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 differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard
for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external
deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring
him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of
using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such
as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in
unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God (Canons
III/IV:4).
COMMON
GRACE ARGUMENT:
This
article of the Canons is thought to
indirectly provide support for the doctrine of common grace; “For,” it is
argued, “if it wasn’t for common grace, man would have no glimmerings of
natural light at all, but would have become a beast, or a devil, at the fall.”
These “glimmerings
of natural light” are said to be God’s common grace, operating in the heart of
man, restraining the powers of sin in his corrupt nature and enabling him to
perform good works in society (i.e. “civil righteousness”).
It is
interesting, however, that when the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in
1924 appealed to this article, as proof for common grace, they only quoted the
first half of it—probably because they saw quite clearly that the second half
of the article completely demolishes their theory altogether!
(I)
Homer C. Hoeksema (1923-1989)
[Source: The Voice of Our Fathers: An Exposition of the Canons of
Dordrecht, (RFPA, 2013) pp. 273–274, 276]
Man [after the fall] retained a
residue of light. By that light man remained a rational, moral being, a man who
could still think and will. If he did not have that residue, he could not be a
responsible, rational, moral creature in relation to God and man. He could not
sin, because sin implies a responsible creature who knows what he ought to do
and is capable of a moral response. Not being a responsible creature, he could
not be subject to punishment. Man has enough of the light of nature to be a
human being—a rational, moral, responsible creature. Although his nature was
seriously affected through sin, it remained a human nature. Man through the
fall did not become an irrational beast.
The light of nature has nothing
to do with having or lacking grace. The truth is that the glimmerings of
natural light are a constant testimony of God’s wrath. This wrath against sin
so consumes man that it extends to his nature and strips him of a large part of
his original, natural gifts, and leaves him with just sufficient natural light
to be inexcusable and to become the object of more divine wrath. It might have
been better if man had been totally stripped of his natural gifts, then he
would not be a morally responsible creature subject to further visitation of
wrath. Now man is born a child of wrath.
… Apart from Christ, these
glimmerings of natural, intellectual power to know things concerning God
bespeak no divine favor. They serve only as a constant reminder of the wrath of
God that strips man of the largest part of his natural knowledge. Again, it
would have been far better for man, considered apart from Christ, if he had
been totally stripped of this knowledge. Then he would know nothing concerning
God, could not be held responsible to glorify and thank God, and could not be
the object of God’s consuming wrath. Then he would be like the dumb beast,
which at least does not go to hell.
-----------------------------------------------------
(II)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
[Source: The
Protestant Reformed Churches in America (1947), pp. 389-391]
6.
What is “natural light”?
It is the light of reason, through which man, even after the fall, is a
rational-moral being. The article speaks of “glimmerings” of this light
remaining in fallen man, because it does no longer shine in its original
brightness that characterized it in the state of righteousness. If man had not
retained these glimmerings, he would not be able to act rationally and morally
in relation to God and man. He would not be responsible. He would be unable to
sin, for sin presupposes a rational-being that knows what he ought to do and is, therefore,
responsible. And he could not be subject to punishment, nor would he be in a
position to justify God in His righteous judgment. In the light of these
glimmerings, therefore, fallen man knows
what he ought to do, but is not
morally able to do it. Knowledge is no virtue.
7.
What knowledge of God does fallen man have in the light of these
glimmerings?
He knows that God is and that He is One, eternal in power and divinity,
and that He must be glorified and thanked. This knowledge, which by these
glimmerings of natural light he is able to perceive, God shows unto him, for
the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, Rom. 1:19, 20. By this knowledge,
therefore, he knows what he ought to
be and to do in relation to God as God.
He must glorify and thank Him. However, the question as to whether there
remains in fallen man any good and
the ability to do good, is not determined by what he knows, but by what, in the light of that knowledge he does. And the Word of God teaches, that
knowing God he refuses to glorify Him as God and to be thankful. Rom. 1:21.
8.
What is his knowledge of “natural things”?
Natural things are the things of this world, things earthy, man himself
and creation about him, the different creatures in relation one to another and
to himself. In the light of this knowledge, man, fallen man, is able to live
his present earthy life, such as it is. In this light he also develops the
sciences and discovers the hidden powers of creation and invents the wonders of
the modern world. He discovers numerous means whereby to enrich the life of the
world. Again, however, the question as to whether there remains in fallen man
any good and whether he performs any good is not answered by the fact that he
is able to live and to enlarge upon the scope of his earthly life, but is
determined by his relation to God. With all these means he does not improve,
neither does he any good. He merely subjects himself with all these to the
service of sin.
9.
But does not the article also state that he knows the difference between
good and evil?
Indeed; and thus it is. Were it not so, man could not be a sinner.
However, it must be emphasized once more, the question is not whether he knows the difference between good and
evil, but whether, knowing this, he performs
the good. And this he does not, will not, and cannot will to do.
-----------------------------------------------------
(III)
Rev. Steven R. Key
What then are those
“glimmerings”? They refer to the remnants of the excellent gifts God bestowed
upon man in creation. When man fell, he did not completely lose his gifts of
thought and will. That which belongs to his human nature, though devastated
through sin, was not lost. His depravity is not a matter of intellectual
ignorance. For God would hold him accountable as a thinking, willing creature.
The article itself explains
those glimmerings in terms of the remnants of some knowledge of God. That is
the truth set forth in Romans 1:18-32. By that knowledge man is left without
excuse before God. Man also retains some knowledge of natural things. He
continues in his created position as king of the earthly creation, able to use
the earth and its resources, and even to discover relationships between various
elements of creation and to make earthly advancements by way of many inventions.
Man retains some knowledge “of the differences between good and evil, and
discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an
orderly external deportment.” That is so, as Romans 2:14-15 explains, because
they have “the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing
one another.”
But any appeal to this article
in support of common grace is unfounded. The Arminians insisted that man, by
those natural gifts, could come to a saving knowledge of God. Over against this
the Synod of Dordt maintained that it was not so. In the portion of the article
omitted by Abraham Kuyper, as well as by the CRC, the Reformed
fathers—continuing to develop the biblical doctrine of total depravity—insisted
that this “light of nature” is not sufficient to bring man to a saving
knowledge of God and to true conversion. But then the fathers make a positive
conclusion. So different is the biblical picture of the natural man from that
drawn by the Remonstrants, that man is incapable of using these glimmerings
aright “even in things natural and civil. Nay,
further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly
polluted and holds it in
unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
-----------------------------------------------------
(IV)
Rev. Martyn McGeown
[Source: An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”]
Article 4 was not written in order to contradict
Articles 1-3—Dordt does not return with the right hand what it took away with
the left hand. Articles 1-3 are an uncompromising, biblical statement of total
depravity, the first petal in the Reformed TULIP. Dordt is not claiming in Canons III/IV:4 that man is still good
after all or that man is still good in some sense. Article 4 is not a denial or
a dilution of total depravity. It is, however, an explanation or a
clarification. What did man become after the fall? Has he become a beast or a
demon? Does man commit every possible sin? Is man’s depravity such that life is
impossible, inasmuch as all men are raping, murdering, rampaging demons? And if
all men are not raping, murdering, rampaging demons, is that due to common
grace or due to the remnants of some goodness in man? Those are the issues in Canons III/IV:4.
The key phrase is “the glimmerings of natural light.”
Before the fall, according to Canons III/IV:1, man was “adorned with a true and saving [Latin: salutary, beneficial] knowledge of his
Creator and of spiritual things.” That is gone—in its place is “blindness of
mind.” The light that man retains is merely “natural.” Everyone has natural
light, which is the natural light of reason. However, fallen man retains only
“glimmerings” of that light. Imagine the power of Adam’s natural light before
the fall compared to man’s darkened mind after the fall. We think that we are
modern, sophisticated and intellectual. Adam’s intellect far exceeded ours.
What is the power of this “natural light” of reason? Article 4 lists several
things: (1) he retains some knowledge of God; (2) he retains some knowledge of
natural things; (3) he retains some knowledge of the differences between good
and evil; and (4) he discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society
and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.
And he does all of this while remaining totally depraved.
Let us explain and prove these various aspects of
“natural light.”
First, the totally depraved unbeliever retains “some
knowledge of God.” This is, however, not a “true and saving knowledge” of God,
not the knowledge of love and fellowship, and not a spiritual appreciation of
God. Nevertheless, even the dullest atheist knows that God exists. Even the
demons know that God exists and they know that without “common grace.” The
reader should consult Romans 1:18-23 and James 2:19.
Second,
the totally depraved unbeliever retains “some knowledge of … natural things.”
This is, however, not a “true and saving knowledge … of spiritual things.”
Sinful man can engage in intellectual pursuits. He can study the world, develop
science and become proficient in many fields of study, but all of it is merely
in natural things. That is part of the so-called “cultural mandate” of Genesis
1:28: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion …” Man pursues science, art, culture and philosophy, and he does
so as totally depraved. An
unbelieving, cultured scientist with a PhD in physics is as depraved as an
idolatrous, cannibalistic savage in the jungles of Papua New Guinea.
Third,
the totally depraved unbeliever retains “some knowledge of … the differences
between good and evil.” He knows, for example, that murder is wrong, that theft
is wrong and that living faithfully with one wife is good. He knows that
because his inner judge—his
conscience—reminds him of that.
Romans 2:14-15 states,
For when the Gentiles which have
not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not
the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in
their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
When Gentiles do “the things contained in the law,”
they do not obey God’s law, which is impossible (Rom. 8:7), but they display
external virtue and avoid external vice. When they display “the work of the law
written in their hearts,” this does not mean that God has written the law on their hearts—that is regeneration
(Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10)—but it means that God has written the knowledge of
right and wrong in their hearts, and He testifies it to their consciences. All
men know the difference between right and wrong. This does not make them good,
or even partially good, but inexcusable!
Fourth, the totally depraved unbeliever “discovers
some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly
external deportment.” Even the basest of sinners prefer to live in a nation of
laws. They see some need for a criminal justice system, even if they hope to
escape human justice, and they see the benefit of complying with some moral
code. Most people generally obey the law of the land. However this is not
“civil righteousness”—it is self-preservation. Law is good for them and law is
good for society. Most are astute enough to discern that lawlessness is
counterproductive. Many are restrained by a natural sense of shame or a fear of
punishment. But unless the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner and writes God’s
law on his heart, that sinner will never serve God out of thankfulness from the
heart.
These “glimmerings of natural light” do not amount to
much—they do not produce good works, they do not constitute righteousness, they
are not pleasing to God and they are not spiritual or saving good. And their
existence has nothing to do with “common grace.”
An Inexcusable Omission
However, the Synod of Dordt did not finish there.
Here is the part of Canons III/IV:4 that the CRC Synod did not quote:
But so far is this light of
nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to
true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural
and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders
wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes
inexcusable before God.
Notice those damning words. Not only do the
“glimmerings of natural light” not
improve totally depraved man, they actually make his judgment before God even worse because of his misuse of them.
Unregenerate man is “incapable of using it [i.e., the light of nature] aright
even in things natural and civil.” When man seems to fulfil the “cultural
mandate” of Genesis 1:28, he sins. (In fact, all of his endeavours are not a
fulfilling of the “cultural mandate” but a selfish pursuit of pleasure, wealth,
power and sin). When man develops science, medicine and technology, he sins.
When man pursues any field of study, he sins. When man behaves in an outwardly
moral fashion, even when he lets conscience be his guide and when he follows
God’s law externally, he sins. When man lives as a law-abiding citizen, in
faithfulness to one wife and loves his children, he sins. Everything man does,
he does in the service of sin. He cannot use natural light aright even in things natural and civil (cf.
Prov. 21:4).
Of course, if, instead of pursuing a cure for cancer,
man makes and deploys a terrorist bomb, he sins even more. If, instead of
living in faithfulness to his wife, he commits adultery or, if instead of
loving his children, he neglects or abuses them, he sins even more. If instead
of living as a law-abiding citizen, he becomes a criminal, he sins more. The
issue is not between depravity and “common grace,” but between different expressions
of depravity.
Moreover, “this light, such as it is [and it is not
much], man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in
unrighteousness.” Man pollutes—he wholly
pollutes—his intellectual gifts, his knowledge of God, his knowledge of good
and evil, his conscience, and his natural sense of morality and external
virtue. He wholly pollutes it! Do you
believe that or is that too strong? If it is too strong for you, do not call
yourself a Calvinist and do not claim that you “affirm without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.”
The Synod of Dordt did not invent this out of whole
cloth. The Synod echoes the teaching of sacred Scripture. Romans 1:18 states
that unbelievers “hold the truth in unrighteousness,” where the verb “hold”
means to “hold down” or to “suppress.” I Timothy 4:2 speaks of those “having
their consciences seared with a hot iron.” Titus 1:15-16 warns that
unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable,
and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Romans 3:12 simply teaches, “there is none that doeth
good, no, not one.” No one does spiritual good, saving good, moral good,
natural good, civil good or any other kind of good before God.
-----------------------------------------------------
(V)
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
[Source: Another Look at
Common Grace (2019 edition), pp. 154-156]
In support of the doctrine of
the restraint of sin, appeal is made to the fact that the Belgic Confession [Art. 14] speaks of man retaining a few remains
of the excellent gifts which he lost because of the fall; and that the Canons [3–4.4] speak of “glimmerings of
natural light” which fallen man retains, by which he has some knowledge of God,
of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil. And further,
that, because of these glimmerings, he discovers some regard for virtue, good
order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.
It is clear that both articles
refer directly to the passages in Romans 1 and 2 which we discussed above. Both
use the same language in some respects, and both creeds specifically refer to
the fact that God continues to give fallen man some remnants of His excellent
gifts that he might be without excuse.
Both articles speak of natural
light—the Belgic by referring to
remnants of excellent gifts, and the Canons
by referring to glimmerings of natural light.
What are these “remnants of
natural light”? Very obviously, the creeds refer to the fact that, even after
man fall, man did not become a beast or animal—as Dr.
Abraham Kuyper (and others) insist would have happened, if it had not been for
common grace. He remained a man. His
natural light (in distinction from spiritual light) are those gifts which
guarantee that he is still a man. Man is still rational because he retains a
mind. He is still moral because he retains a will. He is still a creature with
a soul—which soul shall endure beyond death so that he may stand in the
judgment and be justly and righteously punished for his sin.
These gifts of natural light
are, according to the creeds, the means by which he still has some knowledge of
God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil. It is
because he has natural light, in a measure, that he is still able to have some
regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly
external deportment. If he lacked these he would no longer be man.
But they are, after all, only glimmerings and remnants. Even as far as the natural light which man continues to
possess is concerned, man has only bits
and pieces. That is, the fall was so devastating in its consequences that
even man’s natural powers of mind and
will, which he retained, are remnants and glimmerings. They are the few scraps
a seamstress has left over when her dress is completed, essentially worthless.
They are the sputterings of a candle in comparison with the light of the sun.
Man’s natural powers of soul were far greater before he fell than after God
visited him with death.
But these glimmerings and
remnants are enough to hold man accountable before God. They are enough to give
man some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between
good and evil. And so man still is responsible for what he does. If he had not
these glimmerings, he would not be accountable before God for his idolatry and
sin. But now he is.
But if you should inquire
whether this is grace, the creeds
make no mention at all of such grace. And if you should think that these
glimmerings “restrain sin,” the creeds are quite emphatic that they do not.
Man’s regard for virtue and good order in society and his efforts to maintain
an orderly external deportment are for
his own selfish benefit, for he is able
to see that society would sink into chaos, and life would be impossible, if
God’s law were not externally observed.
The Canons are quite insistent on making the point. All these
glimmerings are not only insufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God
and to true conversion, but man is even incapable
of using this natural light aright in things natural and civil. He
suppresses the truth, renders it holy polluted, holds it in unrighteousness,
and corrupts it in every way possible. And so he becomes inexcusable before
God.
-----------------------------------------------------
(VI)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment