Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015) 3–18 brill.com/jrt Common Grace and the Ends of Creation in Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck Jeffrey Skaff Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, nj, usa [email protected] Abstract Despite its marginal place in contemporary dogmatics, the doctrine of common grace potentially has much to offer to a theological account of the created order. Describing its relationship to special grace, however, to salvation, is no easy task. This article finds that Abraham Kuyper—the most prominent supporter of the doctrine—attempts to describe this relationship in two ultimately irreconcilable ways. In addition, it argues that only one of these ways—one in which common grace is always ordered to special grace—is acceptable. Such an account, which is defended by Kuyper’s contemporary Herman Bavinck, provides the basis for an understanding of the created order that should resonate with Christian theologians both inside and outside the Neo-Calvinist tradition, including those who have been influenced by Karl Barth. Keywords common grace – Kuyper – Bavinck – created order The Necessity of Common Grace The doctrine of common grace, as articulated by Abraham Kuyper, attempts to address two closely related problems, one theological and one experiential. The theological problem arises especially in the Reformed tradition: if sin is as horrible and pervasive as Reformed theologians have often affirmed—if, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, “we are utterly indis- posed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/15697312-00901003 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 06:22:40PM via free access 4 skaff evil”1—why did God not simply obliterate humankind after the fall? How are we to explain not only God’s preservation of creation and creaturely life, but also God’s bestowal of blessings on fallen humanity? Furthermore, and this is the experiential dilemma, God’s blessings undeniably fall on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45). What are Christians to make of the fact that God blesses those who do not know the God of Israel and of Jesus Christ? Furthermore, how do we account for the wisdom and truth, and also the remarkable acts of love and justice, found outside the walls of the church? That is, how do we explain the presence of pagan virtue? Much to his credit, Abraham Kuyper brought these questions to the forefront of Reformed theological discourse (or at least to Dutch Reformed theological discourse). He did so, however, not simply because of the theological conun- drums they pose. He was well aware that the answers to these questions had immediate implications for how (and if) Christians engage in society and pol- itics. In his writings on common grace, the target of Kuyper’s attacks is often his opponents within the church who believe there are areas of life that stand apart from the Christian faith. “The word ‘Christian’ seems appropriate to you only when it concerns certain matters of faith or things directly connected with the faith … but all the remaining spheres of life fall for you outside the Christ. In the world you conduct yourself as others do; that is less holy, almost unholy, territory which must somehow take care of itself.”2 Kuyper understood the atti- tude of these Christians to contradict another core Reformed belief: all of life is lived in the presence of God. Unsurprisingly, since the problems which common grace addresses arise out of fundamental Reformed theological convictions, Kuyper found resources for a solution latent in earlier Reformed theology. He could justifiably appeal to historical precedent for the doctrine of common grace in passages like the fol- lowing from Calvin’s Institutes: “Amid [the] corruption of nature there is some place for God’s grace; not such grace as to cleanse it, but to restrain it inwardly.”3 Like Calvin, Kuyper believed that common grace acts to restrain sin. After the fall, he writes, without common grace “life on earth would immediately have turned into a hell.”4 In addition to restraining sin, common grace per- 1 “The Westminster Confession of Faith,” in The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (u.s.a.), Part 1: Book of Confessions (Louisville: Geneva Press, 1996), vi. 2 Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 172. His emphasis. 3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), p. 292. 4 Kuyper, “Common Grace,” p. 169. Kuyper’s conservative critics who believe he downplays the Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015) 3–18 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 06:22:40PM via free access common grace and the ends of creation 5 forms a positive function.5 God offered this universal grace so that the “infinite number of nuclei for high human development” deposited in creation would be allowed to develop.6 This “high human development” is on display “wher- ever civic virtue, a sense of domesticity, natural love, the practice of human virtue, the improvement of public conscience, integrity, mutual loyalty among people, and a feeling for piety leaven life,” as well as “when human power over nature increases, when invention upon invention enriches life, when interna- tional communication is improved, the arts flourish, the sciences increase our understanding, the conveniences and joys of life multiply, all expressions of life become more vital and radiant, forms become more refined, and the general image of life becomes more winsome.”7 In response to the theological problem of the effects of sin, the doctrine of common grace suggests that God universally bestows grace to keep the power of sin in check. Likewise, to the experiential problem, the existence of human flourishing and virtue outside the church, Kuyper points to the outworking of common grace, an outworking that unlocks the full potential of human beings created in the image of God. Because this grace is universal, Christians have no excuse for not living in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27) in all “spheres” of which they are a part. Moreover, the doctrine of common grace provides the impetus for Christian involvement in the development of science and technology, and in political reforms that aim to increase human well-being. Common and Special Grace as Parallel Historical Tracks So far, so good. The extent to which one finds this solution satisfying depends in large part on its theological specification. The issue hovering over any account breadth and depth of sin in creation are mistaken. The need for the doctrine of common grace arises from Kuyper’s belief in the extent of sin’s power, not from downplaying its significance. See, for example, David Engelsma, Common Grace Revisited (Grandville: Reformed Free Pub- lishing Association, 2003), pp. 34–41. Interestingly, it is Calvin himself who could be accused of downplaying the significance of sin, if the total inability to do good is the standard. Calvin can speak of “traces of the image of God” remaining in humanity after the fall that are evident in human reason. Calvin, Institutes, vol. 1, p. 277. 5 This is one reason why those who do not affirm something like Westminster Confession’s understanding of total depravity might still find value in the doctrine of common grace. 6 Kuyper, “Common Grace,” p. 178. 7 Kuyper, “Common Grace,” p. 181. Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015) 3–18 Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 06:22:40PM via free access 6 skaff of common grace is its relation to “special” grace, to the grace “which in the end abolishes sin and completely undoes its consequences.”8 One way the issue can be framed is in terms of the eternal whence and whither of special and common grace. Do special grace and common grace issue from the same agent and do they have the same end? Kuyper unequivo- cally answers both questions in the affirmative. As to the agent, Kuyper argues, “The Son of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit himself determines the plan of the world. He is not enlisted by his Decree and for the execution of that Decree, but that Decree is His.”9 This decree encompasses both creation and redemption, and thus both common and special grace. Likewise, Kuyper explicitly affirms that the eternal end of both is the glory of God. In Kuyper’s words, their end is in “the Son’s glorification of the Father’s love, and so in the aggrandizement of the perfections of our God.”10 Though Kuyper says that common and special grace issue from the same agent, those with Barthian sympathies might challenge the adequacy of Kuy- per’s account of the being of the Son. When Kuyper insists, “Christ is at the head and is made central not insofar as he became our brother but because he is the Son of God the Father,” some might question the distinction being drawn between the Son’s being in eternity and his activity in time. Is the incarnation accidental to the being of the Son or is it somehow essential to who he is? More pointedly, in what sense is Jesus Christ fully divine?11 Because one of the motivations behind the Barthian critique of the being of the Son is the refusal to describe any of God’s activities in creation in such a way that they are not determined by the history of Jesus Christ, I will move on to a discussion of the relation of common and special grace in history, rather than pursuing this “ontological” line of critique explicitly, important though it is.12 If there are problems with Kuyper’s account of the being of the Son, this will likely play out in his articulation of the opera Dei ad extra.