Rebuttals
on the Subject: "Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed?" 
Rebuttals
on the Subject: "Is the Doctrine of Common Grace Reformed?" Dr. Richard Mouw and Prof. David J. Engelsma present their rebuttals
Mr. Rick Noorman, principal of Covenant Christian High School, moderates the debate between Dr. Richard Mouw and 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 above
figure: 
; or it can be
streamed using the above figure: .)
Second
Session - Rebuttals
2.1.I,II Prefatory - Mr.Noorman
2.2.I-IX Rebuttal of Prof.Engelsma’s
speech - Dr.Mouw
2.2.I Observations
with respect to Psalm singing together of PRC & CRC at debate
2.2.II Primary definition of symbolic doctrine of the works of
the unconverted is
understood by Prof.Engelsma as the Heidelberg’s earlier “ any good “ ,
whereas
Dr.Mouw maintains it is the Canons “ any saving good “
2.2.III Earl Palmer
illustration - all fall short of salvation , but not by
the same degree
2.2.IV Total depravity
exclusively means that men are incapable of
saving themselves , i.e. ,
we need someone “ to cast out the lifeline”
2.2.V God’s
pity of the suffering depraved demonstrated as He empathetically calls to them as
candidates for a mollifying salvation
2.2.VI Common grace
necessary implication of Christ’s
universal creation-economy , cp.
Col.1:16ff , i.e. it is a work of Christ
, those who partake of it , therefore, do not have a
a goodness and grace that is ‘ outside of ’ or ‘ apart from Christ
‘
2.2.VII Repudiation of
universalism , acknowledgment of a “ somewhat dangerous and
regrettable “ effect upon those who have embraced common grace
2.2.VIII Ghettoized mentality /
cultural mandate apathy as evil fruits of the PRC’s denial of
common grace
2.2.IX Regrets lack
of discernment in use of both the doctrine of common grace , and the
denial thereof
2.3.I-VIII Rebuttal of Dr.Mouw’s speech - Prof.Engelsma
2.3.I Reaction
to Dr.Mouw’s rebuttal , PRC listens and considers the admonitions to it of
common grace espousers
2.3.II Calvin’s
doctrine of providential gifts to the pagans , did not imply a work of the Spirit
upon the ungodly minimizing their depravity ,
or legitimization of cooperation
between Christians and pagans to institute a godly
culture
2.3.III Nothing fair ,
including athletics , in life of unregenerates , cp. Psalm
147:10,11
2.3.IV Pagan’s
activities , including athletics , an abomination ,
but products thereof may be
used to the glory of God by the
Christian : cp. 1 Cor.10:31
2.3.V God’s
righteous , ardent infliction , even if by means
of damnable agents , of all
suffering experienced by men is on account of the sin of Adam , and all subsequent
sins , and thus all have justly incurred
it
2.3.VI Concept of divine
sympathy for the suffering of the wicked contradicts the indubitable
scriptural doctrine of the eternal conscious torment that constitutes damnation ;
all
tragedy , even atrocities ,
warrantably from the hand of God cp. Lamentations.
2.3.VII Praying for the peace of
Babylon was not for the sake of the Babylonians , but
Judah , as the Old Testament Church ,
which was captive therein , cp. Jeremiah 29:7
2.3.VIII The doctrine of a universal
saving grace is the implication of the apparent
interpretation
of Luke 13:34 concluding Dr.Mouw’s speech ;
which latter doctrine is a
de facto denial of the gospel of grace
The second portion of the debate , with
the rebuttals . There’ll be two fifteen minute rebuttals . And we’ll begin ,
first of all , with Dr. Mouw .
Dr.Mouw : Thank you . I just want to
say how moved I am to be in a room where I
think maybe for the first time in eighty some years Protestant Reformed people and
Christian Reformed people sang a psalm together , I say , “ Praise the Lord. “ [
Psalm 147:12 ] for that . And we are talking tonight about what it means to bring honor
and glory to the “ King of Kings and Lord of Lords “ [ Rev.19:16] .
Prof. Engelsma asks , in raising his
three deep concerns , what he considers the
lack of a confessional basis for the doctrine of common grace , its destructive tendencies
with regard to culture and the antithesis and also its inevitability of leading in a
direction of universalism , the doctrine of universal salvation . Yes , yes , are these
not worthy concerns ? Are these not grave
concerns ? And I want to say they are . We’re talking about issues tonight that
are of the utmost importance . And its about time that we’re talking
together about these things . I’m not gonna [sic] answer every , I wish I had the
time , let me say that he and I simply disagree
about the confessions . We both agree on this that the Heidelberg Catechism
use a slightly older formulation says that we are prone to all manner of evil and
incapable of any good , except we be
regenerated by the Spirit of God , but that
the Canons of Dort , when addressing a similar
issue , said that we’re incapable of ‘
any saving good ‘ . And Prof. Engelsma
takes the ‘ incapable of any good ‘
as the primary meaning , and I take the
‘ any saving good ‘ as the primary meaning
.
A wonderful example given by Earl Palmer , the Pastor of University Presbyterian Church in Seattle , where he’s
talking about the sense in which “ all have sinned and come short of the glory of God “ , and he’s says , ‘
Imagine there’s a shipwreck and there are three
people in the water , and they’re fifty miles from shore . One is an Olympic
swimmer who’s capable of doing twenty-five miles before he gives out , another is a
person in reasonably good shape who may only be able to go three or four miles , and somebody else is in bad shape and probably isn’t going
to survive five minutes in the water . There’s a real difference between somebody who
can swim twenty-five miles , somebody who can
only swim two or three miles , and somebody who
cannot swim at all . But this they have in common , none of ‘em’s going to make
it to shore . They will all fall short .
‘
And that’s my understanding of
total depravity . I think the doctrine of total depravity
in the reformed tradition is primarily a
salvific notion . And that is , we are totally incapable
, here me on this , we are totally incapable of doing anything either to initiate or to contribute significantly to our own salvation . We’re in terrible
shape . We’re drowning people . And unless somebody
throws out the lifeline , unless the rescuer comes , we’re lost . We are
totally incapable of saving ourselves . And we cannot compromise that . Now does that mean
that all people who are totally [incapable] of saving themselves , are totally incapable of performing good deeds in the same
sense , no . I think that there’s a difference between Prof. Engelsma and Al Capone
and Ghandi . Prof. Engelsma and I are beneficiaries of the sovereign grace of God .
Neither Al Capone nor Ghandi , as far as I know , were saved people. And yet there were
differences in their deeds , and I think we can see something of God’s creating
purposes , something of God’s renewing purposes , showing forth in some of the things
that Ghandi did that we see nothing of , in the life of someone like Al Capone . So as
long as we hang on to this notion that total depravity
has to do with our total inability , our total worthlessness when it comes to being
able to do anything about our own salvation . Salvation is by sovereign grace of a God who has mercy on whom He will have mercy , and this is at the
heart of reformed teaching .
I’m a bit concerned about the way in which my Protestant Reformed friends constantly refer to the unredeemed as ‘ enemies of God
‘ . That little Jewish boy on the brink
of that pit , facing those Nazis , is he an enemy of
God ? As a totally depraved creature he is an
enemy of God , but I’m not sure that we simply see
people , or ought to see people , as enemies of God . People who are enemies of God get
themselves into terrible messes . My son and
I were riding some place this afternoon , he has a CD of gospel music , and we were
playing , “ Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling , calling O sinner come home .
Ye who are weary come home. “ , you know
, the depiction of the sinner there I think is a profound one . The sinner , who is indeed
an enemy of God , but has , in that enmity , has gotten himself or herself into such a
horrible condition that they ‘re often lonely people
, they ‘re abused people , they’re suffering people , they’re homeless
people , they’re wandering people , they don’t
know where they’re going . And so our primary response
to them is to reach out in compassion and plead with them to come home , to point them to
the place of safety , the place of security .
To tell them that their only comfort in life
and death can be that they are not their own but they can belong to a faithful Savior . So I’m not sure that enmity , and enemies of God is the primary category , the primary lens through which we ought to look at all
unbelievers . I think that we can reach out in compassion to people who , in their enmity
, have gotten themselves in such horrible places , that they ‘re suffering
and abused and the like .
Another thing that I just want to state
a correction to here is that Prof. Engelsma constantly depicts the position that I hold ,
and many others in the reformed tradition ,
on common grace as one where somehow we think that there is a grace that is outside of
Jesus Christ . I mean , he even uses the phrase , that we can look at people out there in
the world and they have a grace and a goodness that is found apart from Jesus Christ. I
want to say I reject that notion with all my whole heart . And I want to quote the same things
he does , Colossians One for example . Where
Paul says that Jesus Christ is the one who whatever , “ principalities , powers , all
things were made by Him and for Him . “ And then
He goes on to say , “ And He is the Head of the Body , the Church “ , but the
one who is mysteriously out there in that
larger creation . Missionaries testify to
this , that the Spirit of Jesus Christ is
there far ahead of them , preparing certain people , certain cultures , for the gospel .
What I think of as common grace is a work of Jesus Christ . Its what Jesus Christ does in
the creation .
You know , whether I run the risk of
universal salvation , I hope not , I firmly reject
universalism , and what I said was , perhaps ,
for all we know , much , but not all , of what
we now think of as common grace may in the
end time be saving grace . That may be an
overstatement , but let me say this , I have another couple of minutes ? That this
business of the fruits of the doctrine of common grace , very important issue . Has the doctrine of common grace
been a dangerous doctrine? In the whole area of worldly
amusements , for example , there’s no question that , see I believe that it was a good thing for the
Christian Reformed Church , for example , at a certain point , to say we don’t reject all film , we don’t
reject all television drama , but we have to be discerning about , there’s no
question that having opened that door , we’re watching allot of stuff that we ought
not to , and that we’re being polluted by it
. There’s no question about that . Have the fruits of the doctrine of common grace ,
in the life of the reformed community in the Netherlands , and in North America , been
somewhat dangerous and regrettable ? Yes .
I want to ask another question though .
Have the fruits of the denial of common grace had any
dangerous and regrettable consequences . I was so thrilled to hear Prof. Engelsma
say at the end , ‘ we affirm active involvement of Christians in all spheres of
creation ‘ , to say , ‘ the denial of common grace does not mean the withdrawal
from society ‘. ’kay. And I don’t see Protestant Reformed people actively involved in all spheres . I must say as a person who taught seventeen years at Calvin
College , some of the brightest students that I had , memorably so , at Calvin College ,
were Protestant Reformed students . Some of them felt an impulse to be active in all
spheres of creation , and they ended up
leaving the Protestant Reformed Church , being rejected by
the Protestant Reformed Church . Others stayed in , and in their brilliance ended
up talking to each other , and have had very little
impact . I regret that . Because , I’m a faithful reader of the Standard
Bearer , I’m a faithful reader of the Theological
Review of the Protestant Reformed Church
Seminary and I know the power of the intellect at work there. I know the power of the
vision of God’s sovereignty at work
there . But I really wonder after eighty some
years , whether we must also look at the ways in which the denial of the doctrine of
common grace has had regrettable impact . So that the marvelous gifts that Protestant
Reformed people have to offer to the larger reformed world , and the larger Christian
world , have not been offered , because of the way in
which they have denied the teaching of common grace has created a kind of ‘
ghettoized ‘ mentality .
So I want to say that argument can go both ways , and I want to
insist that it go both ways . I am willing to say that
I deeply regret some of the ways in which the doctrine of common grace has operated in the
reformed community . I deeply regret that . The answer , I think , is a discerning use of
that doctrine . We have lacked the gift of discernment in our use of the doctrine of
common grace . I would hope that the Protestant Reformed folks would begin to think about
a discerning denial of the doctrine of common grace , because I don’t think
you’ve done nearly the kinds of things
that you claim you are able to do on the basis of your denial of common grace . I think
that’s enough for now .
I understand my rebuttal to be a
rebuttal of the speech of Dr. Mouw and not a rebuttal of his rebuttal . I said at the
outset , and I meant that , that I am thankful to Richard J. Mouw for airing the issue of
common grace , particularly cultural common grace . And I am grateful that in airing the
issue which he considers important , he did not , as so many have done , ignore the
Protestant Reformed position . Neither did he misrepresent the Protestant Reformed
position . He stated it , and then expressed his objections to it . And although I am not
going to offer a rebuttal of his rebuttal , I do want to assure him , and everyone else
who writes or speaks on the issue of the Christian’s involvement in the world and who
do that , from the viewpoint of common grace , we listen to what you have to say , and
consider what you have to say .
As far as my rebuttal of Dr.
Mouw’s speech is concerned - in the first place , as regards his reference to John
Calvin , we recognize that John Calvin on occasion , the rare occasion - in comparison
with the other great themes that he developed , would speak of a certain grace of God to
unregenerate people . Usually , he would
refer to “ splendid gifts “ that certain pagans , or unbelievers , had and
displayed . Often , in the further context , Calvin will make plain , that what , in fact
, he means is nothing more than God’s providential gifts to these persons .
Regardless of that , the references by Calvin
to a certain grace , in connection with “ splendid gifts “ that ungodly people
display , those references by Calvin to a
certain grace of God , never had in mind a restraint of sin within them by the work of the Spirit upon them , to minimize
the truth of total depravity . Much less did
Calvin teach a common grace that he intended would produce a godly culture as the result of the cooperation of
believers and unbelievers .
In the second place , and this is
important to Dr. Mouw’s theological position in the matter , he raises the question ,
“ What does God take delight in ? “ That , after all , is really embodied in the title of his book , “ He
Shines in All That’s Fair “ . I call intention , to the fact , that that hymn is
referring to what is fair in the creation , which even though it is spoiled by man’s sin , and is under the curse of God ,
nevertheless displays in sunsets and mountains , and in the waves of the ocean , and many other ways
, the glory of the Creator . That we affirm .
God’s beauty shines in everything fair
in creation , and we give Him the glory for
it when we view it . But to move from that to the proposition that God also shines with
His grace , in what is supposed to be fair in the lives of unregenerated people , is a
huge , and unwarranted , leap , and it is really to
beg the question ; the question is - Does scripture reveal that there is anything fair ,
in the judgment of God , in the life of one who is alienated from him and opposed to him ?
With regard to the question - ‘ What does God delight in ? ‘ Scripture itself
answers that in much along the lines of , at least obliquely reflecting upon , a notion that God takes delight
in the putts of Tiger Woods , or the fastball of Hal Neuhauser , or the home runs of Sammy Sosa , scripture says “ God does not take
delight in the legs of a man , but He takes delight in those who fear Him .“[ Psalm 147: 10 , 11 ] .
It is our position that in as much as
whatever the unbeliever does , he does not to the glory
of God , but at the very most for the glory of
humanity or the welfare of humanity , and
“ comes short of the glory of God “
. That activity of the unbeliever is abominable
in the sight of God. It’s abominable , that , if that’s the case , as I assume
it is , Sammy Sosa hits sixty home runs this
year , for his own glory , and not to the glory of
God , that he hits home runs , no matter how prodigious those home runs may be . Not to
mention here , that the fact that the activity of the wicked is sin , and therefore not
delighted in by God , does not imply that
the products of the activity of the wicked , we think are sinful and off limits , not at
all . If Beethoven was an unbeliever , it was sin for him when he composed the Ninth Symphony , and especially because he thought to encourage the unity of the human race apart from Jesus Christ . But
once that symphony has been produced , as a beautiful piece of music , a Christian , who
has a taste for that , may certainly hear
that , and enjoy that , and by his own use of that , because Beethoven , of
course , was working after all with the laws of God in creation , having to do with music
, the Christian glorifies God by his hearing
of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony , and if he
doesn’t glorify God with it , he ought
not to be doing it . Because whatever we do , even eating and drinking , we ought to do it “ all to the glory of God “ [ 1 Cor.10:31 ].
But , I move on to something that I
think is more important , and Dr. Mouw does too , and this
takes us to a critically important issue between us , and that’s the
suggestion , and even statement , by Dr. Mouw
that God’s heart breaks at human suffering , all human suffering , including the
suffering of idolaters , and ungodly people . I’m going to talk about the difference
between our love for our neighbor , and God’s love for that neighbor , in answer to one of the pointed questions that Dr. Mouw has
put to me , so I won’t speak of that now , but all ought to be aware of the fact that
all of the human misery in the world , which
we see and read about it and hear about , and which you can hardly stand to watch on the
television set , or read about ; child abuse , for example , things that break our hearts
, because we Christians are human beings , and we have , to use Dr. Mouw’s word , ‘ empathy ‘ with other human beings . Besides that , we
do in obedience to Christ , love our neighbor . All those sufferings are inflicted by God upon a human race that has fallen away from him , in the fall of our first father ,
that’s the death , horrible death , that God warned Adam , he himself would die and
plunge the whole human race into and God inflicted that death . That death is punishment
for the sin of the human race . God’s heart doesn’t break over the suffering
that He himself inflicts , be it then sometimes through damn worthy agents , like the Nazis , or the soldiers who
raped the Muslim woman and then brutally beheaded
her child . A sovereign , holy God who hates sin , and will punish sin , inflicts these
very things that break our hearts upon the
human race , and we are all worthy of it , every last one of us . And we’re worthy of it from the moment we’re conceived and
from the moment we’re born . We’re
guilty before this holy God . And there’s no escape from it , the
Bible tells us , apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ , regenerating grace , and faith in
Christ .
Furthermore , regarding these
atrocities , the Bible tells us in so many words , that God Himself inflicts such
atrocities as His punishments , not as atrocities , but as punishments , upon men and
women . Read the book of Lamentation . All of
these things that horrify us , the rape of
the women , the killing of the children , the starving of many , Jeremiah was weeping over
, as we do . And Jeremiah at the same time said , the Lord did it , the Lord did it , and
the Lord was just . I cannot see , as I also wrote , how the position that the heart of
God breaks over human suffering can coexist with the doctrine of eternal hell . The
suffering in hell will be far worse than any suffering
that any human being suffers here .
God’s heart doesn’t break over the suffering of the wicked in hell for ever . To
my mind , if I were to believe that God
sympathizes , in that way , with the suffering of everybody , I would begin teaching that
there is no hell , and that God would have to empty hell
.
With regard to the Jeremiah Twenty-nine passage , I’m glad Dr.
Mouw brought that up because that was one
part of his book that I did not respond to in my own articles on his book He
Shines . He refers to the passage in Jeremiah Twenty-nine where to Judah in captivity
the prophet says , ‘ Build houses , marry wives , have children and pray for the
peace of the Babylonian city where you are , for in their peace , you will have peace.
‘ I call attention to the fact , that the reason why
Israel or Judah was to pray for the earthly peace and prosperity of Babylon was because Judah was there ! And if
Babylon would not be disturbed by all kinds
of uproar , then the people of God would have a certain earthly security and
would be preserved to be returned , in the return from captivity . Judah did not pray for the peace , the earthly security , and order of the cities of Babylon for
the sake of Babylon , but for the sake of the church in Babylon. Then also , there’s
no question that we are to love our neighbor , and we are to love our neighbor whether our neighbor is godly or ungodly . We are to love our neighbor , as Luke Six tells us , when our neighbor is an
ungodly person , who persecutes us , and curses us . But we don’t love our neighbor
by having fellowship with him , we love our
neighbor by doing good to the neighbor , by praying for the neighbor ,even that he may be saved .
That’s not the question , whether
those who deny common grace believe that we
should love our neighbor , and do all in our power for the good of the neighbor . We
certainly believe that . That’s not a question among us . If our
practice falls short of that , then we’re to repent of that , and to change our
behavior . The question is - Does God love all the neighbors that we have , including
reprobate , ungodly neighbors ? And I noticed that at the end of his speech , he asks that
question , but he did not give any proof of this , except
for one text . And that was Luke Thirteen verse
thirty-four , which has Christ exclaiming over the children of Jerusalem that He wished or
willed to save them , and they would not . And I want to call attention to something
extraordinarily important - that which is to
be proved is a common grace of God , that’s what’s to be proved tonight . A
non-saving favor of God to the non-elect . If Luke
Thirteen verse thirty-four proves the grace of God towards every human being , it isn’t proving a non-saving
love of God toward every human being : it is
proving a saving grace of God to every human being . It’s the desire then of the
heart of Jesus , on behalf of God whose Messiah He is , to save every human being . If that’s taught in that
passage , that passage also teaches that the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ fails ,
and it fails because of the stubborn will of some whom God loves . That text proves too
much , interpreted as Dr. Mouw evidently interprets it , it doesn’t prove a common
grace of God to all , but a saving grace of God to all . And that is probably the deepest
concern of us who deny common grace . As I
pointed out in my speech , it invariably has an inner tendency , to develop into a
universal saving grace , and a universal saving grace is ipso facto a denial of the gospel
of the grace and glory of God in Jesus Christ . Men are saved by a sovereign , almighty , irresistible , unfailing
grace . All right ?
Go to the section of questions
Last modified: 16-Oct-2003