Religion and Theology

If Gods deep love for humanity persists even despite the effects of sin, then the theology of common grace is an important resource for our efforts as Christians to respect and reflect that love.

Richard Mouw, He Shines in All Thats Fair
An Entrance Richard Mouws He Shines in All Thats Fair
The surface of the deep and broad discussion regarding the doctrine of common grace begins in the desire to know the extent of Gods love and pleasure for man, elect and non-elect, and everything he has created.  The reality that goodness, beauty, and truth exist outside of the boundaries of saving or particular grace serves as the initial arguments for common grace.  It also provides preliminary understanding of the debate concerning this doctrine.

In He Shines in All Thats Fair, Richard Mouw offered counterexamples to the possible Calvinist arguments that nothing existed outside of special grace using non-human creations.  Mouw argued that God rejoiced in what he has made and he is pleased with his creation.  The gospel of Luke described how it is a plausible claim to say that God takes delight in different human states of affair and the goodness displayed in the lives of non-elect human beings, Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Dont be afraid you are worth more than many sparrows.

Mouw argued against Herman Hoeksemas claim that all things in heaven and on earth were designed to achieve the divine goal of bring the elect and the reprobate to their eternal destinies.  He found a need to extend Gods pleasure up to the point wherein he found logic in how God takes delight in the brilliance and the talent of non-elect human beings, such as Benjamin Franklin and Tiger Woods.  He reasoned that the delight of God was more than the fact that these things bring the elect glory and the reprobate eternal separation, but because God enjoyed them for their own sakes.  It must be noted that God takes pleasure in the things that ultimately reflects his glory for the world to see and mirrors his own goodness, beauty and truth.

This does not in any way mean that God will take pleasure in what Mouw described as the inner lives of non-elect people.   God cannot take delight in morality that does not reflect his nature.  Since he is holy and righteous, he will not tolerate and take delight in sin.  On the other hand, Mouw pointed out that God could give positive moral appraisals to non-elect persons because these actions mirror Gods character. Mouw mentioned how the Westminster Confessions treatment of moral goodness made room for accepting the reprobates good works to be less displeasing to God or how their performance of good acts was more pleasing than their non-performance.

The term divine empathy was used to frame the issue that differentiated divine favor versus saving favor.  This described God and how he provides favor for the non-elect in terms of the empathy he has for their experiences of joy and sadness.  In his search to classify certain experiences that should qualify as common grace, because they experiences of grace in the lives of the non-elect, he found difficulty in finding an area from the 1924 Christian Reformed declarations to address it  (1) natural blessings, such as rain and sunshine (2) the restraining of evil in human affairs and (3) positive acts of civic righteousness.   Mouw used the illustration of reconciliation in a relationship between a man and his wife.  This was difficult to clarify because it did not merely involve the restraint to divorce or acts that will contribute to the good of the community.  Instead, it was something that was good in itself and something that God can be pleased by.

Thomas Weinandy described theology as a mystery discerning enterprise, instead of a problem solving one.  In the confusion regarding the doctrine of common grace and the level of commonness that God intended for the elect and the non-elect, it is beneficial to acknowledge that one could not understand Gods wisdom in its totality.  Rather, it is important to search for answers based on what he has made available within and outside the boundaries of saving grace.  Mouw agreed and quoted John Bolt in his admission of the mysterious aspect of the Spirits work

If we can theologically conceive of the Holy Spirit giving the gift of life to an unbeliever and even further giving an unbeliever natural gifts (intelligence, musical ability, healthy and athletic body), why could we not conceive of a work of God the Holy Spirit that providentially influences an unbelievers heart and will so that he or she does constructive and externally virtuous acts rather than destructive ones

David Neff reviewed Mouws common grace theology and described it to be widely based on Christian participation in society and the relationship of theology with sociology.  This entailed two implications, such as the Christians responsibility to actively work for the well-being of societies and that the sanctity of their lives should be manifested in the efforts to promote the health of society.  Furthermore, Mouw promoted a theologically responsible approach when it came to identifying the commonness between those who accept and reject the biblical message. 

David Englesma rejects the fact that Mouws view of common grace was based on Scripture instead he claims they were based on his emotions, philosophy and speculations.  Englesma argued that the common grace worldview was unbiblical because its fundamental tenet that the building of a godly culture by the grace of God was shared by Christian and non-Christian. He also pointed out that even if some Reformed theologians defended common grace, it was not Reformed theology. Instead, God destroyed the world of the ungodly and the cultural work of mankind, such as the Tower of Babel.  He insisted that God was not pleased in building up a culture through the means or with any connection with the ungodly and the only pleasure God experiences in connection with them, would be his destruction.  Englesma defended that it was only the culture of the elect that God is capable to be pleased with and that God cannot be pleased with the way of life of any other culture. He warned against the perils of believing the doctrine of common grace

Common grace produces the beast
The common grace worldview is busy building the culture of Antichrist
The proponents of the common grace worldview who are alive at that time will be hard- pressed to resist the temptation to regard that glorious development of culture as the kingdom of God in its finest form.  If they do resist (God being gracious with His grace in Christ Jesus), they will, at long last, join with us defenders of the Reformed worldview of particular grace in rejoicing over the utter and final destruction of the worldview and culture of common grace as damnable in the judgment of God.

Richard Mouws conception of common grace in relation to the relationship of the elect with the non-elect was widely conceived based on his experience of the good, beauty and truth outside of the boundaries of saving grace.  Mouw reasoned that this provided the possibility that God was pleased with the good works, the talent and the joy of non-elect human beings.   Englesma argued that there was nothing outside of the community of the elect that pleased God.  In fact, he found dangers in this defense and strong associated it as unbiblical and heretical claims.  The question as to how non-elect human beings can be explained by pagan virtues. The problem of pagan virtue allows room for a more richer debate in terms the extent of how God moves in the lives the non-elect, in comparison to the elect.  It levels the ground for discussion for theologians that support the arguments of both Mouw and Englesma.  It broadens the discussion to the realities that existed in the lives the non-elect, which could be perceived to be proofs for or arguments against common grace.

The Problem of Pagan Virtue
The pagan virtues included prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice.  The idea behind the term pagan virtue was any person, regardless if he was a Christian or not, can have these virtues.  There was a time in history of Christian in the medieval period, wherein only Christians possessed virtues such as faith in God, hope in life after death and charity.  According to Augustine, there were three major sources of sin pride of life, the lust of the eye, and the lust of the flesh, based on the three temptations that Jesus overcame when he was fasting in the wilderness.

In the context that Mouw provided regarding recognizing the good in people, despite the fact that they were not Christians, it is interesting to include in this discussion Justin Smiths observation in the parallelism of non-Christian works of literature and religion with the virtues presented in the Bible.  For example, the Bhagavad-Gita, a holy piece of literature in Hinduism tradition, was viewed to pay tribute to the Christian Scriptures because of their often times actually verbal parallelisms with the verses that the Bible contained.  The problem of pagan virtue has been used against an argument against the inspiration that the authors of the Bible experienced.  While this is a grave accusation, in order to concentrate on the doctrine in focus, the parallelism between holy books across Christian and pagan religions also provided issues against the doctrine of common grace. 

Assuming that there is no common grace available for the non-elect just like what Englesma argued, Mouw was right that they still need to present the burden of proof regarding how it might be possible for goodness to come from the reprobate.  One cannot ignore the fact that goodness, beauty and truth manifested in one level or another outside the context of the church nor can one consider these acts of kindness to be well-disguised deeds of unrighteousness.  Pagan virtues described qualities that non-Christians were supposed to have.  There is also the argument that pagan virtues are means of Gods common grace wherein he has minimum restraints against their destructions because of their sin.  On the other hand, if common grace did not exist, pagan virtues could merely be reflections of Gods character, since non-elect human beings are still created in the image and likeness of God.
There were different explanations that were given to such parallelism.  Others noted that it was because these books were based on history and they read the same, because they both read like history.  Moreover, Smith offered that the parallelisms existed because truth and morality is one in such a way that two men of the like intellectual statute that witnessed a crime will report the same incident and experience similarly negative emotions towards it.  In the defense of the Scriptures inspiration, it was not to say that if one person was inspired that it implied that he will have thoughts that no other man ever had or that the collection of inspired books will be different from any other books ever written instead, true inspiration was described to prompt the writer to utter words and illustrations that was more familiar for its intended readers.

Pagan wisdom referred to human intelligence and was based on his capacities.  The question is where does this intelligence and capacities come from. In the assumption that common grace does not exist, is the existence of pagan virtue commensurate to explain why man can be capable of good, despite his reprobate nature How can a non-Christian discern goodness and truths that were presented in the Bible, if it was not revealed to him, since he is not capable of any moral good because of his sinful nature  In short, how does a non-Christian discover and apply pagan virtues, in the first place
Charles Pinches argued that while there are similarities in the good qualities that pagans and Christians upheld, there are different substantive ends to these virtues.  The virtues they upheld existed in order to benefit them.  In other words, the motivation for upholding these virtues was not to bring glory to God because of their reprobate nature.  Instead, they have this to culminate in what was beneficial for them.  For example, justice was advantageous because it brings about order.  On the other hand, temperance was practiced in certain situations because it allows the person to keep peace with ones neighbor. In the Christian perspective, these virtues were not encouraged and practiced with the good of the Christian church as the fundamental end.  These virtues were practiced in order for the reality of Jesus Christ to be made known.

The Pelagian belief included emphasis on free will and the rejection of predestination, as well as the original sin.  Pelagius, the founder of this worldview, pointed out that there were reprobates that lived virtuous lives without harming anyone.  His argument was good deeds did not come from the love of God and giving glory to God.  On the other hand, John Calvin argued that man cannot do any good outside of Gods saving grace.  However, he developed the doctrine of common grace and how, while it does not pardon the sinner or provide salvation, it is extended for all creatures to mankind.  Calvin moved that common grace maintained a moral order, distributes gifts and talents and that it was connected to Gods restraining grace.

Henry Van Til described how Augustine viewed pagan virtues to be transformed by human love.  According to Van Til, the perverse culture produced by mans corrupt nature in apostasy from God must now become permeated with the love for God in order that creation, which is good may once more serve the purpose of the creator. Saving grace reflected how the restoration of relationship with God brings all other relationships back into focus.  According to Augustines argument, peace with God could bring about peace in the home, in society and in the state.   In the Calvinist perspective, this could be viewed as how Christians impacts the worlds virtues and morality.  The overflow of Gods grace for Christians can also be a source of influence in the formation of pagan virtues.
The nature of pagan virtues can be closely aligned to the existence of common grace.  While pagan virtues are manifested in the non-elect, the conclusion as to where they get the standard for truth, beauty and goodness can be out of the acceptance that common grace existed.  On the other hand, pagan virtues could also show that it is not possible for common grace to exist because the these virtues were already sufficient to explain the so-called goodness that existed outside Gods saving grace and that they their goodness cannot be merited because it was done only out of their own selfish gains.  Pagan virtues did not adequately prove or disprove the argument for common grace.  However, it did support each sides up to some extent. 

The Doctrine of Common Grace in Current Theological Thoughts
In defense
Time was not a sufficient factor to eliminate the debate regarding the doctrine of common grace.   Sam Storms, a Calvinist theologian, discussed about common grace in the context of the tragedy that Hurricane Katrina brought to New Orleans.  His argument was saving grace was not the only manifestation of Gods grace in the sinful world, common grace allowed human beings to be recipients of the divine grace of God through common grace.  Storms based this argument on John Murrays inquiries as to how men who were cursed by God and heirs of hell still enjoy good gifts from God or how reprobate beings exhibited qualities, gifts and accomplishments that provide happiness, cultural progress, as well as social and economic improvement.   Drawing from definitions from Charles Hodge and Abraham Kuyper, Storms favored Murrays explanation that common grace was any favor that the undeserving and sin-cursed man receives, short of the salvation of God.

    Furthermore, Storm viewed common grace to manifest in at least four ways.  He mentioned the phrase at least to provide room for expansion for what constituted as common grace.  He viewed common grace to be negative or preventive.  In Calvins view, it is the aspect of common grace wherein God restrains man from sinning.  Storms described this restraint to be incomplete and random because man was not equally evil or good, nor is man without sin.  It usually prevents man from reaching the maximum height of evil by which they were capable of.   Storms used the prevalence of looting as an aftermath of Katrina to illustrate the restrictive nature of Gods common grace.  Without the restraints and obstacles to criminal behavior, such as police officers and other security devices, human nature will take over and man will sin.  Thus, like electricity, light and the police prevent crime, common grace functions as a barrier to criminal behavior.

    In a related manner, the second manifestation of common grace was observed through the restraints that have been placed upon the judgment of God.  God suspends immediate manifestation of judgment of his divine wrath due to sin.  It would be an odd case if someone was to drop dead after stealing from a store without physical harm to make this happen, even if this person was a reprobate.  Thus, instead of punishing man on the spot for each sin committed, his common grace withholds it.

    The third manifestation that Storm described for common grace was how God control the destructive tendencies of     nature and how God sustained his creation.  Using the illustration for Hurricane Katrina, God did not send a more powerful hurricane to wipe out civilization.   Since sin introduces disintegration and disorganization in every realm, God places a restraint as to their effects.  Fourth manifestation describes how God bestows upon nature and humanity blessings both in physical and spiritual aspects. These gifts that were short of the redemption, but nevertheless these were undeserved blessings.   Storms concluded that heaven was an unabated over flow of special grace, while hell was the absence of even common grace for eternity.

In opposition
On an opposing theological argument, Barry Gritters, a Protestant Reformist, rejected the doctrine of common grace, together with the Protestant Reformed Churches.  He also argued against the substance of Herman Kuipers Calvin and Common Grace and stressed that Calvin does not teach common grace.  Gritters also pointed out that the issue against common grace was not dead and was still used to promote heresy and unrighteousness in the churches. 

Gritter presented his arguments to the different points for common grace that have emerged.  With regards to the first point, they disagreed that God gave good things to unbelievers because of his love for them or his favor towards them.  He cleared up that he did not mean to say the rain and sunshine God provided for them was bad, nor did he want the reprobate to fail in acknowledging that they were from God.  He just could not reconcile that God gave them out of his love and favor for them.
The second point of his refutation was against the fact that God restrained the unimpeded breaking out of sin through the Holy Spirit.  Gritter argued that God does not do this because of Gods favor and through the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit.   Gritter presented the Canons of Dordt, which expounded that the reprobate had regard for order and decency because it was profitable for them.
The objection of Gritter towards the third point, which taught that unbelievers who were not regenerated can do good works, not by saving good but civil good.  He clarified that his argument was not against the fact that non-Christians cannot do anything useful, profitable or outwardly correct.  Their argument was against the belief that they could do anything to please God.  To expound, God cannot put a stamp of approval to something an unbeliever has created or done because their work remain unrighteous.

Gritter also stressed that common grace denied total depravity.  The reformed doctrine, however, argued that men who were not Christians were dead to sin and they are unable to do good and were inclined to all evil.  Thus, God cannot be pleased with these people.  Common grace was viewed to go against the Reformed Tradition doctrine of total depravity because common grace doctrine taught that the reprobate man can do something that God can approve and be pleased about. 
Gritter defended their denial of common grace based on the teaching that this doctrine supposedly had in terms of teaching that natural man can do good.

According to Gritter, the antithesis meant that there was nothing between a Christian and a pagan in a spiritual level.  While they can take part in the activities of the world, they maintained to be separate from them.   While the source of life for a believer is the power of the Holy Spirit, while the unbeliever finds its source in the flesh and in a depraved human nature that was directed by the power of sin.  This makes the life of a believer and a non-believer in opposition.  Thus, this takes out anything common between them especially in the way God sends his favor and love.

Gritter argued that common grace undermined the antithesis in two ways.  First, it undermines the antithesis because common grace taught that God showed favor towards all men and that God loved all men, even those he predestines to hell.  Secondly, common grace taught that believers were involved in the works in the world by which God was pleased. If this was true, Gritter said that believers and unbelievers should be able to work together under one goal.  He mentioned that this could not be true because their goals were different.

Thus Gritter denied common grace in order to defend the antithesis.  This meant he rejected that there was favor that was common to all of men and that there was a common life by which unbelievers and believes could share.

Problems with the Formulation of the Doctrine of Common Grace
    The introduction of the paper has so far presented the opposing views in the formulation of the Doctrine of Common Grace.  The problem was deeply imbedded in differential interpretations of John Calvins theology and the different Confessions of faith for Calvinistic denominations in Reformed Theology. 

The primary problem with regards to the formulation of this doctrine was already presented in the debate whether this doctrine existed in the first place.  There were significant arguments from Reformed Theologians with regards to there are valid grounds to consider common grace as a biblical doctrine. 

There were other issues when it came to the understanding and the formulation of this doctrine, in terms of the extent or the boundaries of this doctrine.  Classifications for common grace allowed clarification as to what can be considered within this doctrine and how it was aligned to Calvinism and Reformed Theology.  Herman Kuiper placed Calvins perspective of common grace in three categories.  The first category was universal common grace, which referred to the grace that extended to all creatures.  The second category was general common grace that described the grace that applied to all mankind.  Finally, there was the covenant common grace, which was common to all of those who were in the sphere of the covenant, whether or not they were elect.  While other theologians may not have objections to the first two classification of common grace, provided they were not given in the context of favor and love from God, the last category will automatically attract arguments from different sectors of theological scholarship. 

In another perspective, Louis Berkhof provides his understanding of common grace according to the Canons of Dordt, wherein he speaks of common grace and how it can allow a sinner to receive the Word of God on an intellectual level, provide emotional joy but will could not enable the Holy Spirit to change the heart.   This will reveal questions as to what extent can common grace affect a reprobates life and the status of his relationship with God.  This definition opens up discussion in the formulation about the capacity of a reprobate to know about God, short of being saved.

Abraham Kuyper, one of the earliest writers about common grace, spurned critical controversy within the Calvinist community.  This created division within the Dutch tradition of theology.  The Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA) because of their so-called contrary nature to what the Bible taught rejected the three points of common grace. 

Herman Hoeksema and the leaders of PRCA based their contradictions on the high regard for the term grace.  They viewed it to be applied to mean favor for the elect.  Instead, they argued that the gifts unbelievers receive from God should be considered as providence, not grace.

Overview of the Study
The Mouw-Englesma debate provides a vivid picture of the heated debate, even with the context of Reformed Tradition, regarding the doctrine of common grace.  It espoused the rich discussion that existed with arguments as to the biblical existence and basis for this doctrine.  The discussion of the problem of pagan virtue was included in the introduction because it presents the basic arguments that existed towards explaining mans capability to perform acts of goodness.  It opened up the discussion as to why there was a need to understand the doctrine of common grace, wherein arguments about its existence and conception reflects different theological perspectives about Gods nature. 

Time has not provided a resolution to the opposing views for this doctrine.  Current theological conceptions were still geared to either defend or argue against common grace.  Moreover, there were also other areas that defenders of common grace disagreed on the terms as to what can be classified as provisions of this doctrine.   This dissertation presents the conception of the doctrine of common grace in the reformed tradition, with an in-depth discussion of Cornelius Van Tils defense and contributions in the formation of common grace theology. 

The next chapter provides the foundation for this paper through the discussion of biblical and historical orientations about common grace.  It involves a review of the origins of the doctrine according to how John Calvin viewed this matter.  It also provides the basis for analyzing common grace in the reformed tradition.  This is presented through presenting different elements from the Doctrine in the Reformed Confessions, which included the Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dordt, and the Westminster Confession.  Views from theologians from the reformed tradition will also be appraised. 

Chapter 3 is devoted to Abraham Kuyper and his role in the formulation of the Doctrine of Grace.  The historical and theological settings will be presented, followed by his basic view about the restraining effect of grace.  His views and contributions to the discussion of this doctrine will be significantly analyzed.

Chapter 4 is dedicated to the teachings and contributions of Cornelius Van Til.  This chapter will include expositions of the issues that brought about the early formulation of the problem.  It will also involve critical interactions with seminal theologians such as William Masselink, James Daane, Herman Hoeksema, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Jan Van Vilet and William Dennison. Van Tils larger apologetical framework of common grace will also be discussed in terms of creation and redemption, as if and the antithesis, as well as sovereignty and covenant, to name a few areas of pertinent discussion.  The last chapter will serve as a conclusion and exposition of the significance of the work of Van Til in the Reformed Theology and the formulation of the doctrine of Common Grace.


CHAPTER II
The most certain and easy solution of this question, however, is that those virtues are not the common properties of nature, but the peculiar graces of God, which he dispenses in great variety, and in a certain degree to men that are otherwise profane
- John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Biblical and Historical Orientations
Biblical Foundations for the Doctrine of Common Grace

    It was the sin that Adam and Eve committed that made human beings worthy of eternal punishment and separation from God.  Furthermore, man is liable to the wrath of God and eternal punishment, as Paul pointed out the wages of sin is death.  The Bible shows that once people sin, Gods justice is required.  Since God is holy, sin requires human beings to be eternally separated from God.  They are cut off from experiencing good from him and live in eternal damnation in hell.  This happened to angels who have sinned and Gods justice dictates that it is what human beings deserved as well. 

    However, if one would review the account of Genesis, Adam and Eve did not die at once when they sinned.  The full execution of their sentence was delayed for years.  In the same way, millions of their descendents did not die and go to hell the moment they sinned.  In fact, people continue to sin and even enjoy blessings from God.   The ultimate question to present an understanding of the background of common grace was how can God continue to bless sinners who deserve eternal death and not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also those who will never be saved.  The doctrine of common grace was formulated to address this question.  Wayne Grudem defined common grace as the grace of God by which he gives innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation.  The term common referred to something that is made available to all people and is not restricted the elect only.

    Doctrine needs to be firmly founded in the revealed will of God, through the Bible.  It is significant to analyze if the doctrine of common grace is plainly taught in the Bible.  The three points of common grace was already explained in the previous chapter provision of blessings, restraint of sin, and maintaining the good and order in society.  John Armstrong built his argument for the Biblical basis of this doctrine based from questions that inquired

Does the Bible teach that God restraints sin in unbelievers That He gives blessings, short of eternal life, to those who never come out to Christ in faith That He bestows good gifts upon the non-elect that are used for their good and the good of our world

    When God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3, he did this so that they will not partake of the tree of life and live forever in a state of damnation.  This is a major exhibition of grace for humanity nevertheless, it was not saving grace for all the sons of Adam.  Even when the couple was already placed outside of the garden, God still provided a mark of protection that spared Cain from being murdered.  This showed how God placed a restraint upon sin.  Another instance wherein God restrained a non-believer from sinning was when he warned Abimelech from touching Sarah with the consequence of death if he did because she was already married.  Abimelech did not know that Abraham lied to him. But he was a pagan ruler and God restrained him from committing sin.

    Armstrong described how a member of the civil government and an unbeliever was described as Gods servant.  If the person was an unbeliever, this is far off from being a servant of God.  Common grace will show that God used this unbeliever as an agent to restrain sin in society.  In the same manner, God bestows power upon the civil magistrate through his providence in order to restrain sin.  Peter exhorts that believers must submit to their governmental leaders for the sake of the Lord, because of the authority God has placed on them to restrain sin.

    The letter to the Romans also reflected how Paul made a point to explain that the Gentiles did not know the law and they still followed what it said.  This was because the requirements of the law were written in their hearts.  If the law was written in the hearts of Gentiles, only God could have written it there. This reflected how God restrained gentiles from sinning.  The difference between what was right and wrong is known to men and this has been the restraining force that existed, even in the depraved hearts of the unbelievers.

    Through Gods providence, a restraining influence upon mans evil heart is observed.  This is what was described as common grace. The weight of the relationship that man has with the people around him in society hindered him from doing evil because men conduct affects others.  The ability to distinguish between right from wrong is a gift of Gods common grace.  However, if man continues to rebel against God, there is reason to believe that he withdraws restraint as part of his judgment until his final judgment will come.

    More than restraining the evil in mankind, common grace can also be observed through the gracious gifts that God showers on all of humanity.  The blessings that are from God are good.  Scripture supported the positive aspect of common grace, as can be seen from numerous accounts.  First, creation in itself is a blessing that both believers and unbelievers alike enjoy.  According to Psalm 66, Gods works were created in mans behalf and his eyes watched the nations.   He also mentioned how God gave water to make grass grow for the cattle and plants for man to cultivate, as well as the bread that sustained the body.  The love and provision of God for his creation is echoed in this passage, You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing. The LORD is righteous in all his way and loving toward all he has made.

    Even in the New Testament, there were accounts wherein God pursued man through giving undeserved gifts to unregenerate men.  These gifts should move them to worship God but they did not choose this response.  When Paul was addressing the pagans of Lystra he pointed out that
In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.

Even Jesus Christ mentioned that the Father in heaven causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  Furthermore, Jesus also argued for the case that even unsaved men can perform natural and civic good. He mentioned that if the Disciples of Christ love only those who love them, they were no different from sinners and pagans, because even they are capable of these things .  Thus, Jesus showed that even unregenerate men can be capable of good things and what was expected of believers was something beyond that.

    This places the distinction between common grace and the grace of God that brings about salvation, which is called saving grace.  The presentation of differentiation of these graces did not mean that there were two kinds of grace, only that Gods grace manifested in the world in two different ways.  Common grace does not bring about salvation.  It is available to believers and unbelievers alike and it did not flow directly from the atoning work of Christ because his death on the cross did not merit forgiveness for unbelievers.  However, it must common grace did flow indirectly from Christs redemptive work because God did not judge the world at once when sin entered humanity.

    There were significant reasons associated for common grace.  This reasons addressed why God chose to bestow common grace to sinners who will never come to salvation.   One of the reasons was to redeem those who will be saved.  The final execution of the punishment is being delayed because there were still people to be saved, in order to save them from perishing.  Grudem noted that God chose to allow sinful humans to live so that the elect will have an opportunity to repent and so that they would bear children that would live and hear the gospel, and consequently repent as well.

    Common grace demonstrated the goodness and mercy of God.  His goodness and mercy is also experienced by undeserving sinners.  His glory is revealed in the universe through his kindness to the ungrateful and the selfish and the compassion that he has over all that he has made.  According to the Book of Ezekiel, As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. 

    Common grace is also given to demonstrate Gods justice.  When God invites sinners to come to faith and when they repeatedly refuse his invitations, this clarifies why they should be condemned.  According to Paul, those who persisted in unbelief stored up more wrath for themselves until the day of Gods judgment.   Furthermore, Gods glory is exhibited through how men and women reflect the wisdom of their Creator through demonstrating God-like qualities of skill, moral virtue and authority.  Even if these activities may be tainted by mans sinful motives, they still reflected the excellence of our Creator and bring glory to God.

Origins of the Doctrine of Common Grace in the Thought of John Calvin
    The teachings of John Calvin enabled the Reformation to go against the dualistic worldview of Roman Catholicism.   It was Calvin who understood clearly the biblical teaching on human depravity.   He recognized the natural mans wretched state before God and extended Martin Luthers argument that nothing good can come from the natural man.   Calvin further argued that if there were anything good that could come from the natural man, it would be influenced by an external force.  More than focusing on the inability of man to save himself, Calvin focused on the sovereignty of God and his grace in the world. 

    Calvins starting point was founded in the general cosmological principle of Gods sovereignty and declared that there was no area that was autonomous from Gods sovereignty.   This became the foundation of Reformed theology, as whole, including Cornelius Van Tils basis for his arguments for common grace.  Calvin gave God the role of the Creator, as well as the preserver and provider for the creation, wherein everything that has happened and will happen on Earth is according to his will.  Since Calvin attributed God this role, rejecting the fact that God can be gracious to all his creations limited Gods grace, power and goodness.

    Calvin described Gods government over mans sinful nature and restrains its destructive nature from the power of sin.  An example that was given to this regard was that even if supernatural gifts were destroyed and natural gifts were corrupted, man could still be differentiated from other creatures because of  some remaining traces of the image of God.  Even if mans nature was corrupted and weak to sin, he still has some level of reason, judgment and will that were sustained by the grace of God.  Luther viewed mans innate God-like capabilities as abilities of a natural man.  However, Calvin argued that the source of the good things the natural man has are gifts from God.  Thus, the existence of goodness in the activity and lives of the natural man was not because of mans ability but because of Gods grace that preserves these abilities in them against their destructive and sinful natures.

    When Calvin talks about grace and how it preserves some level of goodness in the natural man, he is describing his affirmation for common grace.   Calvin was clear when he attributed the natural mans ability to Gods gracious activity and not with Gods redeeming grace.  Even if Calvin saw the existing inborn ability in the natural man and how Gods grace preserves them despite of their sinful nature, he still stressed on the need for man to be spiritually renewed through Christs saving grace.

    It was logical recognize God sovereignty in the recognition that there is sinfulness in the natural man and that they are unable to do anything, apart from the remaining good and gifts that God has bestowed upon them.  The grace of God appeared like the only logical reason to explain why there is good in the world of unbeliever, despite its fallen state.  Calvin pointed out that the good things that are observed from the unregenerate should not be despised, doubted or rejected because the Spirit of God was the only fountain of truth in the world and these goodness can only come from him.

    Herman Bavinck observed that Calvin made a distinction between common grace and particular grace, as well as the work of the Spirit and the sanctifying work of Jesus, which only believers benefit from. 

Bavinck expressed that Calvin reprobation did not mean the withholding of all grace.  Even if man is accepted to be rendered blind to all spiritual realities of the kingdom of God in such a way that they cannot comprehend the special revelation of Gods fatherly love in Christ and the special illumination of the Holy Spirit of the hearts of sinner, there existed a general grace that was available to all men through different kinds of blessings. 

Bavinck pointed out how common grace was made available since the Fall of Man when he used this grace to curb sin and uphold the possibility for mans salvation.  Even if the sinful nature of man was subjected to vanity, nature was upheld by the hope that God implanted in the heart of every human being There is no part in the world which some spark of the divine glory does not glimmer.  On Earth, men still retained a degree of love for the truth and some sparks of the truth has been preserved even for the reprobate.    Thus, as Herman Bavinck points out, Calvin distinguishes common grace and particular grace, the work of the Spirit in the whole creation and the work of the sanctifying Spirit in which only believers participate. 

It appeared that Calvin was the first to use the term common grace.  This term brought about significant questions but the difference that he had placed in the use of common grace and particular grace was evident in his works.  Calvin did not provide a more profound description of this term but he did address it in the face of the questions bout human depravity and distinguished it from saving grace. It was already briefly discussed that Kuiper divided Calvins broad idea of common grace into three categories (1) universal common grace, (2) general common grace, and (3) covenant common grace. 

    The first category that Kuiper presented for Calvins idea of common grace was universal grace.  Kuiper noted that Calvin does not speak often of divine grace, but described it as something that extended as far and as wide as the world.  He interpreted Calvins writings in such a way that he does not doubt that fact that Gods preserving mercy was on all sin-cursed creatures, except for the devils.  Kuiper cited examples of Calvins affirmation that such a grace existed  (Inst., I, ii, 1 v, 6 Comm. On Isaiah 443).  Calvin described grace to be diffused ever all creatures as a universal grace when he commented on Isaiah 443.

    In Psalm 8, Calvin commented on the grace that God distinctly gives to the human race and not to the other creatures.  Kuiper stressed that Calvin was describing universal common grace with his comments on John 14.   The universal common grace described how God preserves whatsoever he created, but that man was adorned the singular gift of intelligence.  Kuipers conclusion according to Calvin was, therefore, all sin-cursed creatures, be they rational or irrational, animate or inanimate creatures, are the recipients of divine grace in this respect --- they all participate in the blessing of preservation.

    Kuiper noted on the numerous times that Calvin was never weary of reminding his readers how God has divine grace in mankind in general and every member of the human race in particular through general common grace.   Furthermore, Kuiper saw Calvins insistence that God is beneficent to mankind and how God manifested paternal clemency toward men in general and bestows upon them many blessings. Calvin also advocated that God loves the human race and show concern about their welfare.  Based on numerous biblical commentaries, Kuiper concluded that God is kind to all human beings and that he allows them to experience Gods goodness and grace, although different in degrees.

    Furthermore, Calvin was said to believe that God bestowed intelligence on all men and preserved it in them, even if it was impaired and corrupted by sin.  However, natural man cannot penetrate the knowledge of salvation.  When it came to heavenly things, the knowledge of natural man is limited because of sin.  It is the Holy Spirit that would illuminate the elects intellect.  This is something natural man will not get to experience.  However, this does not dispel the fact that natural man has knowledge about God and the rule of life.  Kuiper expounded on Calvins affirmation of Gods love for every human being, all men have a sense of Deity, which accounts for the religious propensity which men evidence.  This sense of Deity is as it were the seed of religion. 

Calvin even considered this knowledge that all men possess to be engraved in their minds to restrain them from sin.  It was understood from Calvins commentaries that man can distinguish between right and wrong because of the general common grace of God.  However, Kuiper acknowledged Calvins recognition that the natural mans knowledge of the rule of life is very defective.

In Calvins exposition of Roman 121, he taught that all men were indebted to God for countless benefits.  Calvin, as Gods gift of grace, considered Gods general revelation to men through his countless blessings.  Kuiper interpreted Calvins exposition as the clear evidence of how Calvin spoke about general common grace, as a divine benefit to mankind.  Gods divine goodness was also described to shine in spite of lifes miseries.  Aside from the general revelation that brings knowledge about God, Calvin also believed that intellect, conscience and will were important parts of common grace, which restrained man to sin.   Calvin, as shown by Kuiper, also regarded the special talents of unregenerate men, as Gods gracious gifts, which was aimed to benefit humanity at large.
In Calvins exegesis of Psalm 6819, Christ held devils and all reprobate men were bound by his power in order that they may overturn everything.  This involved the grace of God for the human race, but Kuiper recognized that Calvin did not read that Christ exercised an internal restraint in the hearts of men.  Nevertheless, the common of light of nature that is available for all man remained inferior to faith and cannot enable unregenerate men to enter the Kingdom of God.

The third classification of Calvins view of common grace was related to his idea that Gods gracious activity that was intended for Gods elect and those who live in the covenant sphere or were members of the covenant of grace.  Thus, the third group was the covenant common grace.  He also calls this the grace of adoption, the common grace of election, and promiscuous grace.   Those were elect belonged to the family of the covenant, regardless if they believed or not.  These individuals partake of external blessings of the covenant, in terms of membership and other external benefits.  Promiscuous grace referred to the grace that was made available for individuals who were from the seed of Abraham and the Jews, even those that were hypocrites or believers.   Those who belong to the family of the covenant regardless of whether they believe or not, partake of the external blessings of the covenant, such as membership and certain external benefits.

Calvin stressed out that covenant common grace still did not have a redeeming power for salvation.  However, this grace is available because of the favor he has for the ancient covenant people in the race of Abraham.  This illustrates the possibility that Calvin conceived that it was possible for a reprobate to experience covenantal blessings that were within the covenant but this did not translated to granting him external life.

Kuiper pointed out Calvins writings that described the people of Israel to be the only part of mankind that belonged to God and how exclusive favor was given to them.  Thus, the Israelites were separated from the human race and were known to be Gods possession.  Calvin described the blessing and favor that God had over Abrahams family and his offspring.  He expounded on biblical passages that showed how God promised to love all of the descendants of Abraham.

God bestows his blessings through common grace in an indiscriminate manner because of his goodness. This is what Kuiper and Calvin both stressed upon in their discussions regarding Gods grace.  Calvins overall understanding that was revealed about common grace was an invitation for reprobates to repent and for God to attract men to the knowledge of himself with many and differing levels of kindness.  However, the natural man, although he experiences blessings of common grace refuse to come near to God.   Thus, sinfulness is more evidently observed when it was accompanied by their ingratitude towards Gods grace.

Calvin viewed the effect of common grace to be like the overall impact of general revelation on the natural man.  Just as man has an innate knowledge of who God is, general revelation does not result in the saving knowledge of God thus, common grace reveals Gods sovereignty and kindness, but they did not translate to salvation.  In fact, Gods blessings are often not received with a grateful response.  If the response was positive, the goodness of mankind is temporal, while the temporary enjoyment lasted them.

Similar to other theologians that supported common grace, Calvin insisted that knowledge of the common grace must produce gratitude and deeper love for God.   Furthermore, the blessings that were bestowed upon unregenerate man should not be considered evil.  Rather, they should be viewed the way God created them to be and to use them according to this purpose.  Since God created them for the good of man and not for the ruin, humanity must learn to appreciate Gods common grace.
Shin viewed Calvins doctrine of grace to be related to Christian ethics.  Through common grace, blessings are experienced by both regenerate and unregenerate.  However, since all good things come from God, Christians should not shun the blessings that unbelievers receive.  Moreover, they should not imitate the ingratitude of the reprobate towards Gods grace. 

    The blessings of common grace that the unregenerate receive and their ingratitude towards them reflects that they are worthy to experience Gods wrath and provides a greater reason as to why sin is inexcusable in their lives.   Nevertheless, this did not mean that Christians should not appreciate and recognize the achievements of the unbelievers because these things are still reflections of Gods greatness and glory.   Shin stressed that the doctrine of common grace did not only solve the problem of pagan virtue, but he explained how Christians recognized the goodness of natural man that is sourced out from Gods grace.

    Kuiper reflected on Calvins conception of common grace and how it provides relief for mankind and its exceedingly sinful nature.  Man refused to yield ones self to God in obedience.  However, despite this rebellion Gods faithful that he will be good to his creation.  All of men are under the obligation to worship and serve God because he is their Maker and because he is sovereign.  Mans refusal to do so is a display of rebellion against authority.  However, Calvins conception of common grace reveals a different form of refusal.  It was different when a son refuses to obey a father who has showered him with love and provision than when a servant refused to obey ones master, who has never showed him any love.  This reflected the relationship that man has with God.  It was even graver for man to sin because it was an act of rejection of the love and kindness from a beneficent Father in Heaven.  Calvins conception of common grace provides the realization of the love and the will of God for humanity.  It also highlights the glory of God because of his loving kindness and faithfulness to all of creation through undeserved blessings and protection.

Common Grace in Reformed Tradition

Elements of the Doctrine in the Reformed Confessions
    Cornelius Van Til discussed in his The New Synthesis Theology of the Netherlands how there were significant changes in the direction of Dutch theology.  The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands experienced important changes that sought to be in line with the Reformed Confessions in the traditional sense of the term.   The different declarations of faith from different movements greatly influenced the overall conception of common grace.

The Belgic Confession.  Collectively known as the Three Forms of Unity, the Belgic Confession is one of the three Reformed Confessions, alongside The Heidelberg Catechism and the Five Articles Against the Remonstrants.  There were particular articles that reflected the historical orientation of the doctrine of grace.  This confession served as the oldest doctrines of faith for the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), it is also known as their Confession of Faith, which was presented in 1561.  This confession was prepared to respond to the cruel oppression and persecution that the Reformed faith experienced from other churches and to defend that they were not rebels.  This doctrinal standard was presented to show that they were law-abiding citizens that professed the true doctrine of Christianity, which was based on the Bible.  Guido de Bres, one of the chief authors of the confession, sent a copy of this doctrine was sent to King Philip II, with an address that they were willing to obey the government as long as the commands were lawful and that they would rather undergo torture or death than to deny the truth in their confession.  De Bres was one of those who fell with the thousands as martyrs to this doctrine but this doctrine endured for centuries.  This was described as one of the best symbolical statements for Reformed theology.

Article 12 provides a discussion about the creation of all things.  The Belgic Confession declared that they believed that the Father created heaven and the earth and everything in it out of nothing.  He created the world by his Word, Jesus Christ.  This article also entailed how God designed each creatures being, form and appearance, as well as assigned for them different functions that enabled them to serve their Creator.  

According to Article 12, Even now he also sustains and governs them all, according to his eternal providence, and by his infinite power, that they may serve man, in order that man may serve God.   This article went on to acknowledge the existence of devils and evil spirits, as well as angels. They argued against the Sadducees in their claim that there were no spirits and angels.  They also went against the Manicheans that said the devils originated by themselves without having been corrupted.
The focal point in this article was the section that acknowledged that God sustains and governs all of his creation.  This declaration recognized that his eternal providence, infinite power served man, in order for man to serve God.  It reflected why Reformed theology discussed about the conceptions of common grace.

Article 14 discussed about the Creation and the Fall of Man.  This article declared that God created man from dust and formed him in his image and likeness good, just and holy.  Man was created to be capable of conforming to the will of God.  However, man failed to understand this and did not recognize Gods excellence, as fell into sin through the temptation of the devil.  Sin separated man from God and corrupted his entire nature. 

According to this article, so he made himself guilty and subject to physical and spiritual death, having become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways. He lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and he retained none of them except for small traces which are enough to make him inexcusable.  This article speaks of a belief that man was a slave to sin and that they cannot do anything unless it was given to them from heaven.  Moreover, this article also stated that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God.  Man did not have the ability to produce a single thought, if not for the ability that God provides.  God is also declared to be able to work in man for his will and for his pleasure. 

This article basically reveals that without God, man can do nothing.  Article 14 stated that no one could think a thought if it was not given by God.  Reason and intellect is then given by God, both to the generate and regenerate.   It was also mentioned that man loses excellent gifts from God and retained small traces.  However, these small traces, because they reflect Gods image, can still be perceived by humans to be good, even great.  These small traces were described to make mans sin sufficient to be inexcusable.

Article 36 of the Belgic Confession declared that the depravity of the human race moved God to ordain government authorities, such as kings, princes and civil officers in order to govern laws and policies to restrain human lawlessness and to maintain order in society.  This article focuses on CRCs perspective about civil government.  God was the one who ordained the government to punish the evil and protect the good in society.  

Article 36 described the task of the government to care and watch over the public domain.  However, the confession also reflected how it was also their divine appointment to uphold sacred ministry and to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This article also denounced Anabaptists, anarchists and all who reject the authorities and the civil government.

While this article focused on civil government, it showed that the government was ordained by God and placed for the purpose of restraining sin for both Christians and unbelievers.  No one is exempted from the power of the government and no one is above the law.  Criminals and fugitives may think they are, both the justice system works to place them in detention.  Thus, God works to restrain sin in mankind up to the point of appointing physical restraints through this leaders.  It was already noted that restraining sin was a part of Gods common grace and prevents chaos in society.  This is a grace that benefits both Christians and unbelievers.

The Canons of Dordt.  The Canons of Dordt represented the decision of the Synod of Dordt on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in Netherlands in 1618-1619.  It was described to have an international character because of the 26 foreign delegates that attended the national synod of Reformed churches of the Netherlands.  Like the Belgic Confession, the Synod of Dordt was held in order to settle the controversy in the Dutch churches that was initiated by the rise of Arminianism. The Canons of Dordt was formed to address the points that Jacob Arminius presented against Calvinism in the Remonstrance of 1610.  The Canons of the Synod of Dordt rejected these Arminian views and declared the Reformed doctrine on points such as, unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of saints. The Canons had a limited character because they did not cover a wider range of issues.  However, it was created to address five points of doctrine that was in dispute by Arminianism and this was what was discussed.  The articles that will be discussed will reflect the extent by which Reformed doctrine included common grace.

The 5th article of the second main point of doctrine of the Canons of Dordt talked about the sources of unbelief and of faith.  The article declared that the cause for this unbelief was not God, but man.  Faith in Jesus Christ and salvation from him is a free gift from God.  This article served as the proclamation of the gospel.  This article also included how God sends the message of the gospel through whomever he pleases. It comes with a command to repent and believe.  This article did not touch much on common grace, except for the fact that the gospel should be proclaimed universally and without discrimination.   This enabled the generate and the unregenerate to have some level of knowledge about God.  The redeeming difference will be in the nature of their election.

Article 6 of the same point of doctrine discussed about why some did not believe, despite the declaration in article 5 that the gospel was preached universally and without discrimination.  Many who have been called by the gospel did not repent nor did they believe in Christ.  Instead, they perish in their unbelief.  This did not happen because Christs sacrifice and death on the cross was insufficient or defective.  However, it was because of their sin and their rejection of the cross.  This article used Matthew 2214 as the basis for this conception, For many are invited, but few are chosen.  Hebrew 46 provided a reason why some men will not be saved, It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.

Article 6 also involved Gods eternal decision.  It is evident that some received the gift of faith, while some did not.  This article declared that the decision as to who receives the gift of faith stemmed from Gods eternal decision.   Aligned with Gods decision, he is the one that graciously softens the heart, however hard it may be, of his chosen ones and moves them to believe.  It is also the judgment of God that would leave others with wickedness and hardness of heart for those who have not been chosen.  

The article explained that Gods qualifications for decision is not disclosed to humanity and is unfathomable, however it is also noted to be merciful and just.  The decision was called as the decision of election and reprobation in Gods Word.  This article did not tackle any evident points for common grace.  However, it provided a significant understanding for special grace.  It was important to appreciate the ultimate grace that God offers for humanity and place in perspective the grace he offers for Christians and unbelievers.

According to Article 4 of main point doctrines III and IV, declared that there is some light of nature that was left in man, after the fall.  This light of nature that was left in man retained some notions of God.  It retained their knowledge about natural things, as well as the difference between what was honorable and what was shameful.  These traces of Gods reflection also allowed them knowledge about virtue and outward order.  However, these traces did not allow them to come to the saving knowledge of God and true conversion from God.  According to this article, the little traces of Gods reflection that was left in man were not even used properly in natural and civil matters.  Similar to Article 14 of the Belgic Confession,  Article 4 states that Rather, whatever this light may be, man wholly pollutes it in various ways and suppresses it by his wickedness. In doing so, he renders himself without excuse before God.

This declaration was authored by delegates from different Reformed churches in Netherlands and 26 other foreign countries.  According to this confession of faith, Reformed theologians acknowledged that even after the fall of man, there was still some light of nature that was still present in man.  It is not because of their own ability, neither was it deserved.  Bavinck had a significant reason for stating that God preserved some good in the reprobate man.

In the same major points of argument, Article 9 echoes the arguments from the Belgic Confession as well.  It is not the insufficiency or the fault of the Gospel or Christ that many do not come and are converted.  The fault was given to man.  It was because they did not care and did not accept the word of God.  Others receive it, but they did not accept it in their hearts and so the joy of faith is temporary and could vanish.  This article reflects the responsibility of man, in their rejection of the gospel.  In fact, this article ascertained that it is still God who calls upon them and even bestow various gifts on them.

According to Article 10 of the 3rd and 4th major points of Canons of Dordt, those who were called do come and are converted.  This refers to what has been called as special grace.  The ability to accepted the gospel and receive of its redeeming grace is provided by God and not from mans capability.  God is the one who chooses those who are His own in Christ and calls them effectually within time. 

The Westminster Confession.  The Westminster Confession served as the confession of faith of English-speaking Presbyterians. This was produced by the Westminster Assembly, which was organized by Long Parliament in 1643 during the English Civil War.  The confession was completed in 1646 and was presented to Parliament.  While this was adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1647 and different American and English Presbyterian bodies, even when the Presbyterian confession lost its official status in England in 1660.   This text was widely used by Reformed theologians that did rejected the doctrine of common grace.  Below would be another look as to

Chapter V of the Westminster Confession talked about providence.   This chapter discussed that God created all things and upholds, directs, disposes and governs all creations, actions and things, from the greatest even to the least through his most wise and holy providence.  The purpose was for his praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice and mercy.  By the same providence, can make use of means and is free to work, without, above and against man.  The power of God is overflowing with His providence that it extends to man even after the first fall and even after the sins have been committed.   According to the  6th section of Chapter 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.

Studying the way this was phrased, it would show that God withholds his grace so that the wicked may be enlightened.  It also showed that the term sometimes was used in the frequency by which God withdraws his gifts.  Meaning, in other cases, God provides these gifts freely.  The terms gives them over meant that there are points before that God restraints man from sin.  For God to give them over to sin, it would mean that they struggled against God.  Their sinful nature makes them weak against the lusts and the temptations of the world.  Since man is weak towards sin, humanity will have been destroyed if God did not restrain human beings from sinning.  However, one cannot give something over if one did not restraint or control the object that is let go.

Hoeksema was one of the first that pointed out that they used the term providence and not grace to discuss the kindness that God shows to the unregenerate.  This article reflected that there was no grace that is made available to the unregenerate.  God withdraws form them and exposes them to corruption and sin.  The confession even termed it as giving them over to sin.  According to this confession, it was because they hardened themselves towards God.  The next section of this chapter mentions that As the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures so, after a most special manner, it takes care of His Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.  This describes common grace.  However, those that formulated this confession made sure they did not call it grace and maintained that it was providence.

Chapter VII mentions that there were no two covenants of grace.  They moved that Gods grace was one in the same and that Gods grace did not differ in substance.  However, they did mention that Gods grace appeared in various dispensations, which was not further expounded as to how. Grudem clarified that the doctrine of common grace did not mean that there was two kinds of grace, only that there were different levels by which the grace of God is experienced.

Francis Turretin
    Francis Turretin was a 17th century Protestant theologian and defender of Calvinistic orthodoxy.  He authored the Institutio Theologiae Elencticae to expound on 16th century and to make precise arguments in defense of the doctrines of Calvinism.  There were cases wherein his discussion about the grace of God made him appear to be in opposition of common grace defenders.  A lot of the detractors of the doctrine of common grace also assumed that Cornelius Van Til was also against it.  However, like Turretin, Van Til defended common grace.  Van Til believed that were was some degree of true understanding that unbelievers have for many thing because of Gods common grace.

    Englesma even quoted Turretins commentary on 2 Peter 39 to defend hyper-Calvinism, explaining the passage that revealed that God was not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The will of God here spoken of should not be extended further than to the elect and believers, for whose sake God puts off the consummation of ages, until their number shall be completed. This is evident from the pronoun us which precedes, with sufficient clearness designating the elect and believers, as elsewhere more than once, and to explain which he adds, not willing that any, that is, of us, should perish.

It must be recognized that the context of this statement was speaking about special grace or the saving grace of God, which prevents the elect from perishing. It does not speak of the provision and gifts that the non-elect and elect experience alike.  The context of the verse speaks about salvation and redemption, which was clearly distinguished to be outside of common grace.    In another case, Turretin was also quoted making another commentary on Ezekiel 18, 32, and 33.

Although God declares that he does not will the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live, it does not follow that he has willed and planned from eternity the conversion and life of everyone, even subject to any condition, for ... it is certain that this refers to Gods will as commanding, not to the will of his good pleasure....

Turretin specifically defended Calvinistic doctrines for effectual calling.  He described it as a grace of God in Christ, which meant all men are dead to sin and lost in Adam can receive salvation through the preaching of the Gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit and union with Christ.  The reprobate partake an external calling. However, for Turretin, this did not mean that they become partakers of salvation. 

    According to Turretin, the external call is extended to the reprobate, as well as the elect but in a different manner.  The call was primarily and directly for the elect. It is for their sake alone.  On the other hand, the reprobate experiences the secondary and indirect calling since they mingled with the elect.  According to Turretin, the call could not be addressed to men indiscriminately without the reprobate, as well as the elect sharing in it.  The illustration he used was that of a fisherman casting his net, intending to catch the good fish and indirectly closing his net wherein the bad is initially mixed with the good.  Somehow, this paints a picture of Turretins view of Gods grace in general, wherein the reprobate experience small traces of goodness because of the overall purpose of reaching the elect.

    According to McMahon, Puritans such as Turretin were used by Hyper-Calvinists to defend their case but he argued that Puritans were never Hyper-Calvinists, nor did they have such tendencies. Furthermore, he insisted that Puritans unknowingly refuted the beliefs of Hyper-Calvinism through their works.   Even if Puritan teachings appealed to them,, McMahon stressed that they can never use their writings to fully support Hyper-Calvinism.

Instead of taking the system of doctrine as the entire context, Hyper-Calvinists were said to claim certain theological aspects.  McMahon noted that in order for Hyper-Calvinists to gain any help from the Puritans, they would need to quote them out of the context and that it was often the case.  When Turretin was quoted on his work about call of the reprobate, Hyper-Calvinists would agree.  However, they cannot be consistent with Turretins entire thought about how God loved all men.   Turretin was unswerving in his points, but Hyper-Calvinists were known to pick and choose what they would like to include and not take them in the full context. 

    Turretin also made it a point that all men would have been considered to be predestinate and that no one would have any rational basis to exclude one or the other.  Hyper-Calvinism is a movement that denied that God loves all men in general in any way.  The Puritan view was that God have a general love for men and this was often discussed on the context of common grace or what others cared Gods indiscriminate providence.   Turretin noted that even if the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good.  This reflects a distinction of how goodness is experienced, one is general and the other is special.  Turretin also pointed out that there were different types of love for creation, men and the elect Augustine, Calvin and Edwards agreed.

Jonathan Edwards
    Jonathan Edwards was an 18th century theologian and preacher that defended Reformed theology and Puritan heritage, like Turretin.  His view of common grace was positive, as he views it as Gods restraining grace.  According to Edwards, devils are not absolutely without all true holiness, but they were not subject to common grace.   While the elect were not destitute of saving grace, Edwards noted that those destitute of saving grace are still destitute of common grace.  Furthermore, while they have no degree of holiness, the reprobate was described to have moral virtue and receive some degree of common influences from the Spirit of God.  Cornelius Van Til was a strong proponent of the idea that Gods common grace restrains man from sin.  According to him, He restrains the wrath of man. He enables him by this restraint to cooperate with the redeemed of God in the development of the work he gave man to do.

    Edwards also stressed that those who were given up to sin still receive some degree of restraining grace from God while they live in the world.  According to him, without this facet of common grace the earth could not bear them and they would be intolerable to the members of society.  Once they were damned and cast into hell like the devils were, God withdraws this restraining grace and other merciful influences that his Spirit provides, which collectively can be considered as common grace.  According to Edward, when the reprobate experiences eternal damnation, there would be neither saving nor common grace.  Thus, there would be no true holiness, no moral virtue of any kinds and the increase in the exercise of wickedness.   Edward states, But when men are cast into hell, God perfectly takes away his Spirit from them, as to all its merciful common influences, and entirely withdraws from them all restraints of his Spirit and good providence. 

    Edwards also considered restraining grace to be a privilege that the reprobate man receives.  Natural man are said to be Gods enemies because of mans sinful nature and this makes man indebted to God for giving blessing him restraining grace.  If natural man were Gods enemies, they would do everything that against him.  This meant that the world will be filled with chaos if they were not restrained.  Edward asked, For what has one that is an enemy in his disposition, to restrain him from acting against him to whom he is an enemy   As enemies of God, the natural man has only hatred and no love. Hence, they have nothing within them to restrain them from anything that is bad.  Edwards concluded that because of this restraint was not owed to nature, but to restraining grace.

    Following this perspective, the ability of man to prevent ones self from sinning was not just because one was not bad enough to commit murder. However, it was God that restrained man and kept him back from sin.  It is Gods grace that restrains any degree of wickedness in man.   If someone has not done as bad as Pharaoh, as Judas, the scribes and the Pharisees, it was not because one was better than them but because of the divine restraint on mans corruption.  Edwards commented that all man were naturally Gods enemies as much as anyone else

It is not we that restrain ourselves from the commission of the greatest imaginable wickedness for enmity against God reigns in us and over us we are under its power and dominion, and are sold under it. We do not restrain that which reigns over us. A slave, as long as he continues a mere slave, cannot control his master. He that committeth sin, is the servant of sin, John 834. So that the restraint of this our cruel tyrant, is owing to God, and not to us. What does a poor, impotent subject do to restrain the absolute Lord, that has him wholly under his power How much will it appear that the world is indebted to the restraining grace of God, if we consider that the world is full of enemies to God. The world is full of inhabitants and almost all are Gods enemies, his implacable and mortal enemies. What therefore would they not do, what work would they not make, if God did not restrain them

Edward described Gods work in the restraint that he exercised over wickedness as a glorious work.  He compared the glory of this work to the way God ruled the raging seas and its waves.    From this understanding, he further pointed out that whenever men were withheld from sinning by common grace, they are awakened and they make sense of the great guilt that sin brings and exposes them to its punishment.   God could also restrain them through the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  Edwards also described grace to influence the natural man through word and ordinances, when it came to principles of self-love and restraint from sin.  

    Edwards also described Gods restraining grace as letting men know that there were punishments to disobeying the Word of God.  Align with this, there were warnings, offers and promises through Gods grace.  Edwards added that Gods revelation to mankind about hell restrains mens wickedness thus should be considered as a reflection of Gods mercy.

Charles Hodge
    Charles Hodge is an American theologian and defender of historical Calvinism in the 19th century.  He also served as the principal of the Princeton Theological Seminary in the years 1851 and 1878.  Hodge was a significant writer of Systematic Theology.  He is also known to speak about the Holy Spirit.  Hodge served as one of Van Tils greatest influences.  Similar to Edwards, Hodge views common grace as a restraining force for humanity. However, Hodge attributes restraint to the work of the Holy Spirit, specifically.  Even if the work of the Holy Spirit is primarily directed for the Christian, the Holy Spirit was said to be at work in the world as well, bringing the will of the Father and the Son to pass.  The Scriptures also reveal that the Holy Spirit ministered, especially in scenes of disorder and sin. 

    Hodge described the work of the Holy Spirit to include a special ministry to the unsaved world.  Included in this ministry involved the restraining work of the Holy Spirit, in addition to the work of revealing the gospel.   Hodge provided a definition of common grace in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit

The Bible therefore teachers that the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth, of holiness, and of life in all its forms, is present with every human mind, enforcing truth, restraining from evil, exciting to good, and imparting wisdom or strength when, where, and in what measure seemeth good This is what in theology is called common grace.

John Calvin supported the definition of common grace when he reminded the importance of acknowledging the Spirit of God and that these gifts are excellent for the common benefit of mankind that the Lord dispenses to whomsoever he pleases.  The perception that the Holy Spirit works to restrain man was an important facet of common grace.  The work of the Holy Spirit is also related to divine providence and it gives man the ability to resist sin. 

By the time Hodge was discussing about common grace, it was already a notion that developed.  Kuiper noted that Hodge was the first to discuss common grace in a modern way and different from preceding theologians.   Hodges discussion about common grace was aligned with his opposition to the deistic misconception of how God governed the world

The Scriptures teach that the influence of the Spirit common grace is distinct from the mere power, whether natural or supernatural, of the truth itself and that it is no less to be distinguished from the providential efficiency (or potential ordinata) of God which cooperates with all second causes.

Repeatedly, Hodge associates common grace with the work of the Spirit.  Common grace, as described by Hodge, was the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of natural man and its moral aspect.  Common grace was however distinguished from truth itself and from providential efficiency that are influenced by God on the events of the world and the lives of men.  This goes against David Engelsmas argument that common grace should not be viewed as grace and instead be attributed to Gods providence.  According to Hodges view of common grace, providential efficiency was a source of general material and material blessings upon mankind.  Common grace was considered as the work of the Spirit and it was described to never operate in a direct and immediate way.  This provides a significantly different perception of common grace from other Calvinists because Calvin classified material and spiritual blessings to be common grace, while Hodge limited it to mans moral and rational aspects because of the indirect nature of this grace.  Hodge adopted a narrowed view of common grace, which focused on how God restrains sin through the Holy Spirits work.

Herman Bavinck
    Herman Bavinck was a known Dutch Reformed theologian.  He was one of the leading theologians of 19th century Calvinist revival.  According to Bavinck, grace does not abolish nature but restores it. Just like special grace flowed from the grace of God, salvation was not from the law, instead it was an invitation for faith.  Bavinck described how God links his work of grace in the natural lives of man through creation, redemption, and sanctification that were the work of the Triune God. 

    He rejected the Arminian belief that there was a preparatory grace for saving grace through free will instead Bavinck argued that God prepared the elect through common grace or the grace man experiences in mans natural lives.  Bavinck was also one of Cornelius Van Tils strong influences in his conception of the doctrine of common grace.

    It seemed that common grace was discussed in relation to regeneration and free will.  The Reformed claimed that there was that brings about acceptance of Jesus as Lord and savior.  Without special grace, however rich and wonderful as Bavinck abundant grace for and in humans, but if the grace was not specifically for regeneration people would not be moved to accept the gospel.  Reformed theologians rejected mans free will for choosing salvation because they viewed that it was grace placed it, will be insufficient to save man.

    Bavinck described grace and said that it does not regenerate people yet restores their will to the point where they can opt for the gospel is nowhere taught in the Scripture and is also a psychological absurdity.  Bavinck insisted that this argument gave the Reformed an edge over those that defended free will. Since Gods grace did not waver, it was the covenant of grace that pursues the elect. 

    Grace did not involve force. Bavinck pointed out that there was no godly person that ever associated coercion with grace.  God does not coerce someone to love him and obey him.  His saving grace simply restores man to his original state before the fall of man and aligns man to Gods holiness because of what Christ has done on the cross.  Bavinck described his belief towards the covenant of grace and everyone in the world could experience it in different ways

In the first place, the covenant of grace is everywhere and at all times one in essence, but always manifests itself in new forms and goes through differing dispensations.  Essentially and materially it remains one, whether before or under, or after the law.  It is always a covenant of grace.

Klass Schilder
    Klass Schilder is a theologian from Netherlands and an active critic of Abraham Kuypers conception of common grace.  Kuyper has been a major driving force in Cornelius Van Tils theology, which meant Schilders arguments also went against Van Tils. Schilders view of this doctrine rejected Kuypers common grace because this made Christians and non-Christians share a culture, despite the fact that they had different faith.  To begin with, the main argument of Schilders critic of Kuyper was the fact that his doctrine led to cultural optimism.  Schilder has the opposing view of the how Christians and non-Christians interact in culture.   Kuyper included the building to culture with common grace, however, Schilder believed that the mere fact that there is culture and that man performs cultural labour, cannot be classified under so-called common grace.   Schilder rejected the fact that culture can be achieved through a sin-cursed world because common grace was available. 

    On the other hand, Schilders argument was that culture was based on the fact that there was an urge for man to use ones natural gifts.  Thus, he perceived culture as a natural thing that was created by man.   Schilder sees mans existence to be the factor that maintains the existence of culture.   Overall, he actively denied that culture had to do anything with grace. 

    While Schilder believed that God prolonged time and preserved his creation through the restraint of sin and withholding the curse humanity deserved, it was because God wanted to segregate the people that will go to heaven and to hell.   God withheld the curse and the blessing was observed in order for Gods will to come to pass.  These things also created history for humanity.  If the curse was not withheld and the blessing of Jesus Christ was not delayed, there would be no history.  Schilder disagreed that the restraining of sin and the withholding of the cure was common grace.  If this was so, he suggested that the withholding of the special grace from Jesus should be the common curse.  Due to this differential things that God did for humanity, Schilder could not accept the existence of culture activity after the fall to be grace.

    Schilder argued that common grace was not a source of culture.  He accused Kuyper of being infralapsarian because of Kuypers argument that culture was only possible through Gods common grace.  On the other hand, Schilder insisted that the source of culture was based on Gods eternal decree.  Everything that reprobates were experiencing was to recognize Gods greatness and power for the elect.  Furthermore, Schilder also believed that God already planned culture before the creation began and moved it on its course for eschatological fulfillment.  Schilder explained that culture existed a cultural mandate from God, wherein man has the duty to culture from the beginning of time.

    Like Hoeksema, Schilder criticized Kuypers use of the term grace because it implied undeserved favor.  He also noted that Kuyper permitted a shared culture between the reprobate and the elect. For Schilder, it was a big issues as to what should be permissible and for him a shared creation of culture, even through the grace of God should be rejected.  It seemed that Schilder gave the responsibility of the creation of culture to be on man, instead of Gods grace.  He viewed it as mans duty, which was commanded before creation and even after the fall.  However, sin affected the creation of culture and made it corrupt.  It was when Christ came into the world to redeem mankind that somehow affected the creation of culture.

Christ, before the countenance of God, took upon Himself the burden of the world, He became the Redeemer of the world and its culture.  He also gave  from now on a Christologically determined  meaning to all cultural activity.

    Schilder argued that after the fall, the antithesis became inevitable.  This was not in terms of nature but in how nature was used, thus in culture.  Schilder placed the antithesis between cultural activity in faith and in unbelief.    Furthermore, Schilder described that mans activity on nature was affected by sin and redemption and failed to create a unified outcome.  It seemed that a large part of Schilders argument could fall when it would be argued that a lot were taken away in the fall of man.  Only traces of Gods goodness were retained, these goodness that was retained creates culture.  However, it God was not gracious to mankind, he would not have given what they deserved, which was to preserve their talents and abilities to create culture.

    Schilder replaced the common grace doctrine and substituted it for the common mandate doctrine, which was he has mentioned to be given since the beginning of time.  Furthermore, Schilder insisted that there was no antithesis between God and nature, God and history, God and creature, but there was between grace and sin.  It was Christ that made restored culture.  However, the grace of Christ is not available for the reprobate, which makes the argument on unstable grounds.  Schilder insisted in placing Christ in the center of history, but rejects common grace, as something, which God provides for humanity

History is the framework of Gods redemptive work in Christ. Hence God does not condemn history and nature, but through Christ he condemns sin and restores nature and history to their pristine purpose. This is the secret of culture.

Herman Dooyeweerd
    Herman Dooyeweerd was a 20th century Dutch philosopher.  His work received support from Cornelius Van Til.  He agreed with S.G. De Graaf in his rejection of any kind of relapse in the dualism of the formulation of common grace. However, there was a point of disagreement in the sense that Dooyeweerd found that the distinction between special grace and common grace was valid.  Dooyeweerd described the source of common grace

There is no realm of common grace independent from a realm of special grace in Christ Jesus. The Fall turned the heart, the root of creation, away from God. Creation therefore, had to be reborn in its root through Christ. Special or saving grace can therefore not be a separate realm. It touches, as did the Fall, the supra-temporal core, the heart, the root of all temporal creation. Common grace does not touch this supra-temporal root, but only the temporal ordinance of life God halts the decomposition caused by sin. But this common, merely temporal grace of God has no other root than Christ Jesus. The grace of rebirth, given to us by God in Him, is the true hidden root of common grace which must be made evident in the church as organism, that is, in Christian unfolding of life within all temporal structures of reality. When, by Gods common grace in this sinful temporal life, culture, learning, art, family and political life, etc., are still possible, the inescapable call comes to the Christian to make Christ, as true Root of creation, as King of all temporal life, visibly manifest. For the Christian this task makes political life also a holy Christian calling. It is true that under the rule of common grace Christs kingdom cannot come to unbroken realization, for the power of sin continues to turn itself against this kingdom until the last day, but fundamentally in the root of Creation the victory has been won by the Lamb of God, and creation, in all its structures, has been maintained, saved, redeemed

Dooyeweerd insisted that special grace was directly concerned with the supra-temporal root of mankind, while common grace was restricted to mans temporal life.  He was concentrated on the realms by which particular and common grace were intended for, but refused to place a dualistic distinction between them.  Dooyeweerd opposed the idea of the separation between creation law and salvation.  

His idea of cosmic law was contained within the saving power of Jesus Christ.  Dooyeweerd considered Jesus as the King of common grace, while others did not connect common grace to Jesus Christ, instead he did not understand Christ apart from common grace.   Furthermore, he insisted that the Creator was not the only source of common grace.  He viewed that common grace was rooted in the Savior.  Furthermore, Dooyeweerd said that without law there would be no sin, however without this the existence of the creation would not be possible. The law was an important factor in discussing about common grace. Since man cannot be saved by law and sinned because they cannot uphold the law, Jesus Christs role as a redeemer is understood better. 

    Dooyeweerd insisted that common grace should not be dualistically separated to particular grace.  He supported that there is only one grace of God.  He moved for correcting the previous dualistic distinction between common grace and particular grace in Reformed Theology.  This highlighted the trouble in Kuypers doctrine of common grace and its tendency to be dualistic.  Dooyeweerd emphasized on the validity of the distinction did not translate to valid arguments due to the independence Kuyper attributed to particular grace.  Dooyeweerd described that this made him fall in the dualistic motive of nature and grace.  He also preferred to use the term particular grace to special grace. 

The bigger argument between Dooyeweerd and Kuyper was from the fact that common grace and particular grace were both from Christ. Kuyper limited common grace to the Creator and particular grace to the Redeemer.   Thus, Dooyeweerd concluded that particular grace was the root and foundation for common grace.  Kuyper maintained that the conserving activity from common grace served as a presupposition of particular grace, which placed him in trouble from critical accusations of falling for dualistic Christian thinking.  This was why Dooyeweerd needed to present the view that common grace was rooted on particular grace in order to avoid the danger of relapsing into dualistic thinking.

Louis Berkhof
    Reformed theologian, Louis Berhof was best known the precise presentation of doctrines in his Systematic Theology.  He was a professor in the Calvin Theological Seminary for 40 years.  During this time, he has taught Cornelius Van Til when he was a student in the seminary. His work expectedly followed the lines of John Calvins theology.  He also accepted the development of Reformed Theology led by Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.  His work presented

    Berkhof perceived the Word of God as the most important means of grace.   This was a term that connoted whatever ministered to the spiritual welfare of believers such as the Church and the preaching of the Word.  In connection with this grace, he distinguished between the law and the gospel.  Berkhof insisted that the law and the gospel should not be considered to be antithetical, as it was done during his time.   When the law is limited to a covenant of works, they fail to see it as a means of grace.  The law, as a part of the Word of God, reflected the necessary character and will of God.  The law required that the elect to believe in the Bible and the gospel aimed at the fulfillment of the law in the lives of Christians.   This is a significant part of the discussion because it is also the law that highlighted mans fallen state, which appreciates Gods gracious activities, whether for redemption or for restraining sin.

    The doctrine of common grace was significantly explained in Berkhofs Systematic Theology.  The basic understanding that he formulated for common grace, which describes the blessings and natural course of life, which was not redemptive but exhibited many traces of the true, the good and the beautiful.  The whole world was under the curse of sin because of the fallen state of man, however, it can be described to be orderly despite of this curse.  The earth still produced fruits in the season and is not left with thorns and thistles.  Berkhof was also concerned with how man was able to retain knowledge about God, the natural things, the difference between good and evil, and showed regard for virtue and good outward behavior.  

    Berkhof stressed the popular defense of Reformed theologians that there were no two kinds of grace of God but one.  There is one grace of God that manifests in different gifts and operations.   Berkhof described the highest manifestation of Gods grace was seen through the gracious operations that were aimed at restoring mans soul and the ultimate salvation of sinners.  While this was considered as the most glorious grace of God, this was not the only manifestation of his grace.  Common grace appeared in the natural blessings of God that he showers on mankind, despite the fact that the reprobate faced the sentence of death.  Berkhof described the general description and activity of common grace. He has similarities with Hodges perception, wherein it is the Holy Spirits work that manifests this grace.

In general it may be said that, when we speak of common grace, we have in mind, either (a) those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted or, (b) those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him.

Berkhof also discussed the difference between special and common grace that were similar to that of Kuyper and Bavinck.  He has specific descriptions wherein he described special grace to be irresistible and common grace to be resistible.

Berkhof also addressed the important discussion regarding the connection of common grace with the atoning work of Christ.  Kuyper was known to reject the connection because for him Christs redemptive work.  Instead, he believes that common grace flowed from the work of creation.  Berkhof questioned, How can God continue to bestow those blessings of creation on men who are under the sentence of death and condemnation This introduced Berkhofs affirmative argument for the connection of common grace with the atoning work of Christ.

These general blessings of mankind, indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ, were not only foreseen by God, but designed by Him as blessings for all concerned. It is perfectly true, of course, that the design of God in the work of Christ pertained primarily and directly, not to the temporal well-being of men in general, but to the redemption of the elect but secondarily and indirectly it also included the natural blessings bestowed on mankind indiscriminately. All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ.

Furthermore, Berhof also discussed the relationship between special grace and common grace. Special grace was described to be spiritual and supernatural on the other hand, common grace was natural.  While there was some form of connection to how the elect experiences special grace, common grace cannot remove sin or free man.   Berkhof also pointed out that common grace had both an independent and a dependent purpose.  The latter referred to the purpose of common grace in the redemptive work of Christ in the lives of the elect.  Furthermore, its independent purpose was to bring to light and harness the service of man, restrain evil and to develop talents for the human raise. 
Berkhof also systematically presented the fruits of common grace.  The first of which was the execution of the sentence, which God delayed due to common grace. Instead of carrying out the sentence, God maintained and prolonged the natural life of man and gave him time to repent.  The second fruit was the restraint of sin.  Through common grace, sin is restrained in the lives of individuals and in society.  Berkhof also noted how common grace preserved the sense of truth, morality and religion.  It also enabled man to perform outward good and exhibit civil righteousness.  Natural blessings or tokens of Gods blessings were also said to be experienced because of common grace.

John Murray

    Scottish-born John Murray was a Calvinist theologian.  He was also a professor at Princeton Seminary.  However, he left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary where he taught for a significant time period.  Murray was considered as a significant contemporary of Cornelius Van Til.  Murray defined common grace as, every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God. 

    Murray also discussed the different aspects of common grace in his Collected Writings of John Murray Systematic Theology. The first aspect was God restrained sin and that Gods common grace prevented man from reaching his potentiality from sin.   He agreed with Jonathan Edwards that if sin was not restrained, it could turn the soul of man into a fiery oven.   Murray also pointed out how God restrained the full extent of his wrath. God also restrained evil.   God also bestowed bounty through creation and blessings on the unregenerate.

    The purpose of common grace for Murray included that was connected to saving grace.  One of the glorious purposes of grace was to glorify the entire body of Gods elect and ultimately glorify Gods name. Murray also moved that without common grace, there would also be no redemptive grace.  He viewed common grace to be necessary for man to come to faith and that there would be nothing left in the human race if not for common grace.  Murray stressed that,  Without common grace special grace would not be possible because special grace would have no material out of which to erect its structure.

    Murray was one of the defenders of common grace that actively stressed the connection between special grace and common grace.  This active defense for this connection supports the argument that common grace could be attributed to the redemptive work of Jesus, because of the end purpose that was associated to it.  Murray was very vocal in the relationship of common grace with special grace, wherein these manifestations of grace were sourced from the Jesus sacrifice on the cross.
It is true that many benefits accrue from the redemptive work of Christ to the non-elect in this life. ... Hence all the favors which even the reprobate receive in this life are related in one way or another to the atonement and may be said to flow from it.

Summary
This chapter illustrated the biblical and historical orientation of Reformed Theologys doctrine and common grace, with a specific reference as to Cornelius Van Tils conception of contributions to this doctrine.  It presented the foundation for this papers discussion in terms of the opposing views regarding common grace and the significant arguments that were presented over the years.  
The biblical basis for this doctrine served as the introduction for this chapter.  It was followed by the discussion of how John Calvin envisioned the doctrine of common grace.  An analysis of the contributions that Calvins theology had to common grace was critical because his standard was important in Reformed Theology discussions.  Different confessions of faith were also presented and understood in relation to the development of this doctrine.  Furthermore, the arguments and stance of different theologians towards the doctrine of common grace were also considered in relation to Cornelius Van Tils arguments for common grace.


CHAPTER III
Abraham Kuyper, the Architect of the Doctrine of Common Grace
God does not love individual persons but the world.
Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia
Historical and Theological Settings

    Dr. Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman, and theologian.  He was the founder of the Revolutionary Party and was declared the prime ministers of Netherlands from 1901-1905.  During the time wherein society did not view religion and politics did not mix, Kuyper was able to excel in the field of politics.  Kuyper wanted to re-create the Christian perspective of politics and society that would become the basis for Christian social action. 

    The work of Kuyper was based on his desire to press the catholic claims of the truth of Christianity, which led him, as well Bavinck to promote the doctrine of common grace.  Through this doctrine, the Reformed theologians could maintain the character of Christian religion and provide an appreciation of everything good and beautiful that God have given man.  Through this doctrine the seriousness of sin is maintained and the rights of the natural man were maintained in a simultaneous manner.

As a party leader, a prime minister and a theologian, Kuyper was able to develop a sophisticated Christian social and political theory.  His theoretical conception included the following principles.
(1) Divine authority for, and sovereignty over, human state life (2) the divine origination of the state for the preservation of the human race in face of sin (3) the responsibility of each sphere of life (family, education, church, business, etc.) to follow Gods ordinances (4) the mutual obligation of government and citizens in the constitution of civil government (5)
the antirevolutionary spirit of obedience to government on the part of the citizenry (6) the necessity for positive, civil laws to reflect the law of God which demands public equity and (7) recognition of the fact that the possibility of having a relatively just government is due to the common grace of God.

Kuyper was described to create his own theological view based on Scripture, instead of adopting a conservative or a radical stance about the issues.  It allowed for continuity in the midst of change in society and also maintained Biblical emphasis on justice.   During that time, many Christian thinkers lapsed because of their radical or conservative thinking without creating adequate models by which their Christian theories could be built upon. Kuyper was able to offer Christians with perspectives that provided a dynamic and viable Christian alternative in the phase of secular challenges to theology.

The legacy that Kuyper left to the Reformed church was significant because of his development and promotion of the doctrine of common grace.  The Protestant Reformed Churches was founded on their shared rejection for this doctrine.  Their argument was that God has one grace, his saving grace, in Jesus Christ and that it was only allotted to his elect.   They also insisted that God never showed any grace to the reprobate. Much of the CRCs doctrine was deeply rooted in the Kuypers conception of common grace.

Much of Kuypers adoption of Calvinism was because of the context of intellectual and spiritual struggle in his time.  There was a need to revive Calvinism in an age that Kuyper called as the prevailing storm of Modernism.  This was a period that was characterized by influence of the humanism in Christianity because of the emergence of liberalism in religion that affected its reconstruction.  As a member of the Reformed faith, he was moved to do something about the influence of this humanistic movement, in the phase of a general atmosphere of discouragement in Christian churches.

Kuyper observed that there was an attitude that valued practicality and mysticality among Protestant Christians, created a sense of disappointment for him.  The so-called ethical theology that was brought about by liberalism caused churches to be focused on practical actions, whereas their so-called, pietistic evangelism separated the world from the world with motives of legalism, instead of holiness.  Kuyper was distressed by this lack of compassion for the world. These churches were criticized to have forgotten their duties in the reference to humanity at large and the sphere of humanity.   Those that were focused on being practical also lost sight of what the Scripture taught and became similar to modern humanists in their perspectives.

In short, disappointment arose in Kuypers mind when he saw that on the one hand those Christians who tended to be practical had lost sight of the truth of Scripture and consequently were not much different from the modern humanists in their principles of practical action, and on the other hand the mystical Christians were merely striving to avoid contact with the world outside of the church. Kuyper also observed how the Lordship of God over the creation, which used to be a significant part of Reformed tradition was taken for granted.

    Since Anabaptism was one of the dominant influences in the 18th and 19th century, Christian churches departed from the doctrines of Reformed tradition.  Kuyper insisted that something needed to be done against it because it was viewed to be a variant of Roman Catholicism.  Kuyper believed that only a revival of Calvinism could help them see that they were following false worldviews.  The revival of Calvinism became the only way for Kuyper to fight off the humanistic movement of Modernism. 

    Everything that was going on in the church painted the picture for the setting by which Kuyper emphasized on common grace in the revival of Calvinism.  He saw common grace to be a Christian doctrine that would deliver Christians from the dualistic influence of Anabaptism and the false sense of antithesis between the church as the kingdom of God and the sin-cursed world.   Thus, there were significant efforts from Kuyper to develop Calvins doctrine of grace, because of his significant concern for Christian action.  His background in theology and politics revealed how his perceptions were built. 

Kuyper presented the doctrine of common grace as the solution to the dangers of Romanists and Anabaptisms dualism.  Common grace was significantly viewed to be Kuypers way of promoting cultural formation, and at the same time fight the battle of God in the world.  It was something that balanced the needs of the church.  Common grace then provided platform for Christian action in culture.  This doctrine served as a presupposition for action in the Christian world.

Shin stressed that the difference between Calvin and Kuyper in their conception of common grace revolved around the fact that the latter had the motivation of encouraging Christian action in the world.  On the other hand, Calvins common grace theology was created within the context the Christians early journey towards heaven.  As a statesman and politician, it was understandable how Kuyper developed his ideas for common grace in the context of culture and Christian action in the world.  Calvin intended to prevent Christians from despising the way God gave good gifts to the reprobate, while Kuyper presented common grace to enrich culture and enabled Christian action in the world.   The intention of Kuypers doctrine of common grace was to make Christians aware of their cultural slumber and to direct them to true Christian action Gods glory in the world.

Common Grace Constant and Progressive
    Kuyper described the constant and progressive aspects for the doctrine of common grace. The doctrine involved two aspects that benefited the individual and the universe.  Both aspects come together to fulfill the will and purposes of God for mankind.

Basic View  The Restraining Effect of Common Grace
    The essence of Kuypers doctrine of common grace was how it restraint the destructive process of sin.  Like special grace, it presupposed the doctrine of the sinners total depravity.  The latter doctrine dictated that man cannot save himself and cannot do any good apart from the grace of God since all men were born of sins. 

    Common grace had a negative, constant influence in the restraint of sin.  This restraint had an effective in man and in the universe.    This restraining grace was given in order to prevent the power of destruction in nature.  It maintained order in the world because of the destructive nature of the fallen state of man and the chaos it would entail for society.

    Kuyper viewed constant aspect of this doctrine as the gracious nature of God to preserve the world after the fall.  Without this restraining grace, the world would be destroyed in mans fury to commit sin.  Culture and history was possible because of Gods restraining power over mans wickedness.  Kuyper stressed that it was only through Gods graciousness that the world was saved from absolute destruction from sin.  God restrained man from sinning in different degrees in order for creation to be preserved and for His plans to prevail.

    This aspect of common grace is significant because it withholds the curse and punishment of sin up to a certain degree in order for culture and history to develop.  While this was not the grace that regenerates the human nature and saves the soul, it provided the setting by which salvation can take place.  Restraining grace and saving grace were significantly correlated.  Kuyper perceived common grace to have an independent purpose and function than saving grace.    It did not impact the spiritual state of man because it was not regenerative.  Instead, it was material and temporal grace.  It restrains the human up to a certain extent restrain the man from sin.  However, as the sinful man continuous to reject this grace and continues towards the path of sin, God was declared to give these sinners over to their destruction.  When God gives sinners over to their sin, evil continues to be experienced in the world.  This was evident as to why there were crimes and wars existed in the world.  The main purpose of common grace was for the worlds preservation.  According to Zuidema, common grace has a significant purpose in carrying out the will of God in the world.

The outermost limit to the operation of common grace is that it restores the original condition of Paradise and, without recreating, reduces the Fall and its results to a minimumCommon grace checks the operation of sin and the curse on sin, and in principle makes possible again the unfolding of creations potentialities and the development of the creature.  It fosters this unfolding, nourishes it, strengthens it.  It makes for a grace-endowed nature nature remains nature  the re-creation is not shared in by nature  but common grace curbs the destructive operation of sin and postpones the curse on nature in fact, in the realm of the temporal and the visible (i.e., quite apart from mens hearts) it even enables people to do the good, the moral good, the civic good, opening up the possibility of progress in the life of creation.  Thus, next to the stemming of sin and curse, common grace in Kuypers view also operates for progress  it serves and promotes cultural development and progress, and makes these possible.

The preserving function of common grace could not be separated from particular grace.  Within Kuypers perspective, common grace actually served particular grace.  For particular grace to be able to perform its redeeming activity, there was a need for mankind to persevere.  If the world failed to exist due to evils destructive force in the world, there would be no mankind to save.  According to Kuyper,  the world must continue, men must be born, the course of history must show progress.  In order for the ultimate grace of God to be experienced in the sin-cursed world, the world needed to be protected from the destructive power of sin.   In a way restraining grace saves humanity because it prevented destruction, however, Kuyper pointed out that this grace only saved in a natural way.   Zuidema described Kuypers common grace to compare common grace to particular grace, like creation is to re-creation. 

A Broad View of Science and Culture
    While the restraining aspect of Kuypers was constant, there was another aspect that was progressive.  Gods purpose for common grace was not simply to make human life possible, if it was so there would be no exhibits of art, science and any other development in society as long as life could be maintained.  While Kuyper discussed extensively about the restraining power of sin in the first volume of his De Gemeene Gratie, his second volume discussed about how God provided for humankinds progress.

    According to Henry Van Tils perception of Kuypers second aspect of common grace, It was in his common grace to all mankind that God as the supreme architect of the world brought progress in providence, which is the fountain of human history.  Whereas the restraining aspect of this grace had a negative influence in unleashing the power of sin, this progressive aspect has a positive influence in promoting civil good. 

    Unlike in the constant aspect wherein God moves alone, this doctrine served as a culture-forming and activating power in the world, wherein man worked as an instrument and co-worker of God.  Through common grace that mankind experienced, God revealed himself as the supreme architect of the world and brought about social progress through his providence.  The progressive aspect of common grace became the fountain of human history.  One of the issues during Kuypers time reflected that Christians experienced world flight or most of them separated themselves from the world and denied participation in society.  This aspect of common grace attempts to explain that the hand of God was in society and culture as well.

    God provided the gifts and talents of individuals in society, regardless whether they were elect or reprobate.  Human history ran its course for the self-glorification of God.  Even if common grace worked in a natural realm, it was significant in making the world know about God and his glory.  This was the reason why common grace was viewed to be included in Gods eternal decree.

    While common grace maintains and controls human life, it could not stop at the constant operation. Kuyper did not see any sense of maintaining a world for preservation.  Thus, the second aspect of common grace had a different operation, which involved a process of development.  Kuyper saw the course of history to be unintelligible if there was no progressive and constant operation of common grace.  The progressive aspect of grace works through Gods providence for the development of society and equips human life better against suffering it also enriches culture.

    Thus, culture is considered as a gift of common grace, which was rooted in nature.  Culture, as a gift of God, benefits both believers and nonbelievers.  Since it was something that God authored, even if the reprobate man takes part in it and corrupts it it does not take away its gracious character.  Culture remains to be an unmerited, undeserved reflection of Gods mercy.  Thus, cultural subjects maintained a sense of Gods reflection and morality.  Even if man is unable to perform spiritual good, he is able to impart talents, abilities and civic righteousness that would develop society.  These acts and impartations are seen to be positive, in a sense that they were beautiful, good or true.  This showed that God was manifested through the characteristics of cultural objects.

    Kuyper fought against anyone who rejected culture, in the sense that they denied that Gods hand was at work in it.  Culture was significant for Kuyper because the universal human development in every field of culture will surely carry over into eternity, minus the baleful influences of sin, of course. This was based on the verse from Revelation, which described how the glory of the nations would be brought to heaven.   Kuyper also believed that the personal achievements that were achieved on Earth in terms of cultural development will be with the elect in heaven and would not be lost in the new earth.  These works that would be carried over into eternity were the results of the labor from particular and common grace.  Kuyper even used the Parable of the Talents to prove this argument.   He concluded that culture has an eternal future, however he maintained that areas that were interwoven with sin will perish, but the substance and basic meaning of such areas will be retained in the new earth.  Even if common grace provided culture formation, as history progressed there appeared to be increasing conscious opposition in the kingdom of Christ.  Evidently, this constituted an abuse of Gods common grace.

    Similar to Calvins approach, Kuyper had a strong sense of social consciousness.  He viewed individual initiative to result from Gods movement.  It was also a product of societys development from a primitive state.  Along the lines of social good and development, Kuypers cultural philosophy can be understood.  The way he viewed things reflected his work as a statesman.  He was able to bridge politics with theology through the convergence of civic righteousness with common grace.

    Kuyper attributed the possibility of building history and cultural products through common grace.  History and cultural products were created because of Gods love for man still.  Henry Van Til warned against making Kuypers common grace doctrine from being abused through employing uncritical appreciations of the secular culture of the unbelievers.  It was important for Christians to appreciate the worlds culture through the Word of God, rejecting anything that constituted to sin.  Kuyper stressed that common grace remained under Christs kingship, thus culture and every aspect of it should be under his purposes.  Van Til highlighted the role of Jesus in culture, Christ holds the center of the stage of history, of which Christ is the Redeemer, not only eschatological but also presently. In short, Christs kingship is a present reality.

    Common grace broke down the barrier between Christian and non-Christian realms when it came to different aspects of culture such as in the sciences, in art and in other areas of societal advancements.  This doctrine encouraged Calvinists to seek God not only in Scripture but also through nature, in the production of human industry, and in the history of human race. 

    Art was a product of Gods gift to mankind.  It was a reflection of the glory of God through his created image-bearers.  It was God that created these realities by which art reproduces in unreal creations of art, wherein man imitate God when man produces in a finite manner products of reality.   Kuyper described beauty, as expressed through art, was an objective quality of human mind because it was an expression of divine perfection that was impressed in the minds of man through experiences with creation.  This enabled art to have the ability to provide the world with a glimpse of higher reality than what was available in the sin-cursed world.  Furthermore, Kuyper viewed art as reminders of the beautiful that were lost in the fall of man.  For the elect, art had the mystical task of imparting anticipation for what was to come.

    Kuyper was as a realist that did not deny the fact that culture, all aspects of it, could be a promoter or a foe of faith. Culture could become an obstacle to faith worse it could advance godlessness in the world.  Kuyper was aware of the arguments of Hoeksema that rejected common grace and denied that culture was built by both believers and unbelievers because of it.  Kuyper viewed the godlessness that culture promoted as its abuse.  He even viewed the appearance of the anti-Christ as the acme of cultural achievement. 

    Kuyper perceived two levels of cultural advancements, wherein one level was technical and intellectual, while the other was ethical and spiritual.  The increase in the development of the former level of culture meant the gradual degeneration of the other level.  Thus, as history progressed so would opposition against Christ increase.  This was an abuse of common grace, which was evident era of culture.

    Common grace affected the broader cultural field, such as architecture and medicine.  Kuyper claimed that science belonged to the order of creation, not to the order of redemption.   It provides understanding for men in technical manners and gives them additional knowledge and craftsmanship in the arts.  Kuyper was one of the defenders of the independence of science.  Even if science was historically developed under the protection of the church and the state, it was not an offshoot of either institution because it had an independent root in creation.   Furthermore, Kuyper argued that it was common grace that enabled non-Christians such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to produce science that Christians benefited from.  Despite the impact of the fall, common grace restores, at least the natural aspect that enabled the human mind to grasp and understand the created world. Science was perceived as the counteraction of the consequences of the fall.

In the field of science, the difference between a Christian and a non-believer would not count when they involve themselves in simple scientific methods.  This was because the grace that was in movement was common grace, which functions in the natural realm, not in the spiritual. While logic and observation are neutral activities, the field of interpretation is greatly influenced by particular grace.  Kuyper noted that, This is so because science is not vitiated by subjectivity but by sin, from which the whole antithesis between truth and falsehood is born.

    When it came to the field of science, Kuyper viewed faith to be the presupposition.  Faith was needed in order to begin a scientific process.  It was described as the function of life of the soul, which was fundamental for human consciousness.  The rational pursuit for an unproven axiom was fueled by faith.  Thus, Kuyper did not see the conflict to emerge between science and faith.

    Kuyper viewed Calvinism to be the restoring force of science in its lawful domain because it urged man to preach Christ as the cosmic redeemer.   It was by him that all were made and it was for him that all things waited.  Cornelius Van Til described Kuypers argument for the progressive aspect of common grace, in terms of the development of science in the realm of this doctrine
It was Calvinism which restored science its indispensable liberty, that is not the liberty of license to deny and seek the glory of man, but liberty from the tutelage of the church, under which it was groaning during the Middle Ages.

Sciences liberty is described as indispensable because there was a need for it to develop or to grow according to the law of its being.  Common grace was the force of God that makes this field advance. Scientific knowledge did not come from mans nature.  Sins destructive power destroys everything, including knowledge.  It cannot function for something progressive.  Thus, it was Gods grace to preserve in man traces of his image and likeness that enabled mankind to experience scientific advancement in society.

    Kuyper perceived the purest expression of Christian Faith, through Calvinism to have a significant contribution to science.  The formation of the doctrine of predestination, Calvinism activated scientific investigation and fostered the love for science since Calvinism rejected the idea that heaven can be earned through human works, the energies of man were directed towards the earth and shifted their attention to fulfilling the cultural mandate.    Science sought unity of comprehension, harmony, plan, stability and order.  These things supported the said doctrine, which viewed that all things come to pass after the counsel of God.

Kuyper described this to influence the demand for science, even among the Christians.  On the other hand, science, as a part of culture, cannot define mans essence of totality.  Science was merely an expression of man and an aspect of how he transforms culture.  While man is considered as a cultural being, it does not define him because his knowledge and talents in producing scientific advancements was not rooted out of his nature, but it was a reflection of Gods glory. 

    Science was a means of Gods graciousness for the fallen man.  Through the sciences of medicine and jurisprudence, man could achieve moral and natural good.   Analyzing mans participation in the advancement of science, it would be mans privilege, given his fallen nature, to be co-workers with God or to be instruments of God for cultural formation.   It was considered grace because it is something that man does not deserve.  The fall of man caused the seed of Adam to lose kingship over nature, by which culture was posited.

Kuyper pointed out that it was because God sends his common grace that mans power over nature is restored in scientific advancement.  Mans achievements in science reflect a diminishing of the curse of the fallen man, which is made possible through common grace.   This was one of the ways by which Gods image was exhibited in mankind and the fruits of this exhibition would enter the eternal kingdom.

Kuyper rejected the two-level theory of truth, which divided the religious and ethical spheres from the scientific.  He maintained that what was true in the religious realm should be true in the scientific.  This went against the Modernists that affirmed the resurrection of Christ as a religious truth, but rejected scientific investigations for it because of their claims that it could not be historically verifiable.  Kuyper lived during a time wherein Normalists, view the world as being normal today and could change through eternal evolution, dominated the field the field of science.  Abnormalists believe that a disturbance took place in the past and that only a regenerating power could the final attainment of its goal.  Sons of palingensis (regeneration) were not able to obtain any position in the European academe.  During the age of Renaissance, the Naturalists and Humanists became fully aware of presuppositions that created a struggle between the forces of God and the forces of the enemy in the field of science.  The latter argued against the doctrine of revelation and pursued scientific revelations that pushed God out of the picture, in the realm of science. Kuyper urged his fellow believers to continue their scientific pursuits by setting up their own laboratories. 
While critics viewed Kuyper to be intolerant of non-Christian scientists, Kuyper insisted that it was the Normalists that were intolerant against free science because they did not allow differences in opinions to exist.  Normalists also did not have consciousness of sin, the certainty of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit this prevented them from allowing evidence to be tested for theories of human knowledge.  Kuyper saw that there was a need to stand against the Normalists because if their consciousness were accepted as the basis of truth, mankind would be lost.

According to Kuyper, the interpretation of the universe and God needed to have unity with one pattern.  Kuyper presented the ultimate antithesis, which dealt with the enemies in the context of the whole domain of life. He was not concerned with attacks that only dealt with parts of the problem and neglected the rest.  Kuyper made everything exist in connection, even within the antithesis between common grace and particular grace. 

The Antithesis
Kuyper was one of those that made the significant contributions in terms of differentiating common grace and particular grace.  While regeneration was a gift received from special grace, common grace cannot have power to receive eternal life with God.  Van Til quoted Kuypers vivid illustration as to the distinction between common and special grace

It common grace keeps down but it does not quench. It tames, but does not change the nature. It keeps back and holds in leash, but thus, as soon as restraint is removed, the evil races forth anew of itself. It trims the wild shoots, but does not heal the root.  It leaves the inner impulse of the ego of man to its wickedness, but prevents the full fruition of wickedness.  It is a limiting, a restraining, a hindering power, which brakes and brings to a standstill.

    Kuyper found common grace to be necessary to attain the highest development for the glory of God.  Through common grace, the natural man could not do spiritual good, only civic righteousness.  It was particular or special grace that enables mankind to experience and exhibit such morality. 

    One of the services of common grace was to give particular grace a basis for operation.  Particular grace was enabled because in the first place, common grace restrains the sin in individuals and society and diminished the curse in order for humanity to be preserved.  Through common grace the world remained and the people that would be regenerated were enabled to exist.  Thus, common grace produced the conditions needed for the Spirit to pour out upon the elect the power to carry out the great commission of Christ.

    Kuyper presented the controversial claim that believers and unbelievers alike could be used by God to build history and to form culture.  The building of history and the formation of culture were both needed by the Church to carry out its evangelistic mission.  For example, a government was needed to maintain the peace and order in society in order for pastors to preach the Word of God.  Kuyper viewed the possibility of the antithesis between the kingdom of God and the world to be a product of common grace.

    It was discussed that the progress of history could also reflect a growing opposition for the kingdom of God.  An abuse of common grace by the reprobates required the discussion as to how particular grace influenced culture.  It was an understandable, almost expected tendency for man to abuse the progressive aspect of common grace because of their fallen nature.  It was significant to understand what particular grace meant to the world in order to explain why God even allowed for common grace to exist

    Particular grace is that gracious inclination of God toward elect sinners, with whom he has reconciled himself for the sake of Christs vicarious atonement on Calvary. As a result, Christ with all his benefits is conferred on these chosen sinners, out of free sovereign grace. This redemptive plan and process is effectuated in the lives of Gods people through his Spirit, by regeneration, sanctification, and preservation. By this operation of special grace sinners are renewed in the center of their being through the Spirit and are grafted into Christs spiritual body, so that they become subject to him as Lord and King and are dominated by the expulsive power of a new affection. The new creation thus formed belongs to Christ.

    Kuyper described the two-part influence that particular grace had on common grace, which was direct and then indirect.  The indirect part of particular graces influence was the way it enabled Christian faith to make life flourish.  The Word of God and the church had significant roles in society by which it strengthens, enriches and elevates the quality of life.  The church was described to catholicize the human spirit.   In this claim, believers and unbelievers alike could receive benefits from this grace.  When the church was blessed, the nation or the city could receive an overflow of this blessing.  Kuyper argued that only civilizations that had roots in Christian religion were true civilizations.  He also described Christian faith to give freedom to the powers of common grace and delivers the elect from sin and enslavement from nature. 

    The direct influence of particular grace was manifested through the cultural subject, which was the regenerated man. The regenerated man experiences a change in spiritual and ethical nature through regeneration and he becomes a new creature. 

According to Kuyperian philosophy, there existed two humanities.   Kuyper based the cultural antithesis between these two worlds.  There was a humanity that lived under enmity with God and will face judgment one day.  This humanity is consisted of the reprobates that only experience the common grace of God through the restraint of sin and the blessings of different cultural aspects. 
On the other hand, the new humanity was the church.  The church, for Kuyper, was an organism that was driven by the Holy Spirit and under the Lordship of Jesus.  It participated in the culture through common grace to fulfill Gods creative purposes.  It is also impelled by common grace in origin and goal to the spiritual, as it infused the entire being of its members.

The believers heart, as well as every other aspect of his being is affected by particular grace.  The kingdom of heaven is not experienced only at an eschatological period, but as history progressed, in the present.   However, it is the task of the church to participate in cultural formation to fulfill the cultural mandate of God, through common grace.  This meant that Christians should not exclude themselves from the world wherein they reject participation in culture formation. 

Christians were strongly urged by Kuyper to participate in the field of science.  He stressed that Christians should not leave this field to the unregenerate because the world would be lost, if this were the case.  They were also encouraged to take part in art and in other areas of culture. 

The conflict between the presupposition between different kinds of people in the world, the reprobate and the elect also created different scientific endeavors.   Despite the fact that it was often considered as the conflict between faith and science, Kuyper rejected this antithesis.  Instead, the conflict was between different scientific systems or different scientific elaborations, each system have its own level of faith for its pursuit. The different systems came from two kinds of people in the world because of special grace and its regenerative activity.  There was group that received particular grace and participated in culture to glorify God and then there was the group of people who denied regeneration and rejected Christian religion. 

Kuypers antithesis of consciousness that divided Christians and non-Christians was an important contribution to the common grace doctrine.  It was important to acknowledge different waves of human consciousness, especially in the discussion of common grace.  The regenerate and the unregenerate cannot have identical consciousness.  In the field of science, there were different starting points, especially if was in their scientific pursuits, thus it was difficult to find areas by which they would agree.  Since they come from different presuppositions, their conclusions about the world would be different.

This produced the creative tension between the recipients of common and particular grace.  Kuyper rejected any isolation of scientists from Christian institutions from those in the secular ones.  He even viewed an overlap between the scientists from the different streams of consciousness.  Kuyper admired the geniuses of Plato, Aristotle and Immanuel Kant.  However, their brilliance were not because of who they were.  It was because of the talents they received from God and the purposes that he has for them. 

    The struggle in the intellectual and spiritual realm in the age of Kuyper highlighted different antithesis discussions.  Kuyper fought against the Anabaptist dualist worldview because of the influence they had in creating an antithesis between the world and the church, instead of between nature and grace.   Instead of the difference between particular and common grace, the antithesis separated the church from the rest of the world.  This external antithesis forced the church to withdraw from the world.   However, another product of the Anabaptists world versus church view was for the church to take control of civil life and remodel it.  Kuyper actively pointed out the effects of Anabaptist dualism, which either resulted in world flight or exaggerated control over the world. 

    Kuyper emphasized on the antithesis regarding the different uses of nature, through the perspective from the differences between particular and common grace.  Much of the criticism that was thrown at his theology was based on the way Kuyper presented common grace as the common ground to faith and unbelief.  One of Kuypers greatest critics, Schilder denied the doctrine of common grace and insisted that it was the foundation for the conflict between faith and unbelief.  Schilder pointed out that Christians and non-Christians could not achieve perfect cultural works instead they could only create Christian fragments.  However, this does not dispute Kuypers insistence for Christians to participate in cultural formation.   However, Schilder believed that Christians should not join the cultural labor with unbelievers, denying the existence and purposes of common grace.

    Zuidema viewed Kuypers doctrine to provide justification for the acceptance of dialectic, polar relationship between the domain of common grace and the domain of particular grace. The antithesis provided the fact that common grace did not exist without accepting antithesis, as well as heeding to the call to Christian action for Christ.  Christian action was birth out of the gracious activity of God for the elects regeneration. 

    The sphere of common grace could be considered as the sphere wherein the recipients of common grace can administer the blessings of common grace.  It was a sphere wherein Christian activity could be developed.  Kuyper viewed common grace served as the platform by which cultural tasks could be acted out.  Thus, common grace was the presupposition by which Christian cultural activity was made possible.  Zuidema observed that common grace made the antithesis possible. 

    Kuyper argued for the organizational antithesis in the domain of common grace and for the need for the organizational antithesis.  In De Gemeene Gratie, there were a difference in emphasis between common grace and particular grace.  The latter work of Kuyper focused on the dangerous character of common grace when it was abused. Even if he had positive things to say about the fruits of common grace, Kuyper maintained a certain point of reservation for the product of common grace.  The reservation was made for particular grace and for Christian action.  It was ultimately the longing of Jesus and the participation of the Christians in forming culture that would ultimately provide for a better society. 

Anderson described Kuypers illustration for the organic unity of common grace and particular grace in Jesus Christ, which presented implications for the theology of science.  This provided the distinction between Christian and secular science, which cannot be made absolute.  The Christological unity of common and particular grace relativized the antithesis and prevented a separation between them.  Thus, Kuyper pointed out the eschatological reunion of Christian and secular science.

    There was an antithesis that was always maintained between common grace and particular grace.  At the end of the day, common grace was only common grace. When the world ends, it would be gone because there would be no sin to restrain and no culture to build.  There was something that was higher than common grace that counted.  Particular grace was valued over common grace.  This was noted as the only thing that remains when the world ends.

    In the context of the antithesis, it was significant to understand how the treasures of common grace from the kingdom of the world can be used for driving the kingdom of Christ. 
This connection was Kuypers strong conviction.   While there was more discussion about the positive influence of encouraging Christian action, there was also an increasing opposition that rejected the positive work that comes out of common grace.

    It was mentioned that the progressive aspect of common grace was divided into two areas, which were the technical-intellectual culture and the moral culture.  The former was described to cause the decline of higher values of humanity.  Thus, the conscious antithesis against the kingdom of Christ can increase from this aspect because Christian culture upheld, fostered and pursued higher values.  Critics of Kuyper viewed the doctrine of common grace to promote the rejection of morality and embrace technical and intellectual knowledge.  However, the solution was not in the denial of common grace.  It was in the promotion of Christian action through particular grace and common grace.  While particular grace had nothing to do with fields of technical and rational language, mans motive for advancement would be renewed because of particular grace.  Particular grace aligns their presuppositions with the will of God. 

    This summoned Christians to consider the antithesis and open their eyes to the reality of the antithesis.    This was intended to fuel the hearts of Christians to move and take their part in culture for the glory of God.  Kuyper intended to inspire Christians to come out into the open in the face of increasing hostility against Christ.  Kuyper intended Christians to create their distinctive organizations in the public sector and to represent Christ in those areas of culture. Thus, Christian action was always a priority for Kuyper.  

Creation-Mediator and Redemption-Mediator   
    Kuyper had presented a clear definition between common grace and particular grace.  However this distinction caused him to offer different postulations of Christ, as the source of grace.  He attributed common grace to Christ as the Mediator of Creation and particular grace to Christ as the Mediator of Redemption.   However, Kuyper always viewed common grace to be directly and indirectly related to particular grace.  Even if Christ was viewed as the source of common grace, Kuyper illustrated that the Creator gave common grace and the Savior gave particular grace.  This controversial distinction was something that Kuyper promoted because he did not want to connect the benefits of common grace with the redemptive work of Christ.  Having experienced the redemption of Christ through particular grace, Christians would be able to engage in action in culture through the grace of the Redeemer.

    It was important to point out that Kuyper did not assume that the antithesis was between the saved world and the lost world.  Instead, he discussed the antithesis between common grace and particular grace.  The antithesis was made the basis for Kuypers polarity when it came to the source of the grace.  While there is one source of grace, Christ, Kuyper insisted that common grace could not come from Christ the Mediator of Redemption.  In the interest of rejecting the Anabaptist worldview, Kuyper made common grace independent from particular grace, but later on showed the cooperation between the two manifestations of these unmerited gifts from God.

    According to Zuidema, the doctrine of particular grace and the Kingship of Christ as the Mediator of Redemption were the closest to Kuypers heart, despite the fact that he held an independent purpose for common grace and carved out an autonomous domain for this doctrine.  The question the spurned out of the relative polarity of the source was how Christians and non-Christians shared the common race and culture of God, when they were under the blessings of common grace from Christ, the Mediator of Creation.  Kuyper pointed out that Christians both received both common grace and particular grace, however he was hard pressed in denying the commonness between Christians and non-Christians.  The appropriation of different sources of grace exhibits this, as well as the differences in the cultural activities that Christians and non-Christians produced.

The polar dualism that Kuyper attributed to common and particular grace was based on the two lines of the essence of things, wherein there is an eternal in the Logos and existence in the matter, which was brought about by creation.  The duality in man in terms of the being and the nature corresponded to the essentia and existence in the doctrine, which called for the doctrine of common grace.  The duality place Kuyper on thin ice of adopting Thomism dualism.  Followers of Kuyper such as S. J. Ribberbos needed to make corrections in Kuypers doctrine and placed emphasis on atonement and presented Christian culture to be a product of justification, instead of sanctification.   Christ was the source of common grace in terms of being a mediator for it.  However, common grace could not be attributed to the cross of Christ. 

It was Kuypers Christology that he sought synthesis for the two manifestations of grace in the latter part of his life.  In the second volume of De Gemeene Gratie, Kuyper argued that God created and redeemed the world through Jesus Christ.  The root of common grace was Jesus Christ because he was the firstborn of all creation and the root of common race because he resurrected from the dead.   Christ as the Mediator of Redemption was characterized by his act of taking the flesh and blood of man.  Taking a human nature, Jesus gave himself as a remission for the sins of mankind through a covenant of grace and reconciliation.   The regeneration of the elect cannot be made possible without the mediation of Christ through his death on the cross.   It was the fact that Christs redemptive act does not have any effect on the reprobate that he could not consider common grace to root from Jesus as the Savior.  This reflected Kuypers connection for common grace and particular grace, as well as their difference.

Kuyper illustrated the difference and connection of common grace and particular grace to a single tree with different branches with one root.  Anderson described how different branches came from the same tree but from one root, thus having a single life.

Kuyper gave a wonderful twist to his metaphor here. The spheres of common and particular grace have a common root in Christ. After the fall, those spheres diverge like different branches, each responding differently to the effects of sin upon creation.  But branches grow together again, retaining their distinction, but forming in their interwovenness a unified canopy of grace.

    A doctrine of providence that was centered on Christ could provide a viable framework in considering the relationship between common grace and particular grace in culture.  It was the divine providence of God that moves in the development of the different aspects of culture, especially for the discussion about science.  Anderson defended Kuypers theology for the source and function of common grace and particular grace as he stressed, a Christocentric doctrine of providence preserves both the commonality of creation and the particularity of redemption without fusing or sundering Christian and secular science.

Dooyeweerd was a follower of Kuyper.  However, he believed that common grace was rooted and founded on particular grace.  For him, it was because Christ died on the cross that common grace was available.  This disagreed with Kuypers argument that common grace enabled particular grace to be experienced.  Kuyper viewed common grace as the conserving activity that occurred in order for particular grace to be sent.  Dooyeweerd pointed out that the Mediator-Creator and Mediator-Redeemer as the source of common grace and particular grace, respectively, was dangerous because of the dualistic image it presented.

Predestination and Freedom
    God was viewed to send his common grace without a particular regard for the stature of the chosen vessel.  Kuyper described this doctrine to be available for both the unregenerate and the regenerate.  However, it did not have the regenerative power of particular grace.  Furthermore, mankind can reject common grace.  Since common grace restrained mans sin, it was noted that when man struggle so much against Gods restraining grace, he gives them over to their sinful desires.  At the same time, the purpose of common grace to build a culture that glorifies God when man abuses common grace through letting evil infiltrate culture, they reject common grace.  Nevertheless, common grace was simply about Gods expression of goodness towards all his creatures. 

    Particular grace, on the other hand, enabled man to re-enter the Kingdom of God a man must be reborn.  While common grace enabled the fallen man to do good, particular grace creates the ability in man to be good.  Furthermore, while common grace works in all men, particular grace was meant only for the elect.  Kuyper described the view of mans case in the face of total depravity, the world goes better than expected, but in view of redemption the Church goes worse than expected. The world seemed to be in a better state given the fact that man was depraved. However, given the fact that redemption was offered to the elect, it seemed that the world was in a dire state in this world. 

    The original sin was the root of total depravity.  It was the root cause of it.  However, the wages of in was death.  Thus, no man can save ones self because exists in their life because of their sinful nature.  When man refused God through sin, it seems as if they were exercising freedom.  However, it was clear that this supposed freedom was a delusion for the bondage of their sinful nature.   The fallen man was a slave to sin.  Thus, the fallen man is not free.

    By nature, man would not will salvation.  No man willed it unless God turns his will around.  Thus, the elect were not saved because of their faith but because God willed them.  This was why they were saved by the grace of God.  The Westminster Confession dealt with the matter of divine election.  This declaration of faith voiced out the belief that God predestined those that who pleased and how they would be effectually called by his word at his appointed and accepted time. This was made possible by the grace and salvation of Jesus Christ.  The elect were made willing by Gods grace. 

    There was a degree of freedom in slavery.  However, slavery was inescapable. Thus, man could not escape their sin.  They were trapped and unable to free themselves from sin.   The freedom that lacked from mankind, God was the one that provided for.  The tendency towards sin and unrighteousness was likened to gravity wherein man fall freely.  It was only when a free-falling man attempts to go the opposite direction when he realizes he was falling unidirectional and downward only.  Since man does not know that he is in complete bondage, he views himself to a state of freedom.  When a man thought that he was free and did as he pleased, it accelerated his degeneration.

    Through predestination, God converts the unidirectionality of will into a bidirectionality, thus setting it free.  Before man was not free to do good since he had no choice but to sin and his direction was towards sin alone.  Election enabled man real choices.  Man was redeemed to have freedom to choose the direction they would go, in terms of obeying God or disobeying him.  However, more than being provided with alternatives, as opposed to having none, the Holy Spirit empowers the believers to prefer righteousness.  

    Thus, particular grace turned man from being in the negative to the positive.  Walking in the light of this grace allowed men to live in Gods light and changed the hearts of men.  It enabled the predestined to increase move upwards by choice.  Gods work in man was not just to do his will but to will his will.

    The salvation that was given to the predestined was not only Christs payment for the penalty of sin.  It also broke the bondage of the will towards sin.  Without it mans condition was hopeless.  The hopeless condition of man was no so obvious to the world because of common grace of God that worked to restrain sin.  It masked the consequences of hell.  If these restraints were taken way, the fallen mans true nature would be revealed. 

    Common grace limits the fallen mans sinful activities.  However, while common grace restraints man, it does not change the fact that he would remain moving downward into sin.  It does not provide a bidirectional movement, wherein man could choose whether to choose sin or righteousness.  Common grace also prevented man from sinful activities.  A freed man has the power to choose between good and evil.  Furthermore, particular grace also enabled man to prefer righteousness to sin, for the glory of Christ.     

It was through predestination that man was only able to express true freedom.  Without predestination, man would not have the freedom to choose between good and evil.  They would be limited to doing evil or being restrained from it.  Thus, when the redeemed man was provided with the choice, it meant he was freed from the bondage of sin and could choose righteousness because of this freedom. 

The salvation of Jesus brings about a rebirth in the elects spiritual life.  It also enabled them to have a better ability with their fellow men, not because of civic righteousness but because of the love of Christ.  Furthermore, particular grace enabled man to have a renewed mind and body that was free.  Thus, the regenerative process of predestination and salvation was a work of God, without which the elect would be left in the slavery of sin.

    The critics of Kuypers doctrine of common grace emerged in the later discussions of common grace in the Reformed circle of theologians.  Hoeksema offered significant objection to Kuyper.  There were different issues that were associated with this doctrine.  One was the cultural significance of common grace and another was the theological problem as per how God described the reprobate.   

    The extensive discussions that Kuyper presented in the doctrine of common grace earned him the title as its architect and promoter.  This was a doctrine that came about as a result of Anabaptist dualism, wherein Christian churches either separated themselves from the world for pietistic concerns or massively tried to control culture for practical concerns.   Kuyper presented common grace to balance out these extreme reactions to Anabaptism. 

    Common grace had two aspects that importantly addressed the issues that were emergent in his time.   Both aspects of common grace were received in the natural realm.  While they were sent by God to fulfill his will, common grace did not have regenerative or spiritual effects on man.  The constant aspect of common grace restrained man from sin.  It allowed the world preservation because of the destructive nature of the power of sin. Without the restraining grace of God the world would be in chaos.  While Gods common grace prevents man from sinning, the restrain was limited.  On the other hand, the progressive aspect of common grace involved the talents, abilities and intelligence that man bestows upon man for civic righteousness, history building and culture formation. 

    Kuyper was accused of falling into the mistake of dualism because of his differentiation in the source of common grace and particular grace. The antithesis between common and particular grace existed concerning their role in cultural formation and in their source. While he maintained that Christ was the source for grace, it was exhibited in different ways depending upon the receiver of the grace.  

    Kuyper actively stressed that particular grace was from Christ as the Mediator of Redemption, while common grace was from Christ the Creation.  Particular grace allowed man to participate in Christian action, in such a way that their motive for using common grace was to glorify God.  Reprobates only saw the benefits of common grace through their selfish eyes. It was for their individual and social good.  They could do things that glorified God, but this was not their intention.

  Common grace allowed them to do good, which included activities for cultural formation and history building.  But because the redeemed man was made good by the blood of Christ, he participates in culture with a revelation of Gods will and purposes.  Furthermore, the predestined man does not only experience restrain from sin, he has the freedom to choose because he was given freedom from sin.  With this freedom, the redeemed man is also blessed with the ability to be good.  This meant that aside from being presented with choices, they also have a preference to do what was righteous because of their love for God.


CHAPTER IV
Van Tils Understanding of and Contributions to the Development of the Doctrine of Common Grace
When we speak of the attitude of God toward unbelievers we must take into consideration the total picture of the unbelievers relationship to God. Thus the gifts of rain and sunshine to the believer are the gifts of a covenant God who has forgiven the sins of his people, and who knows that his people need these gifts. In a similar way, the gifts of rain and sunshine to unbelievers are gifts to those whom God hates, and are given because they too have need of those things to fulfill the purpose that God has with them
Cornelius Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology

Early Formulation of the Problem 
Christian Reformed Synod of 1924
The Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 that met in Kalamazoo, Michigan was one of the most defining moments in the history of Reformed theology.  The CRC was tasked to serve as the adjudicator between the traditional view towards common grace and the challenge posed by the CRC ministers, Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof.  They rejected the doctrine of common grace because it was against the doctrine of total depravity. The recommendation of this synod sided with the view of Kuyper and everyone that defended common grace and presented three major points for the doctrine of common grace.  The 1924 synod provided affirmation for the doctrine of common grace.  The synod began through accepting the doctrine of common grace.  The acceptance was made in the form of Hoeksemas denial of this teaching.

    The synod made numerous observations and suggestions that were not included in the final analysis.  There were different issues that were included in what John Bolt referred to as the road not taken.  The synod dropped discussions such as the hints from Hoeksema about the one-sided emphasis on the divine sovereignty and the decree of God at the expense of human responsibility.  These were areas that were dropped together with other issues that were eliminated from this discussion. 

    The synod presented three points that had an open-ended stance for further discussion, with some warnings against the misunderstanding and misuse of the doctrine.  The three major points that emerged from this doctrine are as follows

Point I
Concerning the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the elect, the Synod declares that it is certain, on the ground of Scripture and the Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen unto eternal life, also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to all His creatures. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt II, 5, and III and IV, 8 and 9, where the general offer of the Gospel is discussed while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

Point II
Concerning the restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and Confession, there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Belgic Confession, Art. 13 and 36, where it is taught that God through the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains sin in its unhindered breaking forth, as a result of which human society has remained possible while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

Point III
Concerning the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good (Canons of Dordt, II, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt, III and IV, 4, and the Belgic Confession, where it is taught that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

    Van Vilet observed that the Synods declaration was the source of Cornelius Van Tils basic understanding about common grace.  However, the richness of his construction was built directly on Kuypers theology, which enabled him to depart from some of the theoretical and practical declarations of the Synod.   The synod concluded with a warning against any dangerous risks that misunderstandings and abuses could create.  They warned against any one-sided drive to take this issue to the extreme.

     Bolt described the aftermath of the ambiguity that the synodical decision experienced.  While it did not stop the concerted ecclesiastical decision against Hoeksema, it also did not satisfy not stop Hoeksema and his supporters from pursuing a dispute against this doctrine.  Hoeksema argued that the conclusions of the synod were too ambiguous that it was incapable of settling the issue.  The congregation divided because of CRC was unable to reconcile the differences between Hoeksemas rejections and their synodical decision to defend Kuypers common grace. 

    The Three Points of the 1924 synod spoke of common grace that was related to sin.  James Daane was one of Cornelius Van Tils critics in his discussion of Van Tils so-called common grace problem and based his initial criticisms on this relationship.    The synodical declaration and Van Tils conception of common grace can serve as a starting point to understand points of differences between the two theologians arguments.  Daane argued that outside of the sin, commonality could not be established.  He insisted that the 1924 Synod did not discuss grace and sin without both of these ingredients present.  The following discussions below will reveal why Van Til followed majority of Kuypers argument, which included to the discussion of common grace, its role in culture formation and history.

The Commonness of Common Grace
    When it came to the discussion about common grace, the term common always catches broad debates. The familiar question was about how common common grace was.  Cornelius Van Til expressed his qualifications for commonality. 

We conclude then, that common grace is not strictly common.  The common grace that comes to believers comes in conjunction with their forgiven status before God the common grace that comes to unbelievers comes in conjunction with their unforgiven status.  Externally considered, the facts may be the same, but the framework in the two cases is radically different.

    Van Til insisted that the facts of history should not be taken separately because it could disregard the manifestation of Gods favor and wrath.  History was significant to Van Til because it presented the extent of commonality between unbelievers and believers.  According to Van Til, there was a need to have a concrete thought about God in order to have a concrete through about the created world. 

    Daane noted that the 1924 Synod was clear that there was a divine favor that was shared by the reprobate and the elect.  He criticized Van Tils position that described common grace as an attitude of God, which Daane viewed to be a bare, unqualified commonality and which is equally relevant and real in sinless as in sinful time However, Van Til claimed that the term common was more adequately applicable to the idea of Gods grace, since that attitude of God towards the elect and the reprobate could not be described as such.  He stressed that it was significant to recognize that Gods attitude towards a reprobate was like he was a reprobate.

    When considering the attitude of God towards the reprobate, it would be contextual to understand the unbelievers relationship towards God.  It was different with the gifts that God sends to both believers and unbelievers such as rain and sunshine.  These were things that creations needed to exist.  Beyond providential gifts, God still provides good gifts to those whom he hated because the reprobate also had things that they needed in order for them to fulfill Gods purposes in their lives. The Pharaoh was an unbeliever yet God gave him the ability to rule his kingdom and build great infrastructure.  There were many accounts in history wherein God was able to use pagan individuals for his purposes.  This was one of the reasons by which Van Til had high regard for history.

    Van Til described how God gave men and nations everywhere whatever they needed in order to experience a natural life and for their civilization to survive.  These were given in order to accomplish Gods purpose for their lives.  It was noteworthy to point out that God had a purpose for everything he had created.  Article 12 of the Belgic Confession declared that God that sustained and governed everything he created.  This included the reprobate.  Moreover, Gods reasons for sustaining his creation were for them to serve him. 

    Furthermore, God restrained man from their natural tendency to do evil.  Van Til used Romans 214-15 to explain how despite the innately evil nature of man, they were still able to know the law of God.  Van Til called it Gods gift to sinners, when they were prevented from becoming the full extent of their demonical character from exhibiting. 

    Van Til declared that common grace was not strictly common.  The context of common grace differed according to the recipients status before God.   Van Tils perspective also held Christian action with great importance, in the same manner that Kuyper does. The Bible reflected the way the Lord treated his enemies and exhorted how Christians should do the same

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

    God requires this of Christians because he himself consistently reveal examples wherein he was good to his enemies through giving them good gifts that were not limited to the provision of rain and sunshine, but in providing talents, abilities and intelligence for the development of culture and the welfare of society.  Christians were asked to have the same attitude toward them. However, like God, they were not to forget that they were haters of God.  Nevertheless, Christians were called to do good to them in spite of the fact that they continued to sin against God, just like God is.  This was also for them to accomplish Gods purposes in their lives.  In the same way, God also warned Christians against judging them because absolute judgment was reserved for God. 

    Van Til also encouraged Christians to have a positive perspective about the blessings that reprobates received.  God loved the work of his hands, even if they included these unbelievers.  This called for the elect to rejoice with God as history unfold to display the righteousness of God.  It was possible for God to use non-believes to carry out his will because he is a sovereign God.  This was possible even in the background of a revelation of Gods wickedness and their misuse of common grace.

    Schilder stressed that the absolute antithesis between Christians and unbelievers culture and denied that there was any level of commonness between them a view that was rejected by Van Til.  According to him there was some degree of commonness in the activities of the reprobate and the elect, however, the differences were only based on epistemological inconsistencies between them.  

    Van Til noted that Christians and unbelievers shared everything on a metaphysical level.  This simply meant that both groups of people had the same God and the same universe by which they lived in.  They were also both made in the image of God.  The product of sin and the effects of redemption in the elect created the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate on the epistemological level.  However, since culture existed on a physical level, Van Til posited that there existed a certain level of commonality between them, as they shared the same universe they lived in.

    However, since there was a spiritual difference between the elect and the reprobate, there was a tendency to view one another as enemies.  In fact, they were truly enemies because Gods enemies were also the enemies of Christians.  If common grace did not exist, the fallen man would be vessels of destruction because of the power of sin in their lives.  On the other hand, because of Gods saving grace, Christians could see the reprobate, even if they were enemies of God, with love and compassion.

    Van Til warned that despite the fact that the reprobate continued to abuse Gods blessings and remained to sin against God, Christians could not conclude that God did not have a sense of favor on them. To push the point further, Van Til pointed out that there was reason to believe that there was a sense of disfavor for the elect, because in spite of the new life they received he still sins against God. Thus, favor can be upon the reprobates because of the good that is in them, which God himself provided through his common grace.

     Van Til pointed out different points that emerged from this revelation.  There was a perspective from the Arminians that Gods favor was qualitatively the same between the reprobate and the elect.  On the other hand, those who rejected common grace argued that God could not show favor for the reprobate. Van Til maintained that there was only the Word that could settle this confusion.  Van Til argued to make Scripture the standard of our thinking, and not our thinking the standard of Scripture.  

    Thus, if there were a need to look for the commonness in the discussion of common grace, this commonness can be seen in the ability of the saved and the unsaved to sin, and their similar ability to do good.  After all, Van Til pointed out that mans activities were all analogical.  No man, not even the elect, can do anything good apart from the grace that God provides.  Since history and the Scriptures reflected instances wherein pagans were able to reflect hints of goodness, this showed Van Tils point about how God enables a reprobate to do good.

    All of mans activity, whether intellectual or moral, is analogical and for this reason it is quite possible for the unsaved sinner to do that which is good in a sense and for the believer to do what is evil in a sense. 19   Van Til provided numerous Scriptures that proved that God was good to all and that his mercies were over all his works.  However, he also cautioned his people against misinterpreting Scripture and to keep in mind that Gods people were in the center of his blessings and that his goodness spills over to mankind.  Furthermore, there was a significant reminder that God does not overlook iniquity in the face the blessings that he gives to the unbelievers.   A review of Gods blessings would also reveal that Gods favor was greater over the people he calls his own or the elect.

Even when God gives great gifts to unbelievers, they are, in a more basic sense, gifts to believers. Gifts of God to unbelievers help to make the life of believers possible, and in measure, pleasant. But this does not detract from the fact that the unbeliever himself is in a measure, the recipient of Gods favor. There is a certain joy in the gift of life and its natural blessings for the unbeliever.

    Another important lack of commonness between the believer and the non-believer can be determined after a reprobates life is over.  The joy that the non-believer experienced on Earth would be lost once he faces eternal damnation because common grace cannot provide salvation for the sinner.  On the other hand, Gods glory is established even in the works of the reprobate.  Van Til went further to speculate that God experiences satisfaction on the temporary joy that unbelievers experienced because of these blessings.  This was probably because the Bible declared that he exhibited love in all he does.  Thus, he finds satisfaction in being able to express his love to his creations, even if it was on a temporary time period.

    Van Til further discussed the attitude that Jesus wants believers to have towards unbelievers.  Jesus commanded his apostles to bless those that cursed them and do good to those that hated them.  

    Thus, Jesus required Christians to love their enemies and to avoid from expressing attitudes of hostility towards them.  Van Til pointed out that one could never know if this person would be a believer one day.  This was an argument that was aligned with the non-discriminatory manner by which the Gospel must be preached.  More than that, God was setting the standard as to how believers should treat unbelievers.  It was the standard that he himself had set through his provision of common grace.

    Thus, Van Til showed here that common grace was not so common in terms of the perceived purposes that recipients would have towards common grace.  While unbelievers could view manifestation of common grace as provision from a supreme being or from nature, believers see this as a standard for Christian action and attitude. It reveals to the believers the extent of his love.  His goodness to the unbelievers revealed that while their ultimate destination was destruction, God still loved them.  This love was reflected in such a way that while they were still on Earth and while they were not yet given over completely to the enemy, he provides for them good gifts that were beyond necessary provision for survival.

    Daane pointed out that Van Til held that God had the same attitude for believers and unbelievers.  However, Van Til was clear in expressing that even if love and favor were available for both of them, he stressed that Gods love was never the same sort when it came to loving his children.   The commonality was not in the same nature and extent of love and favor.  It was more of the common availability of these things, but it did not necessarily translate to similar levels of intensity.

    Van Til pointed out that no one really knows whom God intended to save and those he did not.  Daane posited that Van Til offered an untenable position for the commonality of Gods grace.  However, it was true that no one could really know who were to be members of the elect and the reprobate because God reserved final judgment to himself.  The commonality could not be specifically qualify because there was no way to know for sure whom God made his saving grace available to.  One could not judge and declare one a reprobate, thus avoiding the task of preaching the gospel to a certain person.

    Van Til stressed out that it was the duty of man to repent, as it was the duty of man not to sin.  The call of repentance was viewed as the justification for their punishment.  It revealed their evil nature, which was worthy of damnation.  It explained why they would go to hell. 

    Common grace worked to give meaning to the case of God against the fallen man.  It renders the reprobate unwilling to save himself from sin. It was not because God abandoned them.  On the contrary, God provided restraint and even gave them the ability to do good.  Yet, they still sinned and abused the common grace of God.  Thus, the lack commonality of common grace would be shown in the response of the recipient to the grace of God in the natural realm.  Even if God restrained the reprobate from sin, he could still sin.  It was observed that God gives the sinner into his sin, as he rejects the restraints that God places around him.  Since common grace provided external control for evil and external promotion to do good, the internal nature of the reprobate is unchanged and remains sinful and susceptible to sin.  Van Til described the grounds for commonality within the context of common grace, which were attributed, as a part of Gods plans for carrying out his sovereign will.
In this manner the ideas of Gods general providence, his general revelation, the remnants of the image of God in man, the general external call of the gospel, and mans evil nature may be brought into something of a harmonious unity. All things happen according to Gods providence. That is basic. There is, according to this providence, to be a development in the direction of evil and a development in the direction of the good. These two developments grow in conjunction, in correlativity, with one another.

     In relation to carrying out the plans and purposes of God, Van Til also stressed out the importance of the general call of repentance that was purposefully connected to the common grace of God
Those who have not heard the call of redemption will be judged because they are sinners in Adam and with Adam. Yet those who have heard the call and have not accepted it will receive the greater damnation. Thus, there must be a genuine meaning in the call that comes to them.

    Van Til included in the discussion the fact that in spite of the sinful nature of man, he is still able to fulfill the requirements of the law, even before he has received the gospel.  This was associated with common grace. Point 2 of the 1924 Synod agreed with the Belgic Confession articles, which declared that the general operations of Gods Spirit restrained man from sin.  Man is able to do good and at the same time, prevented from doing evil, through common grace.  However, even if the mans heart in not renewed, the law of God is still written in the mans heart and wherein their conscience allows them to do good or be restrained from doing evil.  Nevertheless, even if they did good, it did not mean that they were good, because this was something that only the saving grace of God could enable.

    Van Til viewed the ability to do good as a gift of God to the non-believer.  However, he referred to it as external good because it was not from the believers heart.   Van Til posited, they are, in a sense, a gift of Gods favor and they, in turn, are the object of a certain favor of God.  In light of addressing what was common in the discussion of common grace, it was the fact that God merited a certain level of favor towards the goodness that comes about from doing good. 

The Distinction of Earlier and Later Grace
    Van Til described the idea of commonness to be closely related to the idea of earlier and later grace.   Believers and unbelievers were viewed and treated similarly up to the point wherein the process of differentiation could be developed.  The Bible held that there was a common wrath upon the elect and the non-elect.  Scripture declared, As it is written  There is no one righteous, not even one.  Thus, the exact extent of the difference between them was still unclear, as far as what man can conceive.  In order to have clues as to Gods wisdom in terms of the real score of the commonality between the elect and the reprobate Van Til offered, History has genuine meaning the doctrine of election may not be interpreted so as to destroy its meaning, but rather so as to be the foundation of it.

    Following Calvins argument, the universal offer, as regarded by Van Til, was evidence of common grace.  He classified this to be earlier, instead of lower grace. Van Til went on to say that all common grace was earlier grace. This was a point wherein numerous critics like Daane found conflict with his view.  He rejected the fact that Van Til considered common grace to be earlier grace because it would mean that common grace existed before the fall of man. Frame also rejected the earlier grace argument.  However, Van Til declared that the commonness of common grace was rooted on the fact that it was from the earlier grace of God.  This could be influenced by Kuyper conception regarding the source of common grace, Christ the Mediator of Creation.

Its commonness lies in its earliness. It pertains not merely to the lower dimensions of life. It pertains to all dimensions, and to these dimensions in the same way at all stages of history. It pertains to all the dimensions of life, but to all these dimensions ever decreasingly as the time of history goes on. At the very first stage of history there is much common grace. There is a common good nature under the common favor of God. But this creation-grace requires response.

    Due to the fact that common grace was based on earlier grace, he described it to be conditional.   It did not have a constant nature wherein it remained what it is regardless of the recipients response.  Van Til posited that differentiation sets in.  The differentiation started from the point in the common rejection of God.  Over time, common grace is continually provided, however, it was said to be at a lower level.  Van Til reasoned, It is long-suffering that men may be led to repentance. God still continues to present Himself for what He is, both in nature and in the work of redemption.

    The process of differentiation evolves over time in history.  The elect are positioned differently from the non-elect.  They are placed in the state wherein they would receive Gods unconditional grace.  They are set apart and considered as Gods chosen people.  Van Til described how the influences of Christian surroundings were made available to the elect.  On the other hand, the reprobate was often not given a chance to receive the external call of the gospel.  Van Til argued that this made it difficult to fully qualify what was common between the elect and the non-elects reception of common grace. 

    Van Til warned against adopting a scholastic stream of reasoning and encouraged the use of biblical-theological ways of thinking in order to understand Gods will and perspective for common grace.  He said that one should avoid the judgment of impatient disciples that anticipated the course of history and dealt with mean as if they were fully aware of Gods decrees.  It was as if people went ahead of God based on their scholastic reasoning and based on their intellectual positing.  Instead, Van Til encouraged theologians stressed,   Yet God bids us bide our time and hold to the common, as correlative to the process of differentiation.

    The universal offer of salvation, according to Pighius, needed to be taken as an unconditional promise wherein the law of God is written in every heart.  Van Til pointed out that there was a temptation to answer that there was the universal offer was formal and was conditional, thus particular.  However, he claimed that Scripture directed the use of the notion of generality as a limiting concept.   This presented common grace as something that was diminishing over the years in the course of history.  Van Til posited that common grace did not remain the same over time.
With every conditional act the remaining significance of the conditional is reduced. God allows men to follow the path of their self-chosen rejection of Him more rapidly than ever toward the final consummation. God increases His attitude of wrath upon the reprobate as time goes on, until at the end of time, at the great consummation of history, their condition has caught up with their state. On the other hand God increases His attitude of favor upon the elect, until at last, at the consummation of history, their condition has caught up with their state. While in this world, though saved and perfect in Christ, they are yet, because of their old nature, under the displeasure of God.

Van Til warned against abstractions. He maintained that even believers continue to be under Gods disfavor and favor.  The old nature as a generality was perceived as something that was in common with the elect and the non-elect.   Thus, ideas of common wrath and common grace needed to be considered as constitutive factors when it came to presenting a persons present historical situation through the Word of God.  This represented why common grace was considered as the earlier grace.  The earlier one was considered to be conditional and diminishing, according to the response of its recipient.  It was presented to be inconstant because of the changing context of society.
The discussion of about common grace, as an earlier grace, can present more clarity in the doctrines of common grace and total depravity.  Van Til stressed that stressing common grace as an earlier grace provided for it a connection with total depravity, shines forth in the fullness of its significance.  Understanding total depravity provided a greater appreciation for Gods grace.   Total depravity cannot be toned down. It was directed toward the individual in the epistemological sense.  The fallen man was unaware of the real significance of the path he was threading.  He was viewed as the member of humanity that have not experienced the climax of the process of differentiation.

On the other hand, common grace was also described to be a needed correlative for the doctrine of total depravity.  Total depravity had two significant aspects, which were principle and degree. Mans first act of sin resulted in the total depravity of the race.  Mankind was under the common wrath of God because the first sin of man was made against the mandate of God on mankind as a whole.
The common wrath of God was described as the stepping-stone for something more.  God chose the elect and the reprobate were meant to reaffirm their choice for Satan.   The reprobate showed in a historical context the exceedingly sinful nature of man. In principle, man was totally depraved.  The effect of this was mans growing conformation to this sinful nature, as it controlled their hearts.  This was evident when they reject the common call, which Van Til considered as common grace.
The reprobate takes on the fullness of his sinful nature as he continued to reject God, despite the fact that God revealed himself to them.  Common grace was an earlier grace that was available for the reprobate and the elect over the years.  However, Van Til maintained, there is growth in wickedness on the part of those who have seen more of the common grace of God.  So it appears that in every case of the historical process common grace is the correlative to total depravity.

Van Til presented that people become more aware of their goodness or their evilness over time.  In order for total depravity to be correlative to common grace it would mean that the latter are considered as earlier grace.  McMahon followed Van Tils argument that God also loved the reprobate and hated the elect.  Van Til described Gods favor to rested upon the reprobate when he did good.  His disfavor rested upon the elect when they did.  There was a lack of epistemological self-consciousness on the part of the reprobate and the elect, which brought about Gods favor and disfavor, respectively.    Van Til posited that as there were remnants of sin in the believer, there were also remnants of Gods image in the unbeliever.  He described both types of man to be on the move.  The issue in this section is the argument that common grace was characterized as earlier grace.  If common grace were later grace, there would be no movement in mans status.   The reprobate retained traces of Gods image and likeness, but over time he loses it as he struggled against Gods restraint to sin.  On the other hand, the sinful nature of the regenerate is also renewed into more of Gods image and likeness, until the sinful nature of the Christian dissipates.  According to Paul, he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.  Here, Paul referred completion to the state wherein mans sinful nature is eliminated.  Custance described men in heaven to be unable to commit sin anymore this was the state by which the sinful nature of man has disappeared through Jesus redemptive grace.

Van Til viewed man like nature going through the same history.  They belonged to the same course of events that were geared towards a climax that was intended for them.  Van Til pointed out that both were originally created to be good.  However, since man and nature were on the move, theyve changed.  The fall of man brought them both under the common wrath of God.  This made nature and man corruptible.  More than this, the corruption that man and nature were susceptible to under the curse of God were also evolving. Thus, there was a tendency to go in either direction for both nature and man.  Thus, there was a downward tendency for Gods creation as well. 

Van Til upheld Calvins conception about the theistic history of man and claimed that it will end in judgment.  Thus, he warned that when man did not see their sins punished, it did not mean that it was not going to come, but that it was only delayed.  The delay of punishment was part of Gods common grace on man.  The end of history was presented in light of the victory of Jesus Christ at the cross.  Van Til expounds, In the regeneration of all things the vanity and the corruption will be swallowed up in victory.

While Van Til affirmed the reality of history, he was also observed to present one with a continuous ethical decline.  The power of sin over the unregenerate becomes more powerful as common grace declined over time.  Van Til rejected the fact that the level of common grace remained constant because there was movement in nature and grace.  This was attributed to the fact that man continued to struggle against God, despite of the blessings that he provided should prevent them in their unidirectional fall or at least slow it down. 

Van Til talked about the existence of common grace before the Fall.  Daane pointed out the issue of the problem of calling man entities because there was no historically elect and reprobate before the fall. He defended Hoeksemas denial of common grace when he posited that there was nothing in common when it came to Gods grace.  Hoeksema viewed people to be classified only as elect and reprobate, and no common ground was to be accepted between them.   Daane rejected the fact that people were classified. 

The way Van Til saw it there were abstract classifications between election and reprobation.  He posited that they would be absolutely different at the end of history, but it was because they had something in common at varying levels, which was highest at the beginning of time.  Van Til emphasized that common grace was Gods historical attitude towards a given moment in the historical situation.  Daane argued that in a sinless history, there was no elect and reprobate that existed.   Van Til posited that the commonality was correlative to non-existence.  The generality of the elect and the reprobate received the highest possible commonality because they did not exist yet.  After the fall of man, the commonality decreases as the reprobate becomes more sinful, in spite of common grace.

    Van Til strictly posited that common grace existed in the pre-Fall time.  This revealed that grace could exist without sin.  Van Til offered that common grace existed before the existence of sin and sinners.  Daane rejected that there was no point of contact between sin and sinner. 

    Van Til pointed out the significance of stressing the idea between earlier and later grace.  He based this on the fact the God already had foreknowledge about those who would be reprobate and who would belong to the elect.  He thus stressed on the notion of earlier grace.  Given the fact that God knew beforehand who would be accepted, his grace was still experienced and available to man, as could be perceived through history.

    Van Til explained that there was a need to use the earlier grace as the point of departure for the later because of the need to establish what believers and unbelievers had in common.  Van Til expounded, That is to say, they have something in common because they do not yet exist. Yet they do exist.  While a lot of critics focused on this sentence, like Daane, Van Til moved on to say that they did exist in Adam as the common representative for the elect and the reprobate.  Thus, they have witnessed Gods testimony in common. Gods attitude to all of mankind, made in his image and likeness at this point in history is favorable.  This was because God loved his work because it was good and God was pleased with man. 

But this favorable attitude of God to this early common perfect nature must be taken as correlative to the representative moral act of Adam. We may and must hold that every fact was revelational. Every fact was the bearer of a requirement. But, even as such, it was expressive of a favorable attitude of God to man. Without all this the ethical act of representation would have to take place in a void. At the same time, this original situation was an historically unfinished situation. It required further ethical action as its correlative. The continuance of the situation required, on the part of man, the representative affirmation of God as God. And this correlativity implied that the situation would, in any case, be changed. Whether Adam was to obey or to disobey, the situation would be changed. And thus Gods attitude would be changed.

The fact that the time of Adam was already considered as the earliest historical situation reflected the notion that things would change.  Van Til noted that this required the need for further ethical action in correlation to the unfinished historical situation during that time.  Correlativity, as Van Til noted, implied change.  The continuous nature of time presented the necessity for the affirmation of God.  Furthermore, Van Til noted that whatever Adam decided to obey or disobey, the situation would have not remained the same.  

In Relation to Kuyper and Bavinck
    Bavinck and Kuyper represented extreme conceptions of common grace and widened the territory of this doctrine in such a way that it extended to the entire sin-cursed creation.  Even if it was Kuyper who developed Calvins insight on common grace, Bavinck was the one responsible for reintroducing this idea, which was almost disregarded in the 19th century Europe.

    The development of Calvins common grace was viewed to be associated with their knowledge about the intellectual and spiritual context of 19th century Europe during that time.  This period was highly characterized by humanism. Thus, they viewed the need to present an opposition to this influence.  However, it seemed that there was a lack of preparation and equipment for the European Christian churches to address the dangers of humanism.  This was evident in the Platonic and Kantian tendencies that were exhibited by these Dutch theologians.

    The problem observed during this time was when humanist challenged Christianity, the churches withdraw and flight from the world.   Kuyper insisted, Apologists have invariably begun by abandoning the assailed breastwork, in order to entrench themselves cowardly in a ravelin behind it.  The fleeing response of the Christian churches in the humanist crisis they have experienced brought about the prevalence of this worldview.

The Dutch theologians in focus admitted blame for the Christian church in the problem of spiritual degeneration in that era. This was widely attributed to the failure of the church to provide an all-embracing worldview based on Gods Word that could sufficiently defend itself from humanism.  However, Socinian naturalism and Anabaptist dualism were critical hindrances in the development of a genuine scriptural worldview. 

    The revival of Calvins common grace, according to Bavinck and Kuyper, was the key to cope with the prevailing influences of the humanist worldview.  It had been observed that Calvinist was the on Reformed tradition that was able to get pass scholastic dualism and this was widely because of their doctrine on common grace.

    Thus, common grace was considered as a remedy for the crisis that the 19th century European Protestantism was experiencing.  Even if Bavinck and Kuyper viewed common grace from different points of view, they were moved by the same desire and intention to develop the Reformed tradition and to establish a Bible-based world and life view.   This was not to say they were merely repeating or reiterating Calvins teachings and that they did not add anything new to the discussion.  Instead, while they perceived that their works were loyal to Calvins teachings, they formulated the discussion in accordance to the context of their time.

    Van Til offered a criticism of Kuypers formulation of Calvins common grace that was more similar to Schilders criticisms of Kuyper.  This was not to say that Van Til rejected common grace, he just could not accept some points in Kuypers doctrine. 

    Van Til rejected the Kuypers position that common grace preserved the creation from the power of sin and provided the possibility of culture through the denial of a so-called metaphysical effect of sin.
    According to Van Tils argument, the world could not be presumed to be in the midst of destruction because of sin and that common grace was the only factor that saved it from destruction.  He also stressed that the effect of sin was not metaphysical.  In this area, he agreed with Bavinck wherein true Protestantism was a matter of restoring man, the creature of God and his ethical relationship with his Creator.  Sins power was not seen in the gradual diminution of mans rationality and morality, instead, man was not less of a creature and remained a rational moral creature of God even when he turned his back to God.

    Van Til even went to the point wherein he agreed with Schilder based on the fact that Kuypers notion of common grace had the tendency to pose culture as neutral territory.   He defended Schilders attack on the idea of a territory that was common between a believer and an unbeliever that was without qualification.  Kuyper was clear that it was commonness without qualification that Van Til rejected about the Kuypers neutral attribution to the territory of interpretation between believers and unbelievers that he rejected.   Van Til warned that if one believed in commonness, it should be with qualification that considered as one who had made the break between God and man completely.

    However, when it came to Schilders position for the absolute antithesis between Christian and non-Christian culture and the denial of any commonness between them, Van Til could not agree any longer.  Instead, Van Til declared that there was some commonness between Christian and unbeliever activity.  This commonness was due to epistemological inconsistencies between Christians and unbelievers.    This was an important point for Van Til to emphasize because sin did not influence the metaphysical situation of Christian and all people have the common metaphysical situation.  According to Van Til, Both deal with the same God and with the same universe created by God.  Both are made in the image of God.  It was sin that ethically influences man and changes his heart and his consciousness.  This made Christians and unbelievers dissimilar in the area of epistemology.  This was a weakness in Kuypers formulation. 

    Van Til insisted that his criticism of Kuyper in this area was not a denial of common grace, just like Hoeksema and Schilder did.  The reason why he did not end up with this position was his distinctive perspective about common grace, in terms of the Christian philosophy of history.  Even if Schilder related common grace to history as well, he believed that the meaning of history can be rooted in the conflict between Christian and unbeliever culture.  This idea did not allow him to view any level of commonness between Christians and unbelievers in the areas of religion and culture.  Schilder, unlike Van Til, did not focus his attention of practical ambiguity that existed in the world.

    Van Til posited that practical ambiguity that existed in the world for two reasons.  On one point, Van Til viewed the consciousness of Christians in their activities to have inconsistent element.  Even if redemption was real, its effect on Christians was clear in principle only.  The regeneration could only reach its completion in the day of the Lord.  Thus, there was still something relatively evil in those that were absolutely good in principle. The proof for this was that Christians still sin because they were still on Earth.

The lack of clarity in the regenerate consciousness and in mans cultural activities was due to the primary nature of regeneration.  Van Til posited that this was also applicable out of the inconsistency in the consciousness of unbelievers and their activities.  Van Til agreed with the position that God restrained the consciousness of unbelievers and that they did not perfectly carry out, what Van Til called as apostate principle.  Thus, even unbelievers achieved relative good in their lives. 

    The inconsistencies in both the unbelievers and the Christians lives would be overcome in the end of the world.  A point in time was to come wherein they would be completely differentiated from each other.  Van Til viewed history as a process of differentiation between the elect and the reprobate.  In the meanwhile, until the time wherein complete differentiation comes to pass, there would be a practical ambiguity in the world.  The common grace problem dealt with the commonality in culture, which was bound to exist for the time being.   Thus, the commonness was something that was viewed to be temporary even though it was not permanent it still currently existed.

    This was the commonness, which Van Til accepted, unlike Kuypers unqualified common ground.  The idea of a common ground would posit that culture was provided by the preserving activity of common grace. Van Tils idea of common ground went further than pointing out that existence of practical ambiguity in the world.   Van Til insisted that commonness in the world was simply just qualified commonness.  Until the end of history, commonness was simply temporal epistemological inconsistency or ambiguity for both Christians and unbelievers.  The believer and the unbeliever were also completely unconscious epistemologically.   Thus, this provides a certain level of commonness between them.

    Van Til found Kuypers fault in viewing cultural activity as the common ground of Christians and non-Christians, which he also attributed to commonness.  Nevertheless, he also found Schilder and Hoeksema to be in error because they overlooked the ambiguity between Christians and non-Christians and focused only on the absolute antithesis between them, which would only be manifested at the end of time.   

    Van Til posited that there was a relative good in the absolute evil, as in the case of the reprobate, and relatively evil in the absolutely good, as in the case of the elect.  There was no one who was absolutely neither evil nor good, until the time wherein they would be self-conscious in the future.   Thus, the favor of God could also be upon the reprobate, as Gods disfavor could be in the elect during the time wherein they both lacked epistemological self-consciousness.  Thus, it would all depend on Gods final attitude.

    The favor that Kuyper and Bavinck viewed existed in the reprobate, which Schilder and Hoeksema denied, Van Til supported. As long as the Christians and unbelievers were inconsistent with their religious principles, there was no differentiation that existed in humanity.  God provided his grace upon the general humanity that did not experience the full differentiation that would be brought about by time.

    Van Tils unique idea about common grace was widely rooted in the historical movement of humanity.  Van Til viewed Gods inconsistency in epistemological issues in the sin-cursed world.   The reprobate was also inconsistent with his epistemological principles and their acts in culture were not extremely different from that of Christians. In the same way, Christians were also not consistent with their epistemological principles as well.  Until the time wherein mankind was fully differentiated from each other, God still showed his gracious attitude towards mankind.   Van Til viewed common grace to exist in the inconsistency between believers and unbelievers and the gracious attitude that God had towards her.

    In this context, Van Til viewed common grace in view of the natural knowledge of God and a sense of morality.  He insisted that the natural knowledge o God in man was the presupposition for both common grace and saving grace.  This was based on Calvins common grace doctrine, wherein the restraint of sin in man influenced the condition of the universe according to the plans and purpose of God.    

And in restraining him in his ethical hostility to God, God releases his creatural powers so that he can make positive contributions to the field of knowledge and art.  Similarly, in restraining him from expressing his ethical hostility to God there is a release within him of his moral powers so that they can perform that which is morally though not spiritually good And common grace is the means by which God keeps man from expressing the principle of hostility to its full extent, thus enabling man to do the relatively good.

    According to Van Tils In Defense of Faith, it was significant to understand the question of consistent in between the views of Kuyper and Bavinck.   Kuyper rejected the oppositions insistence that there was a neutral area between believers and unbelievers, with respect to the problems concerning theism and the claims of the Scripture as the Word of God.  However, Van Til stressed that Kuyper was sometimes guilty of reasoning based on neutral grounds with unbelievers.  Kuypers Encyclopedia reflected Kuypers two-fold idea of science, wherein Kuyper denied that the issue was about faith but about two systems of science were believed to exist.

    Van Til pointed out that the Bavinck and Kuyper stressed how Scripture was an objective principle of knowledge the Christians.  Van Til stressed that there was a need for Christians to regard all of the knowledge obtained from the study of nature and history, in line with the Scriptures doctrines of creation, providence and the work of the redemption of Jesus.  He offered that this was the only way where the Romanist doctrine of natural theology could be adequately avoided.   In the apologetic sense, Van Til presented that the Bible must and could be taken as self-attesting and that it had a system of truth that revealed all the facts as they really were.  Since this was so, there was no need to corroborate the truth of the idea of the Scripture because the natural man could experience this truth through his actual life experiences.  Everything around the natural man could make him aware of the truth of the Scripture.  The Bible is used to contribute to the edifice for true interpretation because the principle of the natural man was false and the Christian principle was true.  Van Til pointed out that the problem was even when the nature of the natural man was to seek the destruction of Gods Word because of the destructive power of sin, Kuyper and Bavinck sought comfort and accepted the notion that the natural man will be able to approve of the Scripture without having to change his assumption of autonomy from it.   This section provides a discussion as to the points of view of these influential theologians and Van Tils point of disagreement and agreement.

     According to Hebrews 412, For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. The Bible can change the hearts of people if God willed it. However, the changing of the heart is something that was attributed to special grace and the work of redemption.  Thus, Van Til found it inconsistent for the natural man to approve of the Bible, if he himself does not have the ability to accept the truth of the Scriptures.   The natural man could not approve of the Word of God and remain unchanged by it.  The nature of the reprobate was to reject the truth, thus this means that they could not accept the Scripture.

    Van Til noticed that Kuyper presented this way of reasoning in the way he treated the idea of formal faith.  Kuyper pointed out that formal faith was something that was inherent in the human subject. He pointed out that all of the certainty about human existence was based on faith. 

    Kuyper even posited that even in the scientific endeavors of the pagan scientist, faith was needed because he needed something to work toward to in the process of scientific discovery.  He described faith to be independent of proof and that it existed prior to any proof.   Faith, as described by Kuyper, was the presupposition for mans acceptance of truth through the sensations of the external world.  Kuyper stressed that without faith it was not possible to reach other objects that were beyond ones selves. Faith was described as the bridge between a phenomena and a nouemena.   Kuyper noted that the starting point for science is faith.   He championed the fact that without faith science would have no structure to build upon.  To the very least, if the scientist did not belief in the uniformity of nature or the universal knowledge of facts, he would not be able to posit discoveries based on them. 

    Van Til posited that his went against Calvinist teachings in terms of the sense of deity.  Kuyper insisted repeatedly that man always confronted God in every fact that he met.  However, according to Van Til, there was no such thing as formal faith.  There was only formal faith for him.  Unbelievers and believers alike were said to have faith, simply because they were creatures of God.  It was against the content of faith as a belief in God that man had a problem with and classified to be an unbeliever.  Man always had faith the only contention was the object of faith.

    Kuyper suppressed the content of his original faith. He tried to reduce it to something formal.  The formality that he gave to his concept of faith was the fact that it could take any form he wanted it to have, which made it indeterminate.  If it were like this, there would not be any foundation for mans knowledge for himself and the world.  Van Til stressed that the identification of man as the subject of knowledge was only possible in terms of identifying himself as a creature of God.  If it was possible to allow identification apart from God, as his creator and judge, Van Til declared that there was no basis for knowledge. 

    This made it impossible for Van Til to remain consistent to Kuypers conception of common grace.  This was largely because Kuyper pointed out that the unregenerate would seek out of his ethical hostility to God to suppress the truth that comes to it.   He spoke as though the formal idea of faith was a dam against skepticism, since it met that skepticism was a subject of its own.  Van Tils presuppositional apologetics rejected the formal idea of faith because of its risk for defending skepticism.

But how can this be For this very formal idea of faith says nothing about the content or object of faith. Or rather, by its formality it allows for and even demands the correlative notion of pure non-rational factuality and of logic as an abstract system that includes both God and man. Thus the formal idea of faith is the very source of skepticism itself. Skepticism in the subject cannot be met otherwise than by the way Kuyper himself meets it elsewhere, namely, by insisting that faith always has content.

Van Til stressed that the content of faith was inherent in man.  He moved that man had an inherent belief that God as mans Creator and the one who controlled everything the came to pass.  When faith turned into unbelief, this unbelief could not be successful for suppressing the original faith of God in man in an absolute manner.  Thus, Van Til declared that man was innately possessed an inescapable faith in God.  This was how one contributed to the true knowledge of the universe.  Moreover, Van Til states, Add to this the fact of common grace and he can in a measure cooperate with the believer in building the edifice of science.

This went against Kuypers idea of a formal faith that was common in all man.  Faith was only formal, according to Van Til, in the field of the exact of external science.  Van Til also went against that there was the unifying power of the object, which could do away with the fact that there was a line between physical and spiritual sciences.  He pointed out that Kuyper even admitted that the fact that observation of facts can cause subjective element entered the picture.  Van Til explained that while there was no harm in this, since it was a purely metaphysical and psychological process, it was the fact that the interpretation was separated from God that skepticism could come about.

There was no protection against skepticism tendencies based on Kuypers starting point, which was restricted to purely formal faith.  Van Til noted that there was a contradiction with passing of faith a merely formal and the conclusion that there was an idea of faith with the content of spiritual sciences.  This made it impossible, according to Van Til, for Kuyper to present his assertion without vagueness.   His main argument was every man, upon creation, has faith in God.  Thus, faith always has this content.  Van Til stressed that the only alternative for faith in God was a denial of God, through a suppression effort.  The solution for suppression and ethical subjectivism could be removed through the saving power of Jesus.  It was through his work that science could be saved and its unity could be preserved, while the object was attained.

Furthermore, common grace functioned to suppress the sinful mans attempt to faith in God and enabled sinful men to contribute to the progress of knowledge.    However, Kuypers idea of formal faith became misaligned with his main line of reasoning for common grace.  Kuyper could not carry out the idea that the believer needed to challenge the unbeliever in interpreting the universe at every point because he spoke about the tendency that he claimed could be stopped by a unifying force of the object.  However, this was difficult to accept because the source of objectivity from the subject that could identify himself even without that content.  He was then left vague in his discussion about natural sciences, when his main principle required him to declare that every science was only possible through the presupposition of Christianitys truth.   Van Til offered that Kuyper dropped his idea of faith as a purely formal matter, in order to be consistent with Christian principles of having a self-attesting Bible and recognizing that mans self-identification and the uniformity of nature was based on Gods identification of man to himself.  

On the other hand, Bavinck was also a strong propagator of the role of the Scripture in Christian life.  The true concept of revelation was taken from revelation itself.  If there were no revelation, no true concept can be conceived.  Bavinck posited that the ground of faith was similar with its substance and could not be set apart from it.   However, despite the emphasis given to the self-attesting nature of Scripture and the primary principle of mans interpretation, Bavinck reverted to the idea that man could be without this principle, yet be able to interpret experience in an accurate manner.

Van Tils argument against Bavinck was based on the fact that he was inconsistent in defending his idea of revelation because he had tendencies of arguing with non-Christian philosophy on neutral grounds.   This was out of Bavincks desire to reason with modern philosophers based on self-consciousness and devoid of any relation to the context of God and to men. Van Til stressed that this led to idealism and warned how it come be mistaken when its conclusion was a purely immanent act.

Bavinck argued that through self-consciousness they did not deal with mere phenomenon, instead they dealt with a noumenon, which entailed a reality that was already present.  Self-consciousness, according to him, was the unity of the real and the ideal being.  The whole being was revealed to man directly, before all thinking and independent of all-willing.   Van Til criticized the fact that Bavinck left out the source of mans self-consciousness was the consciousness of the Creator and a sovereign God.  He left out this fact in order to meet the non-Christian philosophers on their own ground.  Van Til did not appreciate the fact that it was the Christian, which, on some level, compromised for the sake of meeting non-Christians philosophers understanding. 

Sometimes, Bavinck would argue that the real source of unity for real and ideal beings, which is the source of self-consciousness, could be found only in God.  In order to address this, Van Til pointed out that in the first place man already had a legitimate level of consciousness that existed.   However, he also mentioned that this pertained to the fact that man could not help but know that he existed.  Van Til decided that the term real and ideal being was simply an abstraction, unless it was given within the context of the Christian system.  Against Bavincks theology, Van Til noticed that he had not shown the way innate knowledge and acquired knowledge was correlated. 

Van Til described Bavincks intentions to understand the universe in order in order to make known the necessity of revelation as a prerequisite for understanding it.  This made Bavincks claim, according to Van Til, made general revelation to man naturally lowered.   This was an approach that was observed in repeated instances in his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek.  Van Til pointed out that Bavinck even came to a point wherein he merited Thomas Aquinas theology to be correct when it came to supernatural revelation for man, because natural revelation had a level of uncertainty.  He claimed that Aquinas was right to posit that general revelation was insufficient and that there was a need for revelation.  Van Til strained that Bavinck failed to distinguish between the kinds of revelation, which presented revelation, in Van Tils point of view perverted. 

Bavinck held on to the perspective that the Bible was the only authority for Christians.  While this was significantly true, he went on further to describe historical and rational proofs could not convert anyone, instead they could be a use to promote unbelief in the same way that it could defend Christian faith.  Bavinck became inconsistent with his main principles and Calvinism because he lowered the claims for general and special revelation.  

Van Til suggested that Bavinck should be followed based on his presupposition of the unity of thought and being in God.  However, he warned against doing the same when it came to his other argument.

Starting from man as ultimate, he leads on to an ultimate Cause that is not clearly God, to an ultimate Purpose that is not clearly Gods, and to an ultimate Being who does not help us out of the vicious circle of our thought.

This argument was favorable to the unbeliever.  It was in their favor to see that the voice of God was vague and the face of God could not be experienced in daily phenomena.  Van Til pointed out that it would be favorable for the reprobate to know that nothing was dissimilar in the faith that what was not yet known and what unknowable was meant.

    Kuyper and Bavinck agreed that the Scriptures are considered as Gods Word.  The Bible could interpret human experience.  They called this supernatural revelation.  This was something that existed before the Fall and served as a supplement for natural revelation.   They viewed the Scripture to provide supernatural revelation for men, even as sinners.  However, sinners could not know their needs.  They were set to misinterpret their needs.  They need someone, God, to do this for them.   It was the regenerative activity of the Holy Spirit that allowed the believer to understand the Bible for what it truly was.  This made the Holy Scripture part of the discussion about the self-attesting nature of the Word of God. This showed that all things in the universe attested to God.  The world was interrelated in their testimony about Gods greatness and glory.  Furthermore, Van Til pointed out that if there was one thing about the evidence of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, it was cumulative, which was to say that each fact in this world said the same thing and proved the same point in a different way.   He attested to the coherence of creation to show the power and glory of God. 

Common theology was also described to relate to the assumption that Scriptures could not profess anything that was not aligned with the ability of man to turn aside the plan of God.  This held Romanism and Evangelicalism as ineffective challenges to the understanding that man, which were founded on the principle of autonomy.   

There was a need to address the discussion about the knowledge of unbelievers.  When it came to the Romans notion of the common ground for believers and unbelievers dictated their conception of common cardinal virtues. Kuyper and Bavinck viewed the knowledge of the unregenerate about God to be a critical factor in the way he acted towards God and sin.  Van Til noted that there were remnants of abstract thinking that should be avoided, when it came to the discussion about common grace.

Kuyper opposed the idea of neutrality.  He posited that the attitude of the heat was the center of all mans activity, thus it was involved in all scientific interpretation.   While Kuyper promoted building on ones own presuppositions for issue of both universal and particular nature, Van Til observed that Kuyper was not able to live up to this high ideal.  This was out of the fact that Kuyper did not always remain consistent to his conception of the universal.

Kuyper discussed about particulars and universals.  Particulars were attributed to the human perception, while universals referred to ratiocination, or the process of exact thinking.  He claimed that the entirety of the ratiocinative process was maximized by the concern for the universals.  Van Til described this to carry Platonism principles.  Ratiocinative processes dealt with concepts alone.   This meant that it was only concerned with the universals.  Van Til stressed that if this position was carried out consistently, it would lead to the two worlds that Plato offered, which dealt with bare particulars and bare universals.  This was referred to as dualism.   The tendency was to have mere approximations, which would be Platonic rather than Calvinist.  Van Til also described the danger of the limiting concepts to be Kantian rather than Calvinist and the as if principle to be founded on the Critique of Pure Reason instead of after the Institutes.

    Van Til pointed out that Kuyper did not carry out a distinct separation between ratiocination and perception.  However, he was able to escape what Van Til called evil consequences of inconsistency.  Kuyper insisted that there were two notions in the intellectual process of the universals. He described mans ratiocinative process to penetrate the system of relations.  Thus, the intellects of man were fitted to see through higher relations.   Thus, there was a gradational process in the system of relations.  Van Til viewed this reasoning to be a non-Christian type of abstraction, due to the fact that system cannot exist from abstraction, other than hierarchy.   Van Til also saw a problem in how Kuyper ushered in the notion of active and passive intellect.  He went on to quote Kuyper,  Our thinking is wholly and exclusively adapted to these (highest) relations, and these relations are the objectification of our thought.   Van Til described this to be Platonic and Kantian. 

Earlier, Van Til argued with Kuyper and Bavinck on the issue of abstractions and subjectivism.  Abstract was a principle that was not derived from special revelation and the unbeliever that followed Socrates claimed that goodness, truth and beauty were all abstract principles above God and man.   On the other hand, the law was part of creation, for the believer, and was an aspect of Gods self-revelation.  Van Til viewed the law as something more than enunciation of legal principles and rules for life it was Gods controlling providence. If this was so, there would be no impersonal abstract concept between God and man.   It was this abstraction that Van Til built his criticism against Kuyper and Bavinck, in their suggestion for the direction of thought in approaching the issue of common grace.   Thus, Van Til offered the ontological trinity as the interpretative concept to argue with.  This was something that would be further discussed later. 

A Christian-Theistic Philosophy of History
The bottom line of Van Tils argument was that God provided for humanity an unavoidable revelation of who he was.  The universe was the divine creation that displayed his sovereignty as its Creator and Preserver.  He also played the role of the Judge for mankind and their sins. Van Til declared that every fact on earth allowed man to confront the eternal God.

Even if Van Til, himself, rejected the evidentialist apologetic method, it was his contention that the theistic proofs were objectively valid, regardless of attitude of those that received it.   Thus, this revealed that Van Tils position that man ought to conclude that God existed, if they were to follow correct reasoning. 

    Van Til maintained that it was only within the entire philosophy of Gods relationship to history, according to Reformed confessions, wherein answers revealed about questions about human responsibility and point of contact.  Van Til rejected the idea that the Reformed solution was organized in a sense that being logically penetrable to the mind of man through premises and conclusions of syllogism.  However, he argued that in order for mans knowledge to be true, it should be analogical to Gods knowledge.   The limitation was based on the extent of mans knowledge that creatures could never surpass or equal their Creator. 

    There is an emphasis on the organic nature of Gods grand scheme of covenant revelation.  The special and general aspects of revelation reveal God, in nature and in grace.  However, Van Til was strict in his position that the truth could only be interpreted through the presupposition of Gods self-revelation Scripture.  According to him, he who interpreted reality based on any other presupposition was considered to be atheist.   Through the observation of created order, men were without any excuse throughout history since God revealed himself to men.  This recognition for Gods existence and character was unavoidably known because man was created in his image and likeness. 

    Despite the fact that the fallen humanity acted in rebellion, in spite of their knowledge of God, the fact that the understanding of him was intellectual, other than psychological was undeniable.  Even if mankind distorted the truth, it still did not invalidate the truth from the creation.  Since Van Til recognized that the image of man that was based on the image of God, man had an innate knowledge of God.  Campbell-Jack commented that Gods hands in creation and history helped man acquire further knowledge about God for the unregenerate, but that Van Til did not observe this.  However, it was evident that Van Til was one of the strong proponents of the significance of history in Christian theistic philosophy.

    However, Van Til categorized that there was no revelation of grace in nature.  Even it was Gods common grace that sustained nature and mankind was enabled to read and unavoidably recognize the character of God within nature it lacked any revelation of grace in nature.  This enabled Van Til necessitates Gods special revelation in Scripture.  The need for the Scripture was found in mans broken covenant of works. This created the necessity for the grace of God.   Van Til posited that there was no manifestation of grace in nature nevertheless man needed grace in an unadulterated form.

    Van Til viewed the conception of common grace to be characterized by Gods providence and unavoidable revelation of Himself through natural things.  This also provides the possibility for science and understanding.  The core of human beings was described to be touched by common grace. This left humanity without an excuse for seeing God.  It was observed that Van Tils conception of common grace was to emphasize that there was an absolute necessity for special grace.  Van Til viewed common grace to be subservient to special grace.   It helped to reveal the contrast between the saving grace of God and his wrath.  His theology was concerned about the revelation of the need for the gift of grace from God.

We must not separate the facts of history, i.e., the manifestation both of Gods favor and of His wrath, from his attitude expressed in these facts. God is angry with those who are not yet but one day will be His people. To turn away His wrath from them He pours it out upon His own Son. God is angry with His people even when He loves them in Christ with an eternal love, to the extent that they continue to fail to live according to the principle of redemption within them. The same thing holds, mutatis mutandis, with respect to the reprobate.

There was an observation that the free offer of the gospel differentiated mankind as a generality.  Van Til was vigilant against abstractions, however in his attempt to operate concretely with the historical, it was noted that his attempt made him unable to escape consequences of starting from the eternal decree out with history.

The contribution of Van Til to the debate was commended because he exposed the antitheistic presuppositions that existed and made man autonomous from philosophical and theological discussions.   It was also Van Til that recognized clearly that since God was made in Gods image, he asserted that all people had an unavoidable knowledge about God, by virtue that they were his creations.  In working out the relationship of God with the fallen mankind, there was a need to work Scripturally and historically.  Thus, special revelation and the existing situation of human beings indicated the fact that they were created in Gods image gave them the ability to live and move within Gods creation.

    Van Til discussed about the Christian theistic method in his An Introduction to Systematic Theology and defended the presupposition of God as the absolute, self-conscious being, who remained the source of all finite being and knowledge.  This presupposition distinguished between the Christian theistic methods from the different non-Christian methods. 
In order to accept Van Tils Christian theistic method, God should be considered as the principum essendi of knowledge.  He followed Bavincks conception that without the concept of God as a self-conscious and a self-existent being, man could not know anything.  Van Til developed this idea in a more absolute manner.

    Van Til described that before the world came into existence, God already existed from all eternity as a self-contained and self-sufficient being.  From a Christian theistic perspective, it was impossible to conceive God as non-existent but it was possible to conceive of the worlds non-existence.  Christian history would dictate that at one point in time the world did not exist and that God created it out of nothing.   Furthermore, it was also in the Christian concept of God that man could not comprehend God completely.  Creatures could not comprehend God completely.   It was important to recognize the idea of Gods incomprehensibility.  This did not mean that God could not comprehend ones self, instead, it meant that man did not have the ability to comprehend God but he is self-comprehensive.

    Furthermore, the Christian theistic method also accepted that God was absolute rationality.  Gods knowledge is considered to be exclusively analytic and self-dependent.  God is the one and only ultimate Fact, which meant that he never needed to investigate about anything.  Thus, the Trinity gives a basic description if God, as taught in Scripture.  In comparison to man, when man looks to things about himself and within him, he views a great variety of facts, with a question of unity in the midst of this variety.  Van Til further described the human knowledge analogical, in accordance to Christian theism.

We see then that the method of Christian theism must be distinguished most carefully from the method of idealism philosophy. With all its insistence on the fact that there must be an ultimate   aspect of knowledge, idealism at the same time insists that there is an equally ultimate   aspect to knowledge.   

Van Til posited that the distinguishing characteristic between non-Christian theory of knowledge and the Christian concept of knowledge was that in all non-Christian theories men reasoned univocally, but Christianity made men reason analogically.  Thus, every non-Christian theory of method took for granted time and eternity aspects.  Non-Christian theory believed that man and God must be thought of as being in the same plane.  There was a need to consider man and God to be correlative and to work under a system of logic that was higher than both. 

On the other hand, Christianity held that God existed alone before any time of existence came about.  Theistic theories posited that God existed as a self-conscious and a self-consistent being.  The law of contradiction was not something that Christians appealed to determine between what can or what cannot be true.  Van Til discussed how Parmenides served as a warning for what happened to history if the law of contradiction was employed for this purpose and made it the ultimate standard of appeal according to human thought.  The conclusion that emerged from this was to understand anything historical, there was a need to reduce it to a timeless system of categories, which made Parmenides deny reality and the significance of historical plurality.  Van Til posited that this left no room for historical factuality on the surface, but it did so only when historical factuality was considered as something unknowable or irrational. 

Van Til warned that Christians should employ the law of contradiction, in a positive or negative manner, as a mode for systematizing facts of revelation.   If these facts were found in the universe at large of in the Scripture, the law of contradiction should not be considered to be operating anywhere, except against the background of the nature of God.  Since the creator of the world was God, there was no possibility that any element of reality in the world would be on a par with God.
Christians entertained the concept of creation that made the idealist notion of logic impossible.  Van Til described the creation doctrine to be included in the God-concept that was accepted by Christianity.  The denial of the creation doctrine was also a denial of the Christian concept of God.  History began in the creation of the world.  Thus, the denial of creation also rejected the notion that God was the author of history.   This included the acceptance of the fact that a created being could not provide any new element that would be equal with the element of permanency that the Creator had.  Thus, if one accepted the creation doctrine this was associated with the acceptance that the universe was subordinate to the eternal plan of God.

   There were two levels of existence according to the Christian theism, which included the belief in Gods existence to be self-contained and the level of mans existence that was derived from the level of Gods existence.  In relation to this, there were two levels of Gods knowledge, which included absolute comprehensiveness and self-containment, as well as the level of mans knowledge with was not comprehensive but was derivative and re-interpretative. As Christians, man believed that mans knowledge was analogical to Gods knowledge.    

According to Van Til, one of the greatest differences in the philosophy of Christians and non-Christians when it came to history was the transcendental conception of the Theistic method.  He posited the term transcendental to mean differently from modern or Kantian meaning because the latter did not find the final reference point in God and the former did not interpret reality in light of eternity.  Instead, the Christian method sought to interpretation of reality through a combination of eternal and temporal strategies.  Non-Christian thought only considered eternity as a correlative of time and nothing more.   Van Til noted that it was only Christians that interpreted reality in eternal categories because of their belief in God who was self-sufficient and was independent of the reality of time.

From the Christian point of view, every fact of the space-time universe is created by God and is what it is by virtue of its place in the plan of God. It is therefore Gods revelation of his plan that comes to partial expression in every fact of nature and history. Hence the Christian ought to make the claim that every fact positively reveals itself for what it is in relation to this plan.

Critical Interactions 
Van Til received strong critical attention in the construction of common grace.  Those that stood out with violent arguments against his structure of thought were Masselink, Daane and Hoeksema.  They refuted Van Tils argument and accused him of following non-Christian philosophy.  The discussion of critical interactions against Van Til highlighted the contrast for his theology and reflected the sound arguments that he espoused for his defense.  A review of these interactions also reflected the significance of Van Tils work for the doctrine of common grace.

Herman Hoeksema
    Reverend Herman Hoeksema was one of the ministers of the Christian Reformed Church in America in 1924.  However, he, together with a band of followers, resisted the adoption of the doctrine of common grace.  Since Hoeksema found these changes to be detrimental for the Reformed Church, he was expelled from the ministry of CRC and at that time he founded the Protestant Reformed Churches in 1924.  The 1924 Synod condemned their views through the pronouncement of the three points of the doctrine of common grace.

    It is significant to recognize the gravity of Hoeksemas denial of the common grace doctrine that the CRC gave him the ultimate sanction because of it.  There were three major points regarding the doctrine that showed that common grace was not just a single concept that it could be easily be dismissed.  The three points of common grace that Hoeksema rejected were (1) the favor of God to the unregenerate, (2) The restraint of sin in the heart of man, (3) and the development of culture.  In general, Hoeksemas rejection of common grace was the fact that he saw this doctrine to allow reprobates to be credited with the certain amount of good, specifically in the civic realm and other areas of culture.

    According to Hoeksema, with regards to the favor of God to the unregenerate, he rejected the use of the term grace in the everyday lives of the natural man, if there was the intention to arrive at an accurate conception of the operation.  He warned against the tendency for anthropomorphism, wherein the quality of God was given to creature, even in concepts.  More than the use of the term grace, thus common grace was not an appropriate term for Hoeksema, when it came to the good gifts that God provided for the believers and the unbelievers alike.

    Hoeksema argued that the attitude of favor, kindness and grace was only available within a covenant of grace.  He defined the covenant of grace to exist only from the bond of friendship that God and his elect had.  This grace was made with Christ and the elect, as they were in Christ. 
Hoeksema insisted that it was not conceivable that God, in any sense and at any point, be inclined to be gracious to the reprobate.  While he admitted that the unregenerate received gifts from God, they were simply providence but not evidence for Gods favor.  According to him, common grace denied the doctrine of total depravity because when a man does anything good, this was a sign of spiritual goodness.  For Hoeksema, if man does any spiritual good it meant that he was not totally depraved.
Hoeksema commented in his 1936 book, The Protestant Reformed Churches in America that the 1924 Synod left the door set ajar for Arminianism to enter the CRC because of their acceptance of common grace.  However, Van Til defended the Synod and assured that it was Kuypers view of common grace, not Arminius that the Synod accepted. He viewed the Synods common grace to lapse into the Arminian conception of saving grace that was intended for all men.  Even when Hoeksema distinguished common grace from general grace, with the latter referring to the universal offer of the Gospel that described salvation to be for all of mankind.  He addressed the CRC with an inquiry if they were ready to betray the Synod of Dordt.  He viewed common grace to be the beginning of falling into the trap of accepting general grace.

According to Hoeksema, even if man does not clearly discern the Word of God, the remnants of his natural knowledge man knows that there must be a certain response towards God.   Creation remained, for Hoeksema, as a medium of revelation for the glory and wisdom of God.  He described Gods light to shine in darkness, even if the darkness could not comprehend this light.  He stressed that God did not leave himself without a witness, even after the fall.  Thus the natural man had a conscience that let him distinguish between right and wrong.  However, Hoeksema rejected that the remnants of the natural light were operations of common grace.    He viewed common graces operation to be defined by remnants of mans natural light to be a theoretical error, a damnable heresy and fallacy.

Van Til agreed with Hoeksema when he pointed out that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and the acceptance of the revelation about God could only be received through the saving grace of God.  While it was true that there was no argument that was sufficient to prove the existence of God to the reprobate, someone who refused to worship the living God, this only proved that the reprobate could not see the revelation of God for what it was.  It did not prove that revelation was not present in him.  Van Til illustrated that a blind man could not see the light of the sun, but the sun was there for all.
Hoeksema was right to defend the total depravity of man.  However, this should be viewed in the context of his ethical disobedience to his Creator.  Van Til pointed out that could not become and remain apostate, except with the revelation of the character and will of God that was always present everywhere.

Van Til also warned against taking the notion of common grace to imply a neutral territory between believers and unbelievers because it was destructive of the doctrine of total depravity.  However, taken in the right context, the idea of common grace presupposed the universal presence of the revelation of God and supported the idea of total depravity. Both doctrines stressed the inescapable presence on the face of God to every man.  However, Hoeksema overreached the idea of total depravity, according to Van Til, because he took away the foundation that it stood upon.  One of the proofs that Van Til had for this was when he said that it was absurd to speak of proofs for Gods existence and that no one could demonstrate with certainty that God existed, based on the arguments that the world could accept and experience.  Van Til described him to giving too much credit to the natural man and presented the proofs were built on the assumption that the natural man could identify facts and employ logic, without the presupposition for Gods revelational requirements for them.
Hoeksema further argued that God could not treat the two groups of men, the elect and the reprobate, as a generality.  Otherwise, he related this to Arminian thought.  He stressed that all grace was for the elect and that all grace was special grace.  He posited that only Arminian theology could subscribe to common grace, as all grace was common grace for them.

Van Til observed that Hoeksema and Arminians allowed abstract logic to overcome Scripture on a certain point.  They were described to be self-contradictory against Van Tils self-contradictory position for election and common grace.  He defended that there was no contradiction between them because he did not hold common grace, as the Arminian did and deny election.  Furthermore, Van Til argued that the idea of God favorable attitude towards men as men, whether elect or reprobate, was biblical.

Van Til declared the doctrine of common grace could be defended the abstract logic and it was based on Scripture.  When the psalmist described that the Lord was good to all indicated Gods pleasure in pouring out blessings to everyone, Van Til described this to be taken at face value.   It would be at the end of time when the two classes of men would be in no sense treated in the same manner by God.  At the end of time, the reprobate would no longer experience any favor from God. 

The favor of God over all of mankind did not mean that God did not already predetermine the classification of each individual.  However, Van Til described the undeniable elect and reprobate with some sense of generality.  According to him, all men became sinners at the same time that Adam fell into sin.  As the representative of humanity, Adam along with every other man became objects of Gods wrath when they became sinners.  However, this did not take away the fact that he still declared his goodness and favor over all of mankind until the time when final judgment came.

William Masselink
    Dr. William Masselink was a professor of the Reformed Bible Institute in Michigan.  Much of his criticism against Van Til was included in his Common Grace and Christian Education.  He sought to defend the traditional view of common grace, as the only tenable position.  In his eyes, Van Til undermined the traditional view and he sought to prove Van Tils view to be unsustainable. Masselink defended the views of Dr. Valentine Hepp and associated them to the traditional position, which meant they were identical to that of Kuypers and Bavincks.   Van Til expressed that his intention was no to deal with the general criticism that were made against his position, instead, the purpose was to remove any misunderstandings that emerged against his views.  These misunderstandings, according to Van Til, were from his fault because his terminology was unclear.  However, Van Til argued that the misconstruction of his views was currently advertised was not confounded in anything that he had written or said.

Greg Bahnsen observed Van Tils antithetical teaching left him vulnerable to misinterpretation and criticism.  William Masselink criticized Van Tils position to result in an absolute antithesis.  He viewed Van Til and other so-called Reconstructionists (e.g. Schilder, Vollenhoven, and Dooyeweerd) rejected that the natural man, like the Christian man accepted that 2x24, because of sin.  However, Van Til did not ever believe that the natural man was consistent and successful in his rebellion against God.  Instead, Van Til posited that if the unbeliever were ignorant on everything, he would no longer be responsible before God for his sin and rebellion.   However, Van Til held that man was made in Gods image and likeness, thus he was confronted with inescapable revelation and restrained by common grace.  Thus, the unbeliever could not fail to know God and understand something of himself and the world.   According to Van Til

There is a sense in which he knows something about everything, about God as well as about the world. Many non-Christians have been great scientists. Often non-Christians have a better knowledge of the things of this world than Christians have. From a relative point of view he knows something about all things.

    Masselinks conception against Van Til was based largely on the problem regarding the value of the knowledge of the unbeliever.  He moved that no value could be placed on the knowledge of the unbeliever.  If value was attributed to the knowledge of non-Christians, according to Masselink, it was in rejection of the Reformed confession.  However, the confession spoke about the natural light of reason that men, even though they were sinners against God have natural knowledge of God and morality.  Thus, common grace did not only restrain sin, it also maintained the image of God in man ad enabled him to contribute to culture and some level of moral virtue, such as civil righteousness.

    Van Tils apologetics revealed that the doctrine of general revelation and common grace should not be taken to justify the common grounds between Christians and non-Christians. However, the final point of reference must be used to make the distinction.  Christians views the final point of reference to be God, while the unbeliever views himself for this.  Thus, the natural man continued to interpret all things without God, in principle the lack of acknowledge for God placed him at hostility with him.  However, since Gods restraining grace was available, man could not be fully hostile towards God.  This enabled the natural man to contribute to the edifice of human knowledge.

    Masselink went against the valuing the knowledge of the unbeliever.  However, it was the common grace of God that creative power was implanted and released by God in the natural man.  Thus, it was through Gods grace that man could make positive contributions to science, in spite his principles that were hostile to God.   Bahnsen explained it was because both eh and the universe are the exact opposite of what he, by his principles, thinks they are. 

    Masselink argued that there were central truths about God, man and the world wherein the elect and the reprobate did not differ.  This showed that Masselink did not signalize the difference between the two principles of interpretation.  Common grace was also used to blur the differences between these mutually exclusive principles.   Thus, there were areas wherein the difference between these principles did not count for Masselink.  Bahnsen called Masselinks argument against Van Til to include a twilight zone wherein enemies build together on the common enterprise of science and there was an area of commonness without difference.   Masselink used the doctrine of common grace as a means of a specifically Reformed conception wherein a consistent Christian method of apologetics was suppressed.

    Van Til dealt with Masselinks analysis of how Van Til viewed facts or the objects of human knowledge.   Masselink criticized Van Til to have agreed with Schilder about how facts were conceived in the minds of Christians and non-Christians. 

     Van Til pointed out that Masselinks criticisms of him left out two qualifications that were needed in order to provide fair treatment of his view.  According to Van Til, the non-Christian ascribed to man what a Christian ascribes to God on the matter of making facts.  He explained what he meant here and defended that while man needed material, he did not pretend to produce material.  The point of comparison held definitory power.  Van Til rejected Masselinks presentation of his argument that left the impression that the natural man created out of nothing, like God did in the Book of Genesis.  Van Til cleared up that this was not what he meant at all.  Instead, he only meant that mans conception of facts was based on materials that he experience and perceive around him.

    Masselink was observed to have omitted Van Tils important qualification that Christians and non-Christians have nothing in common, only when they were engaged in an interpretative enterprise, when they were epistemologically self-conscious.   It was only this conception that allowed for commonness up to a certain point between believers and unbelievers.

We conclude then that when both parties, the believer and the non-believer, are epistemologically self-conscious and as such engaged in the interpretative enterprise, they cannot be said to have any fact in common. On the other hand, it must be asserted that they have every fact in common. Both deal with the same God and with the same universe created by God. Both are made in the image of God. In short, they have the metaphysical situation in common. Metaphysically, both parties have all things in common, while epistemologically they have nothing in common.

Van Til also stressed that there was a correlative statement, which pointed out to the fact that on a metaphysical level, all parties had all things in common.  He declared that it was important for critics to include the epistemological and metaphysical distinctions that Van Til had for believers and non-believers.  He could not stand for critics to describe metaphysical commonness without acknowledging epistemological differences.

Van Til explained that it was because he viewed that some facts manifested the attitude of God and the favorable attitude to men as His own creatures that he defended the first three points of the Christian Reformed Synod in 1924 against Schilders criticisms.   According to Masselinks criticism of Van Tils perception of a fact, it was impossible for non-Christian to perceive.  This was based on corroboration for an agreement that he had made with Schilder.  The only agreement that Van Til admitted to this point was the fact that Schilder attacked the idea of territory that was based on the commonness of believers and unbelievers that was without qualification.   This was for Van Til a real agreement because of the rejection of a neutral territory between believers and unbelievers based on the fact that they were qualified without qualifications.

Van Til questioned if it was commonness without qualification that Masselink defended.  Van Til argued that he never defended the break between God and natural man to be complete, as there were still areas wherein the unbeliever and the believer had common ground.  It was because Masselink did not consider Van Tils position for the commonness on the metaphysical level that Masselink attacked his position based on epistemological differences.   It was clear that Van Til only stressed the need to have qualifications significant areas for commonness. It seemed that most criticisms that Masselink thrown his way were based on statements that were taken out of context.

Van Til went on to defend himself further against Masselinks perceived disagreement between Van Til and the great Reformed theologians based the conception of common grace.  Masselink viewed Van Tils position that unbelievers could know facts and general epistemology concepts to be in line with Schilder and opposite Kuypers and Bavincks.  Van Til insisted that the only point of disagreement he had with Kuyper and the rest of the theologians were their conception of a neutral territory without qualifications. 

Masselink tried to present Van Tils disagreement to be rooted on Reformed theology because of the necessity the former saw in declaring that the theologians he disagreed with were Christians and that they believed the Bible.  Van Til stressed that he had never said or written anything to insinuate that the noted theologians did not base their thinking from the Bible.  He saw the need to defend his position against Masselink because of the way he had gone over and beyond the material that Van Til produced.  It was not clear to Van Til why Masselink associated his disagreements with some of the theologians conceptions of commonness to attacks to their Christianity or their theology in general.
Masselink even criticized Van Til on his position for the conscience as a means of the general revelation of God.  He argued that there was a great difference between general revelation and human conscience.  Masselink described the former to be divine and conscience to be human.   Furthermore, he described general revelation to be infallible and conscience to be infallible.  Masselink declared,  If there is an absolute ethical antithesis between God and man all functions of human conscience become impossible.

Van Til argued that he did not confuse the divine and the human.   He explained that conscience was taken as an aspect of the created consciousness of man.  Thus, Van Til posited that everything was created to be revelational of God.  Even Masselink would agree that God had an inescapably revelational nature.  If man could not escape Gods revelation, there was no need to separate consciousness with general revelation because they both flowed from God and characterized Gods nature.  Furthermore, if God did not want to reveal himself, he could have done this easily.  However, he chose to do so. 

    In relation to this factor, Van Til placed forward that the sinful reaction of man to the revelation of God was still revelational of Gods general purpose.  It was only through consideration that reality was revelational that ethical actions could be focused in an appropriate manner.  Van Til moved that if this were rejected, the ethical reaction of man would occur in a vacuum.  It would be futile.

    Van Til qualified that the revelation of God in mans consciousness could be subjective because of the absence of special grace.  Since the humans very nature and function spoke of God, even Calvin considered them as the revelational evidence for Gods works and character.  Masselink admitted that Reformed theologians conceived conscience in a broad way, which was the manner by which Van Til took the subject matter.  It could be observed that Van Til never took away the subjective nature of the influence of conscience.  However, he did recognize the revelatory function of conscience, in the broadest manner, to the nature and character of God.

Van Til also pointed out to the fact that it was not just old Reformed theologians that were allowed to speak of conscience in a broad manner.  The theologians that Masselink said Van Til went against, like Bavinck spoke of conscience in the same manner in repeated occurrences.     Bavinck spoke about a revelation of God that was general, observable and intelligible in an internal and subjective manner.

The main point is that if man could look anywhere and not be confronted with the revelation of God then he could not sin in the biblical sense of the term. Sin is the breaking of the law of God. God confronts man everywhere. He cannot in the nature of the case confront man anywhere if he does not confront him everywhere. God is one the law is one. If man could press one button on the radio of his experience and not hear the voice of God then he would always press that button and not the others. But man cannot even press the button of his own self-consciousness without hearing the requirement of God.

Van Til established that Gods nature allowed him to be everywhere.  Everything that a man did and thought of involved God.  This was part of his inescapable nature.  This revealed that the mans conscience was one of the most basic forms of general revelation.  The fact that it was Gods nature to be everywhere, Masselinks conception about the difference between conscience and general revelation to be human and divine could not involve the nature of Van Tils commonness.  If Masselinks argument was to be given merit, they were only different in terms of the manner of revelation. However, it served the same purpose of revealing to man who and what God is.
Masselink rejected the view of conscience to have revelatory of God.  He viewed the conscience to involve making certainty be based on created objects, instead of God.  He associated revelation with a sense of certainty with regards to Gods thoughts.  He rejected the General External Testimony of the Spirit because they could not give certainty.   Masselink argued that certainty was only received when the Holy Spirit gave the assurance of such things, apart from external revelation. 

Van Til defended himself against Masselinks criticism that he denied the truth value to Bavincks theistic proofs, which was a logical consequence to Van Tils absolute ethical antithesis.  Van Til noted that it was to the contrary to what he was trying to come across.  According to Van Til, man assumed oneself to be ultimate.  Thus, he assumed that his reasoning powers were ultimate and determined what was possible or impossible in his realm of being.   The natural man only interprets ones experiences through these false assumptions and logically comes to the conclusion that he was the final reference point.  However, the facts of the universe testify against the distortion that God was some abstract principle wherein he unifies the cosmos or was identical with them. 

Men ought to know, and know they ought to know and see God as their Creator and benefactor. They ought to see God as manifesting His wrath upon men when they behold the evils of nature. Similarly, they ought to see God as the Creator and benefactor when they behold themselves as image bearers of Him. They ought to see God as their judge when their conscience witnesses in approval or in disapproval of their deeds.

    Van Til noted that the interpretative effort of man was his way of suppressing God and the World.  However, he could not completely suppress the knowledge of God and of morality within himself.  This was something, according to Van Til, that Masselink similarly held on to, when Masselink declared

Can this disposition to receive knowledge ever be lost by sin The answer is no, as it belongs to the image of God. The disposition through which we receive knowledge, however, is now corrupt. In the state of integrity before the Fall, the three means by which knowledge was receiveddisposition, natural revelation, and historical revelationwere all pure but now there is corruption. In Hell these three means continue too. The consciousness of the  I  is unchanged by sin, but the nature of  I  is changed.

This showed that Masselink viewed that general revelation was the basis for common grace, and not vice versa.  Thus, Van Til pointed out that prior to common grace there was a presupposition that man was already confronted with the necessary revelation about the truth about himself as Gods creation.  This truth was inescapable and he could not suppress it.  Since Gods revelation was everywhere, Van Til found the theistic proofs to be valid.  He declared that he never denied the general testimony of the Spirit, just like he never denied the validity of the theistic proofs.   

Van Tils argument was not based on denying the theistic proofs validity, but on the terms of their soundness.  He clarified that if the construction of theistic proofs did not convey the revelation of God, these proofs were used as a means of suppressing the revelation.  Thus, if they could be used to support non-Christian beliefs, they should not be supported.  It was a matter, for Van Til, of making the distinction between objective revelation of God and the interpretation of that revelation.  Thus, it was in the differences of construction for these theistic proofs that Van Til warned against.

The common grace of God restrained the ethical antithesis to God from the sinner and as a result, the creative aspects of man received opportunities to produce something constructive.  The antithesis was limited in a metaphysical manner.  Van Til noted that if the natural man fully expressed himself in terms of their tendency for ethical hostility for God, which dwelled within the soul of man, and then he would be a veritable devil.  Since the world is still in tact, it would prove that man has not unleashed himself to be as bad as he could be.

   Van Til pointed out that this was his argument for common grace, however Masselink kept repeated the critic that Van Til created the Absolute Ethical Antithesis, wherein he was accused for insisting that man in his present state reflected the worst state he can be in.

While Masselink used the term absolute in terms of the total depravity of man, Van Til used the qualification that depravity that was absolute in principle.  Van Til pointed out that there was only one point of difference, which was the fact that he added one more qualification wherein he carefully described the antithesis to be ethical instead of metaphysical.  Masselink was not able to provide for this distinction.  Van Til declared that this was a failure that accounted for the fact that Masselink reasoned on other points that the antithesis was not absolute in principle, but Van Til was talking about an antithesis that was talking about required for it to be absolute because it was based on ethical differences. 

Masselink argued that the issue between him and Van Til was not about the degree of difference in between Christians and unbelievers.  Instead, he said it was about agreeing with Kuyper that the laws of logic in the natural man had not been destroyed by sin completely.   Van Til responded and explained that the purpose of the distinction of the antithesis, being ethical instead of metaphysical was that the creature was made in the image of God.  Thus, the mans constitution as a rational and moral being has not been damaged.  The separation between God and man was on an ethical level, not metaphysical.  This meant that the lost could not have lost their power of rational and moral determination.  They needed these aspects to have awareness for this lost condition.

The distinction between the metaphysical and ethical antithesis was made in order to avoid the idea that there was point wherein man could be entirely devoid of moral consciousness, as this takes away the bearing of mans civil righteousness.

   Van Til argued against Masselinks tendency to place ethical content on the basis of the presence of common grace.  Van Til noted that even when common grace was not available in hell, he still posited that the lost could not be devoid of ethical content because their conscience would still be aware that they have offended a holy God.  Van Til pointed out the danger of Masselinks theology, which was in line with the Romanist idea of sin that had a deleterious metaphysical effect of man, since he showed common grace to prevent man from sinning and falling into a state wherein he would not have moral awareness.  This was not accurately in line with Reformed thinking.

The issue revolved around the impact of sin and how, except for the restraining power of common grace, man and the whole world would fall into pieces.  Van Til expressed the ideas of metaphysical and ethical in connection with the fall of man to be something that was limiting.  The ethical intent of sin, according to Van Til, was to destroy the work of God.  However, since God is all-powerful this was not possible on a metaphysical level.  The plan of God, even from before, was to defeat sin through the work of Jesus Christ.

James Daane
Daane, a Christian Reformed minister, criticized different points of Van Tils theology.  Daane argued that Van Til was not able to deliver a common grace theology from the Hegelian rationalism that went against Hoeksemas theology.  For Daane, It also did not undermine the non-Christian philosophical remnants.  Van Til was accused of viewing non-Christian philosophy to discover the common grace position of leading theological thinkers of Reformed tradition.  Daane criticized his Van Til to have fallen into a deeper philosophical speculation than ever because of his accusations.   He argued that Van Til failed to base his arguments from Christian philosophy of history and purified common grace theology instead Daane accused Van Til of using Hegelian rationalism and modern existentialism that resulted in the enlargement of Hegels dialecticism.  Van Til described Masselinks accusations to be serious charges, however he pointed out the Daanes charges were more serious because they presented his arguments to be subscriptions to existentialism.

    According to Daane, Van Tils common grace was not real because God did not extend any form of grace to non-existent beings.  He declared this conception to be wholly unbiblical because it as not related to sin.  Daane described Van Tils common grace, in such a way that it could not establish contact with a real sinner.

     In the discussion of having a point of contact, Van Til only declared non-existence of this point for the anti-Christ and the devil, as historically finished products, wherein the gospel was meaningless for them and the conditional had passed.  Daane defined Van Tils grace as the dis-relationship between sin and grace.  Daane viewed Van Tils conception to remove a point of contact between grace and sin.  Daane also posited that Van Tils common grace was unknowable and indescribable, as the unqualifiable commonality that characterized it.

    The seriousness of the accusations of Daane moved Van Til defend his position.  Van Til started with an explanation that he was not defending his theology because accused it of leading to Hegelianism, rationalism and existentialism instead, the accusation described Van Tils theology to be structured by non-Christian thought.   Daane described Van Tils thought to be based on a existential dialectic.  Daane posited that it was because it was non based on Christian philosophy that Van Til was able to assert that post-Fall and pre-Fall man had a generality because of the common virtue of its non-existence and that in a certain degree the generalitys non-existence could be progressively overcome by the forward movement process of coming into existence.   Thus, commonality ceased and common grace is withdrawn.

    Van Til was aware that Daane accused him of considering time as nothing like ordinary historical time and with disregard for chronological time.  The manner by which Van Til pointed out that his critics argued him based on a completely opposite understanding of his thoughts.  He also wanted to defend that his general structure of thought was based on the fact that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and from the system of doctrine that the Scripture presented.  Van Tils defense was composed mostly of quotes from his work to present that his arguments were ground on Calvinism and not idealism, Hegelian rationalism, existentialism and phenomenalism.

    Van Til challenged that setting the Christian view of life over, as placed in opposition to modern forms of non-Christian philosophy there would be no absolutism that the critics described.  In short, for Van Til, the Christian view of life was true and the others were false.  Thus, he viewed the Bible to present a view of God, man and Christ that was exclusive of all other views.

   This was illustrated in the tendency of the natural man to serve and worship mere creatures, instead of the Creator.  On the other hand, the Christian worshiped the Creator more, because of Gods grace, and reveals this in everything that he does.  However, Van Til pointed out that even those that did not worship God but creatures could not be reflected as final products of evil in the world.  They could still be used to have positive contribution in terms of realization of the cultural mandate that was given to Adam, the first man of history and the representative of all succeeding generations.

    Van Til insisted that the apologetic methodology he employed rested upon Calvinism and upon classical Reformed theology.  According to him, there were differences between these two sources at times wherein he needed to choose between them, in terms of the elements he agreed with.  He noted that it the construction was different from the original sources, the soundness should be judged based on its merits.

    According to Daane, the conception of history without the significant Moment was considered a deterministic conception of history.  Daane criticized that Van Tils contention that an individual was good or bad had nothing to do with the positive operation of the Holy Spirit.  It also included that the point reached in existential process of differentiation was the wholly determinant for it.  He further argued that Van Tils conception of the moment of becoming, wherein nothing could become something unless it was already such in its earlier form. 

    Van Tils conception about the good and the man was widely related with the presuppositional thought about how the nature of man was exposed to evil, due to his fall, and was innately good, based on the image and likeness by which he was formed after.  This nature could be known through the Scriptural reference as to how man was created in the image of God and the nature of sin because of Adams disobedience.  To say that Van Til did not relate the good and the bad with the positive cooperation of the Spirit would be to say that he rejected the restraining and the redeeming grace of God.

    According to Van Til, man would act in accord with his true nature only in his obedience towards the law of God.  The Fall of Man represented how man sought his ideals of truth, goodness and beauty beyond God, thus within man or the universe. Thus, his disobedience to the law of God and his rebellion against his true nature pushed him to seek interpretation about the universe without reference to God.   The result for the evil in man was the false ideal of knowledge that he created for himself, a product of his rebellion against his nature.

This he could never have done if he had continued to recognize that he was a creature. It is totally inconsistent with the idea of creatureliness that man should strive for comprehensive knowledge if it could be attained, it would wipe God out of existence man would then be God. And, as we shall see later, because man sought for this unattainable ideal, he brought upon himself no end of woe.

Van Til argued against possibilities outside the plan of God.  However, Daane concluded that Van Til denied genuine possibilities that do not become actualities in history, as result of Van Tils argument.  In the same way that Pighius called Calvins position deterministic, Daane called Van Tils position, which was a simple restatement of Calvins deterministic as well.

Daane criticized Van Til for allegedly having the position that no decision by the non-elect can even temporally increase Gods common favor, and no decision by the non-elect can even temporally lessen Gods wrath.  However, Van Til described the restraining force of man to be in the nature of the case, no ethical in character.  Man needed a restraining force to keep him from falling into non-being.  Thus, it was not a matter of increasing or decreasing over time, but it was a case of serving its purpose according to the individuals case.   The purpose of the restraining aspect of sin was based on the understanding that sin was a presupposition of the measure of autonomy of man, wherein he could destroy his own being because of it.

    According to the Calvinistic view, God controlled everything that came to pass and the Reformed idea of Scripture presupposed and is presupposed by this idea.  However, Daanes view was similar to Evangelicals when they spoke of determinism and rationalism.   Van Til also described Daane to side with Arminians against the Calvinist position when it came to the question of human choice.  He even expressed admiration for Kierkegaards existentialist philosophy. 

    Kierkagaard did not believe in the God of the Scripture and rejected the Christian belief for Gods character and nature.  He also did not believe in temporal creation and the historical fall and violently opposed all Christian truths.  Keirkagaard also failed to distinguish between non-Christian Hegelian idea of system and the Christian idea of Gods internal self-consistent existence.   He viewed Christian and non-Christian systems to be anathema.

    Daane spoke about the modern existentialist irrationalism of Kierkegaard to be with deep sympathy.  While he had his own criticisms for Kierkegaard, he still spoke of his concept of the Moment to be oriented in the direction of the Christian Faith.  Van Til noted that Daane espoused the idea that there was such a thing as a genuine historical possibility that was separate from the plan of God and that he expressed sympathy, if not complete, with Kierkegaards concept of the Moment, which dictated that there was no plan of God back of history and no will of God that was directly expressed in history.  Van Til pointed out that Daane charged him for having a rationalistic position because he defended that God had a plan for history and carried out his plan, which was clearly known to man through the Bible.

    Van Til argued that unless it was presupposed the God of the Bible then there was no rationality in human experience.  Van Til defended that Gods revelation in nature and in Scripture was inherently clear and that men had not excuse not to worship God.

    Van Tils arguments were evidently in opposition to Keirkegaards views that Daane supported.  Kierkegaard noted that there was not any clear and direct revelation of God in either nature or Scripture.  This argument left Christianity without any intellectual defense.  Daane rejected the view that Calvin stressed about God speaking clearly to man through nature and history.  Calvin taught that when man sees sin unpunished they must conclude that final judgment was coming in the end.   However, Daane argued as if man had an excuse since revelation in history was incomplete and inconclusive. He spoke of Kierkegaards view of Christ and history in relation to history.   While Daane believed that history revealed God, he viewed history to be incomplete and thus making history inconclusive.

    On the other hand, Daane viewed Kierkegaards non-Christian conception of the Moment to safeguard Christian religion against its future intellectual defenders.  He proposed that Kierkegaards philosophy insisted that Christ can only be known through faith and that it was only out of faith that knowledge could root from.  Van Til called Daanes denial of any direct and clear revelation of God from anything to be irrational.  He declared that it was only through the presupposition of thought based on Scripture that made a sound argument for the existence of God. 

    This defended a God that was intelligible based on human experience and that without such a God there was no ground.   For Daane, Hegelianism and historic Christianity belonged in one group, the rationalist group.   Van Til pointed out that when he defended the fact that God controlled history through his plan, Daane viewed this argument to be based outside of existence.   Van Til further countered Daane and questioned whether Daanes theology was based on Scripture or from existentialism, since his views were widely based on Kierkegaards views, an accusation that Daane originally thrown at him.

    Van Tils thought structure had been consistent.  He was a presuppositional theologian in the most orthodox sense of the term. His thought structure was carefully based on the Bible.  Daane, according to Van Til, could not produce and could not produce any evidence contrary to this. 

    However, there were evidence against the fact his accusations against Van Til, as a rationalist and determinist, were rooted from his inclination towards Kierkegaards irrationalism.
Furthermore, Daanes charges against Van Til that his structure of thought was not Bible but speculative was based on a different view of Scripture.  Van Til viewed Daanes conception of Scripture to be based on modern existentialism since it held the Bible to be formed from human experience that made its norms and ideals as it evolved, thus it could not present the absolute truth.   However, Reformed theology considered Scripture to be the direct and discernible expression of Gods will for man. 

    Daane also had objections with regard to Van Tils ontological Trinity.  He accused Van Til of reducing the ontological Trinity to particularism by making his thoughts toward it to be formal, impersonal and an empty concept.   According to him, Van Til overlooked the importance of Gods grace, Gods virtues and Christ himself, when he turned towards other principles for interpretation for dealing with problems of history.  Daane described Van Tils conception of the ontological Trinity to be a mere recognition, which was inadequate and turned into an act of abstract of the highest kind. 

    Again, Van Til viewed this criticism to be false and contrary to his position.  According to him, there was nothing that he laid so much stress on that using the Scripture as the standard and sourcebook of information about God and his relationship to the world.   He stressed that he did not believe in formulating problems or answers on any philosophy that was not based on the principles that were drawn from the Bible.  For Van Til, it was of utmost importance to question what the Scripture said about Gods relation to the world and to avoid using a deductive fashion for understanding the idea of God.

    Van Til argued against any accusation that his theology was philosophically grounded, instead of based on the Bible.  According to him, his structure of thought was based on the presupposition that the Scripture was the direct and infallible Word of God and that the doctrine of God, in three persons, which existed eternally in internal self-conscious prior to his relationship to the world.

    Van Til clarified that he followed Reformed theology when he spoke about the ontological Trinity to have an intratrinitarian relationship.   He described this relationship to exist the internal relations of the three persons of the Godhead, from the economical trinity, God in his relationship to the world.   According to Daane, Van Tils selection of the ontological Trinity as a basic category for interpretation was an abstraction.  Instead, Daane insisted that it should be the revelation of God in Christ that Van Til should consider as the most basic principle of interpretation.

Van Til defended that he included Gods virtues as an integral part of his principle of interpretation, as his incommunicable attributes under the doctrine of the ontological Trinity.  However, Van Til refused to accept that the revelation of God in Christ should be the most basic principle for Christian interpretation then he could not form an agreement with him.   According to Van Til, he could not see how it was possible to find any effective connection with the revelation of the triune God in Jesus Christ, if the ontological Trinity was used as a foundational principle.

Daane also argued with Van Til, in terms of his point of departure based on Gods eternal decrees, which made the latter allegedly incapable of providing justice to the idea of common grace in the context of history.   Van Tils conception of history, according to Daane was based on the reference of moving time.  Since Gods eternal decree was considered timeless, Van Tils common grace could not be addressed because the matter needed to be discussed within a timeless sphere.

Van Til reiterated his belief that whatsoever comes to pass in history was in line with Gods decrees.  Van Til defined the meaning of existence to be in terms of this counsel.  He pointed out that Daane based the moving stream of time definition to disregard the impact of Gods counsel because it was based on Kierkegaards influence.   Daane, along with Kierkegaard, rejected the idea of Gods counsel or decrees to influence history because it was viewed as an injustice to the Christ-event and the reality of time. 

Van Til described this denial was a a philosophical construction destructive of historic Christianity.  According to him, if the moving stream of time was maintained at the expense of the self-contained God and his eternal plan for history, the Christ of the Bible would disappear.   This would make Jesus disappear in the abyss of unrelated irrationalism  because of the rejection of the impact of Gods eternal decrees.  Van Til argued that Daane could not construct orthodox theology, which was different from dialectical theology, without using the decrees of God as point of departure.  Furthermore, he posited that Daane could not construct orthodox Christology to be a solid basis for the principle of interpretation.

Further on in the issues concerning Gods decrees, Van Til defended Calvins view on second causes and how they had genuine significance because they act in accord to the one ultimate plan of God.  Calvin argued that mans choice was free and responsible because it existed within the will of God.  Daane rejected Van Tils and Calvins shared view and labeled it as determinism. 

On the issue of the equal ultimacy of election and reprobation, Van Til admitted that he did maintain this position.  Daane viewed this position to be a fallacy.  Van Til explained that he maintained this because of the need to defend his argument that Gods counsel controlled whatsoever came to pass.  He explained that since his point of departure was based on God and his plan, he viewed this plan as the back of reprobation as well as back of election.  Gods plan is a unity. His act of election of some is itself the act of not electing others.  Van Til posed that his was based on John Murrays exposition regarding the sovereign of pleasure of God towards his elect and his wrath upon the reprobate.  This was also based on the 7th section of the third chapter of the Westminster Confession, which Van Til quoted

  The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

Daane argued that if the ultimacy of election and reprobation was accepted, the reprobate could not be placed in the position of recognizing Gods goodness, thus could not accept or reject it.   He posed the same question for the elect.  Van Til pointed out that if the equal ultimacy between the elect and the reprobate was rejected, it was related to the rejection of Gods sovereign plan about whatsoever comes to pass.  If the basis was mans acceptance or rejection of Gods goodness, men would be made as the ultimate, as well as the proximate cause of their eternal destiny. 

Van Til identified Daanes objections to be similar to Pighius objections against Calvin.   Calvin defended that it was legitimate to urge sin as the proximate cause and Gods counsel or decrees as the ultimate cause for reprobates eternal damnation.  Van Til rejected any accusation from Daane that he was defining Gods sovereignty based on extra-Scriptural foundations.  It was also not unbiblical, according to Van Til, to make mans sin to be the basis for the dishonor and wrath that was ordained for the reprobate.  However, it was not the reason by which the elect were passed by.  It was Gods sovereign pleasure that selects the elect.  If it was based on sin that men were passed by, it was based on Gods good pleasure and his decrees.

    Van Til noted that the rejection of the doctrine of equal ultimacy of election and reprobation was based on the fact that theologians based their arguments on Gods revelation in Christ, as a point of departure, instead of Gods character and counsel, as the basic principle for interpretation.  Following Calvinism, Van Til posited that reprobation was equal with election because it was the negative aspect of election.   He further argued that if reprobation was not equal with election, then election would depend on the prior deed on the part of man, which included his acceptance or rejection of Gods goodness.  Daane was particularly concerned with the conscious acceptance and rejection of the elect and the non-elect of the common grace goodness of Christ.
Thus, with this position, Van Til questioned how Daane could avoid the position of the Arminians and that of Pighius, in his refusal to make Gods ultimate cause of reprobation to stand back of the sin of man, as the proximate cause.   Daane could not accept that a serious concept of the Moment cannot rest upon, or be correlated to the absence of self-consciousness. 

Furthermore, Daane insisted that it was important to know Gods will, as expressed through the general offer of salvation to experience evidence for common grace.  He maintained that the non-elect needed to know and be self-conscious of Gods goodness toward him for him to be classified as a reprobate.  However, Van Til already denied the necessity of awareness based on the point of departure from the doctrine of Gods decrees.  The distinction should not be made based on mans knowledge because awareness was something that was brought about by special grace and the revealing work of the Holy Spirit about Gods salvation. 

Daane refused the to base his arguments on the counsel of God for election and reprobation.  This created the ultimacy of possibility that was conceived apart from the plan of God.  Daane maintained that it was only Van Tils rejection that it was possible for Adam to have chosen obedience over rebellion against God that he could maintain the purpose of the general offer in the pre-Fall time could serve as the differentiation between the elect and the reprobate.  Daane rejected Van Tils definition of possibility to be co-extensive with the counsel of God.  He argued that Van Til could not accept the fact that possibilities, instead of actualities, were also part of Gods counsel.  Daane described this denial to be determinism and a rejection of the position that Adam was created with the freedom to not sin.

Van Til stressed that Daane assumed that the finite existence could be defined apart from God.  He argued against defining anything outside of the terms of the plans of God.  Daane moved that possibility should be defined apart from Gods plan.  However, if possibilities were considered to be in accordance to Gods counsel, it would mean parts of Gods decrees did not come to pass. However, anything and everything that comes to pass, as Scripture dictated, came to pass because they were in accordance to Gods plans. Van Til quoted Calvins arguments against Pighius, which Daane could consider as deterministic as well

If, then, nothing can prevent a man from acknowledging that the first origin of his ruin was from Adam, and if each man finds the proximate cause of his ruin in himself, what can prevent our faith from acknowledging afar off, with all sobriety and adoring, with all humility, that remote secret counsel of God by which the Fall of man was thus preordained And what should prevent the same faith from beholding, at the same time, the proximate cause within that the whole human race is individually bound by the guilt and desert of eternal death, as derived from the person of Adam and that all are in themselves, therefore, subject to death and to death eternal Pighius, therefore, has not sundered, shaken or altered (as he thought he had done) that pre-eminent and most beautiful symmetry with which these proximate and remote causes divinely harmonize

Finally, Daane asserted that Van Tils formulation of common grace was different from the Synods three points.  He argued that the tradition conception of common grace was historically and theologically based on the reality of sin.   He argued against any conception that did not have any reference to sin.

Van Til responded that despite the significance of the way God dealt with mankind as a whole, in terms of his benevolent attitude before the Fall, the general character of the gospel offer, and the good gifts to all men, Daane limited his perception of Van Tils common grace to be determinist.
Van Til described Daane to insist of the independence of man from the counsel of God.  He described him to find no justice in history until the events were viewed to have occurred apart from the plan of God.  Thus, Van Til did not find any possibility for satisfying Daane based on historical importance, unless history was viewed from an irrational sense of modern existentialism.   This was through the adoption the distinction of a sinless and a sinful time, as Daane posited to be based on the 1924 Synod.  However, Van Til pointed out, It is the men, not the media of their existence, that are, either sinless or sinful.  Van Til declared that in the instances wherein Daane and other men criticized his conception of common grace and the doctrine of God, it was the autonomous man in them that created these criticisms.  These men, according to Van Til, were unwilling to make their stand based on the principle of Gods self-identification in the Bible.  Van Til argued that their position sought to satisfy the natural man and to set man as the ultimate interpreter, rather than through the grace of God.  He concluded that he did not rejoice or find victory in refuting their claims, Van Til stated, But I signalize it in the hope that with me they may rather seek to serve the witness of the Spirit in convicting the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.

Positive Line of Concrete Thinking
    Van Til promoted biblical-theological ways of thought structuring in order to experience thinking historically, instead of statically from scholastic ways of thinking in the conception of the doctrine of common grace.   This was presented through Van Tils positive line of concrete thinking. 
    As earlier discussed in the critical interactions, the basis for Van Tils interpretation principle was the ontological Trinity.  He also admitted the strong influence of Kuyper and Bavincks abstract thinking in his formulation for common grace.  He declared God to be the concrete universal in the discussion, by which thought and being were coterminous and the problem of knowledge was solved.  God as the universal was set the discussion wherein everything was correlative with the universal otherwise it would be rejected.  Van Til also noted that using the ontological Trinity to be the starting point of reasoning would make the method and the conclusion to be different from the other schools of philosophy and science.  Correlativity was significant because it brought true progress in history and the Moment had significance. 

    While Van Til recognized that there could not be an exhaustive answer to the common grace problem, there was already a significant argument for the Christian concept of mystery.  It was significant to start the discussion with Van Tils acknowledgment for the incomprehensible will of God, which was a doctrine in Calvinism, in relation to the case of the predestination of God.  Furthermore, this line of thinking also accepted Calvins position that Gods counsel was the ultimate cause of whatsoever came to pass and that mans sin was the proximate cause.

Pighius argument against this was stated in such a way that if God was the ultimate cause for whatsoever came to pass then he argued that God was the cause of sin.  Calvin was aware of the tendency for this argument.  Instead of responding on the grounds of non-Christian logic, Van Til quoted Calvin

Paul comparing, as he here does, man with God, shows that the counsel of God, in electing and reprobating men, is without doubt more profound and more deeply concealed than the human mind can penetrate. Wherefore, O man, consider (as the apostle adviseth thee) who and what thou art, and concede more to God than the measure and compass of thine own nature.

Van Til, like Calvin denied meeting arguments against the logic of predestination on the basis of brute facts and according to abstract universal principles.  Rather, Van Til chose to meet them according to the principles of the ontological Trinity as the interpretative concept.  In the face of the charges against contradictions, he declared that this position truly defended the meaning of second causes.  History was given meaning because of Gods counsel.

Van Til posited that there was an imperative necessity to maintain a clear distinction for the differences between the believer and unbelievers conception of mystery, in connection with the problem of common grace.  Since this problem dealt with the question about what two different classes of man, which on the final judgment be absolutely different, have in common with each other.   Van Til was aware not to approach this problem with a specific, overarching answer because of the existence of abstractions.  However, he admitted that abstractions would be present as long as there was no clear-cut distinction for the difference between Christian and non-Christian conceptions for mystery.  This was something that would take longer than one could wait in order to continue with the discussion, thus the awareness for their possibilities and dangers would suffice.
It was significant to note that man had a moral attitude toward God and that parties in the debate for common grace viewed that the law of God was written in the hearts of men.  In terms of the revelational relationship of God with man, it was maintained that God spoke to all man through the book of nature and the book of conscience.   This was proven because wherever man turned, he would be faced with the living God and his requirements.  There was nowhere that man could go without being confronted with the plain and insistent fact that the true God existed before him.
In terms of the generality, Van Til posited that in the beginning God loved mankind in general.  This was before they sinned against God.  However, when mankind sinned, God hated mankind in general.  Thus, mankind was in a common state under the wrath of God, elect and reprobate alike. The represented the earlier attitude of common favor for humanity.   According to him, Indeed, the reality of the common wrath depends upon the fact of the earlier common grace.

However, after common, this grace was described as conditional as well.  Since history was a process of differentiation, the commonness between the elect and the reprobate remained a limiting concept.  It was commonness for a limited period of time. Van Til referred to this as the divine as if. 
Man has sinned against the true God, whom he knew for what He is. When man first sinned he did not know God as fully as we know Him now, but he did know God for what He is, as far as he knew Him at all. And it was mankind, not some individual elect or reprobate person that sinned against God. Thus it was mankind in general which was under the favor of God, that came under the wrath of God. We have said that after the common in each case comes the conditional.

    The conditional in common grace was discussed in the context of the idea of the earlier and the later, which served as the historical correlativity between the universal and the particular.   Common grace was not a small quantity of special grace.   Rather, it was a lower grace that resulted from the presentation of the gospel, which was the highest grace.

      While God is good to all he had creation, he could not be capable of change.  He is the Lawgiver.  While he enlightened men with external doctrine of conditional life, He brings eternal life to those He willed according to His eternal purpose through his regenerating grace, for his children, the elect only.  There was a need to stay away from Platonic abstractions.  Thus, the conditional nature of grace was offered to mankind only because of Gods goodness to his creation. However, the unconditional nature of Gods favor and grace is only extended towards the elect.  This could be observed as the ultimate reflection of historical differentiation between the elect and the reprobate, as a result of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

    At the end of time, the general gospel offer and common grace would have no point of contact with the reprobate, wherein like the devil and the demons they would become finished products of their damnation.   This would be a point wherein they have fully negated God and were epistemologically fully self-conscious of their sinful nature.   According to Van Til, the general offer only had meaning with respect to the elect and the reprobate when they are, and to the extent that they are, members of an as yet undifferentiated generality.

    In light of the state of undifferentation in the perspective of man, especially the elect, as to the classifications of the unregenerate, the attitude of the general approach included the conditional as if attitude.  This was not an abstraction but a reflection of Gods positive attitude towards humanity.  Van Til described this as the practical use of the concept of mankind in general and as a limiting concept.  This meant that Christians and non-Christians alike should not disregard that fact that nothing existed in a pure state.   Everyone was considered to be sinners before God.  Thus, Christians must witness to men in such a way that they recognized that in themselves, they were also enemies of God, if not for the saving grace of Jesus.  Furthermore, Van Til moved that Christians must oppose men in such a manner that they become epistemologically more self-conscious.  As God did not chose whom to provide rain and sunshine, Christians should also give their good gifts to both believers and unbelievers, in the same way that God did, which was the basis of the limiting concept. 

    Van Til clarified that there was no single territory or dimension by which believers and unbelievers have all things wholly in common.  This was discussed in the substitution for ideas of earlier and later grace for lower and higher grace, as a solution to the problem of territories by which this provided.  He stressed that there could be no neutral territory of cooperation yet the unbelievers were more self-conscious in the dimension of religion, rather than in the dimension of mathematics.   The differentiation process, according to Van Til, has not proceeded in the lower, in comparison to the higher dimensions. 

    As believers, there was the conscious effort to make men epistemologically self-aware of their state before God in whatever activities they did on Earth.  In line with this, Reformed Christians build educational institutions and the like in order to present that neutrality in intellectual thought was sin before God.   Van Til declared that it was insult to God if man ignored him in whatever area of his life, as in whatever man do he must to for Gods glory.   However, Van Til spoke at a point in the process of historical differentiations conclusion.  He revealed that while Christians sought for the process of differentiation to be completed for the elect to receive the full measure of Gods grace, it also signified the end of times.

But when all the reprobate are epistemologically self-conscious, the crack of doom has come. The fully self-conscious reprobate will do all he can in every dimension to destroy the people of God. So while we seek with all our power to hasten the process of differentiation in every dimension we are yet thankful, on the other hand, for the day of grace, the day of undeveloped differentiation. Such tolerance as we receive on the part of the world is due to this fact that we live in the earlier, rather than the later, stage of history. And such influence on the public situation as we can effect, whether in society or in state, presupposes this undifferentiated stage of development.

    The process of historical differentiation also involved both tolerance and influence, in different degrees.  Undifferentiation made Christians tolerant and influential, both in the higher and lower dimensions of grace.  Van Til clarified, against Kuypers copperwire illustration, that it was not a matter of changing the psychological state of man.   Rather, it was mans ethical attitude toward God that matter, based on an epistemological change.  According to Van Til, the fully self-conscious man in the epistemological context would violently suppress any psychologically interpretive voice within them.  However, even while they were not self-conscious in the same context, they could experience heavenly gifts and receive the goodness of God, as well as be prevented from rebellion. 

    It was out of this discussion that Van Til saw a resolution for the problem of civil righteousness and the works of the unregenerate.  In a lower dimension, there was no differentiation that needed to be made by believers.  Van Til noted that there were unbelievers who went to church and even gave to the cause of missions.  He did not consider them to be hypocrites, because then they would have to have a larger degree of epistemological self-consciousness.  It was possible for the unregenerate to do the works of the law on an external level.   Nevertheless, he knew the law because it was inscribed in himself.   Van Til posited, The very possibility of self-conscious hypocrisy presupposes an earlier undifferentiated state. It is from that undifferentiated stage that we must make our beginning. 

    Van Til also provided the unity for the ideas of Gods general providence, general revelation, the remnants of the image of God in the fallen man, the general external call of the gospel, and mans evil nature.   He started with the basic proposition that all things happened because of Gods providence.  He posited the development in the direction of evil and good was in accordance to Gods provision.  The development for the different directions grew in conjunction and in correlativity with one another.

    The general development of history, wherein there were two subdivisions that involved the two directions mentioned, still came from the presentation of God of Himself through different levels of self-revelation to man and his reaction to this presentation.  Gods revelation of himself was always constant.  This showed that over time God remained the same and this his eternal decrees were always in place, otherwise there would movement in mans direction.  Van Til stressed that even the greatest obscuration of the sin of man could never be sufficient to destroy the validity of Gods revelation.  Thus, sin only cast a shadow over the nature and consciousness of man, but it did not affect Gods character and nature, or his presentation of himself.

    Even if evil was found the heart of man because of sin, Gods presence was all around.  Van Til followed Calvins argument that man was constantly pursued by the voice of accusing conscience.  Thus there was a struggle within man.  The sinful nature accounted for the turning and yearning for the temporary and failed to arise from true faith in God.  Furthermore, it was this nature that gave the sinner over to a higher level of determination of ones evil nature.  Even if the sinner continued to do the works of the law, the reprobate would do them more self-consciously for the sake of reward, considering himself as the final reference point for man.  Van Til saw this process take place up to the point wherein the sinner became a worthy disciple of Satan.

    Van Til used this to provide a more vivid understanding for the relationship between common grace and total depravity.  Stressing the fact that common grace was considered earlier grace, it could be considered to be correlated with which total depravity shone forth the fullness of its significance.  On a negative trend, there was no possible toning down of the doctrine of total depravity.  The attitude of favor towards man was not directed toward mans evil nature.  Instead, it was directed toward the individual in so far that he was unconscious of the real significance of the path he was on in the context of epistemology.  At this stage, he is an individual that was merely a member of the mass of mankind, a recipient of Gods providence, and had not come to a point of climax of the process of differentiation.

    On a positive trend, common grace was described as the necessary correlative for the doctrine of total depravity.  The fall of man was the product of the first representative act of man.  It was significant to note that Van Til described it as representative because Adams sin affected mankind in general.  Thus, it historically resulted in the total depravity of the human race.  Adams act was done against the mandate of God, which involved mankind as a whole without the presence of the common mandate for mankind, this act would be void and would not result in mankinds total depravity.

    Mankind came under the common wrath of God, however the process of differentiation was not made complete after Adam sinned.   The process involved the elects choice to follow God and the reprobates reaffirmation to chose Satan.  The reprobate functioned to represent the historical extent of the sinfulness of sin.   Man, elect or reprobate, would become more conformed to the principle that controlled their hearts as history unfolds.  They do this through the rejection of the common call, which was presented through the common grace of God. 

    This meant to say that man continued to reject God in the proportional extent that God revealed himself to them.   Van Til qualified the gospel call in this call in some cases, wherein in others it did not.  However, in whatever case, there was growth in the wickedness on those that have seen more of the common grace of God, but still rejected him.  Thus, Van Til was able to present how the historical process common grace is the correlative to total depravity.

    In this argument, Van Til illustrated that there was the presence of the relatively good, the absolutely evil, the relatively evil and the absolutely good.  In either case, the absolutely evil nor the absolutely good were epistemologically as self-conscious as they could be in the future.  This showed a movement or a progress in terms of the level of consciousness each had with their epistemological state.
    The epistemological unconsciousness was a state wherein Gods favor was upon the reprobate and Gods disfavor was upon the elect.  This was not Gods final attitude towards the individual, however, it was considered as a real attitude.  It showed that Gods attitude towards the individual would change based on their epistemological self-consciousness and final state before God.  The difference in attitude did not concern the metaphysical state of man before God because either way man was under the sovereignty of the Lord.  This made Van Tils historical process of differentiation sound, in light of the premise that each man was on the move and progressing towards his final epistemological state of consciousness.

Van Til discussed the parallelism between the natural man and nature. Man and nature go through the similar history.  They were aspects of one course of events that was geared towards reaching the greater climax in accordance to Gods decrees.   Both the elect and the reprobate were created good and through the fall, both came under the wrath of God.  Thus, nature, as well as man was exposed to vanity and corruption.  While the goodness of man, after the fall was subjected to movement, the vanity and corruption of man and nature was also on the move.  

Van Til followed Calvins thinking that the man should be able to see the munificence of the Creator in his creation.  Furthermore, man should also see the wrath of God upon nature.  The Bible presented that there was a downward tendency in creation.  According to the letter to the Romans, We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Van Til agreed that men ought to conclude that history will end in the final judgment of man.  This was the conclusion for them when their sings go unpunished.  Men should conclude that punishment was merely deferred and that it would come still.  The climax could be seen at the end of the process of differentiation wherein the ultimate grace and wrath of God could be experienced.     At the same time, vanity and corruption would be swallowed up in victory through the regeneration of everything, But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. 

    Van Til stressed that there was a need to describe nature for what it really was.  In the same manner, man was also on the move.  He described the unbeliever to be under the earshot of the gospel call and there was a need to consider the following perspectives to view the moving character of man
He that would describe nature for what it actually is, must describe it as thus on the move. And so he that would describe man for what he actually is, must describe him as on the move. Applying this to the unbeliever, who lives under earshot of the gospel call, we have the following. He must be looked at (a) as having been a member of an original generality that was good, (b) as having become a member of a second generality which is wholly corrupt in principle and is on the way to a grand climax of destruction, (c) as having become a member of that generality in the midst of which the supernatural redemptive process is operative, and as a member of a generality that lives under the long-suffering of God, which would lead it to repentance, (d) as a member of a generality that is, in some cases, crucifying to itself the Son of God afresh, (e) as a member of a generality in which that process of crucifixion is still incomplete.

Van Til offered these generalities as presupposition to the individual confrontation of unbelievers with the gospel.  They were connected to the meaning of the conditional that face those who have received the free call of the gospel.  Van Til described these generalities from the presupposition that they were genuinely operative factors for each man.  Van Til warned that it was not until the process of differentiation has been completed when a man could be judged to be a reprobate or an elect.   He argued that it should be based on the ontological trinity to control the theological conception, instead of catering to abstract reasoning that were based on the correlativism of metaphysics and epistemology.

Van Til disputed the tendency to fall into scholastic ways of thinking in the efforts to construct theological discussions.  He posited that the avoidance of scholasticism could result in caution against affirmations and negations when it came to common grace.  In this manner, one must practice thinking historically through adopting anthropomorphism, beginning with doctrines of ontological trinity and temporal creation.  This was noted to cut loose the correlativism between God and man.   Furthermore, there was a need to provide significance to the historical condition action because history enabled man to experience counsel of God and in the same way delay judgment for man.  Van Til also posed that the attitude of favor that God had toward the generality of mankind and the good that it does to the historically undeveloped unbeliever.   He stressed, If we can say of one who is elect that he was at one point in his history totally depraved, we can, with equal justice, say of a reprobate that he was at one point in his history in some sense good.

The Significance of the Self-Contained Ontological Trinity
    In The Defense of Faith, Van Til noted that since sin came into the world, man could not see the whole picture of reality from a Christian point of view until he recognized that God and man were brought together after their separation.   Reconciliation was only possible through Gods initiation.  Thus, Christ came to bring man back to God, since man could not do it by himself.  Under this discussion, Van Til found it significant to talk about the ontological trinity, before the economic trinity. 

    Jesus Christ is the second person in the ontological trinity.  This meant that Christ is God otherwise he would not be able to bring about reconciliation for man.  Christ, in respect to his essence, he is fully equal with the Father.  Thus, he existed from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit.  In his incarnation, he assumed human nature to die on the cross to pay the penalty for mans sin. 
However, Van Til held on to the fact that Christ did set aside his divine nature.   He denied that Christ became a human person or a divine-human person.  Instead, his argument within the basis of the ontological trinity, he remained divine wherein his divine nature was in close union with the human nature.  He held that Christ had the divine and human natures, which were two natures, without change, without division and without separation.  If Jesus was the second person in the ontological trinity, Van Til, defended that he shared the incommunicable attributes of the Godhead.  This enabled him to have two natures during his incarnation.

    Van Til stressed on the importance of the organic relationship between what Christ did for man, what Christ did and what he does within man.   This was understood in line with the redemptive activity of Christ.  Man was dead because of trespasses and sin.  Van Til pointed out that Christ must subdue man in order to give him knowledge and this was done through the work of the Holy Spirit.   As Christ did his work, the Spirit also moved in mankind.  This presented the Holy Spirit to be a member of the ontological trinity.    He needed to be because unless he was, the work of salvation would not be the work of God alone.  If the Holy Spirit was not God, it would mean that man, at some point in time, took the initiative in the matter of his salvation. 

Suppose that none should accept the salvation offered to them. In that case the whole of Christs work would be in vain and the eternal God would be set at nought by temporal man. Even if we say that in the case of any one individual sinner the question of salvation is in the last analysis dependent upon man rather than upon God, that is, if we say that man can of himself accept or reject the gospel as he pleases, we have made the eternal God dependent upon man. We have then, in effect, denied the incommunicable attributes of God. If we refuse to mix the eternal and the temporal at the point of creation and at the point of the incarnation we must also refuse to mix them at the point of salvation.

Proximate Cause versus Ultimate Cause
    According to Van Til, reprobation must rest on the will of God.  He rejected the point of view that was sometimes heard from Reformed theologians tat reprobation ultimately laid on the sin of man.  He declared that sin was not the final cause instead it was the proximate case.   Reprobation should be viewed as Gods punishment upon mans sin. 

    On the other hand, election was ultimately based on Gods eternal plan.  Reprobation was not directly the act of the eternal plan of God.  Van Til posited that reprobation was not equally ultimate with election.   It was clear for him that the opposite point of view could lead to contrasting the Reformed faith.   He declared that there was a sovereign God of the Bible and that reprobation was not an ultimate act of justice because of the sin of man, rather it was still Gods sovereignty that ultimately decides.

    According to Van Til, the fully Biblical and the fully Reformed position was that God, in his sovereign decree, is the ultimate cause of all the came to pass and will come to pass through the deeds of men, even if these deeds led to their final destruction or their final glory, as allowed by the grace of God.   Thus, the fall of man was the proximate cause of reprobation.  This meant that it was God that willed the fall.  There was only one, all-comprehensive plan of God, which meant there was no plan B if ever Adam failed to do his part nothing could happen without his plan.  Van Til followed Calvins argument that it was not sinfulness that ultimately dictated the unbelief in humans instead, it came from the secret and eternal counsel of God, which was Biblically viewed as the original cause of mans blindness and unbelief.

    Van Til adopted Calvins distinction between proximate and ultimate causes, wherein man is the proximate and responsible cause for his eternal punishment.  There was a mandate from God to let man know of his eternal state before God and their final damnation if they persisted in their rebellion against God.  There was a call for mans repentance.  However, it was stressed that at the back of their belief or unbelief was still the sovereign will of God.  Christians were called to be a witness for that sovereign God.  This agreed with Bavincks and Augustines position on the doctrine of grace, which did not stop with secondary sources but attributed to God, as the first and ultimate cause.

    Van Til offered Calvins position in the problem of penetrating the mystery in relation to the will of God,  Here let human reasonings of every kind that possibly can present themselves to our minds cease forever.  Van Til extended this position to the problem of common grace.   In answering the argument as to why God had an attitude of favor towards those whom he willed to be separated from him forever, the answer was because that was what the Bible said. 

    However, in order to move the discussion further, Van Til offered that in order to be punished for their own sin, man was placed in the context wherein God confronted them in all they did.  Gods decrees were manifested in the way God and man interacted.

Historical causes have genuine meaning just because of Gods ultimate plan. God reaches down into the self-consciousness of each individual. If the heathen are adding to their sins and to their punishment, and if for additional sin they are, as Paul tells us, given over unto still further sin by God, we can see that they must have the fact of God, as long-suffering and as calling them to repentance, before them. And we can also see that, therefore, the restraint of God by which men are kept back from greater sin and from greater punishment is something that is an unmerited favor unto them.

    Van Til agreed with Bavinck that although sin and the eternal punishment for some men was a part of the plan of God.   However, they posed that they were not willed in the same sense and manner that grace and salvation was willed for the elect.  There was a need to hold both to the genuine meaning of historical causes and to all the inclusiveness of Gods will as the ultimate cause. 

    Van Til offered that if there was a need to deny the meaning of the secondary causes all together in order to solve the problem, then he moved to wipe the distinction between the revealed and the secret will of God.  This would mean he needed to retain that there was no attitude of disfavor upon the elect of man because of his grace, even for their sins.  In the end, this would mean there was no need for the redemptive history that man had experienced through Christ, since there was no hint of disfavor over the elect and their sins.

    Thus, rather than meet objectors in their desires to provide consistency in logic, Van Til declared that Christians should not deny the general favor of God over mankind nor the fact that Gods wrath also rested upon the elect.  He argued that to satisfy the objectors desire for logical consistency would be to deny the meaning of redemptive history and of all secondary causes.  While the objector posited that it was contradictory to say that God controlled whatsoever comes to pass and that human choices have significance, Van Til promoted Calvins argument, And most certainly there is nothing in the whole circle of spiritual doctrine which does not far surpass the capacity of man and confound its utmost reach.

God s Decrees and History
    One of the major arguments of Daane was his rejection of discussing common grace in relation to history because of his perceived inadequacy.  Instead, he pointed out that need to make Gods eternal decrees to be the point of departure.  He rejected Van Tils position of doing justice to common grace based on the reference to the moving stream of time.   Van Til was known to reiterate that describing nature involved the idea of movement. 

While Daane understood Gods eternal decrees to be timeless, Van Til pointed out the need to understand that whatsoever came to pass in history was representative of the decrees of counsel of God.  However, he declared that he defined the meaning of existence in history in terms of Gods decrees.    Van Til pointed out that it was different from the conception of Kierkegaard and his followers who defined the moving stream of time to be without reference of Gods counsel.  In the same manner, Barth also rejected that Gods counsel was the back of history.

    Van Til defended the idea of the ontological trinity in line with the relationship of Gods decrees and history.  While his critics pointed out that the ontological trinity in relation with the controlling of the events of history to do injustice on the uniqueness and the reality of time, as well as the Christ event.  Van Til responded to these rejections by saying that the rejection of the ontological trinity or the relationship of Gods decrees with history would be a philosophical construction destructive of historic Christianity.

 The reality and significance of the moving stream of time concept should not be maintained at the expense of self-contained God and his eternal plan for history because it would disregard the Christ of the Bible.   This provided the dangers of unrelated irrationalism.  Furthermore, Van Til noted that this was contradictory to orthodox theology because of the inability of this rejection to include the decrees of God.

Overview of Van Tils Doctrine of Common Grace
Creation and Redemption
    Van Til held that it pleased God to create a good world out of nothing, in the space of six days, for the manifestation of his glory.  He believed the doctrine of creation fit in with the doctrine of the ontological trinity.  Since God is a self-contained being, there was no time wherein he did not exist or did not have power.   Van Til was a strong defender of this doctrine.  He called man a distinct ontological entity over against God, as created in the paradise.  He was made perfect and with the ability to recognize God as his lawgiver.  He was considered as the covenant keeper because of the law of his own being.  However, the entrance of sin took away his willingness to obey the law of God, wherein he became the covenant breaker. 

Due to the sin of man, the curse of God rested upon the whole creation.   Man joined Satan in his opposition.  However, God made sure there was a remedial influence against sin in the world, Jesus Christ.   Christ declared that he came not to bring peace but the sword because he came to destroy the works of the evil one.   Van Til declared that when Jesus came to the Earth, it was because of a battle against Satan, which he won single-handedly.  Furthermore, the Scripture spoke about the regeneration of all things, wherein Christ would sit upon his throne and the whole creation would be present in their redeemed state.

Van Til accepted the redemptive work of Christ, as posited by Kuyper.  However he rejected the idea of Gods work through common grace to be secondary to the work of saving His people.  It was important to understand the role of God in both the process of differentiation history and the redemptive history. 

However, he rejected the fact the distinction between Christ the mediator of creation and the mediator of redemption.  According to Van Til, there must be a unity of the idea of creation in Christ and his redemptive work.   He further moved that there be a perspective for but one all-inclusive covenant of grace.  Thus, Scripture revealed the pre-existence of Christ, his work in the creation and his reconciliation activity.  Moreover, history must be viewed in light of this covenant of grace.  Phases of history reflected different manifestations of the covenant of grace from the time of the paradise, to the time of Noah, Abraham, and of Christ, until his return. 

In the beginning of history, God spoke to Adam as the representative of mankind.  This did not mean that there was no predestination, according to Van Til, because there was.   However, from that point there was a sense of generality in the way God dealt with the elect and the reprobate.  Every man became a sinner when Adam sinned.  Thus, they were confronted by the same conditional proposition.  In the essence of historical development, the sinners, through Adams sin, experienced sameness with a difference.

The elect of God always had the favor in the ultimate sense.  Van Til also viewed their historical situation to be in line with their eternal destiny.  Furthermore, Gods ultimate favor and his proximate favor corresponded.   However, the difference was the level of wrath that the elect had.  When Christ saves the elect, they are made closer to God than they were before the Fall.   There were genuine historical ups and downs for the elect, however they remained in the upward direction, as they were selected for a particular destination. 

History has, we believe as Christians, genuine significance because Gods counsel is back of it and is being realized through it. Thus there is genuine progress, and therefore genuine variation, in the relations of the same men to the same God just because Gods unvarying counsel is back of history.

Concept of Limiting Concept
Van Til found weakness in the epistemological foundation of Kuyper.  The latter did not start unequivocally from Van Tils presupposition of the ontological trinity.   Instead, Kuyper allowed himself to conceive problems based on the pattern of modern Platonism.  Van Til explained that the criticism was justly made because Kuyper admitted joining perception and ratiocination closely.  However, he held that it only applied for wholly elementary objects. Van Til objected to this limitation, as wholly elementary objects did not exist.  Thus, he posited the distinction between ratiocination and perception could not be in the form of a limiting concept.

    Van Til discussed further the lack of clarity that Kuypers thought held in relation to the distinction between the Christian and the non-Christian notion of the limiting concept.  In order to address this, he stressed that Christians had an incomprehensible God.  The incomprehensible God revealed himself throughout cosmic history.  According to Kuyper, facts seemed to have a nature that did not fit them well to be apprehended in intellectual categories.  Van Til described this to have a Kantian tendency.   Van Til was consistent in rejecting arguments that were contradictory to theology that involved the logic of Reformed theology, most especially when they were based on unbiblical foundations.  In contrast to this tendency, Van Til stressed that Christians ought to abhor the ideal of comprehensive knowledge about an incomprehensible God and the idea of irrational fact. 
If the ideal of comprehensive knowledge were realized, it would be realized at the expense of the uniqueness of every fact of the cosmos and of the aseity of God.  If facts were irrational and not comprehensively known by God, they would not be known in any degree by man. Throwing overboard the non-Christian procedure entirely, the Christian should frankly begin his scientific work on the presupposition of the cotermineity of the universal and the particular in the Godhead.
Orthodox theology followed that there is but one God, wherein the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is each this one God.  They are three Persons that had the same incommunicable property.  Thus, Van Til found it significant to base interpretation on the ontological trinity, even when it was in the understanding of the facts and the universals, and their correlation.  Thus, the ideal of science was to describe this and not to make an intellectual effort to provide abstract universal relations. 
Van Til focused on the concept of the limiting concept from a Christian perspective.  The non-Christian notion of this concept had been formed based from non-Christian conception of mystery.  This concept was also described as the product of the notion of the would-be autonomous man who sought to legislate all reality and had the tendency to accept irrationalism. On the other hand, the Christian notion of the limiting concept was the product of the acknowledgement of the creature who sought to provide in the systematic form discussion about the revelation of the Creator.
The church may have, consciously or not, used the notion of the limiting concept in the construction of its creeds.  The church did not pretend to be in abundance for Gods full revelation.  It acknowledged that it also dealt with an inexhaustible God.  Thus, the creeds of faith they held to were regarded to be mere approximations of the fullness of the Bibles truth.  The approximations of such truths should be constructed with the avoidance for the modern notion of creeds, which was based on the modern notion of the limiting concept. 

The modern notion of a systematic logical interpretation of approximations was based on ultimate skepticism.   It implied doubt for any intellectual statement, in its level of truth.  It was not about a hope or a declaration of faith.  It was also a reflection of hope that these approximations were mere human interpretations of the truth.

On the other hand, the Christian idea of this notion was grounded on the presupposition of the existence of God.  Moreover, it was about the acceptance that he is a self-contained Being according to the Scriptures presentation.  Thus, Van Til offered that the Christian idea of this notion was about the recognition that creatures could only touch the hem of the garment of Him who dwells in light that no man can approach unto.  Furthermore, the limiting concept was also viewed to provide for common humility and mutual forbearance because of the acknowledgement that as man, there could only be a limited level of knowledge that one could have.

Sovereignty and Covenant
    Louis Berkhof described the concept of Van Tils sovereignty and covenant, the covenant idea developed in history before God made any formal use of the concept in the revelation of redemption.  The covenant relationship between God and man existed even from the beginning of history.  A covenant was described as a pact or an agreement between two or more parties.  Since God controlled whatsoever comes to pass, his sovereignty also encompassed the particular covenant God had with man.  

As mentioned because of Adams sin, man became covenant breakers.  This made them become under the curse of God.  However, the covenant of grace spoke of the immeasurable love of God.   Berkhof and Van Til were in agreement in this discussion God remains forever true to His covenant and will invariably bring it to full realization in the elect. 

The sovereignty of God and the particularism of the gospel reflected the completion of the original plan of God.   Van Til viewed Gods assignment to Adam the common task for mankind He did so for the ultimate purpose in place for saving his people.   He described the particular and the universal to be intertwined with one another in history.  Since everything that comes to pass was because God allowed it to be come about, this revealed that it was Gods sovereignty that preserved Gods covenant with man.  Since man was a covenant breaker, this made the preservation of the covenant to be out Gods grace.

By thus placing all the facts of mans environment in covenantal perspective, the meaning of Gods so loving the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life, will be seen for its breadth of sweep and for its sovereign particularity. Christ is sent to the world of sinful men. He is sent to save sinners. These sinners will ultimately show themselves to have been either elect or reprobate. They will show themselves with clarity to have been either elect or reprobate in the fact of their acceptance or rejection of Christ if confronted by Him.

The delimitation for the sinners by which Christ came for was based from the sovereign pleasure of God.  Christ came for the sinners as a class.  In the context of common grace, it was in the program of God, in line with the redemptive work of Christ, that the world was cursed and placed in need for a mediator.  Common grace needed to play a part as all things in history was described to serve Gods glory.  Van Til stressed that even if men did not accept Christ, they could still be used by God.
Summary and Evaluation

    The Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 was a significant turn for the discussion about common grace.  It provided affirmation for the doctrine in accordance to Reformed theology.   Van Til expressed significant conceptions for commonality between believers and unbelievers, which had been a significant area of discussion for Reformed theologians, especially for those that rejected this doctrine.

    Van Til stressed actively that history should not be taken separately because it could disregard the manifestation of Gods favor and wrath.  It was significant to Van Til because it reflected the difference of Gods grace for believers and unbelievers.  He offered that it was significant to consider the attitude of God towards the reprobate in order to understand the relationship of the unbeliever with God within the context of common grace and their ultimate destination.  It also set the standard by which Christians should treat unbelievers.  Since God extended good gifts and unmerited mercies the sinners, both elect and reprobate, who were Christians to withhold their goodness and compassion for the unbelievers  Furthermore, Gods sovereignty should also enable Christians to appreciate the goodness that could come out of the reprobate.  There were different accounts in history wherein God was able to move pagans for his purposes.  He was not limited to the faith of the individual he used for his purposes.

    Van Til also provided concrete arguments for the distinction for common grace, as the earlier grace.   He declared that the commonness of grace was rooted based on the fact that it was earlier grace.  It was not because he supported Kuypers position of separating the source of common and special grace.  It was just because he believed that common grace was already offered before creation.  Furthermore, he also described earlier grace as conditional.  Van Til declared that this was when the differentiation of history set in.  The differentiation started from the point of common rejection when Adam, the representative of God sinned. 

    Van Til supported that the process of differentiation evolved over time.  He viewed history as moving stream of time.  In this context, he warned against subscribing to a scholastic stream of reasoning for common grace.  Instead, he supported a biblical-theological method that would understand common grace based on Gods hand in history.

    The bottom line of Van Tils argument for history was that it revealed that it was unavoidable for man to know God.  Furthermore, it showed the presence of common grace in the lives of Christians and unbelievers alike.  Van Til saw that common grace was provided in order to leave humanity without any excuse for seeing God.  This was a significant factor because the reprobate was bound for eschatological self-consciousness of his wickedness before a holy and loving God.  Common grace was a critical conception to show the absolute need for common grace. 

Van Til was faced with numerous critics and detractors that accused him of being unbiblical and to follow non-Christian worldviews in his arguments.  The discussion of critical interactions reflected the significance of Van Tils theological contributions to the discussion of common grace and to the overall Reformed faith.  It also highlighted his arguments regarding significant issues about the historical process of differentiation between the elect and the reprobates journey towards eternal life and eternal damnation, respectively.  The next chapter will show the importance of Van Tils contribution for the Reformed theology. It also included the supporters of Van Tils theology.

Concluding Thoughts
Van Tils prolific work as a teacher and writer goes beyond his constructive and critical contributions in apologetics and Christian philosophy.  His presuppositional outlook not only cuts outwardly and inwardly it has likewise cut a wide swath through a large number of related areas.
- Greg Bahnsen, Van Tils Apologetics

Contributions and Significance
    Dutch theologian, Cornelius Van Til shaped noteworthy studies in the area of Christian theology and philosophy.  The topics that he had significant covered within the context of common grace and beyond it included the equal ultimacy of the Trinity, absolute predestination, Gods incomprehensibility, nature and revelation and a non-intellectualistic view of man.  Van Til also addressed intellectual history.  He remained loyal to Calvinist doctrines and made sure that his arguments could be rooted back to the stand of the Reformed faith.

    Van Til was a strong promoter of the presuppositional method and outlook for his theological conceptions.  According to Bahnsen, his published writings generated intellectual revolution.  The impact was felt outwardly, wherein he posed a transcendental confrontation to unbelieving scholarship.  On the other hand, there was also an inward effect wherein Christian theology received a mandate to stay true to the commitments of the Reformed faith.  There was no doubt that Van Til had a significant impact in Christian theological debates.  Van Til was known for debating with certain authors over philosophical issues that were attributed to common grace and his sovereign will.

    Van Til took a stand and challenged the construction of the doctrine of common grace of the traditional Dutch Reformed faith.  His conceptions and reconstruction were in some ways contradictory to Kuypers and Bavincks because of his attempt to eliminate the pitfall of discussing this doctrine within the context of the distinction between natural and special revelation.   
By analyzing the self-conscious states of man in union with Adam, Van Til was able to understand the reception of the concrete picture of revelation to man (pre-redemptive, common grace) and the rejection of the concrete picture of revelation to man (the fall).  For him, the issue has never been that human reason and experience maintain camaraderie with natural revelation in order to preserve or gain common grace insights.  Rather, the issue has been that two states of mans historical self-consciousness of Gods revelation are placed by struggle (by variation) against each other until they are totally separated in the final eschaton.

Dennison discussed Van Tils conception of common grace to be widely rooted in the concept of the moving stream of time.  The historical process of differentiation was an important part of his theological conception of common grace.  It revealed that man, both elect and reprobate, were in the process of becoming different in terms of eschatological-consciousness.  According to Van Til, the Christian and the non-Christian shared a common ground in terms of their metaphysical level.  However, when it came to their eschatological state before God, it was extremely opposite since one was elect and the other was a reprobate.  He posited that it was significant to understand historical accounts in order to understand the nature of common grace.  

Furthermore, a highlight of the importance that Van Til gave to Christian-theistic philosophical history was the redemptive stage.  Special grace or saving grace was posited in such a manner that it was highly important in the discussion of common grace.  In order to understand the purpose of common grace, it should be understood in the context of Christs saving grace.   When the elect received the rewards of eternal life, this would be the completion of differentiation.  At the same time, when the sinner was sent to hell, he would stop experiencing common grace.  Rather, he would be fully aware of his eschatological state before God in hell.

  Van Til also clarified that Christ was the source of common grace.  He rejected the dualism in the source with Christ, playing the role of the mediator for creation and redemption.  He moved that since his basis for his theological interpretation was the ontological trinity, it could be easily understood that common grace and special grace were correlated with each other.

Redemptive history was also understood in relation to common grace.  Van Til valued the Scripture as the final authority.  Thus, he could not accept anything that was not formulated based on the Bible.  He rejected any tendency to depend on man or any other ideologies that could make God a second priority or a lesser object of attribution.  It was very important for him to give the glory back to man and insisted that Gods decrees was manifested through history.    

It was not rational human logic that dictated Reformed theology.  He criticized Kuyper and Bavinck on these tendencies.  He also defended himself against accusations for existentialism and determinism.  It was significant for him to refer to the decrees of God to be the ultimate cause of election and reprobation and the sins of man to be the proximate cause. Van Til noted that the inconceivable nature of God could be assumed through the ontological trinity, as the interpretative grounds for his common grace doctrine and for everything else.  Based from this, he avoided any dangers for dualism.  Since there were problems regarding the point of contact between the doctrines of common grace and total depravity.  Thus, the way he related Gods decrees to the historical process of differentiation enabled him to provide a sound conception of the doctrine of common grace.