What is an Evangelical?

Etymologically, the term evangelical is derived from the Greek word for ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’. Broken down into its constituent parts the word euangelion combines the words ‘good’ (eu) and ‘messenger’ (angel), with -ion being a neuter suffix. This gets to the heart of the meaning of evangelicalism as those who bear or tell ‘good news’ or ‘gospel’. In his study of evangelicalism in modern Britain, David Bebbington highlighted four distinctive markers of evangelical religion: conversionism or the belief that lives need to be changed and individuals need to be ‘born again’; activism or the belief that the Gospel must be expressed through social and evangelistic effort; biblicism or a high regard for Holy Scripture as the revealed word of God; and crucicentrism or a particular stress on the atoning sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for sin.[1]  Bebbington argued that evangelicalism is a popular Protestant movement that began in Britain during the 1730s.[2] Various historians have challenged this claim by pointing to antecedent movements prior to this date which also bear similar hallmarks to the evangelical movement in modern Britain such as the ‘evangelicals’ of the Protestant Reformation, those of Continental Pietism, the Dutch Further Reformation or Nadere Reformatie, and English Puritanism.[3] Bebbington also unashamedly set evangelicalism in Britain within its historical context considering the influence of enlightenment, romanticism, and modernism on the movement respectively. Some critics found this association of evangelicalism with philosophical and cultural movements unnerving.

Others have tried to offer a more comprehensive or more theological definition of evangelicalism to make up for Bebbington’s seemingly threadbare quadrilateral. Timothy Larsen, for example, offers a considerably verbose definition of evangelicalism in his introduction to The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. He argues that an evangelical is an orthodox Protestant in the tradition of global networks that emerged from the revival ministry of George Whitefield and John Wesley. As with Bebbington, he stresses evangelical Biblicism and argues that evangelicals consider the Bible to be ‘divinely inspired’ and the ‘final authority’ for doctrine and practice. Echoing Bebbington’s definition, he refers to evangelical devotion to the death of Christ upon the cross and considers this to bring about atonement and reconciliation. Finally, he discusses the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about conversion, sanctification, redemption, and the global diffusion of evangelicalism through the preaching of the Gospel.[4] One wonders if Larsen has said too much about the marks of evangelicalism from an historical perspective. Bebbington’s definition retains a position of clarity and conciseness which Larsen’s clearly lacks. Important, however, is his emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit within evangelical theology and praxis, something Bebbington’s definition failed to elucidate.

From a different perspective on the history of evangelicalism, W. R. Ward dates the emergence of the evangelical movement in the 1670s with the spread of continental pietism. He observes several characteristics within the early evangelical movements: ‘the close association with mysticism, the small-group religion, the deferred eschatology, the experimental approach to conversion, anti-Aristotelianism and hostility to theological system, and … a vitalist understanding of nature’.[5] One wonders by anti-Aristotelianism what Ward means exactly. Does he mean to imply that evangelicals were more neo-Platonic and heavenly minded than their predecessors? How would he square this with evangelical belief in a literal bodily resurrection at the Parousia? Alternatively, he could mean that evangelicals opposed the scholastic system-building of the post-Reformation era and embraced a more Lockean and empiricist view of history, philosophy, and religion. This latter option would seem to be the best fit with the rest of Ward’s argument in his study of early evangelical intellectual history. In terms of vitalism, Jonathan Edwards famously had a typological view of nature in which everything in creation in some way speaks of deity. Mysticism has also characterised the evangelical movement in the sense of experimental religion creating a union between God and man or unio mystica in the new birth. Early evangelicals were famously post-millennial in their eschatology and saw revival as means for building the heavenly kingdom of Christ on earth. Small groups have also characterised evangelical religion. The Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, for example, were known for their 'experience meetings' or seiadau in which participants would study the Bible, sing hymns, and examine the religious experiences of members. Whitefield and Wesley were famous for their experimental approach to conversion and the new birth which they preached with tireless frequency throughout their respective ministries and organised converts into cell-groups or religious societies for subseqent pastoral care. 

As evangelicalism developed over time, so the divisions within the movement emerged such as those between Calvinists and Arminians, Liberals and Conservatives, Progressives and Fundamentalists, and cessationists and charismatics. This has led some scholars to suggest that we should not speak of evangelicalism as a monolithic entity at all. On the contrary, we should rather see a diverse movement with different schools of thought and practice. As David Ceri Jones and Andrew Atherstone have argued, it might be better to speak of evangelicals and evangelicalisms in the plural – particularly as they have emerged and diversified in the modern era with the global diffusion of evangelicalism.[6] In the light of the postmodern critique of history, it may be preferable to speak of evangelical stories or storytelling, rather than a monolithic evangelical metanarrative. After all the ‘good news’ is a story told by evangelicals of ruin, redemption, and regeneration. Humankind is ruined by sin, redeemed by Christ’s atoning work on the cross, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Evangelicals are people who tell stories about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They tell us that the Lord Christ was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit, that he lived a holy and pure life, that he suffered and died on the cross for the sins of the world, that he rose again on the third day for our justification, that he now lives in the power of an endless life and makes continual intercession for his people before the throne of God, and that one day he will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. In sum, evangelicals are Gospel people. They have the best news in the world: the Good News that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification.

---

[1] David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London and New York, 1989), pp. 2–3.

[2] Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, p. 1.

[3] See Michael A. G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, The Emergence of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Nottingham, 2008).

[4] Timothy Larsen, ‘Defining and Locating Evangelicalism’, in Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 1–14.

[5] W. R. Ward, Early Evangelicalism: Global Intellectual History 1670–1789 (Cambridge, 2006), p. 4.

[6] Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones, ‘Evangelicals and Evangelicalisms: Contested Identities’, in Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones (eds), The Routledge Research Companion to the History of Evangelicalism (London and New York, 2019), pp. 1–21.

Does God Exist?

With the advance of secular culture in Western society and the growing prevalence of religious ‘nones’ or those who identify as agnostic, atheist, or ‘spiritual but not religious’, the need to contend for the faith has become ever more necessary in the West. This endeavour is known as apologetics.  Peter reminds us that we must always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15) and Paul says that we must take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Bible, however, offers very little by way of an argument for the existence of God. It merely presupposes that God exists and that he has revealed himself in his holy and infallible word. There are, however, several arguments for the existence of God in natural theology and apologetics. These are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the transcendental argument, and the moral argument. All of these arguments have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but cumulatively they strongly suggest that there is a divine being behind the universe who orders all things according to his providence. We shall consider each argument in turn, before giving attention to a slightly different approach advocated by the analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

The ontological argument has been advanced by some of the most notable philosophers in history such as Anslem, Descartes, Leibniz, and Alvin Plantinga. It is best stated by Anselm of Canterbury, the originator of the argument. Anslem defines God as a being than which no greater can be conceived or, as we would say, a being who is maximally excellent. Since existence is an attribute of perfection, God necessarily exists. The first critic of Anslem’s argument was Gaunilo who suggested that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything such as a perfect island. Imagine creating a perfect island just by thinking of it. Of course, the difference between God and a perfect island is that God is infinite, eternal, and unchanging or maximally excellent; whereas an island will always in some sense be limited and finite. God is in a category altogether different from created things and so cannot be reduced to non-existence. There is something about God which makes his existence necessary. It is important to remember that Anselm’s argument took the form of a prayer under the basic rubric of ‘faith seeking understanding’. When Moses encountered God, he declared himself to be the great I AM. His existence was a necessary attribute of perfection.

The cosmological argument claims that the existence of God can be demonstrated by an appeal to causation. It is therefore sometimes known as the argument from first cause. Since everything in existence requires an adequate cause, the universe itself must have a cause. This cause is God. Nothing comes from nothing. There must be a sufficient explanation for existence. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe has a cause and came into being out of nothing. This is exactly what we would expect from a God who created the universe ex nihilo. Not everyone has agreed with this argument, however. Hume called into question the very notion of causation; while Kant pointed out that if God made the universe, God himself requires a cause, and thus we are led to an endless chain of causation. Christians have responded by defending the principal of causation against Hume and have pointed out that God himself is defined as the uncaused Cause – he is a category of being altogether different from that which exists in a chain of causation. Notable advocates of this argument include Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, and William Lane Craig.

The teleological argument aims to prove God’s existence from the presence of design or purpose in creation. William Paley is perhaps the most well-known advocate. Since the world shows signs of intelligence, order, harmony, and purpose, this implies the existence of an intelligent and purposeful being who made such a world – a designer. Kant regarded this as one of the best arguments for the existence of God, but he pointed out that it falls short of proving the existence of the Christian God. It merely proves the existences of a powerful architect who fashioned the cosmos, perhaps out of pre-existing materials. Others have suggested that the Darwinian theory of evolution disproves the teleological argument since the fossil record shows that the complexity of life evolved over long periods of time from simple lifeforms to complex. Although the argument from design does not prove the existence of a distinctively Christian God, it is nonetheless a powerful indication that a designer like God might exist. Far from undermining the existence of God, it could be argued that evolution is a divine process within creation – this is the line taken by theistic evolutionists who have no problem accepting Darwin’s arguments for the evolution of life. Evolution only adds to the complexity of a teleological argument for God’s existence.   

The transcendental argument developed by Cornelius Van Til and his disciples (John Frame and Greg Bahnsen) aims to prove God’s existence by presenting God as the necessary presupposition for rational discourse. Logic, morals, science, philosophy, and art presuppose the existence of a God who gives meaning to each of these domains. The atheist has no way to account for these domains without borrowing capital from Christian theism. The problem with this argument, however, is its circularity – presupposing God to demonstrate the existence of God. Those who adopt a presuppositional method are often critical of traditional theistic arguments for the existence of God and see the transcendental argument as the only valid approach to apologetics. They respond to accusations of circularity by suggesting that all arguments about fundamental realities are circular. It is unfortunate that this form of argument has been widely adopted in Reformed circles, when historically the Reformed have adopted better approaches to apologetics. Notable critics of the Van Tillian presuppositional argument include R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley.

The moral argument attempts to prove the existence of God from the presence of a moral order within creation. If God does not exist, objective morals do not exist. Since objective moral do exist, God exists as divine lawgiver and judge. Alternatively, the argument can be formed in relation to conscience. Our conscience reveals an innate sense of right and wrong whose source cannot be found in nature alone, it must therefore originate with a divine Lawgiver who transcends nature. A common objection to the moral argument is the Euthyphro dilemma, named after a dialogue by Plato. Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? The first implies that moral commands are arbitrary. The later implies that there is some standard to which even God is beholden. By way of response to this objection, it must be said that God himself is our highest good and the standard of goodness itself. It should also be pointed out that moral arguments for the existence of God are not saying that atheists and agnostics are personally immoral, it merely points out that they have no objective basis from which to evaluate moral values and duties. Notable advocates include Immanuel Kant, C. S. Lewis, and William Lane Craig.

Some philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga have argued that belief in God is properly basic and does not require theistic proofs. Drawing upon Calvin’s doctrine of the sensus divinitatis (sense of deity) or semen religionis (seed of religion), these philosophers have argued that everyone has an innate sense of the existence of God – however distorted by the noetic effects of sin. Calvin explains this doctrine in the following words:

The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men’s mind that seed of religion [semen religionis] … but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him. Indeed, his essence is incomprehensible; hence, his divineness far escapes all human perception. But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance … in the creation of the universe he brought for those insignia whereby he shows his glory to us, whenever and wherever we case our gaze … wherever you case your eyes, there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at lease some sparks of his glory.[1]

For Calvin, believing in God is as natural as breathing. It is something intuitive in response to God revelation in conscience and nature. We cannot help believing in God as we see some sparks of his glory in the things that have been made.

While the Scriptures do not present arguments for God’s existence in so many words, they nonetheless insist that God has revealed himself in the works of creation, providence, and redemption. Paul argues that ‘his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made’ (Romans 1:20). While this revelation is not sufficient to bring about salvation, it nonetheless renders men and women without excuse before God on the day of judgement. The psalmist also informs us that God has revealed something of His glory in creation: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork’ (Psalm 19:1). The beautiful design of the heavens reveals something of the matchless glory of God and his handiwork as the creator of all things visible and invisible. We call this revelation of God in creation natural revelation. Whereas his revelation in redemptive history and Scripture is known as special revelation. Psalm 19 draws attention to both aspects of revelation. It begins with God’s revelation in nature (vv. 1–6) but progresses to his revelation in Scripture (Psalm 19:7–9). Deus dixit. God has spoken. The Scriptures are a record of his speech to lost mankind. Unlike general revelation, special revelation is able to bring knowledge of salvation: ‘The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul’ (Psalm 19:7). Our God is a speaking God. And supremely he has spoken by Christ, his Son. ‘Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in the last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world’ (Hebrews 1:1–2). Jesus Christ is the climactic revelation of God to lost mankind. The greatest argument for the existence of God is the person and work of Christ – his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God.

Recommended Reading

Craig, William Lane and J. P. Moreland (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2012).

Craig, William Lane and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (2017).

Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (2008).

Craig, William Lane, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979).

Craig, William Lane, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1981).

Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defence of Christianity (1987).

Plantinga, Alvin, Knowledge and Christian Belief (2015).

Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief (2000).

Sproul, R. C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defence of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (1984).

Swinburne, Richard, Is There a God? (2010).

Swinburne, Richard, The Existence of God (2004).

Swinburne, Richard, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (2003).

Wright, N. T., The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). 

---

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), 1. 5. 1. Emphasis my own.

Reflections on Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

What exactly is autism? Some people have asked me why I use the term Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) to describe my particular condition rather than Asperger’s syndrome or High Functioning Autism (HFA). The simple reason is that diagnosticians no longer use such terms. I probably would have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome several years ago, but now the term ASD is used instead for everyone who has a diagnosis. This means that some of the literature on Asperger’s syndrome is still relevant reading for anyone who wishes to know about autism. The problem with describing some autistic people as ‘high functioning’ is that it can give the misleading impression that they don’t need any social, financial, or psychological support. This is evidently not the case. Many people with ‘high functioning’ autism can struggle deeply with social interaction, obsessionality, repetitive behaviours, and sensory overload. This article contains some of my reflections on the meaning of autism in the light of my own diagnosis. 

It is important to understand that autism is a ‘spectrum’ disorder and manifests itself differently in each individual despite various similarities across the spectrum. For me, it is a combination of sensory difficulties, social difficulties, and obsessionality.  It is important to stress that autism is not an illness. It is a different way of thinking about the world. Autism can be a strength as much as a weakness. It is not really a ‘disorder’ as such despite the diagnostic title, but it can complicate mental health problems and comorbidities in such a way that many autistic people can struggle to get by without help and support. I have struggled with chronic depression and treatment-resistant anxiety disorders alongside of my autism and have needed psychological therapies and medication to manage my condition.  

Autistic people often struggle with social interaction. For example, I struggle to make friends in the real world (even though I am a veritable doyen of social media) and I have difficulties in understanding the rules of social engagement. Some people would describe me as aloof or as living in an ivory tower, and this is largely true about me. I would rather be alone than in company. I spent Christmas day this year on my own – quite happily reading a new book. I go out for lunch on my own. If I had the confidence to fly in an aeroplane by myself, I would go on holiday alone. I am quite happy and content by myself. I struggle to understand sarcasm and the rules of conversation. In fact, I view small talk as being largely pointless and a waste of my time. I like the deep stuff. If you have a conversation with me, it will inevitably turn towards some deep aspect of philosophy, history, or theology – my special interests. I will probably bore you to death. 

Many autistic people would often describe their problems in terms of the sensory difficulties they face in life. To my way of thinking, there is so much noise in the world. It is hard to escape from it. I prefer the solitude of my study or the silence of a library because it is quiet. There is no noise to disturb me. I thrived in a university environment for this reason. Similarly, bright lights are everywhere and many autistic people struggle with this. For example, I hate car headlights at night; I hate the light or glare on my computer screen and smart phone as it often makes me anxious with prolonged use. I very rarely, if ever, watch television because of the bright flashing lights and flickering images which make me anxious. Since my diagnosis, I am only just beginning to learn how sensory difficulties impact me. I would be anxious previously for what seemed like no reason at all, but now I am recognising the causes of my anxieties in feeling overwhelmed by sensory factors such as bright lights and loud noises. The only way I can describe the feeling is like listening to the sound of rubbing two pieces of polystyrene together. 

The other aspect of my autism is obsessionality. I have always struggled with obsessional thoughts since childhood, some of them dark and deeply unpleasant which it has taken over three years in therapy to disclose. These thoughts have sometimes led me to serious episodes of depression and suicidal ideation. This is the dark and dangerous side of obsessional patterns of thinking. But I also have obsessional or highly particular interests which can be very useful. As I child, I loved to read and collect children’s encyclopaedias – what a nerd! Anyone who knows me, knows how much I obsess about books and specialised academic literature. I am not joking when I say, I have collections of some books that university libraries would be envious to obtain – a complete set of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics for instance and all Abraham Kuyper’s works in public theology. In this sense, autism is one of my strengths. It gives me focus on very particular academic subjects which most people could never be bothered to study or maintain a sustained interest.   

Autism is something you are born with. There is no such thing as being a little bit autistic. You are either autistic or you’re not. And if you are autistic, you are autistic your whole life. Autistic people can find it tricky to communicate and be intimate with other people. I would actually rather be by myself. That’s not weird, it is just different. Autistic people can also find it difficult to ‘read’ other people – to understand how other people think or feel. I often struggle to understand how my own father and brother are feeling, never mind strangers or acquaintances. Their feelings and emotions are a complete mystery to me. Autistic people may also feel upset about unfamiliar situations and social events. I prefer to have everything planned in advance. We are the great organisers of the world. My watchword is ‘preparation’. I even have a timetable that I live by at home on a whiteboard in the kitchen. My life mostly consists of studying and taking detailed notes on my reading. Autistic people like to do or think the same things over and over again. I feel most comfortable reading only one book at a time, parking in the same place all the time, going to the same coffee shop, eating at the same restaurant, ordering the same food, and buying the same drinks. Is that weird? Maybe, but that’s me. That’s autism. 

Some children with autism are described as ‘little professors’ because they sound more like adults in their use of language than children at times. This was certainly true in my case as my parents and family would testify. Some people even used to call me ‘Prof Reynolds’ or ‘Posh Josh’ quite jokingly when I was growing up. I have some difficulty understanding irony, sarcasm, and figurative language – though I have gotten to grips with this largely through researching the meanings of words and phrases in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the Welsh-language dictionary Geriadur Prifysgol Cymru (GPC). I am often the last person to get a joke and will sometimes only laugh once I have taken the time to figure out what the joke actually means. This not to say that I don’t have a sense of humour, as I absolutely love good comedy. It just takes me a little bit longer to process sarcastic humour and irony.  

I struggle a little with showing empathy and this is a common problem for people with autism. It is not because autistic people are unempathetic, but because they struggle to read social cues such as eye contact, facial expressions, vocal tones, and body language. Autistic people can actually be some of the most empathetic people in the world when such causes align with their particular interests. For example, I am passionately concerned about human rights, animal welfare, and environmental protection as anyone who knows me would tell you. But in a social situation, I may struggle to read the emotions and feelings of others, including close family members. When things get particularly tricky for me in complex social situations, I often avoid looking directly at people and stare at some point beyond the persons in the room. This can make me seem uninterested or unempathetic when in reality the opposite might be the case. 

Some autistic people struggle with restricted or repetitive interests or behaviours. For example, autistic children will collect rocks, or toy cars, or batteries. They may only be interested with certain parts of toys such as the wheel of a toy car or bike. I used to like to sit in front of the washing machine as a child and watch it spin for hours – it gave me great pleasure (and I secretly still love it now!). My parents used to sit me in front of the washing machine if I was having a meltdown in order to soothe my distress. Weird, I know. I also like the soothing motion of being driven in a car as well as rocking back and forth. My parents would sometimes drive hundreds of miles just to get me to drink half a bottle of milk as a child. When I am distressed now, I often go for a drive to country (the same route every time, of course) to get a coffee (from the same place, naturally). 

I deeply enjoy following the same routine every day and get quite distressed if my family or friends want to change my routine or add something to the list. I have to know well in advance so that I can put it on the calendar and prepare for it. I have found living by timetable at school and university profoundly helpful. If everyone lived according to rules of time and space, this world would be a better place in my view. Some autistic people have repetitive hand movements or gestures. I have a tendency to tap my fingers and make rhythms as if I were playing a keyboard. I also display significant anxiety through repetitive handwringing when distressed. I enjoy lining up all my books in straight lines and making sure they conform to my particular order. I get annoyed if family members move my books without my permission. I can sometimes get quite distressed by the amount of checking I have to do to make sure all my books and papers are properly aligned and in the right place. 

Some autistic people can be highly intelligent and successful in academic circles. I would imagine that many people in academia are actually on the autistic spectrum somewhere but remain undiagnosed as their disability is hidden by their advanced intelligence. This is certainly true in my case. I was an A* student at school and achieved excellent grades in all my examinations, even though I struggled with loneliness, social isolation, and bullying during my school years. I hold a BA (Hons) in Welsh language and literature and a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) in Welsh literature for my research on Jonathan Edwards and William Williams, Pantycelyn. I have studied at doctoral level and aim to continue my doctoral studies in the near future. I have highly specialised academic interests in philosophy, theology, and history. I also play the piano and harpsichord quite fluently, have a keen interest in music theory, and I am able to compose and improvise with music in the styles of my favourite composers and periods from the history of music. 

The problem with high intelligence is that it often masks autistic tendencies during childhood and early education. If teachers don’t get any trouble or behavioural difficulties with children who are generally well-behaved and highly intelligent, they don’t pursue matters further. A lot of pain and difficulty in my life could have been avoided if teachers were more aware of the signs and symptoms of ASD and picked them up in my childhood. This is why it has taken so long for a diagnosis to be made in my case. I was diagnosed as a 30-year-old adult after serious mental health trauma, frequent hospitalisation, and input from secondary mental health services. Some autistic people are also good at copying others to hide their difficulties with social interaction. I was known for copying the style and mannerism of one of my favourite preachers as well as many of the thoughts and opinions of one of my university lecturers. This is known as echopraxic behaviour or ‘masking’. It essentially means being a good actor and hiding your social anxiety or discomfort by copying the behaviour of others. 

Autistic people often tend to struggle with meltdowns when there is an overload of sensory, social, and obsessional information. If you imagine shaking a bottle of fizzy lemonade for every bright light, loud noise, social difficulty, or obsessional thought that came to mind, eventually it will explode when thing get overwhelming. Meltdowns are not tantrums. They are emotional responses to overwhelming social and sensory information. Meltdowns in children can result in crying, screaming, or shouting or physical responses such as kicking, lashing out, or biting. Adults can appear to be having a panic attack or nervous breakdown during a meltdown. And it is often deeply upsetting for the ASD sufferer and for family, friends, and colleagues who witness the meltdown event. The opposite reaction is also possible in autistic people: shutdown. This occurs when the autistic persons shuts off all sensory information and social interaction. For me, this takes the form of spending long periods in bed alone and withdrawing into myself and my own world. 

These are some of my personal reflections on autism and the difficulties I have in processing sensory and social information. It is important to stress that every autistic child and adult is different and will express their autism in different ways, albeit with similar traits across the spectrum that can be identified by clinical specialists. I hope my writing contributes to autism awareness and helps to end some of the stigma and put to death some of the myths surrounding autism. If you think you or your child may have autism upon reading this article, please consider going to see the GP and getting a referral to your local integrated autism service. 

References and Recommended Reading 

Attwood, Tony, The Complete Guide to Asperger’s Syndrome (London, 2008).  

Beardon, Luke, Autism in Adults: Overcoming Common Problems  (London, 2017). 

Fletcher-Watson, Sue & Francesca Happe, Autism: A New Introduction to Psychological Theory and Current Debate (Oxford & New York, 2019). 

Frith, Uta, Autism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2008). 

Grandin, Temple, and Richard Panek, The Autistic Brain: Exploring the Strength of a Different Kind of Mind (London, 2013). 

Price, Devon, Unmasking Autism: The Power of Embracing our Hidden Neurodiversity (London, 2022).   

Shore, Stephen, M., and Linda G. Rastelli, Understanding Autism for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ, 2006). 

Useful Websites

National Autistic Society (autism.org.uk) 

Home - Awtistiaeth Cymru | Autism Wales | National Autism Team 

Autism - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

The Noahic Covenant of Common Grace

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth” (Genesis 9:8–16).

Introduction

I would like to bring to your attention a doctrine that is not often preached from the pulpit: the doctrine of common grace. In particular, I would like us to consider the nature of common grace and how it relates to the free offer of the Gospel or the overture of divine grace in the preaching of the Good News. I will take as my starting point God’s covenant with Noah and will proceed to explore what the whole Bible has to say about the subject. The doctrine of common grace may not have received the attention it deserves in Britain and America, but it has been a subject of intensive debate in the Netherlands. We are only now beginning to catch up. The famous Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper, who served as Prime Minster of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905, wrote three extensive volumes on the subject of common grace. This sermon will only begin to outline some of the extensive discussion that has taken place within Dutch Reformed theology. We will only take a glimpse into the profound depths of this deeply important doctrine. 

We begin with a simple question: what is common grace? The Reformed theologian John Murray offers a helpful definition. He says that common grace is ‘every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this underserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God’. This includes God’s restraint of sin in the hearts of men, the works of civil righteousness or relative good among unbelievers, general blessings such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God freely gives to all, and God’s active promotion of the true, good, and the beautiful in the world of art, science, culture, literature, society, and politics. Common grace also stands at the back of the free offer of the Gospel. It is because God is kind and compassionate towards sinners that he can freely offer himself in the Gospel to a lost world. Christ stands and pleads with sinners of lost mankind to come to him in repentance and faith – this is what we mean by a free offer or a well-meant offer of the Gospel. I would like us to consider three things from the Scriptures:

1. Firstly, God’s covenant of common grace with Noah and sons.

2. Secondly, the doctrine of common grace in Scripture.

3. And thirdly, the overture of grace in the free offer of the Gospel. 

1] Firstly, I would like us to consider God’s covenant of common grace with Noah and his sons and all human posterity. The judgement of God came upon the world of Noah and his family in a deluge of great magnitude. Scholars may debate whether this flood was local or global, but what matters is that the flood was a judgement of God against sin. Prior to the flood, the Scriptures tell us that ‘the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth and was grieved in his heart’ (Genesis 6:5–6). The total depravity of mankind had become absolute depravity by the time of Noah – so great was the sin and wickedness of the world that even God himself was grieved in his heart. It broke God’s heart to see the world he had made degenerate into such sin and depravity. He dropped a tear for humanity, but he resolved nonetheless to judge the earth in righteousness. ‘Will not the judge of all the earth do right?’ (Genesis 18:25).  

He determined to blot out mankind with a deluge of tremendous proportions. He would flood the earth and extinguish all life – except for the lives of Noah and his family, for Noah had found favour or grace in the eyes of the LORD (Genesis 6:8). God made a plan of redemption – a plan so great that it may be compared with the deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the Exodus or even with the redemption of humanity by the cross and resurrection of Christ. God saved humanity by choosing Noah and leading him into the ark. This is what we call special grace or saving grace. Notice that this grace is particular. It is personal. It comes from eternity. God has chosen an elect people whom He will infallibly save by the work of redemption in Christ Jesus. However, when the flood waters subside and Noah and his family emerge into the devastated world, what assurances would they have for the future? What plans could they make? What sign would God give to them that he would not always flood the world – again and again – as a judgement against sin? To that end, God makes a covenant of common grace with Noah and his sons. In this covenant, he promises to never again flood the world. It is a covenant made with Noah and all of human posterity. In other words, this is not a covenant of special grace, but a covenant of common grace – so much so that it extends even to the animal kingdom. This is what God says: ‘I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you – the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you – every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth’ (Genesis 9:8–13).

Notice that this covenant is with all of Noah’s descendants (in other words, all human posterity descending from him) and with every living creature – with everyone and everything that came out of the ark – and not simply the chosen line of God’s electing grace in Shem and his posterity. The text says, 'Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him' (v. 8). His sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. I remind you that the Israelites descend from Shem’s children. In fact, the word Semite (often taken as a reference to the Jews) comes from the name of Shem. Other descendants of Shem include the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Elamites, Arameans, the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites. Notice however that God’s covenant of common grace with Noah extends to all of his sons – they are each included in this passage: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Now Japheth is the father of the Persians, Romans, Scythians, and Macedonians. And from Ham’s lineage descend the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Cushites and the Egyptians. Some of these nations were later to become great enemies of God, yet through the covenant with Noah, God promises never to flood the world again on account of their evil. This is common grace. And we are living in the light of this grace. The very air we breathe, the dry ground we walk upon, the sunshine upon our faces is a testimony to God’s common grace towards Noah, his sons, and all human posterity descending from them. 

In other words, God is giving the world an opportunity to repent and change their ways. We are living in the day of grace. There is time for repentance. God has given us this window of opportunity to repent of sin and believe the Gospel. There is an inescapable connection between this time of common grace and the free offer of the Gospel. God is giving humanity a second chance and the sign of his covenant is the rainbow. As the children’s hymn tell us, ‘Whenever you see a rainbow, remember God is love’. Do you not know that God’s goodness is meant to lead you to repentance? As Paul says in his letter to the Romans, ‘Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?’ (Romans 2:4). I cannot stress this point enough: you are being given a second chance in this period of common grace between the flood and the second coming of Christ. The whole world is being given a second chance. But there will come a time when there are no more second chances. One day God will flood the world not with water, but with fire and eternal judgement. Yes, my friends, there is a place prepared for sinners which the Bible refers to as everlasting separation from the love of God. It is a place of blackest darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm never dies, and the fire never goes out. Let me implore you to repent and believe the Gospel of Christ before it is too late. Come to Jesus Christ and be saved. His arms were stretched wide upon the cross of Calvary to welcome sinners to himself. May God’s common grace lead you to his saving grace and a life of faith and repentance. 

2] Secondly, I would like us to consider the doctrine of common grace as it is developed throughout Scripture. Having considered God’s common grace as it was revealed to Noah and his posterity, we now turn to a consideration of what this period of common grace means for us today – and what it looks like in practice. I would like us to consider how common grace operates in the post-diluvian world and what Scripture teaches us concerning the fruits of God’s common grace in society and culture. 

Common grace may be said to operate in the world through the light of God’s general revelation and the work of civil governments. Firstly, Reformed theologians have argued that common grace is said to operate by the light of God’s general revelation – this is described by John as the light of Christ which ‘gives light to everyone’ (John 1:9). It is a universal light, but non-salvific. ‘The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it’ (John 1:5). In his epistle to the Romans, Paul shows the gentiles have some capacity to observe what the law requires and carry out relative good: ‘For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them’ (Romans 2:14–15). God has in some sense impressed upon the hearts or consciences of unregenerate men and women what he requires in the law. The conscience accuses those who break this law and acquits those who keep it. It is written in their hearts. I don’t need to present evidence to you that you are a sinner – you know it already deep inside. Your conscience tells you every time you do wrong. It is a God-given alarm bell placed within your very heart to impress upon you the need of repentance for sin. 

Common grace is also said to operate through the work of civil governments who act to restrain sin and impose order on society as Paul argues in Romans chapter 13. Civil magistrates are sent by God ‘for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well’ (1 Peter 2:14). In the words of the Belgic Confession: 'We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency' (Article XXXVI). In other words, God has instituted civil governments to restrain sin and promote relative good in society. Even though men and women are totally depraved, the confession assumes some capacity for ‘good order’ and ‘decency’ among men. This is God’s work of common grace in their hearts.

There are several fruits of common grace as identified by Reformed theologians including the delayed sentence of death (first given to Adam and Eve, but also extending to all human posterity), the restraint of sin in the world, some degree of truth and morality in society, good works and civil righteousness among the unregenerate, and natural blessings to elect and reprobate alike. Firstly, God warned Adam solemnly that should he eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die (Genesis 2:17). However, when Adam did eat of the fruit in disobedience to God’s command, he did not die immediately. The Hebrew is emphatic: ‘dying you shall die’. Yet we find that God delayed the punishment of death and gave Adam the opportunity to repent. He is the God of second chances. This is owing to his common grace. He gives humanity a chance to repent of sin and believe the Gospel. He does not immediately execute the punishment of death upon the sinner. This is owing to his goodness – a goodness designed to lead men and women to repentance as Paul argues in Romans 2:4. There is a restraint on the manifestation of God’s wrath towards sin. 

Secondly, God actively restrains the manifestation of sin in the world. The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that all men and women are as bad as they could possibly be. Not everyone is an incarnation of Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, or Stalin. God limits the manifestation of sin in the hearts of men and women. In the case of Abimelech in the book of Genesis, we see God’s sovereign hand in preventing him from committing a sin against Abraham: ‘Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her' (Genesis 20:6). We have no reason to suppose that Abimelech was regenerate or a member of God’s covenant people, so clearly here is an example of an unbeliever being restrained by God from committing a sin – that of adultery with Abraham’s wife Sarah. 

Thirdly, God preserves some degree of truth, morality, and religion within society. Society is not hell on earth. Human beings are capable of relative good in the world. There is an outward semblance of morality in society, however corrupt this may appear. We have already argued that the Gentiles have some capacity to keep the law as Paul argues in Romans. Paul was also able to say of the Athenians, ‘I perceive that you are very religious’ (Acts 17:22). They had religion, albeit corrupt. They were able to worship the ‘unknown God’ (Acts 17:23), despite their great ignorance. Religion serves the purpose of common grace. It allows for a point of contact with lost mankind, as Paul used this in his debate with the Gentiles. In the words of the Canons of Dort, ‘There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behaviour’ (III–IV. 4). As the doctrine of common grace teaches, man is capable of some relative good, albeit non-saving – and this maintains good order and decency within society.

Fourthly, human beings are capable of outwardly good deeds and works of civil righteousness. The Bible often speaks of the works of the unregenerate as being relatively good. For example, when the wicked king Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, God said to him ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in my sight and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in my heart, four generations of your sons will sit on the throne of Israel’ (2 Kings 10:30). Similarly, Joash and Amaziah are commended by God for their relatively good deeds, even though they did not ultimately remove the high places and prevent the people from worshipping there (2 Kings 12:2 [cf. 2 Chronicles 24:17– 25]; 14:3, 14–16, 20, 27 [cf. 2 Chronicles 25:2]). In the New Testament, Luke records Jesus as saying that sinners are capable of relative good: ‘And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same’ (Luke 6:33, cf. Matthew 5:46). Similarly, Matthew records Jesus as saying that those who are evil are nonetheless capable of giving good gifts to their children: ‘If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him’ (Matthew 7:11). Of course, none of these good deeds by the unregenerate are soteriological in nature. Their works are only relatively good as opposed to savingly good. As we know from Paul’s letter to the Romans, no amount of good works or charitable deeds will ever justify the sinner. Justification is only by faith, and not by works of the law. 

Fifthly, unbelievers are the recipients of many natural blessings. There are many passages of Scripture where it appears that God showers his gifts upon elect and reprobate alike according to his providence. For example, the Lord promises to bless Ishmael, even though he is not the chosen line of God’s covenant grace (Genesis 17:20). God also blessed the house of the unregenerate Potiphar for Joseph’s sake – so much so that the ‘blessing of the Lord was on everything Potiphar had’ (Genesis 39:5). In a verse that captures the very essence of common grace, the Psalmist says that ‘the Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made’ (Psalm 145:9). In other words, the psalmist speaks of a common grace on the part of God towards all of God’s creatures. The psalmist says, ‘He makes the grass grow for the livestock and provides crops for man to cultivate, bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil that makes his face to shine, and bread that sustains his heart’ (Psalm 104:14–15). In other words, God provides for the happiness of humankind. He is a God who ‘gives food to all flesh: for his mercy endures forever’ (Psalm 136:25, emphasis my own). 

In the New Testament, Jesus commands us to love our enemies because this reflects God’s character, who showers blessings upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike: ‘But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise of the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous’ (Matthew 5:44–45). Not only are we to love our enemies as a reflection of God’s character, but God himself loves his enemies to the point of blessing them with rain and sunshine (cf. Luke 6:35–36). These are surely gifts of common grace to the reprobate. Paul and Barnabas entreat the unregenerate crowds by pleading God’s common grace towards them: ‘In past generations, he [God] let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony to His goodness: He gives you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness’ (Acts 14:16–17). Rain and fruitful seasons are gifts of God’s common grace to lost mankind. Nobody deserves them, but God freely gives them.

Finally, the Lord tells his people to be salt and light in the earth. In other words, he asks us to be agents of his common grace and goodness towards lost humanity. Jesus says to his disciples, ‘You are the salt of the earth’ (Matthew 5:13). You preserve that which is good in society and season everything in your life with the grace of God. Jesus also says, ‘You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden’ (Matthew 5:14). You are God’s light to the unregenerate and unconverted. You might be the only Christian they ever encounter in their life. Think upon that for a moment. Now a true follower of Christ would never hide his light away. In fact, he is like a city set upon a hill. Everyone can see him. I always love coming over the mountains at night and looking at the towns and villages in the distance – you can see all their lights shining in the darkness, in the streetlamps and the windows. That is what you are like, dear Christian. You are lights in the world to sinners of lost mankind. I wonder, do you take this responsibility seriously? Do you say in the workplace or to your unconverted family members and friends: ‘Yes, I’m a Christian. I believe in Jesus. Have you heard the Gospel?’. Don’t you know that you have a duty to be salt and light the world? Remember Jesus says, ‘Whoever disowns me before others, I will disown him before my Father in heaven’ (Matthew 10:33). For those who are Christ’s disciples, our witness – our light and salt – leads others to bring glory to God. This is what Jesus says, ‘Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven’ (Matthew 5:16).

3] Thirdly and finally, I would like us to consider the overture of divine grace in the free offer of the Gospel. The covenant God made with Noah and human posterity descending from him and his sons prepares the way for the free offer of the Gospel. It opens a window of opportunity, a day of grace, a time for second chances. What exactly do we mean by the free offer or the well-meant offer of the Gospel? We mean the indiscriminate overture of grace that is extended to sinners of lost mankind in the preaching of the Good News. It is nothing less than full salvation in the richest and fullest meaning of the term that is offered in the Gospel. As we shall see in our examination of some of the following texts taken from all over Scripture, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that sinners should come to him in repentance and faith. In the Gospels, Jesus sometimes movingly invites sinners to come to him and find in him full salvation. For it is nothing less than Christ himself that is offered in the Gospel. It is not the mere possibility of salvation that is offered as Arminians would teach, but the absolute certainty of it for all who call upon the name of the Lord. As John Murray observes, ‘The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fullness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that salvation. In other words, it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel’. We offer nothing less than Jesus Christ, his blood and righteousness. 

In Isaiah 45:22, we encounter an overture on the part of God to the whole world: ‘Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other’. That the whole world is intended is sufficiently clear from the words ‘all you ends of the earth’ – the offer is universal in scope. It extends to every man, woman, and child. It is also quite clearly salvific in its intent: turn and be saved. That’s what we call repentance. The reason attached is divine monotheism: ‘for I am God, and there is no other’. The second and third texts of interest come from the book of Ezekiel: ‘Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? … For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!’ (Ezekiel 18: 23, 32). 'Say to them, ‘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. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33:11). God himself speaks in these texts. He makes it plain that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would rather that the wicked would come to him in repentance and faith. In Ezekiel 33:11, we actually encounter God pleading with the wicked to repent: ‘Turn, turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ Of course, we are not speaking of the decretive will of God in this context. It is certainly true that God decrees that some should be saved according to his eternal purpose of election, while others should be lost and condemned for their sins. However, as Murray observes, ‘In the text [just mentioned] it is the will of God’s benevolence (voluntas euarestias) that is stated, not the will of God’s decree (voluntas eudokias)’. In his secret will, God determines to save his elect and condemn the lost, but according to his revealed will, he desires to save all mankind. This is a paradox that is only resolved in the mind of God. Our duty is to rest contented with his revealed will. As Moses says, ‘The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever’ (Deuteronomy 29:29). 

The fourth text comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:28–30: ‘Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light’. In these verses, the Lord Christ offers and provides what is needed by those who are weary and burdened. These people are clearly sinners, but they have been put under a difficult yoke – that of the many rules and regulations of the pharisees. Jesus by way of contrast offers a yoke that easy and a burden that is light. Those who come to Christ and learn of Him will find rest for the soul. Clearly salvation in the fullest sense is freely offered in these verses to sinners of lost mankind. As John Murray observes, 'What is freely offered in the gospel? The word of Jesus already quoted (Matthew 11:28) gives the answer. It is Christ himself who is offered. More strictly, he offers himself. The whole gamut of redemptive grace is included … When Christ invites us to himself it is to the possession of himself and therefore of all that defines his identity as Lord and Saviour'. You may have the whole Christ. You may have it all in him. They who gain Christ, lose nothing. Come to him. Are you weary and heavy laden? Are you bowed down beneath a load of sin? Then come and let your burden roll away at the cross of Jesus. 

The fifth text is taken from Matthew 23:37 (cf. Luke 13:34). Here Jesus pleads for the salvation of Jerusalem with tears in his eyes: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing’. It seems clear from this verse that Jesus desired to gather the people of Jerusalem as a mother hen would gather her chicks under her wings. As John Murray observes, ‘This surely means the gathering together of the people of Jerusalem under his saving and protecting grace. So we have the most emphatic declaration on the part of Christ of his having yearned for the conversion and salvation of the people of Jerusalem’. Christ expresses intense emotion over the capital city of Israel. ‘Jerusalem’ is twice repeated for emphasis. Here is the very heart and centre of Israel, representing all the different kinds of people whom Jesus had encountered in his ministry. Jesus would gather them all under his wings, yet they refused him. Don’t be like one who refuses Christ. May it never be said that you would not come to him. I urge you: forsake the ways of sin and let Christ enter in. 

Our final text is taken from 2 Peter 3:9. ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’. Here Peter argues that the delay of the coming of judgement is due to God’s patience or longsuffering as some translations put the verse. Theologians relate this to an attribute of God called divine forbearance. God is patient. He is longsuffering. He holds the strings of time in his hands. Notice that there is a fundamental antithesis in this verse between the terrible sentence of death meted out to lost sinners, and the life which God offers through repentance. God does not desire that any should perish. The divine patience allows time for the sinner to repent. In other words, God desires that such sinners should repent while there is still time before the final judgement occurs. According to Murray, ‘there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not [eternally] decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance’. Jesus preached a message of repentance. The first words of his public ministry were: 'Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand' (Matthew 4:17). He said, 'I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance'. Come, repent, believe, trust in him. The angels are said to rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). Will they be rejoicing over you today? 

Conclusion

I believe we should preach and witness with tears in our eyes. Our hearts should be filled wide with the love of Christ for lost mankind. We should long to see sinners saved. We should pray for them, and preach to them, and persevere with them. The doctrines of common grace and the free offer of the Gospel should create in us compassionate hearts towards sinners of mankind lost. Let me close with the words of the apostle Paul, ‘We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God’ (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel

Introduction

Within the sphere of human cultural activity, there are traces of the true, the good, and the beautiful. This is true despite the reality of human depravity. Human beings are sinners both by nature and by choice – as the Apostle Paul says, ‘None is righteous, no, not one’ (Romans 3:10). How then can we explain this paradox? There seems to be a tension between the relative good of human beings and their inherent depravity. How can we account for the noble and sometimes heroic actions of fallen men and women? How is it that lost humanity is in possession of great talents in the arts, humanities, and sciences? Why is there a universal impulse towards religion throughout the world? ‘How can the unregenerate still speak the truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives?’[1] These are questions which the Reformed doctrine of common grace seeks to answer. My own view of common grace builds upon the work of John Murray and Louis Berkhof – I am greatly indebted to these giants of Reformed theology. Once common grace has been established, we will consider the overture of grace in the free offer of the Gospel. God reaches out in love to lost mankind – calling sinners to faith and repentance and freely offering his mercy and grace to all who will call upon his name.

The Development of the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace

The Augsburg Confession teaches that ‘man’s will hath some liberty to work a civil righteousness, and to choose such things as reason can reach unto; but that it hath no power to work the righteousness of God’. There was therefore a distinction between civil righteousness and saving righteousness within Lutheran theology. Zwingli argued that the sanctifying influence of God grace ‘penetrated in a measure even into the gentile world’ and that this accounts for the relative social and cultural good within society.[2] Calvin disagreed with both Luther and Zwingli to some extent by arguing that lost mankind was incapable of doing saving good and everything that men and women did was tainted by sin. Grace was saving, special, and particular to the elect. However, alongside this doctrine of total depravity and special grace, Calvin developed a doctrine of common grace to act as a limiting factor on the doctrine of total depravity. In the words of Louis Berkhof, 'This is a grace which is communal, does not pardon nor purify human nature, and does not effect the salvation of sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men'.[3]

The Puritans insisted upon God’s forbearance with lost mankind, his compassion to all creatures, and his overtures of grace toward lost humanity. One only needs a cursory familiarity with John Bunyan or Richard Baxter to realise that this was the case among post-Reformation Reformed pastors and theologians within Britain – the overtures of the free offer of the Gospel are frequently found in their practical works. The Dutch Further Reformation similarly developed doctrines of God’s general love and mercy towards lost mankind in their practical writings. For example, in his consideration of the divine attributes, Wilhelmus à Brakel distinguishes between God’s general love of benevolence that is common to all mankind and his special love to the elect. He similarly distinguishes between general mercy for all mankind and special mercy for the people of God’s choice.[4] In the modern period, the doctrine of common grace received considerable development in the writings of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck.[5] Kuyper is arguably the doyen of common grace and his three-volume study of the doctrine remains the most important work on the subject.[6] Notable advocates of common grace in the Reformed tradition of twentieth century include John Murray, Louis Berkhof, and Herman Kuiper who devoted significant aspects of their published writings to the subject.[7]

The Meaning of Common Grace

Reformed theologians carefully distinguish between their view of common grace and the view commonly held by Arminian theologians. Arminians generally believe that common grace is a link in the ordo salutis and that it has special salvific significance in giving all mankind the capacity to believe the Gospel. For Reformed theologians, common grace (gratia communis) has no salvific significance – it is purely general and non-saving. It is contrasted with special grace (gratia particularis), as given only to the elect, which brings them out of the darkness of sin and into the light of the Gospel. Common grace, in the Reformed sense of the term, is defined by Berkhof as being made up of two parts: '(1) 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 (2) 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 seems good to Him'. In the Kuyperian sense, we might add to this definition that God actively promotes the true, good, and beautiful within the sphere of culture, art, society, and science – this is all part of his common, non-saving, goodness to the world. John Murray offers a succinct but helpful definition of common grace as ‘every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this underserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God’.[8]

The Operation and Fruits of Common Grace

Common grace may be said to operate in the world through the light of God’s general revelation and the work of civil governments. Firstly, Reformed theologians have argued that common grace is said to operate by the light of God’s general revelation – this is described by John as the light of Christ which ‘gives light to everyone’ (John 1:9). It is universal, but non-salvific. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul shows the gentiles have some capacity to observe what the law requires and carry out relative good: ‘For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them’ (Romans 2:14–15). God has in some sense impressed upon the hearts or consciences of unregenerate men and women what he requires in the law. The conscience accuses those who break this law and acquits those who keep it. It is written in their hearts.

Common grace is also said to operate through the work of civil governments who act to restrain sin and impose order on society as Paul argues in Romans chapter 13. Civil magistrates are sent by God ‘for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well’ (1 Peter 2:14) In the words of the Belgic Confession: 'We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency' (Article XXXVI). In other words, God has instituted civil governments to restrain sin and promote relative good in society. Even though men and women are totally depraved, the confession assumes some capacity for ‘good order’ and ‘decency’ among men. This is God’s work of common grace in their hearts.

There are several fruits of common grace as identified by Reformed theologians including the delayed sentence of death, the restraint of sin, some degree of truth and morality in society, good works and civil righteousness among the unregenerate, and natural blessings to elect and reprobate alike.[9] Firstly, God warned Adam solemnly that should he eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die (Genesis 2:17). However, when Adam did eat of the fruit in disobedience to God’s command, he did not die immediately. God delayed the punishment of death and gave Adam the opportunity to repent. This is owing to his common grace. He gives humanity a chance to repent of sin. He does not immediately execute the punishment of death upon the sinner. This is owing to his goodness – a goodness designed to lead men and women to repentance as Paul argues in Romans 2:4. There is a restraint on the manifestation of God’s wrath towards sin. Secondly, God actively restrains the manifestation of sin in the world. The doctrine of total depravity does not mean that all men and women are as bad as they could possibly be. Not everyone is an incarnation of Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, or Stalin. God limits the manifestation of sin in the hearts of men and women. In the words of Calvin, ‘But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint’.[10] In the case of Abimelech, we see God’s sovereign hand in preventing him from committing a sin: ‘Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her' (Genesis 20:6). We have no reason to suppose that Abimelech was regenerate or a member of God’s covenant people, so clearly here is an example of an unbeliever being restrained by God from committing a sin.

Thirdly, God preserves some degree of truth, morality, and religion within society. Society is not hell on earth. Human beings are capable of relative good in the world. There is an outward semblance of morality in society, however corrupt this may appear. We have already argued that the Gentiles have some capacity to keep the law as Paul argues in Romans. Paul was also able to say of the Athenians, ‘I perceive that you are very religious’ (Acts 17:22). They had religion, albeit corrupt. They were able to worship the ‘unknown God’ (Acts 17:23), despite their great ignorance. Religion serves the purpose of common grace. It allows for a point of contact with lost mankind, as Paul used this in his debate with the Gentiles. In the words of the Canons of Dort, ‘There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behaviour’ (III–IV. 4). As the doctrine of common grace teaches, man is capable of some relative good, albeit non-saving – and this maintains good order and decency within society.

Fourthly, human beings are capable of outwardly good deeds and works of civil righteousness – this is commonly known as justitia civilis among Reformed divines.[11] The Bible often speaks of the works of the unregenerate as being relatively good. For example, when Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, God said to him ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in my sight and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in my heart, four generations of your sons will sit on the throne of Israel’ (2 Kings 10:30). Similarly, Joash and Amaziah are commended by God for their relatively good deeds, even though they did not ultimately remove the high places and prevent the people from worshipping there (2 Kings 12:2 [cf. 2 Chronicles 24:17– 25]; 14:3, 14–16, 20, 27 [cf. 2 Chronicles 25:2]). In the New Testament, Luke records Jesus as saying that sinners are capable of relative good: ‘And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same’ (Luke 6:33, cf. Matthew 5:46). Similarly, Matthew records Jesus as saying that those who are evil are nonetheless capable of giving good gifts to their children: ‘If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him’ (Matthew 7:11). Of course, none of these good deeds by the unregenerate are salvific in nature. They are relatively good as opposed to savingly good.

Finally, unbelievers are the recipients of many natural blessings. There are many passages of Scripture where it appears that God showers his gifts upon elect and reprobate alike. For example, the Lord promises to bless Ishmael, even though he is not the chosen line of God’s covenant grace (Genesis 17:20). God also blessed the house of the unregenerate Potiphar for Joseph’s sake – so much so that the ‘blessing of the Lord was on everything Potiphar had’ (Genesis 39:5). In a verse that captures the very essence of common grace, the Psalmist says that ‘the Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made’ (Psalm 145:9). In other words, the psalmist speaks of a common grace on the part of God towards all of God’s creatures. The psalmist says, ‘He makes the grass grow for the livestock and provides crops for man to cultivate, bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil that makes his face to shine, and bread that sustains his heart’ (Psalm 104:14–15). In other words, God provides for the happiness of humankind. He is a God who ‘gives food to all flesh: for his mercy endures forever’ (Psalm 136:25, emphasis my own). Notice that God’s generosity extends to all humanity, not exclusively to the elect.  

In the New Testament, Jesus commands us to love our enemies because this reflects God’s character, who showers blessings upon the righteous and the unrighteous alike: ‘But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise of the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous’ (Matthew 5:44–45). Not only are we to love our enemies as a reflection of God’s character, but God himself loves his enemies to the point of blessing them with rain and sunshine (cf. Luke 6:35–36). These are surely gifts of common grace. Paul and Barnabas entreat the unregenerate crowds by pleading God’s common grace towards them: ‘In past generations, he [God] let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony to His goodness: He gives you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness’ (Acts 14:16–17). Rain and fruitful seasons are gifts of God’s common grace to lost mankind. Nobody deserves them, but God freely gives them.

The Scriptures clearly seem to support the doctrine of common grace as developed by Reformed theologians. God actively works to restrain sin in the world and promote his goodness through the civil magistrates and through the light of general revelation. His common grace is seen in his forbearance and longsuffering, his restraint upon the full exercise of his wrath until the day of judgement, the presence of some degree of truth and morality in society, the good works and civil righteousness of the unregenerate, and the natural blessings given to both righteous and unrighteous alike. Common grace prepares the way for the overture of grace in the free offer of the Gospel – the next subject of our consideration.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The free offer of the Gospel is taught explicitly in several places of Scripture including Isaiah 45:22; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matthew 11:28–30; 23:37 and 2 Peter 3:9. We shall shortly consider each of these texts in turn. However, we must first ask: what exactly do we mean by the free offer of the Gospel? By the free offer of the Gospel, we mean the indiscriminate overture of grace that is extended to sinners of lost mankind in the preaching of the Good News. It is nothing less than full salvation in the richest and fullest meaning of the term that is offered in the Gospel. As we shall see in our examination of some of the following texts, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that sinners should come to him in repentance and faith. In the Gospels, Jesus sometimes movingly invites sinners to come to him and find in him full salvation. For it is nothing less than Christ himself that is offered in the Gospel. It is not the mere possibility of salvation that is offered, but the certainty of it for all who will call upon the name of the Lord. As John Murray observes, ‘The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fullness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that salvation. In other words, it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel’.[12]

In Isaiah 45:22, we encounter an overture on the part of God to the whole world: ‘Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other’. That the whole world is intended is sufficiently clear from the words ‘all you ends of the earth’ – the offer is universal in scope. It is also quite clearly salvific in its intent: turn and be saved. The reason attached is divine monotheism: ‘for I am God, and there is no other’ – this is clearly reinforced by the context in which all nations are being called to renounce their idols and worship God alone. The second and third texts of interest come from the book of Ezekiel: 'Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? … For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!' (Ezekiel 18: 23, 32). 'Say to them, ‘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. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33:11). God himself speaks in these texts. He makes it plain that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would rather that the wicked would come to him in repentance. In Ezekiel 33:11, we actually encounter God pleading with the wicked to repent: ‘Turn, turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ Of course, we are not speaking of the decretive will of God in this context. It is certainly true that God decrees that some should be saved according to his eternal purpose of election, while others should be lost. However, as Murray observes, ‘In the text [above] it is the will of God’s benevolence (voluntas euarestias) that is stated, not the will of God’s decree (voluntas eudokias)’.[13]

The fourth text comes from Matthew 11:28–30: ‘Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light’. In these verses, the Lord Christ offers and provides what is needed by those who are weary and burdened. These people are clearly sinners, but they have been put under a difficult yoke – that of the many rules and regulations of the pharisees. Jesus by way of contrast offers a yoke that easy and a burden that is light. Those who come to Christ and learn of Him will find rest for the soul. Clearly salvation in the fullest sense is freely offered in these verses to sinners of lost mankind. As John Murray observes, 'What is freely offered in the gospel? The word of Jesus already quoted (Matthew 11:28) gives the answer. It is Christ who is offered. More strictly, he offers himself. The whole gamut of redemptive grace is included … When Christ invites us to himself it is to the possession of himself and therefore of all that defines his identity as Lord and Saviour'.[14]  The whole Christ is offered freely to sinners of mankind lost in these beautiful verses and the free offer of the Gospel most clearly manifest.

The fifth text is taken from Matthew 23:37 (cf. Luke 13:34). Here Jesus pleads for the salvation of Jerusalem: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing’. It seems clear from this verse that Jesus desired to gather the people of Jerusalem as a mother hen would gather her chicks under her wings. As John Murray observes, ‘This surely means the gathering together of the people of Jerusalem under his saving and protecting grace. So we have the most emphatic declaration on the part of Christ of his having yearned for the conversion and salvation of the people of Jerusalem’.[15] Christ expresses intense emotion over the capital city of Israel. ‘Jerusalem’ is twice repeated for emphasis. Here is the very heart and centre of Israel, representing all the different kinds of people whom Jesus had encountered in his ministry. Jesus would gather them all under his wings, yet they refused him.

Our final text is taken from 2 Peter 3:9. ‘The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance’. Here Peter argues that the delay of the coming of judgement is due to God’s patience or longsuffering as some translations put the verse. There is a fundamental antithesis in this verse between the terrible sentence of death meted out to lost sinners, and the life which God offers through repentance. God does not desire that any should perish. The divine patience allows time for the sinner to repent. In other words, God desires that such sinners should repent while there is still time before the final judgement occurs. According to Murray, ‘there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not [eternally] decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance’.[16]

Given the above observations, it seems that there is a clear basis in Scripture for the doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel. God clearly desires that all would turn to him and be saved through repentance and faith in his Son, the Lord Christ. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires that sinners would turn to him and be saved. The Lord Christ himself pleads with lost mankind to come to him and even weeps over Jerusalem, desiring to see all Israel saved. Peter reminds us that there is still time for repentance. God is patient and has no desire to see anyone perish. All this impresses upon us the urgency of the free offer of the Gospel and of the overtures of divine grace to lost mankind. Today is the day of salvation. The Church has a duty and responsibility to proclaim the riches of God’s grace, lovingkindness, and forbearance with lost humanity. Mission should take seriously the overtures of God’s grace and the kindness of his genuine and well-meant offer of redemption to lost mankind.

Recommended Reading

Bavinck, Herman, ‘Calvin and Common Grace’, The Princeton Theological Review, vol. VII (1909), 437–465.

Berkhof, Louis, ‘Common Grace’, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh, 1958), pp. 432–446.

Kuiper, Herman, Calvin on Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 1928).

Kuyper, Abraham, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Bellingham, WA, 2016–2020), 3 vols.

Macleod, Donald, Compel Them to Come In: Calvinism and the Free Offer of the Gospel (Fearn, 2020).

Mouw, Richard J., He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 2001).

Murray, John, ‘Common Grace’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 93–119.

Murray, John, ‘The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: The Claims of Truth, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1976), pp. 59–85.

Murray, John, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001).

Van Til, Cornelius, Common Grace and the Gospel, 2nd edition (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2015).

 

Footnotes

[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh, 1958), p. 432.

[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 434.

[3] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 434.

[4] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI, 1992), pp. 123–125.

[5] Herman Bavinck, ‘Calvin and Common Grace’, The Princeton Theological Review, vol. VII (1909), 437–465.

[6] Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Bellingham, WA, 2016–2020). 3 vols.

[7] Louis Berkhof, ‘Common Grace’, Systematic Theology, pp. 432–446. John Murray, ‘Common Grace’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1977), pp. 93–119; Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace (Grand Rapids, MI, 1928).

[8] John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 96.

[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 442–3.

[10] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II. 3. 3.

[11] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 443.

[12] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel (Edinburgh, 2001), p. 30.

[13] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 21.

[14] John Murray, ‘The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel’, in The Collected Writings of John Murray: The Claims of Truth, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1976), p. 82.

[15] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 12.

[16] John Murray, The Free Offer of the Gospel, p. 30.