younger generation that’s coming up.

3.6.V

And again, we make allot of mistakes and we can avoid those mistakes, by  being more discerning, and frankly  by  having, even on those campuses, the kinds of dialogue that we’re having here this evening. But I want to affirm the importance of Christian liberal arts education, of the educating of primary schools, and high schools, of people who are discerning of what’s happening in the larger culture, and who are willing to go out into that culture with a sense that we have to glorify  God, and we also have to discern those things in the culture that contribute to the up building of the Christian community, even though those who do them, who create their works, may not, themselves, be intending to glorify  God.

3.6.VI

I think I have a much more, you know, you ought to say, that ‘ He shines in all that’s fair ‘, that refers to the rustling grass, and sunsets and all the things, but human beings are created ! I mean, we can’t separate human beings, even fallen human beings from God’s good creation. I once had a debate with the great Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder and he said, “ The difference between Mouw and my self is this. He wants to say, ‘Fallen but created.’, and I want to say, ‘Created but fallen.’ “ And, you know, I’m not going to call you an Anabaptist, but I have allot of respect for Anabaptists, so it wouldn’t be an insult coming from me. I won’t call you an Anabaptist, but I think there is that question of emphasis. When we read the scriptures are they  telling us that fallen human beings are fallen but created, and that we still have to discern the work of the Creator there, or do we say of them they’re created but they’re fallen, and that means that the marks of their created capacity to glorify  God,even when they don’t intend to glorify God, are no longer there. I think that’s the fundamental issue.

3.7.I

Mr.Noorman: Final Question for Prof. Engelsma. Suppose, just suppose, that by  some miraculous divine intervention, the Christian Reformed Synod this year were to announce that it was wrong in nineteen twenty-four  and was now rejecting the doctrine of common grace. Suppose also that the CRC pleaded with the Protestant Reformed to rejoin the CRC with a special request to Prof. Engelsma, and other PR leaders, to help the CRC make the necessary  theological and programmatic adjustments. And suppose the Protestant Reformed folks accepted this invitation, with the results that Prof. Engelsma suddenly  found himself in a position to provide effective, positive, theological guidance to the CRC. Would he advocate the elimination of the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, with its extensive programs of feeding the hungry  and providing disaster relief to people, Christians and non-Christians alike, around the world, or could there be a non-common grace, theological basis for continuing these programs in some form?

3.7.II

Dr.Mouw: I want to say, I’m really  glad that I thought of that question.

Mr.Noorman: I should have let you read it. You probably would have enjoyed it.  

Prof. Engelsma: I wish you’d have watched more of Tiger Wood’s putting.

3.7.III

I’m going to be extremely  careful how I answer this question. And I’m going to be extremely  careful, not because I have any  uncertainty  about my answer, but because the question raises an explicit reference to an institution. I have avoided all mention of any  institutions tonight, so that nobody would be able to say, which would not be true, that I was aiming what I said at any  particular body. I am interested tonight, exclusively  in an issue, in a doctrine, in a practice in the matter of the basis and power of the Christian’s life in the world, as Dr. Mouw is interested in that question.

3.7.IV

My  answer about the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee is this - if that committee is a “ common grace ministry  “, motivated by  a general humanitarian impulse, rising no higher than helping suffering people; taking its place alongside the Red Cross, and other organizations of that kind, and not grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor testifying to Jesus Christ as it dispenses its mercies, I would recommend, and do everything in my power, if I should have any influence, which will never happen, that the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee be dissolved at once. If on the other hand, as I charitably  suppose, the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee is a diaconal ministry of Reformed Churches, motivated by  the desire to exercise and show the mercies of Jesus Christ and always bestowing its help in the name of Jesus Christ, emphatically  in the name of the unique Savior then it has a right and honorable place, so long as it follows the Biblical injunction to do good, especially  to the household of faith, and also, as opportunity  arises, to all men. The bottom line, for me, is that the Church of Jesus Christ must do everything that it does in Christ’s name, and by the power  of the, to use a tautology, saving grace of God.

3.8.1

Mr.Noorman: That concludes our session of the questions that were previously submitted. At this time we’re going to collect your questions. And I’d ask that if you have those written out that you’d pass them to the aisles. And the person at the aisle hold them out, so that the ushers can pick them up. While that is   being done, we are going to sing a song. We’re going to sing, Obligations of Grace, which you will find on your screen. By  the way , our organist this evening is Mary Velthouse, we thank her for her work, and she will play  this through to begin.

 Fourth Session - Questions from audience  

4.1.III

Maybe if you have one, we could start, and you could.... do you have one ?

Prof. Engelsma : Can we agree on approximately  how many  of these we should pick out and make it fair ? 

Mr.Noorman : Let’s pick out three questions...

Prof. Engelsma : Three questions...?

Mr.Noorman :...and limit it to just a couple minutes. Alright ?

Dr.Mouw: Wow. Can we just start it ?

Mr.Noorman : Sure.

4.2.I

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

4.2.II

Prof. Engelsma : No.

Dr.Mouw: Okay. I was just wondering.

Prof. Engelsma: But, it would be worse if he did steal from you.  

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

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

Dr.Mouw: I argue differently than that.

4.3.I

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

Dr.Mouw: Say  that..I’m sorry.

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

4.3.II

Dr.Mouw : Is the sowing of common grace a part of the redemptive work of Christ ? Well, you know, in the sense that, certainly  Colossians is great on this, you know, ‘that all things might ultimately  be brought together in Christ‘. That not only  is He the head of the body, the Church, but He is before all principalities and powers, and that He’s preparing the creation for its glorious transformation. Yeah, I would have to say that, you know, I’ll keep quoting hymns on this, but the Christmas Carol, ‘He comes to make His blessings flow  far as the curse is found.‘ And Jesus Christ died to lift the cursedness from the creation. Now I want to say  that there are Muslim women tonight who are experiencing the cursedness of the creation. There are homeless children who are experiencing the cursedness of creation. There are families who are being broken up by  alcohol addictions, and that those Christian people who go out into those square inches of the creation and minister to relieve the cursedness of human beings who have been created by God, created to the glory  of God, created to enjoy  the good things of God’s creation. I want to say  yes, that’s a part of the blessings that flow from the one who came to make His blessings flow as far as the curse is found. And I think that’s Biblical.

4.4.I

“Could you clear up the misconception that so many  have that Protestant Reformed folks try to determine whether or not someone is elect or reprobate before we reach out to help them. That because we are not God, we cannot determine a man’s end, and therefore if Christ’s love is in us we help all in need.“ I think you’ve addressed that already...

Prof. Engelsma : I have.

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

4.4.II

Prof. Engelsma : The Protestant Reformed do not, in fact, try  to judge whether people are elect or reprobate, and make a decision whether to help them and love them on the basis of their apparent election or their apparent reprobation. That would be audacity  of the highest degree. We believe that we are called to love all our neighbors, regardless whether the neighbor  shows himself as a believer or an unbeliever, in so far as they  are our neighbor, and in so far even as they may  be our enemy  personally. Their election and their reprobation have absolutely  nothing to do with that, so far as we are concerned, whatsoever. What is important is that the person in our way  is a neighbor.

4.4.III

I want to say  at the same time, that we show this love in a different way  to a believer, than we do to an unbeliever. To an unbeliever we give whatever help is needed. We certainly testify  of Jesus Christ to him, and we pray  for his salvation, but we don’t have friendship with him, nor do we let him think that we have fellowship with him, because scripture forbids the fellowshipping of believers and unbelievers. We do have fellowship with God’s people.

4.4.IV

Furthermore, I want to add this too, that in so far as that same neighbor reveals himself as an enemy  of God, we can find it in ourselves to hate him, which is also a Biblical injunction. Psalm a hundred and thirty-nine [ verses twenty-one and twenty-two ], “Do not I hate those who that hate Thee, O LORD ? I hate them with a perfect hatred. I count them mine enemies.“   And that doesn’t have to do with doing any   physical harm to him, but it does have to do with abhorring him in his present condition of rebelling against the Most High God, profaning His name, and making himself worthy  of damnation, if he doesn’t repent. But to get back to the question, we do not base the calling we have to love our neighbor on any  judgement about anybody’s election or reprobation.

4.5.I

Mr.Noorman : Your question.

Prof. Engelsma : This is an interesting one and that’s why  I pick it out for you. And I’ll be interested in your answer too. Have you considered engaging the once vibrant reformed natural law tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to come to a more precise definition of the moral nature of mankind and thereby  avoid inadvertently   slipping in worldly  principles based on human experience. Have you considered engaging the once vibrant reformed natural law tradition...

4.5.II

Dr.Mouw: Yeah. Yeah. No, I... Yes, I have, and I think that it’s very  interesting that there’s a very  wide spread interest in natural law, today. A number of Roman Catholics are doing some very good work on updating natural law, having an influence on some legal theorists in the United States, I think that’s a very  important thing. What’s very  interesting, you know, about all of this, and I hint at this a little bit in my  book, but let me be very  explicit about it tonight. Is that when the CRC debated the question of common grace, when the Protestant Reformed  Churches were formed in the nineteen twenties, the reigning view in the intelligentsia in much of the reformed community was this notion that as we look around us we see, as a people who came here as an immigrant community, we see that we have so much in common with neighbors that we thought we were standing over against, and so the common grace doctrine was used in the nineteen teens and twenties very much as an instrument of assimilation of the reformed community into the larger culture, trying to explain how we...yea, trying to give a theological explanation to what it is that we sense we have in common with our American neighbors.

4.5.III

We’re living in a time now where it’s almost the reverse [of ] the agenda. What in the world do we have in common with all of these people that we see around us, I mean, lifestyles that are so repellent to godly  people, and the diversity of religions, world religions coming to North America, so now the question isn’t, ‘How do we explain theologically  what appears to us to be our commonalities?‘, but, ‘How do we find any  kind of commonality  in a world in which it looks like there’s such fragmentation that people are having a hard time affirming any  kind of commonality   at all ?’ You know, there’s all this talk in post-modernism about there’s no meta-narrative, we each, you know...and we’re seeing new tribalisms and fragmentations, so the question of commonality  is a very  important one today, in a very  different sense, and it’s in that context that notions like natural law, and common grace, and general revelation are being looked at again as possibilities for discerning things that simply   aren’t obvious to...you know, as we look around us. And this topic is very  much on top of the cultural agendas, so that in many  ways the common grace notion has its parallels even in secular thought, people are saying what could possibly  hold us together as a nation in which our diversity  runs so deep. yeah...

4.6.I

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

4.6.II

Prof. Engelsma : I believe that the common grace doctrine that we’re talking about originated with Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck in the late eighteen hundreds and the early nineteen hundreds. And I am not afraid to claim, virtually  every  reformed theologian prior to them, as, at the very least, not teaching and espousing that cultural common grace, which also then is supposed to take manifestation in a well-meant gospel offer on God’s part in the preaching of  the gospel to everybody. And even, I wouldn’t hesitate to claim every  orthodox reformed theologian before Bavinck and Kuyper, as repudiating that, if not explicitly, then by implication.When I say  that, I readily acknowledge that it is common in the Reformed theologians going back to Calvin, and including Calvin, to refer to what I call, “ bounties of providence “, whether Mozart’s musical ability, or Plato’s intellectual ability  or whatever it may   be, as a certain kind of grace. I recognize that. But that does not put those theologians in the camp of those who think that there is an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of unregenerated people restraining sin, so that they’re partially  good, and can even do works that are truly  good, because they’re done by  God’s grace, much less, launch this project of common grace to Christianize society . That was Abraham Kuyper’s terminology, and Abraham Kuyper was after that. Christianizing society  by   a common grace of God.

4.6.III

So I am not at all willing to grant, if that’s the assumption of the question, that Herman Hoeksema bursts on the scene with a novel and entirely unheard of opposition to Kuyperian common grace. I don’t believe that for a moment. I believe that the Protestant Reformed position, in this matter, has solid grounding in powerful strains of the reformed tradition going back to Calvin. To go no further.

4.7.I

Dr.Mouw: Let me just add, that I think that you can see denial of common grace in a lot of Scottish theology in the seventeenth century, so I think you’re, you’re right there are precedents.

5.1.I

Mr.Noorman : Are we even with questions ? O.K. That brings us to the close of the program tonight. It’s been a long evening, but a wonderful and informative evening and I would like to acknowledge the work tonight of these two men, if you would please.

Mr.Noorman : Thank you.                                              

Dr.Mouw : You’re welcome.

5.1.II

I’d also to thank the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church Evangelism Committee for organizing and putting this program together, and I thank you all for coming and being such a big part of this too. And I was standing out in the lobby  beforehand, and as I look out now, I’m really  amazed at what I see here, because the average age in this auditorium is by  no means elderly. This is a young group, and I think that is so important that the future of our church be involved with activities like this, and I encourage you to continue.

5.1.III

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

5.2.I

Pastor-elect Langerak :  We should praise God and give thanks that some several thousand came out this evening to hear a discussion, a serious discussion, about crucial matters of the reformed faith and life. Let’s give thanks to that God :

5.2.II

Our Father which art in heaven we come unto Thee not only as the God of our salvation, but the God of all things in heaven and in earth. The One, True and Triune God whom we worship, God our Father, the Father of the Son of our salvation and the Holy  Spirit in our sanctification. We pray that the event this evening, and what went on, and the discussion that we had was no mere intellectual exercise, or a trivial discussion, but one that we took that we were moved by in a heart felt, spiritual way, for it concerns our faith, and our relationship to Thee our God and more importantly what kind of God, bless us, keep us, and forgive that which is done in sin. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.      

Last modified:22-Oct-2003