Common Grace in Kuyper, Schilder, and Calvin

Exposition, Comparison, and Evaluation

Jochem Douma, William Helder, Albert H. Oosterhoff

• Publisher: Lucerna: CRTS Publications
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9780995065932
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Common grace has generally been thought of as a doctrine developed and promoted by Abraham Kuyper. However, John Calvin also discussed the concept in some detail. In the 1930s Klaas Schilder began writing about the doctrine and was quite critical of various aspects of Kuyper’s views. In his seminal dissertation, originally published in 1966, Jochem Douma first presents the ideas of Kuyper, Schilder, and Calvin, respectively, and then proceeds to compare and evaluate them. He has objections to some features of Kuyper’s doctrine, but also to some elements of Schilder’s critique. Ultimately he prefers the more nuanced views of Calvin. Included in this edition is a paper, first appended in 1974 to the second impression, in which Douma responds to criticisms levied at his dissertation. The English translation also contains a preface by the author in which, some fifty years after his study was first published, he expresses reservations about certain aspects of his original work.

I

ABRAHAM KUYPER

A. Kuyper’s Doctrine of Common Grace

§ 1. The necessity of this doctrine

Kuyper: The confession of the “deadly nature of sin” has to raise a question for all who refuse to close their eyes to the facts of reality. How can they on the one hand confess that human beings are by nature “totally unable to do any good and inclined to all evil” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 2) and on the other hand accept a reality that seems not to agree with this confession?^[1] “Are there not many acts of maliciousness and dishonesty as well as violations of justice against which the public conscience, also among non-believers rises in protest? And can we not recount many deeds of neighborly love and mercy that have been performed by unbelievers, sometimes putting believers to shame? When Pharaoh’s daughter saved the child Moses from the Nile, did she do evil or good? And does this not clearly show that the total corruption of our nature caused by sin … in many cases clashes with reality?”^[2]

One could therefore follow one of two courses: either abandon the above-mentioned confession and consider fallen humanity as not to have fallen so deep (but that is Arminian) or deny the facts noted above (but that is Anabaptist).^[3] However, when confronted with this dilemma, Reformed confessors have refused to follow either route: “We could not close our eyes to what is good and beautiful outside of the church, among unbelievers. Those good things exist and had to be acknowledged. But at the same time the total depravity of our sinful nature is non-negotiable.”^[4] If we want to retain both and only speak of a seeming^[5] discrepancy, we must conclude that there is a “third something.”^[6] We then come to a confession of God’s general favor, which does not take away the deadly character of sin but “in many cases arrests” the progression of this sin.^[7]

The above-mentioned “many deeds of neighborly love and of mercy” brought Kuyper to a confession of general favor or “common grace.” But he added, “We reach the same conclusion by a different route as well. For, provided that you look at relationships in general rather than at isolated cases, the spiritual condition always lies at the root of the external condition of life. A generation, a family, or a tribe in which sin progresses recklessly and without restraint will also perish externally. Even nations that are internally disrupted soon succumb externally also. This is evident from Babel, Moab, Ammon, and imperial Rome. It appears that instead of perishing soon after Paradise, our human race has in fact survived all these centuries, and that, with ups and downs, there has actually been a continuing development. In consequence, we now stand on a much higher plane than the human race in the days of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus. If so, this proves that the spiritual collapse cannot have proceeded unhindered and unbridled. A humanity concerning which nothing else could be said than that it lay under the curse of being ‘inclined to all evil and unable to do any good’ could not have had such a history. The history of our human race through all these many centuries is therefore proof that on the one hand the appalling law of sin ruled, but also that on the other a law of grace broke that power of sin.”^[8]

On this point Kuyper wanted to follow in Calvin’s footsteps, who “in his Institutes II, iii, 3, formulated the deep meaning of this ‘common grace’ most clearly”^[9] when he was confronted with the question how to explain the virtues of pagans. According to Kuyper, Calvin thus opposed all those who regard these virtues as evidence that our human nature is not inclined to all evil and totally unable to do any good. The explanation must be found in the fact that (and now Kuyper cites Calvin) “amidst the universal ruin a certain common grace or favor operates, which does not cleanse the depraved nature, but prevents its breaking forth from within.” Or in the Latin text, which Kuyper reproduces in part: gratia, non quae illam purget, sed intus cohibeat. Calvin, so Kuyper continues, “repeats this even more strongly at the conclusion of section 3: ‘God by his providence so bridles our perverse nature that it cannot break forth into action, but he does not cleanse it within.’”^[10]

Thus for Kuyper the doctrine of common grace does not arise “from philosophical invention, but from the confession of the deadly character of sin.”^[11]

It is now no longer surprising that Kuyper, for whom the necessity of the doctrine of general favor or “common grace” is very clear, speaks of an “indispensable part of the Reformed confession”^[12] that is “intended to solve” one of the greatest riddles of life.^[13] Indeed, Kuyper speaks of a doctrine.^[14]

It is, however, a doctrine without a rich history. Although Calvin “did at times direct the attention of Reformed theologians particularly to this extremely important topic,” it was never discussed in a separate chapter.^[15] Indeed, a decline in interest in common grace is observable in doctrinal history. In their first struggle against the Anabaptists, “our fathers very decisively introduced the confession of common grace.”^[16] But then the battle against Arminianism began. In opposing the Anabaptists they used the doctrine of common grace to ensure that the coherence between the new and the old life was maintained. But it is understandable that the fathers “in their second struggle—this time not against the Anabaptists but against the Arminians—kept silent about common grace and placed all the emphasis on maintaining the character of the new life as created by God without contribution from the old nature. And since the second struggle was the last, and in the course of it the doctrinal formulations were established, it is easy to appreciate how the Reformed, after first speaking boldly of their confession of common grace, almost let that important doctrine fall by the wayside in their later dogmatic development.”^[17]

Also in Herman Bavinck’s “well-upholstered” address on De Algemeene Genade (1894) the topic was not yet treated with any degree of coherence and completeness.^[18] Hence Kuyper’s own attempt, “not at all with the pretension that this will once and for all complete this part of dogmatics; rather, since this subject so deeply affects our lives and our current struggles, it is our present aim to offer an initial attempt at dealing with it, in the hope that it can lead to a more detailed and more complete doctrinal treatment.”^[19]

Doctrine and an initial attempt at dealing with it: that is not necessarily inconsistent. Kuyper is convinced of the necessity of the confession of the doctrine of common grace, but on the other hand he regards its development as being still in the early stages. However, it is difficult to square his modesty in speaking of a first attempt with what the author then presents, on crucial points, as a “complete explanation” (II, 417), a “solved question” (II, 504), and an “all-round discussion” (III, 295, about art. 36 of the Belgic Confession). At one point the author concludes the discussion of a topic with the observation: “Not one question remains in this entire mystery. Truly no insignificant gain” (II, 658).

§ 2. The term “common grace”

To avoid misunderstanding and confusion Kuyper preferred to speak of “common grace” rather than “universal favor.”^[20]

In the first place, so he explains, “common” is better than “universal.” For “our fathers spoke of gratia communis, and in our language the word communis means not ‘universal’ but ‘common.’ In Latin communis is the equivalent of universalis and so does mean ‘universal.’ It is true that both concepts usually mean practically the same thing, but there is a distinction between them and it is better not to lose it.”^[21] Kuyper distinguishes the two concepts as follows: “‘Universal’ refers to something that is found everywhere, that is valid in all cases, and that is applicable to everyone; communis, on the other hand, refers to something that is common to a particular group. In this context the group is humanity, our human race, and the grace is common to this group.”^[22] It is common to both the elect and the non-elect.^[23] It does not consist “of something that is found in each person by nature, but of a good given to the human race. Therefore our fathers quite properly did not speak of gratia universalis but of gratia communis. ‘Universal favor’ was a term preferred by their opponents.”^[24]

In the second place, “grace” is a more correct term than “favor.” For in popular [Dutch] usage “favor” [genade] is “so exclusively taken to mean ‘saving’ grace … that a more general word seemed more appropriate in this context. The word ‘grace’ is still commonly used for a stay of execution; and since our expanded argument deals precisely with that grace which stayed the execution of Genesis 2:17, the term ‘common grace’ seemed not inaptly to express the very character of our topic.”^[25]

When we orient ourselves on the basis of these data, we can say: common grace is that favor of God which as common grace is not universal and found in everyone by nature, but is a conferred good within the circle of humanity, common to elect and non-elect; and which as common grace is not salvific, but only arrests sin and its consequences (and therefore the execution of Gen 2:17).

“Within the circle of humanity,” says Kuyper, but in I, 9, and also in Loc. de Foedere (119, dictation), we read that “to a certain extent animals also share in ‘common grace.’ You can see that in Gen 9:9 and 10” (I, 9). Kuyper mentions this to indicate strongly and sharply that common grace does not at all concern particular, personal grace. “In itself it does not carry within it any salvific seed and is ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Author's Preface to the English Translation
• Translator's Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter I.  ABRAHAM KUYPER
• Chapter II.  KLAAS SCHILDER
• Chapter III.  JOHN CALVIN
• Chapter IV.  COMPARISON
• Chapter V.  EVALUATION
• Bibliography
• Name Index
• Appendix – Culture and Our Being Sojourners