Common Grace -- By: Cornelius Van Til

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 08:2 (May 1946)
Article: Common Grace
Author: Cornelius Van Til


Common Grace

Second Article

Cornelius Van Til

III. The Latest Debate about Common Grace

We must now turn to a brief survey of the controversy about common grace in its latest stage. Gradually the Reformed theologians of The Netherlands have interested themselves in the controversy so far largely carried on in America. And in recent years there has been a controversy in The Netherlands, as well as one between theologians of The Netherlands and theologians of America.

Broadly speaking there are in this latest struggle three parties, (a) There are those who would cling quite closely to the traditional, that is, the Kuyper-Bavinck point of view. Professor V. Hepp of the Free University of Amsterdam may be said to be the leading representative here, (b) There are those who deny common grace. Herman Hoeksema is now the recognised leader of this group, (c) There are those who would not deny common grace, nor yet affirm it in its traditional form, but reconstruct it. Dr. K. Schilder may be said to represent this group. It is naturally with the reconstructionists that we must chiefly concern ourselves now.

The reconstruction effort is closely related to a broad movement in theology and philosophy which attempts to build up the traditional Reformed position while yet to an extent rebuilding it. The Philosophy of Sphere Sovereignty of Professors H. Dooyeweerd and D. H. Th. Vollenhoven represents a part of this movement. It seeks to appreciate the concrete approach that Kuyper has given to the problems of theology and philosophy without clinging to certain abstractions that he retained (cf. “Kuyper’s Wetenschapsleer”, in Philosophia Reformata, vol. IV, no. 4, pp. 193ff.; also Veenhof, In Kuyper’s Lijn). We cannot further speak of this movement except to

refer briefly to an article by the Rev. S. G. De Graaf on “The Grace of God and the Structure of God’s Whole Creation” (Phil. Ref., vol. I, no. 1, pp. 17ff.). In much the same way that Hoeksema argues, De Graaf argues that there can be no attitude of favor on the part of God toward the reprobate inasmuch as they are children of wrath (p. 18). Yet on the basis of such passages as Mt. 5:45, he says, we must conclude that God loves His enemies (p. 19). Of the difference between grace or favor on the one hand and love on the other, he says: “The difference between grace or favor on the one hand and mercy and patience on the other is to be defined by saying that God in His patience gives his good gifts (weldaden), but withholds Himself from those to whom He gives these gifts, while in His grace He gives Himself, His own com...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()