Clarity and Charity Leading to Unity
I share today’s post with the hopes of providing some clarity in charity leading to unity about the important issue of the sufficiency of Scripture, common grace, and biblical counseling.
How could we relate the sufficiency of Scripture and common grace? I have said frequently in the past few years,
“The Bible is sufficient to equip us to engage with, evaluate, and potentially employ God’s common grace resources.”
Some Recommendations for Those Who Use Common Grace Resources
For those who use common grace resources under the assessment of Scripture, we can ask ourselves the question:
“How do we use Scripture to assess the potential viability, correctness, usefulness, or incorrectness of common grace information?”
For some recommendations and cautions related to common grace resources, see:
Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling: 3 Reflections and 2 Recommendations.
Some Reflections for Those Who Are Cautious About Common Grace Resources
For those who are quite cautious, if not concerned, about the use of common grace resources, but who believe in the biblical doctrine of common grace, I’d ask:
“Can you give some examples of what God-given common grace resource—whether research, neuroscience, science, descriptive research—that you approve of and use in your counseling?”
A Trilogy on the Reformed Theology of Common Grace
Over the past four years, I have studied well over 5,000 pages of primary source material on the Reformed theology of common grace. I have been surprised, if not shocked, by the common grace resources that Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Van Til approved of and used.
Here are links to three posts where I provide primary source research about their extensive use of common grace information:
There are some who say that biblical counselors are abusing the doctrine of common grace and are ushering in integration. My questions for those concerned people would be:
“Would you call Calvin, Kuyper, and Van Til ‘proto-integrationists,’ ‘integrationists,” ‘neo-integrationists,’ and/or ‘zombie-infected” because they believe the Bible teaches that they can use sources from secular, pagan philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle? Or, would you say, they are Reformed theologians whose definition and use of common grace resources differ with yours?”
“How do you apply Calvin’s teaching that we are “guilty of sloth” if we ignore common grace resources?” How do you apply Kuyper’s teaching that we are guilty of “culpable neglect” if we refuse to use God’s common grace resources?”
“How would you response to Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, and Van Til’s belief about God’s glory and common grace?” Common grace does not glorify the unregenerate person, just like saving grace does not glorify the regenerate person. Common grace glorifies God!
For All of Us
A final question for all of us:
“How can we engage in gracious, humble, respectful, mutual, iron-sharpening-iron conversations about the sufficiency of Scripture, common grace, and biblical counseling?”
Your Free Resource
For a compilation of my engagement with nearly a dozen Reformed theologians about common grace and biblical counseling, see:
Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians.
