A Word from Bob
You’re reading Part 2 of a two-part blog mini-series on Cornelius Van Til and common grace. In Part 1, I focused on Van Til’s assessment of Kuyper and Bavinck: Van Til, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Biblical Counselors: An Assessment. In that post, I asked and answered the questions:
Can biblical counselors legitimately follow the common grace teachings of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck? Or, as some claim, to be a true biblical counselor, must we only follow the teachings of Cornelius Van Til on common grace?
Here in Part 2, I’m focusing on Van Til’s belief’s about common grace, especially related to the use or non-use of findings from non-Christians. I’ve taken these quotes from Van Til’s book, Common Grace and the Gospel.
Introducing Common Grace
In Reformed Christian theology, unregenerate persons are totally depraved and all of their thinking is seen as under the noetic (mind) impact of sin and fallenness.
Yet, also in Reformed thinking, the unregenerate/unsaved person can make valid contributions to society, culture, the arts, research, science, and more.
How can these two truths be held together at one time?
The Reformed doctrine of common grace explains this…and explains why it is possible for Christians to learn from non-Christians.
Resources
For the past two years, I’ve been re-studying common grace. I’ve collated quotes from leading Reformed theologians on common grace, which you can find here.
Van Til on the Source of the Unbeliever’s Knowledge
Van Til wrote frequently about the book of nature (general revelation) and the book of conscience as the twin foundations of the unbeliever’s knowledge.
“As made in the image of God no man can escape becoming the interpretive medium of God’s general revelation both in his intellectual (Rom 1:20) and in his moral consciousness (Rom 2:14-15). No matter which button of the radio he presses, he always hears the voice of God” (67).
“God is, and has been from the beginning, revealed in nature and in man’s own consciousness. We cannot say that the heavens probably declare the glory of God” (76).
“Both parties to the debate on common grace should be willing to agree that Adam and Eve had the requirements of God’s law written on their hearts… We should be equally anxious to maintain that God originally spoke plainly to man, both in ‘the book of nature’ and in the ‘book of conscience.’ Wherever man would turn he saw the living God and His requirements. Whether he reasoned about nature or whether he looked within, whether it was the starry heavens above or the moral law within, both were equally insistent and plain that God, the true God, stood before him. It should also be recognized that man was, from the outset, confronted with positive, as well as with natural, revelation. Dr. Vos speaks of this as pre-redemptive special revelation. God walked and talked with man. Natural revelation must not be separated from this supernatural revelation. To separate the two is to deal with two abstractions instead of with one concrete situation” (84-85).
“By virtue of their creation in God’s image, by virtue of the ineradicable sense of deity within them, and by virtue of God’s restraining general grace, those who hated God, yet in a restricted sense, know God and do good” (198).
Common Grace and the Use or Non-Use of Information from Non-Christians
Having established the theological foundation for common grace knowledge, now the two-fold question is:
“What do fallen people do with this revelatory knowledge, and what should believers do with information from non-Christians?”
Van Til consistently taught that unbelievers will distort the truth. No one could dispute that from Van Til’s writings.
However, Van Til went further, exploring whether that distortion meant that there was no value for believers from the findings of unbelievers, because, “Man can never completely suppress the truth” (187).
In Chapter 6 of Common Grace and the Gospel, Van Til wrote to dispute the contention by Dr. William Masselink’s that Van Til’s teaching meant that Christians could learn nothing from non-Christians. Notice in the quotes below that Van Til writes specifically to prove that he does believe that Christians can use the results of the scientific work of non-Christians:
“Dear Friend: Recently you wrote me asking about my views on common grace. You remarked that somebody had made a statement in your hearing that if he were to take my position on common grace he did not see how he could make any use of the results of the scientific work of those who are not Christians. This gentleman apparently got the impression that on my view the non-believer must be thought of as being unable to discover any truth at all of any sort in any field” (169).
“I am said to hold to an ‘absolutist position,’ a posting that involves ‘intellectual Anabaptism,’ a position that is out of accord with the Reformed confessions, which speak of the ‘natural light’ that remains in men after the Fall and of the ‘remnants’ of knowledge of God and of morality that they still possess” (170).
“My main purpose in this letter is to seek to remove some misunderstandings that have developed with respect to my views” (171).
What did Van Til believe about the relationship between the noetic effect of sin and common grace?
“The case is similar with respect to the knowledge of unbelievers and their ability to do that which is relatively good. The fact that they are in principle opposed to God and would destroy the very foundation of knowledge and ethics, yet, in spite of this, because of God’s common grace, they can discover much truth and do much good” (190).
“Gifts of God to unbelievers help to make the life of believers possible, and in a measure, pleasant” (192).
“We are well aware of the fact that non-Christians have a great deal of knowledge about this world which is true as far as it goes. That is, there is a sense in which we can and must allow for the value of knowledge of non-Christians. We do not make this point as a concession but rather as a fact taught directly by Scripture itself and as such observed in daily experience” (195).
“God releases the natural man’s creatural powers so that he can make positive contributions to the field of knowledge and art” (200).
Van Til on Cultural Mandate/Creation Mandate, Common Grace, and Believers Using the Knowledge of Unbelievers
Van Til also explored common grace in the context of the Cultural/Creation Mandate.
“This sovereign God gave man a task to perform. It was to till the ground, to bring out its powers, to act as prophet, priest, and king in the midst of the world that God had made. He was to engage in scientific, artistic, and philosophical enterprises of every conceivable sort. Such was man’s cultural mandate. It was given to mankind as a whole. It was therefore a task that all men would have in common” (117-118).
“The covenant keepers will make use of the works of the covenant breakers which these have been able and compelled to perform in spite of themselves. As Solomon used the cedars of Lebanon (1 Kings 5:8-10), the products of the rain and the sunshine that had come to the covenant breakers, and as he used the skill of these very covenant breakers for the building of the temple of God, so also those who through the Spirit of God have believed in Christ may and must use all the gifts of all men everywhere in order by means of them to perform the cultural task of mankind” (138).
“So even after the fall God gives His good gifts to men everywhere, thereby calling them to repentance and to performance of their task…. And then in amazement we note that even after the fall, when mankind as a whole has become the object of His wrath, God still continues to give good gifts unto men” (153-154).
“The gift of logical reason was originally given to man in order that he might order the revelation of God in nature for himself” (230).
Van Til: In His Own Words
Toward the end of Common Grace and the Gospel, Van Til provides his summary theological conclusion about common grace and the unbeliever.
Common grace “enables man to do many positive things which he would otherwise not be able to do. And the principle of continuity presupposed in all this is the idea of the image of God as itself revelational of God. The Holy Spirit testifies to man through his own constitution as well as through the facts of the universe around him, that he is God’s offspring and should act as such (see Acts 17:28). The sinner seeks to suppress this revelation within himself and around him. He cannot do so fully. He continues to be an image bearer of God; even the lost hereafter will be image bearers of God. They will continue to receive the revelation of God within their own constitution; they cannot be devoid of ethical reaction…. Common grace is therefore a favor to sinners by which they are kept from working out to the full the principle of sin within them and thereby are enabled to show some measure of involuntary respect and appreciation for the law of God that speaks to them even through their own constitution as well as through the facts of the world outside” (238).
