A Word from Bob 

In yesterday’s post, I shared with you a collation of quotations on 7 Reformed Theologians on “Common Grace.” That included what John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, John Murray, John Frame, Charles Hodges, Tim Keller, and R.C. Sproul said about common grace and what believers can learn from unbelievers. As those quotes showed, the Reformed doctrine of common grace explains how unsaved, unregenerate, totally depraved people under the noetic impact of sin can still make a legitimate contribution to culture, to the arts, to science, to research, and more.

Today, we add quotes and thoughts from an 8^th reformed theologian—Herman Bavinck—on common grace. Bavinck (December 13, 1854 –July 21, 1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and professor. He was a significant scholar in the Calvinist tradition, alongside Abrham Kuyper, B. B. Warfield, and Geerhardus Vos. The quotes in this section are from:

Bavinck, Herman. “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common Grace.” Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Translator. Calvin Theological Journal, 24(1), April 1989.

The Good Gift of Common Grace 

Bavinck, following Calvin, taught that common grace is the source of all human virtue and accomplishment, even that of unbelievers who have not been regenerated by the salvific grace of God (Inst., 2.2.12-17) Bavinck’s view of common grace articulates a theological worldview that enables us to acknowledge the importance of creation and human culture as good gifts of God that not only form the arena of his redemptive activity but are themselves subject to redemption.

“There is thus a rich revelation of God even among the heathen—not only in nature but also in their heart and conscience, in their life and history, among their statesmen and artists, their philosophers and reformers. There exists no reason at all to denigrate or diminish this divine revelation. Nor is it to be limited to a so-called natural revelation…. The working of supernatural forces in the world of the heathen is neither impossible nor improbable” (41, in all quotes, the bold emphasis is added by me).

This is remarkable. Bavinck highlights common grace’s impact on the inner person—their heart and conscience, their life and history. He highlights numerous fields that go well beyond the “hard sciences”—government, the arts, philosophy, and reformers. Bavinck also insists that believers neither “denigrate or diminish” this “divine revelation”—coming through common grace’s influence on the non-Christian.

“…it would not do to deny the true, the good, and the beautiful that one can see in mankind outside of Christ. That would not only be in conflict with experience but would also entail a denial of God’s gifts and hence constitute ingratitude toward him…. All that is good and true has its origin in this grace, including the good we see in fallen man. The light still does shine in the darkness. The Spirit of God makes its home and works in all the creation” (51).

For Bavinck, denying and minimizing common grace equals denying God and lacking gratitude toward God. Bavinck specifies that there is “good” in fallen humanity—because of God’s common grace. God’s Spirit works wonders in all creation—including fallen humanity.

“Consequently, traces of the image of God continue in mankind. Understanding and reason remain, and he possesses all sorts of natural gifts. In him dwells a feeling, a notion of the Godhead, a seed of religion. Reason is a precious gift of God and philosophy a praeclarum Dei donum [splendid gift of God]. Music too is God’s gift. The arts and sciences are good, useful, and of great value. The state is an institution of God. The goods of life do not just serve to provide for man’s needs in the strict sense; they also serve to make life pleasant. They are not purely ad necessitatem [for necessity]; they are also ad oblectamentum [for delight]. Men still have a sense of the truth and of right and wrong; we see the natural love that binds parents and children together” (51). 

Don’t race past this. The Reformed doctrine of common grace teaches that within fallen humanity the image of God continues, understanding and reason remain, natural gifts exist, and a notion of God dwells within. Reformed theology applauds reason in fallen humanity as a “precious gift of God,” and celebrates fallen philosophy as a “splendid gift of God.” And what should Christians do with non-Christian art and science—see them as “useful, and of great value.” Bavinck refuses to limit common grace to “the hard sciences,” instead including “a sense of the truth of right and wrong,” and “the natural love that binds parents and children.”

Bavinck on Calvin and Engagement with the World 

Throughout this article, Bavinck insists that he builds his view of common grace upon the foundation of Calvin’s view of common grace. He also contends that Calvin and Reformed thinking insists on active engagement with the world rather than a separatist approach.

“In this doctrine of gratia communis the Reformed maintained the particular and absolute character of the Christian religion on the one hand, while on the other they were second to none in appreciating all that God continued to give of beauty and worth to sinful men. Thereby they acknowledged both the seriousness of sin and the legitimacy of the natural” (52).

Rather than seeing the noetic effect of sin and common grace as at odds, Bavinck sees them as complementary doctrines. Therefore, Reformed Christians are “second to none in appreciating all that God continued to give of beauty and worth to sinful men.” Do we acknowledge both the seriousness of sin, and the legitimacy of the common grace knowledge of the non-Christian?

“In contrast, the Anabaptists scorn the creation; Adam was of the earth, earthly; the natural order as such is unclean; but Christ, who brought his human nature down from heaven, infuses a new, spiritual, and divine substance into man at his rebirth. The born-again man, since he is wholly renewed and other, may have no intercourse with unbelievers. Consequently, the Anabaptists reject oaths, war, the magistracy, the death penalty, worldly dress and lifestyle, marriage with unbelievers, and infant baptism; the supernatural order thrusts aside the entire natural order” (53).

The Christian worldview of Reformed Christianity refuses to follow a fundamentalist, separatistic dichotomy between grace and nature, between body and soul, between creation and redemption, between the earthly and the heavenly.

“By means of this organic way of relating nature and grace, the Reformation in principle overcame the mechanical juxtaposition and dualistic worldview of the Catholic Church. And thereby, too, the significance of the cosmos increases greatly…. While it is true that the world has been corrupted by sin, it nevertheless remains the work of the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. Of his own will he maintains it by his covenant, and by his gratia communis he powerfully opposes the destructive might of sin. He fills the hearts of men with nourishment and joy and does not leave himself without a witness among them. He pours out upon them numberless gifts and benefits. Families, races, and peoples he binds together with natural love and affection. He allows societies and states to spring up that the citizens might live in peace and security. Wealth and well-being he grants them that the arts and sciences can prosper” (60).

A biblical worldview denies a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. All is sacred, because Christ is Lord of all. A scriptural worldview never demeans the body, creation, the earth, the cosmos, because Christ is Creator and Sustainer of all. And He rules His world in affectionate sovereignty—pouring out His innumerable gifts and benefits upon all people—saved and unsaved alike.

The entirety of the rich life of nature and society exists thanks to God’s common grace. But why should he continue to preserve such a sinful world by a special action of his grace? Does he squander his gifts? Is he acting purposelessly? Is it not because natural life, in all its forms has value in his eyes in spite of sin’s corruption? The love of family and kin, societal and political life, art and science are all in themselves objects of his divine good pleasure…. Contempt for this divine order of creation is thus illegitimate; it flies in the face of experience and conflicts with Scripture. Here all separatism or asceticism is cut off at the roots. All world-flight is a repudiation of the first article of our Apostolic Creed. Christ indeed came to destroy the works of the devil. But more than that, he came to restore the works of the Father and so to renew man according to the image of him who first created man” (60).

The Christian worldview understands how Christ values and loves “natural life, in all its forms.” The Christian refuses to have “contempt” for the world, realizing that biblically such contempt is “illegitimate.” We repudiate world flight. We engage with the world.

Bavinck on the Christian Use of the Non-Christian’s Art and Science

Bavinck, again following Calvin, explains the purpose of common grace—in relationship to the arts and science. He also describes the Christian use of the non-Christian’s learning.

“Christ came not to do away with the world and the various spheres of life but to restore and preserve them. Ultimately the same holds for the relation of the Christian religion to the arts and sciences” (64).

“But here too re-creation is something different than creation. The arts and sciences have their principium not in the special grace of regeneration and conversion but in the natural gifts and talents that God in his common grace has also given to nonbelievers. Therefore, Christian theologians of all times have also profited from pagan art and learning and have insisted upon a classical education for every man of learning, including the theologian. They were not blind to the dangers of such an education, and desired that it take place under Christian leadership. But they nevertheless maintained the right and independence of the arts and sciences, requiring only that they be sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. Scripture itself, they maintained, gave them freedom to this end. For Moses was reared in all the wisdom of Egypt, the children of Israel decorated the house of the Lord with the gold and silver of Egypt, Solomon used the services of Hiram to build the temple, Daniel was trained in the science of the Chaldeans, and the wisemen from the East laid their gifts at the feet of the baby in Bethlehem” (64).

What is the biblical basis for the arts and sciences? It is not saving grace. It is common grace—the gifts and talents, the capacities and contributions, that God has given to “nonbelievers.” So, what do Christians do with pagan learning? Reject it? Neglect it? Denigrate it? Relegate it? No. “Christian theologians of all times have also profited from pagan art and learning and have insisted upon a classical education for every man of learning, including the theologian.”

“Theology itself as a science was not born apart from the gifts of the gratia communis. She does of course hold a unique place among the sciences. She has her own principle, object, and goal and derives these exclusively from the gratia specialis. But she would still not be theology in the scientific sense had she not availed herself of the thinking consciousness of man sanctified by faith and used it to penetrate revelation and understand its content. Theology first came into existence in the body of Christ when gratia communis and gratia specialis flowed together” (64).

“Consequently, theology accords to the other sciences their full due. Theology’s honor is not that she sits enthroned above them as Regina scientarium [Queen of the sciences] and waves her scepter over them but that she is permitted to serve them all with her gifts. Theology also can rule only by serving. She is strong when she is weak; she is greatest when she seeks to be least. She can be glorious when she seeks to know nothing save Christ and him crucified. Theology is ultimately nothing other than interpretation of the gratia Dei [grace of God] in the arena of science. Grace she ponders and grace she seeks to understand in its length and breadth, in its height and depth. In the middle of the human woe that life reveals all about us, and also in science, theology raises its doxology of the love of God shown forth in Jesus Christ our Lord. And she prophesies a glorious future in which all oppositions, including those between nature and grace, shall be reconciled, and all things, whether on earth or in heaven, shall again in Christ be one” (65).

The theologian does not look at science—including science done by the non-Christian—with jaundice eyes, a suspicious mind, and a haughty heart. The Christian does not reject all science as “scientism.” No, “theology accords to the other sciences their full due.”

Bavinck on the Christian Use of the Natural Sciences and Philosophy 

Commenting upon Psalm 8, Bavinck views Scripture’s witness to the royal dominion of fallen humanity over the earth as affirming man’s engagements within the sciences.

“Knowledge of earthly things is possible, and there is a yearning to find out the truth about them. This is the basis of science and scholarship (law, medicine, mathematics, literature, and the liberal arts). These are the natural sciences, with philosophy as their crown. These gifts of the Spirit should not be rejected or despised, for that would be to despise God himself. Pagans themselves admit that philosophy, the arts, sciences, and laws were gifts from the gods. We cannot read the writings of the ancients without great admiration. If by the Lord’s will we can be helped by the activities of evil persons in the study of nature, in logic, in mathematics, let us then use these things. Zwingli said that whatever the pagans said that is good and beautiful, we accept and convert to the glory of our God. We decorate the temple of the true God with the spoils of the Egyptians.” (Reformed Ethics, vol. 1, Created, Fallen, and Converted Humanity, ed. John Bolt, 2019, 162).

Bavinck here calls secular studies “gifts of the Spirit.” Despising these common grace gifts “would be to despise God himself.” What do Christians do with these “pagan” studies? We are “helped by” them; we “use these things;” “we accept and convert [them] to the glory of our God.”

Bavinck looks to Augustine for a Christian approach to the sciences:

“Augustine already urged believers not too quickly to consider a theory to be in conflict with Scripture, to enter the discussion on these difficult subjects only after serious study, and not to make themselves ridiculous by their ignorance in the eyes of unbelieving science. This warning has not always been faithfully taken to heart by theologians” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:496).

Bavinck’s (and Augustine’s) worldview is quite different from many modern biblical counselors who tend to focus on co-belligerent sources to demean most science as “scientism.” Perhaps we could say that “Augustine’s warning has not always been faithfully taken to heart by modern biblical counselors.”

The Rest of the Story 

In our next blog post, we’ll continue to explore Herman Bavinck’s theology of common grace, as he continues to explore Calvin’s foundational teachings on common grace. Many of the quotes in this next post will be from:

Bavinck, Herman. “Calvin and Common Grace.” Geerhardus Vos, Translator. The Princeton Theological Review, 7(3), 1909, 437-465.

Join the Conversation 

Which of the quotations from Bavinck stand out to you as most important? Why? What implications do these quotes have for how we view the arts, science, and research?