A Word from Bob
Today’s post continues my two-year study on common grace. For a blog post that collates all of that research, see:
Reformed Theologians on Common Grace.
John Frame (1939) is a Calvinist theologian known especially for his work in presuppositional apologetics and systematic theology. He was a student of Cornelius Van Til and is one of the foremost interpreters of Van Til.
Today’s post not only explores Frame’s thinking on common grace, but it also delves into his thinking on how common grace relates to biblical counseling and Christian integrative counseling.
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 how we can hold to both truths. It also explains how to engage with and evaluate common grace resources using the lens/spectacles of God’s all-sufficient Word.
Defining Common Grace
John Frame defines common grace succinctly:
“Common grace is God’s favor and gifts given to those who will not be finally saved” (Systematic Theology, 68, n 16).
He then offers six categories related to the biblical doctrine of common grace:
- God restrains sin (Gen 4:15; 11:6; 20:6; 2 Kings 27:28; 2 Thess 2:7).
- God restrains his wrath (Matt 19:8; Acts 17:30; Rom 3:25).
- God gives temporal blessings to all (Matt 5:45; Ps 65:5-13; 104; 136:25).
- Unregenerate people do good (2 Kings 10:29-31; Luke 6:33).
- Unregenerate people know truth (Rom 1:20; Matt 23:3-4).
- Unregenerate people experience the blessings of the Holy Spirit (Num 22:1-24:25; 1 Sam 10:9-11; Matt 10:5-8) (Systematic Theology, 247-248).
Frame relates common grace to the concept of “civic righteousness”:
“Some people contribute much to the well-being of society—by helping the poor, by becoming great artists, musicians, authors, and public servants, and in other ways—without a heart to serve God. This is often called civic righteousness in the theological literature” Systematic Theology, 247-248).
The Non-Christian’s Contribution to Society and Science
In his book The Doctrine of the Christian Life, Frame writes that:
“…unbelievers are able to do things that look good to us. They don’t look good to God, for God knows the heart. But they look good to us, and they often bring benefits to society. So non-Christians often improve society through their skills and ideas. They make scientific discoveries, produce labor-saving inventions, develop businesses that supply jobs, produce works of art and entertainment.
He nuances his understanding with these words:
“We should acknowledge from the outset that the adjective “common” does not appear in the Bible as a modifier of the noun “grace.” But we are justified in making use of it in view of how God’s dealings with non-Christian people is portrayed for us in Scripture. Our task will be to determine in what sense, if any at all, the grace of God is given to or is operative in the lives of those who persist throughout life in unbelief and rebellion against God. (For a discussion of common “goodness” or “love” vs. common “grace,” see John Frame, The Doctrine of God, 429–30.)
Twitter/X
On a Twitter/X Thread on October 14, 2024 (@DrJohnFrame https://x.com/DrJohnFrame/status/1845936741779152971) Frame wrote:
- Couple aspects of common grace. Unregenerate people do good: In one sense, no one can do good apart from the saving grace of God. We have seen that man is depraved (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:9–18). “Those who are in the flesh [instead of God’s Spirit] cannot please God” (Rom.8:8).
- But Scripture does attribute good, in lesser senses, to the unregenerate, such as King Jehu (2 Kings 10:29–31). Jesus said that even the wicked do good things to those who do good to them (Luke 6:33).
- Unregenerate people know truth: In Scripture, knowledge is ethical, something that we engage in either obediently or disobediently (see chapters 29–32). So although all people know God (Rom. 1:21), they suppress that knowledge. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:18–2:15.
- But Jesus says the Pharisees, for all their disobedience, are able in some measure to teach correctly (Matt. 23:2–3).
Common Grace, Biblical Counseling, and Christian Integrative Counseling
How might Frame relate common grace to the issue of biblical counseling and Christian integrative counseling? Frame provides a lengthy, nuanced perspective in an April 11, 2016, article, Biblical Counseling, General Revelation, and the Sufficiency of Scripture. (Note: I am not presenting Frame’s view as my view. I am simply sharing how Frame seeks to work out common grace and God’s revelation in terms of counseling.)
To understand Frame’s arguments in this article, we must understand his triperspectival view of epistemology. In this view, Frame discusses the unity of God’s revelation in three forms:
- Special revelation,
- General revelation, and
- “Existential revelation” (the revelation in people as image bearers).
While giving priority to special, Frame also insists that all three modes of revelation provide insight for human life.
“Keep in mind that the normative perspective is not Scripture. The normative perspective includes ALL of God’s revelation, and that of course is universal. So theologians distinguish ‘special revelation,’ ‘general revelation,’ and the revelation in man as the image of God, what I call ‘existential revelation.’ In the triperspectival understanding, each of these perspectives includes the other two. So the normative perspective includes everything. It sees God and his entire creation as supplying norms for human decisions.
Scripture is not the normative perspective. It is a part of the normative perspective, but also part of the situational and existential perspectives. It is a book which is normative, but also a fact of the objective world (situational) and a fact of human experience (existential).
What is distinctive about Scripture is that it is the covenant document that God inspired to govern his people and ultimately to govern mankind. In that respect, Scripture is different from other ‘norms.’ We describe it as necessary, authoritative, clear, and sufficient. Winnie the Pooh is also part of the normative perspective (since everything is part of the normative perspective), but it has a very different function from Scripture within the normative perspective. Scripture is inerrant; Winnie is not.
Again, I don’t think there is any inconsistency between my doctrine of Scripture and my triperspectival epistemology. Scripture is a very special kind of norm, ruling all the other norms in the normative perspective. It is also part of the situational perspective, the fact that illumines all the other facts. And it is part of my subjective experience, the experience that governs all my other experiences.
As I say, it fits together nicely. But of course it is possible for Christians to misunderstand this and to set up an illegitimate dichotomy between Scripture and the three perspectives, as when someone says ‘Scripture is our rule, not the normative perspective.’ Of course Scripture is our rule, our ultimate authority. But everyone understands that we USE Scripture by APPLYING it to situations outside of Scripture. So to use Scripture, we must understand things beyond Scripture. That is, to use this norm, we must understand situations and persons. So to use our authoritative Scripture, we must understand its relation (as ultimate norm) to the situational and existential perspectives.”
Now Frame is prepared to apply all of this to counseling. Notice how he sees value both in the nouthetic/biblical counseling approach, and in the integrationist approach.
“Now in counseling theory, the nouthetic/‘biblical’ school focuses on the authority, especially the sufficiency, of Scripture. The ‘integrationists’ focus on the need to correlate Scripture with extra-biblical data. In my terms, they [integrationists] focus on the balance of the three perspectives.
In an important sense, both are right. Christian counselors must hold firmly to the sufficiency of Scripture. But of course if they have ONLY Scripture, and refuse to apply Scripture to situations and people, then their counseling can’t get off the ground. So the integrationists are right too; but they need to be reminded that Scripture is the covenant book: when extra-biblical data seems to point in a different direction, we must adhere to Scripture, even Scriptura SOLA.
For the most part, I would like to see a less polemical relation between these two schools. Conceptually there is no need for it. The sufficiency of Scripture is compatible with the need to integrate Scripture with extrabiblical data. And the extrabiblical data must be understood in the light of Scripture. Neither can function without the other.
The nouthetic/biblical group has acknowledged the value of triperspectival epistemology. Dave Powlison has written to me about that in a very encouraging fashion. On the other hand, my colleagues here have not questioned my doctrine of sola Scriptura. My old friend Jim Hurley said to me some time ago that ‘Jay Adams gave us back the Bible.’ So what is left to argue about? Perhaps some of the problem is partisanship, team-rivalry.”
Right or wrong, John Frame, the student and interpreter of Van Til, concludes that, “the sufficiency of Scripture is compatible with the need to integrate Scripture with extrabiblical data.”
What do you think?
