Q.
1. “What is the truth of Total Depravity?”
The
Reformed doctrine of total depravity is that men who are not born again are
dead in sin, unable to do any good, and inclined to all evil. The emphasis here
must be this: they are spiritually dead.
The cause of this spiritual death is the fall of our first parents in Paradise
and their subsequent punishment by God with death: physical and spiritual.
Natural man is unable to do any good.
Biblical
proof for this is found throughout Scripture. In Genesis 2:16-17 the Lord says to Adam and Eve, “The
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surly die. That punishment was meted
to them, according to Ephesians
2:1ff: “You ... were dead in
trespasses and sins ... But God, who is rich in mercy ... hath quickened us together with Christ
...” Many more passages speak of man’s spiritual death.
Not
only is natural man dead, he is actively evil. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: For it is not subject to the law of
God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the
flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:6-8). This is also the teaching of Romans 3:9-12: “As it is written,
There is none righteous, no not one: There is none that understandeth, there is
none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are all
together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one ...”
All that natural man does is sin.
Natural
man is a slave to sin. His will is bound to doing nothing but evil. This is the
thesis of Martin Luther’s book, The Bondage of the
Will, the only book, in his own opinion,
that was worth saving. Christ said in John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
The
above is not a careless appeal to a few isolated texts, but is the Reformed
faith.
In
the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 5, we learn that the
natural man is “prone ... to hate God and his neighbour;” in Q.
& A. 6 that natural man is “so
wicked and perverse ...” and in Q. & A. 8, “Are we then so corrupt
that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?” What is the answer? “Indeed we are, except we are
regenerated by the spirit of God.” “Indeed we
are.” The fathers say nothing
here like, “Well, let us make some distinctions. What do you mean by good? What
do you mean by corrupt?” But, “Indeed we are, except for regeneration by the Spirit
of God.”
The Belgic Confession has, in Article 14, that man is “become
wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his
ways ... Therefore we reject all
that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is
but a slave to sin ... For who may presume to boast, that he of himself can do any good ... for there is no will or
understanding conformable to the divine will or understanding but what Christ
has wrought in man; which he teaches us when he says, ‘without me ye can do
nothing.’” In Article
15 of this same creed,
original sin is said to be “a corruption of the whole nature ... which produces
in man all sorts of sin as a root thereof.”
What
is made so plain in these two confessions is explained further in the Canons of Dordt, III/IV:1, “Man was originally
formed after the image of God ... but revolting from God ... he forfeited these
excellent gifts; and, on the contrary, entailed on himself blindness of mind,
horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, became wicked,
rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.”
The
doctrine of total depravity is confessed by all Reformed Christians. (Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
“…
[Man] by nature is wholly corrupt and dominated by the principle of enmity
against God and the neighbour. He is alienated from God in his inmost soul, and
consequently every act of his, even though it might be in harmony outwardly
with certain secondary principles of justice, is corrupt in principle as the
act of a rebel. Because of sin disharmony rules in the soul of man; a deep
moral corruption has taken hold of his whole life. This corruption is not
dormant; it develops and causes man to proceed from bad to worse.” (Louis Berkhof, “The Three Points: In All
Parts Reformed”—quoted in Herman Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” pp.
394-95)
#################################
Q. 2. “How does ‘common grace’ undermine the
doctrine of Total Depravity?”
The
third point [of common grace] teaches that unbelievers who are not regenerated
can do good works, not saving good, but civil good. (Barry Gritters, “Grace
Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
[The] third point [teaches]
that unbelieving, unregenerated man does something of which God approves, with
which God is pleased, and which is conformable to God's will. He is able to do
civil good. (Barry Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant
Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
I believe that common grace undermines
the Reformed Confession of total depravity … [in that it] teaches … that the
Holy Spirit restrains sin in the heart of natural man, so that there is still a
remnant of good in him. The Holy Spirit’s common grace preserved man after the
fall so that he did not become completely wicked. But common grace [also]
undermines this teaching in the third point, which teaches that natural man is
able to do civil good. (Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#################################
Q. 3. “How does the teaching of the
‘well-meant/free offer of the gospel’ undermine the doctrine of Total
Depravity?”
The
free offer leads to a denial of total depravity because salvation is made dependent
upon the will of man. The best illustration of this that we can offer is the
position of the Christian Reformed Church in this matter. Already in the “Three Points of Common Grace” total depravity was
explicitly denied, for these three points teach that because of a general
operation of the Spirit in the hearts of all men, sin is so restrained that the
sinner is capable of doing good. This denial of total depravity has often been
expressed in Christian Reformed literature by a distinction that is made
between total depravity and absolute depravity. The latter is intended to refer
to complete depravity so that the sinner is incapable of doing any good and
able to do only evil. The former, which the Christian Reformed Church professes
to believe, is interpreted to mean that the sinner is depraved in all parts of
his nature, though in every part are some remnants of good. By this distinction
the truth of total depravity is denied. Yet it is essential for the doctrine of
the free offer because the natural man must not only be able to do good, but he
must also be able to respond to the gospel offer. If I offer one thousand
dollars to ten corpses, people will think I am crazy. But Scripture defines the
sinner as dead in trespasses and sins. Only when this spiritual death is less
than death can the free offer make any sense. (Herman C. Hanko, “The History of the Free Offer”—Chapter 11)
[The
teaching of ‘the free offer of the gospel’ says that the preaching of the
gospel constitutes a well-intentioned offer from God to all who hear. God, for
His part, wants their salvation and even offers it to them in the gospel, so it
is said.
Apart
from the fact that the Scriptures never once speak of the gospel as an “offer”
of salvation, and apart from the inconsistency of believing this and at the
same time saying that God from eternity does not want the salvation of all who
hear the gospel, there is the fact that an “offer,” if it is to be meaningful,
must be made to people who have some power to accept or refuse that offer. If
man has any power to respond to an offer of grace in the gospel, he cannot be
totally depraved. An offer of assistance to a dead man is meaningless, and an
offer to teach physics to a monkey would be mere mockery. God’s work is neither
meaningless nor mockery.
The
answer of many to this dilemma is to say that God gives all men who hear the
gospel a certain preparatory grace or common grace (another version of that
doctrine) to make such a choice, but this is simply the old Roman Catholic
doctrine and a denial of the biblical truth that grace is always irresistible
and saving. (Ronald Hanko, “Saved By
Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA, 2002, p. 52)
#################################
Q. 4. “What is your objection to the teaching of
common grace with regard to the seemingly good works of men?”
Our
objection … is simply this: The unbeliever cannot do anything for which God is
pleased with him personally. There are no works that unbelievers perform which
God approves, about which He says “good work,” and upon which He puts His stamp
of approval. All works of unbelievers are unrighteous. (Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
Scripture and the Reformed confessions
teach that man is totally depraved, unable to do any
good, and inclined to all evil. The Heidelberg Catechism makes that plain. The only exception
to this truth is regeneration. The Belgic
Confession is clear:
“He is corrupt in all
his ways ...” “There is no will or
understanding conformable to the divine will or understanding but what Christ
has wrought in man.” The Canons of Dordt (III/IV:11) spell out plainly
that all good works a man performs come by regeneration and regeneration alone.
(Barry Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant
Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#################################
Q. 5. “Common Grace doesn’t soften, weaken or deny
total depravity. Can you name any theologians who have actually taught that?”
For a detailed response to this objection, see the
following link:
#################################
Q. 6. “Does not the doctrine of total, that is,
complete, depravity makes devils out of men?”
[Every
reformed theologian acknowledges that] unregenerated men and women in hell are
at last completely depraved. No longer is there an operation of common grace
within them causing them to be somewhat good in every faculty and part, filling
them with “laudable qualities,” and enabling them to perform good works in
theology, ethics, science, and art. At long last, they are dead in sin. But
surely [the defender of common grace] would admit that these wretched persons
are still humans, and not devils …
Man always remains man. He remains man when he falls into spiritual death. But
now he is totally depraved man. (David J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,”
vol. 68, no. 5)
#################################
Q. 7. “Are you saying that man is as bad [i.e.
depraved] as he can possibly be?”
Man
is totally depraved apart from the work of regeneration. He is as bad [i.e.
depraved] as he can be. Nothing at all alters the total corruption of his
nature. He is completely incapable of doing anything morally good and pleasing
in the sight of God. Everything that proceeds from his evil nature is contrary
to God’s moral will. It is not only a matter of passively having a corrupt
nature, but that nature expresses itself in his thoughts, words, deeds, desires
and activity. All the expressions of his corrupt nature is actively opposed to
God. Scripture paints a picture of man that is dreadful to contemplate. (Herman C. Hanko, “Common Grace
Considered”)
#################################
Q. 8. “But are there not many unbelievers in this
world who live outwardly decent lives?”
[Our objection] to common grace … has never
intended to deny … that many ungodly people live outwardly decent lives, or
that God restrains the dissoluteness of men in its expression in society … What
[we] object to is the teaching … of a restraint of sin … which maintains a
gracious operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the sinner, without
regenerating him, so that some good is preserved in the fallen sinner. As a result
of this gracious operation upon the heart of the unregenerate, it is held, he
is able to perform works that are truly good, albeit only in the realm of
society. This, [we think], is outright denial of the Reformed doctrine of total
depravity as taught in Ephesians 2:1ff., Romans 8:5ff., and the Canons of Dordt, III/IV, art. 1-5. (David J. Engelsma, Source)
#################################
Q. 9. “A ‘good’ action in this world is to be commended
and encouraged, isn’t it? But the same action is not good in the eyes of God?”
Certain things are “useful” or “helpful” or “done
well,” but not “good” ...
e.g. Ploughing a field is a useful thing, but when
the wicked do it, its “sin”
Proverbs 21:4 states this explicitly: “the ploughing
of the wicked, is sin.” (Rev. Angus Stewart)
Common Grace [tends] to separate
material/physical/external actions from the spiritual or from the motives
behind them. (Ronald Hanko, Saved By
Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism)
When
we object to [the] third point [of common grace], our objection should not be
taken to mean that unbelievers cannot do anything useful,
profitable, or outwardly
correct. We do not say that because
an unbeliever made a pen, it is not a good pen and therefore I cannot use it;
or that because he made this shirt, therefore it is not a good shirt and I
cannot (may not) wear it. We do not ever say because an unbeliever wrote a
book, that therefore it cannot be a useful book for the believer.
(Barry Gritters, Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace)
#################################
Q.
10. “How you define ‘good works’?”
Good
works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word, and not such as,
without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any
pretence of good intention. (Westminster
Confession of Faith, 16:1)
#################################
Q. 11. “But may we not define good works simply as
‘doing what nature teaches, showing natural affection and manifesting respect
for life, property and marriage, for duly constituted authority and for the
ordinances of the church’?”
The devising of good works is forbidden by the Westminster Confession of Faith in the
opening article of chapter sixteen: “Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not
such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or
upon any pretence of good intention.” (David
J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 69, no. 4)
#################################
Q. 12. “Are you saying that absolutely everything
an unbeliever does is sin?”
Works done by unregenerate men, although for the
matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to
themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by
faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right
end, the glory of God, they are
therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive
grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing
unto God. (Westminster Confession of
Faith, 16:7)
#################################
Q. 13. “But are not some sins more heinous in the
sight of God than others? Are there not variations or degrees of wickedness?”
[Yes, but this does not] imply that some deeds of
the unregenerate are good in the sight of God.
Degrees of wickedness among unregenerated persons
are to be explained in terms of greater and lesser knowledge; the circumstances
of their lives; their own more or less intense development of their sinfulness;
and the degree to which God hardens them and gives them over to their reprobate
mind.
The spiritual difference among the unregenerated is
a difference in degree of wickedness. It is not a difference in extent of
goodness.
The doctrine of total depravity … does surely allow
for “progression or variation.” There is development of sin in both individual
and society. But this development is not development from partial depravity to
complete depravity, that is, from more goodness to less goodness or no goodness
at all. Rather, it is development of sin.
The completely depraved person, in whom is no good
from birth, develops and works out all the possibilities of his depravity
during his lifetime, according to his circumstances. Baby Judas was as
completely depraved as was adult Judas at the moment that he betrayed Jesus.
But the adult traitor had made "progress" in the intensity and
expression of his depravity.
The development of sin in the world throughout
history is similar. Things do not go from good to bad but from bad to worse.
What is now taking place in Western civilization is not the becoming bad of a
society that formerly was somewhat good but the increase of lawlessness.
The figure that accurately pictures the development
of sin in the unregenerated sinner and in the world outside of Christ is not
that of the sick man who gradually dies. But it is that of the dead man who
gradually decays and stinks more and more. (David J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 68, no. 5)
#################################
Q. 14. “What is meant by the so-called distinction
between “Total Depravity” and “Absolute Depravity”?”
[The
distinction is intented to teach that] man is depraved in all parts of his
nature (total depravity), [but] he is not completely depraved in any part of
his nature (absolute depravity). (Herman
C. Hanko, PRTJ, Nov. 1992, p. 60)
The distinction between "total depravity"
and "absolute depravity" is the invention of the theologians who have
advocated common grace. They invented it in order to discredit Hoeksema's
teaching of total depravity and in order to promote their own denial of total
depravity in the doctrine of common grace.
The distinction did not originate with Herman
Hoeksema. He did not accept "absolute depravity" as the description
of his doctrine of the depravity of the natural man. He positively rejected the
notion of "absolute depravity," that is, as Macleod describes it,
"such a degree of hostility to God as admits of no progression or
variation."
The PRC today repudiate the distinction between
"total depravity" and "absolute depravity." It is not
biblical. It is not confessional. It is not part of the Reformed and
Presbyterian tradition. It is not even useful for understanding the real issue
at stake in the controversy over the spiritual condition of fallen man. The
great conflict for the Reformed faith in history has not been between
"total depravity" and "absolute depravity." In fact, no one
has ever taught "absolute depravity." "Absolute depravity"
is a fiction. It exists only in the minds of the advocates of common grace. (David J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,”
vol. 69, no. 5)
Some make a distinction between what they call total depravity and something they call absolute depravity. Absolute depravity, so they say, is the
doctrine we have been describing: that man is utterly bad, without any good or
possibility of good to be found in him. That teaching, according to them, is
neither Calvinistic nor biblical. Total depravity,
in their opinion, means that men are wicked in every part—heart, soul, mind,
and strength—but not completely wicked in any part. One writer uses the example
of a few drops of ink in water. Every drop is discoloured, but none is completely black. That, supposedly, is
total depravity and the teaching of Scripture. Apart from the fact that this is
mere sophistry (What is the difference between total and absolute?), it cannot
be said to be the doctrine of total depravity, since it is not total. Nor is it the doctrine of
depravity that has been taught by Reformed and Presbyterian churches from the
time of the Reformation. Absolute depravity, if it refers to anything, refers
to the depravity of the fallen angels for
whom there is no hope of salvation. (Ronald
Hanko, “Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA, 2002,
p. 53)
#################################
Q. 15. “There are two positions on the topic of
man’s sinful condition after the fall. Which one do you prefer?
(1) unregenerated sinners are defiled in every part
of their being, although they also remain somewhat good in every part of their
being by virtue of common grace. Or,
(2) every unregenerated sinner is as developed and
hardened in evil as he can possibly be.”
The refutation of [this] argument [is] simple.
There is a third alternative: All unregenerated sinners are completely defiled by sin in every part
of their being, although there are degrees of wickedness among them and
although there is development of wickedness both in the individual and in
society.
Total depravity holds that all sinners are alike
completely wicked and wholly devoid of all good. As respects the extent of inherited corruption, there is
no difference among unregenerated sinners. Gandhi was as completely sinful as
Hitler. On the supposition that George Washington was unregenerated, he lacked
all goodness as much as did Pharaoh. The Bible says so: "There is none
that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12).
But it is perfectly in harmony with the doctrine of
total depravity, and certainly the truth, that one sinner is worse than
another, even as one sin is worse than another sin. The apostate from the faith
is far more wicked than the pagan (cf. Matt. 11:20-24). The professing
Christian who abandons his wife and family is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim.
5:8). Both the unregenerated husband who faithfully loves his own wife and the
unregenerated husband who commits adultery against his wife are completely
depraved. Both the faithful love and the adultery are sin, and nothing but sin.
But the adultery is worse sin, and the punishment of the adulterer will be more
severe. (David J. Engelsma, “The
Standard Bearer,” vol. 68, no. 5)
#################################
Q. 16. “What did Dr. Abraham Kuyper teach
with regard to common grace in the fall of man?”
[Kuyper] explains
that such a restraining, checking, and preserving operation [had] taken place
on the nature of man from the moment of the fall in paradise [and that if]
there had not been such a restraining operation of common grace immediately
after the fall or concomitant with the fall of Adam and Eve, man’s nature would
have been totally corrupted then and there. Adam would have turned into a
devil, and the earth would have been changed into hell. The life and
development of human society would have become impossible. But the Spirit
intervened at once by restraining grace. He did not permit human nature to
become wholly corrupt. He left a seed of original goodness in man’s heart. Man
did not become wholly darkness. He did not fully die. Some light was left him.
Some life remained in him. Thus man lives a relatively good world-life in
natural and civil things and strives for truth, justice, and righteousness. He
is able to do good in this present life. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the
Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
Kuyper employs the well-known figure of a person
who swallows [the poison] Prussian blue and is given an antidote. When God said
in paradise, “The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen.
2:17), that must not be understood as a threat and an announcement of judgment,
but as a friendly warning. Man, however, ate of the tree. As someone gives his
friend—whom he warned but who nevertheless swallows Prussian blue—an antidote
to save his life, so the Lord gave man the antidote of common grace, so that he
partly vomited out the corruption of sin and death and did not become wholly
depraved. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of
the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q. 17. “Dr. Abraham Kuyper
asserted that the fall would have resulted in Adam and his posterity becoming
beasts or devils if God had not intervened with His common grace. What are your
thoughts on that?”
There
is not a shred of evidence in Scripture for such a supposition, not even in the
narrative of the fall of Adam and Eve as it is described in Genesis 3. But let
us take a look at this supposition. It is obvious, first of all, that man would
not and could not have become a devil. Man is of this creation, a part of the
material world, made from the dust of the earth. It would be impossible for him
to become a creature who is not material nor made from the stuff of this world.
His very essence would have to be changed to something like the essence of
angels, in which event he could no longer live in this world. Or, if as Kuyper
sometimes said, man would have become a beast when he fell if God did not
intervene, I think I would consider this preferable to remaining a man. A beast
cannot go to hell. When a beast dies, that is the end of it: it has no
existence beyond death. Adam remained a man; that is the tragedy of the fall.
In
any case, the Canons of Dordt
repudiate such speculation when in Head III/IV, article 16, the fathers write:
“But as man by the fall did not cease to
be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin, which pervaded
the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought
upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does
not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks . . .”
It
is difficult if not impossible to imagine how Dr. Kuyper, sworn to loyalty to
the Confessions and fully aware of this article, could teach what he did. The
terrible part of the fall is that man remains man. He is still a rational and
moral creature, answerable to God for what he does, subject to terrible
punishment when he, by a choice of his own will, defies God. (Herman C. Hanko, “Common Grace
Considered”)
#################################
Q.
18. “What does common grace say about a ‘restraint of
sin’?”
[The teaching of the Second Point of
1924 is that] there is an inwardly restraining operation of the Holy Spirit
upon the heart of the natural man, which is not regenerating, whereby the
progress of the corruption of sin in the human nature is being checked and
restrained in such a way, that a remnant of the original goodness in the state
of righteousness is constantly preserved in it and also brought to bear fruit
in many good works in this present life. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 356)
Part
of the modern, contemporary teaching of common grace speaks of an inner restraint of sin by the Holy
Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly reprobate that changes their natures for
the better, mitigates somewhat the devastating power of total depravity,
enabling the man thus blessed with grace to do good in the sight of God, but nevertheless
fails to save him, so that eventually he goes to hell in spite of all these
gracious influences. (Herman C. Hanko,
“Common Grace Considered”)
The
second point of common grace teaches that God restrains the unimpeded (unhindered) breaking out of sin, by the general operation of the Holy
Spirit. He does that in their hearts without regenerating them. (Barry Gritters,
Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace)
[It says that]
there is such an operation of the Holy Spirit that influences the nature of
every sinner and that is not regenerating but restraining, checking the power
of corruption in the nature of the sinner, and thus preserving the good in him.
This operation of the Spirit is the efficient cause for the corruption of sin
not working through, not totally despoiling the nature of fallen man of all the
good still left in it. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” p. 398)
If through the
fall the nature of man had become wholly corrupt, if no good had been left in
it there would have been nothing to preserve and to restrain. The corruption of
sin would have finished its work. But this is not so. There is a remnant of original goodness in the sinner. This
remnant would soon be corrupted and these glimmerings of light would quickly be
extinguished by the darkening power of sin if the general operations of the
Holy Spirit did not exert a restraining and preserving influence on man’s
depraved nature. Quickly the corrupting influence of sin would have
accomplished its work. But according to the second point there is a restraining
general operation of the Holy Spirit through which that good in man—original good that man retained from the
first paradise and that is no spiritual
good, no fruit of regenerating grace—is preserved from total corruption. This
is what the restraint of sin means.
This is not all
the Holy Spirit accomplishes by the Spirit’s general operation on every man. He
does more, according to [common grace theorists]. The Spirit brings outward
righteousness and good to development. He causes the seed of righteousness in
man, the remnant of original goodness that is still in him, to bear fruit. He
does this by moral persuasion. He appeals to the good inclinations and desires
in the soul, he presents good motives to the will, he operates on man’s
conscience. Thus the seed of righteousness develops and bears fruit.
This fruit is the
good which fallen man performs in his present natural and civil life. He does not
come to faith. He does not receive eternal life. He does no spiritual good. He
is not engrafted into Christ. He really lives the life of paradise the first,
although in a weakened form, a life that is maintained and quickened by the
general operations of the Holy Spirit. Thus the natural man apart from Christ
can and does perform good works in the world. To a certain extent he lives a
good world-life. (Herman Hoeksema, “A
Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q. 19. “What, then, is the first element in this teaching?”
That there is, in the sinner, a remnant
of natural good. (Herman Hoeksema,
“The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 356)
#################################
Q. 20. “Why do you speak of ‘natural’
good?”
Because the defenders of the theory of
common grace, one of the principal tenets of which is adopted in [the second
point of 1924], always emphasize the distinction between “natural” and
“spiritual” good. (Herman Hoeksema,
“The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], pp. 356-357)
#################################
Q. 21. “What is the difference between
‘spiritual’ good and ‘natural’ good?”
The only conceivable difference is that
by “spiritual” good is meant the good that is wrought in the depraved nature by
the Spirit of Christ and is, therefore, rooted in regeneration; whereas by
“natural” good is meant a good that is not so wrought by regenerating grace,
but remains in man since the fall,
and is, therefore, a remnant of his original goodness or righteousness. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Protestant
Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 357)
#################################
Q. 22. “What is implied in this
‘natural good’ that remains in man since the fall, according to the exponents
of this theory?”
This “natural good,” left to man after
the fall, includes such important elements as (1) a seed of external righteousness, (2) receptivity for moral persuasion, (3) receptivity for the truth, (4) a
will that is susceptible to good motives and a conscience that is receptive for
good influences, (5) good
inclinations and desires of which the Holy Spirit can make use in restraining
sin. (Herman Hoeksema, “The
Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 357)
#################################
Q. 23. “But how can you prove that this
is actually implied in the teaching of the second point?”
This is evident, not only from the
language of this declaration itself, for it speaks, not of outward restraint,
but of a general operation of the Holy Spirit; but it is also the explanation
which is offered of the second point by one of its originators, Prof. L.
Berkhof in his pamphlet on the Three Points [i.e. “The Three Points In All
Parts Reformed” (1925)]. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 357)
#################################
Q. 24. “But how is it explained that
this remnant of ‘natural good’ remained in man after his fall in Paradise?”
Synod offered no explanation, neither
do the exponents of the Three Points venture an explanation. The answer is,
however, given by the chief exponent of the theory of common grace, Dr. Abraham
Kuyper, Sr. He explains that common
grace operated immediately after the fall of man, restraining and checking the
corrupting power of sin. If there had not been such an immediate restraining
operation of common grace upon the nature of man, he would have become utterly corrupt
there and then. Man would have changed into a devil and the development of
mankind would have become an utter impossibility. But the restraining power of
the Holy Spirit operated upon man as soon as he had sinned, so that he did not
fully die, did not become all darkness, was not wholly corrupted, but retained
some light and life, a remnant of his original goodness. And this remnant of
good is preserved in mankind throughout its development in history. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Protestant
Reformed Churches in America” [1947], pp. 357-358)
Berkhof does not
answer this question, nor is the answer found in the second point. The answer
is supplied by [Abraham] Kuyper in his [three volume work,] Common Grace. He explains that such a
restraining, checking, and preserving operation has taken place on the nature
of man from the moment of the fall in paradise. If there had not been such a
restraining operation of common grace immediately after the fall or concomitant
with the fall of Adam and Eve, man’s nature would have been totally corrupted
then and there. Adam would have turned into a devil, and the earth would have
been changed into hell. The life and development of human society would have
become impossible.
But the Spirit
intervened at once by restraining grace. He did not permit human nature to
become wholly corrupt. He left a seed of original goodness in man’s heart. Man
did not become wholly darkness. He did not fully die. Some light was left him.
Some life remained in him. Thus man lives a relatively good world-life in
natural and civil things and strives for truth, justice, and righteousness. He
is able to do good in this present life. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” pp. 399)
#################################
Q. 25. “What is your objection or
disagreement with the common-grace theory’s restraint of sin as outlined in
1924?”
Against this view
I have several very serious objections on the basis of Scripture and the
Reformed standards. First, I call attention to certain fundamental principles
adopted in the second point that directly conflict with the truth of the entire
word of God and with the fundamental line of Reformed thinking. This view is
contrary to the truth of God’s absolute sovereignty over the powers of sin and
death and corruption. It proceeds from a dualistic
conception of God and the world, or more particularly, of God and the power of
darkness. It represents sin and death as powers next to God, to a certain
extent independent of him, powers that can of themselves work corruption. But
God checks this power. He restrains a power that exists and works outside of
and apart from him.
This is dualism
and is contrary to the fundamental conception of the word of God, which always
presents God as absolutely sovereign, also over the powers of sin and death and
corruption. The corruption of the sinner is spiritual death. This death is no
power that operates of itself in man’s nature but is God’s servant, the
execution of God’s condemning sentence in man. God inflicted the punishment of
death on the guilty sinner in paradise. Death and corruption are powers that
can work only through God. But if this is maintained, one cannot speak of a
restraining power of the Spirit, for how can God check a power that operates
only by his will and through him? The theory of a restraining grace is
fundamentally a denial of God’s absolute sovereignty. It is dualistic.
Second, this
entire conception implies a denial of God’s justice. Those who maintain this
view want to emphasize that the light, the remnants of good, the outward righteousness
that remained in man since the fall, is unmerited grace of God. It is therefore
common grace. Very well, but on what basis of God’s unchangeable justice does
fallen man receive light and life and goodness, this common grace? In paradise
God threatened, “The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen.
2:17). If God did not execute this sentence then and there, if he even
prevented it, what becomes of the justice of God? To be sure, when the child of
God receives remission of sins, redemption, and eternal life, these blessings
are unmerited grace. But it must never be forgotten that these blessings have
been merited by Christ. To what basis of justice can they point who maintain
that natural man outside of Christ receives the blessing of unmerited grace?
Third, the second
point is based on the serious error of resistible grace. The operation of the
Holy Spirit whereby he would restrain sin is not irresistible. The fact is that
corruption and sin are not actually checked but continuously make progress and
develop. This was evident in the history of the prediluvian world. This becomes
very evident in all history, also in the new dispensation, for the entire
development of the world tends toward the realization of antichrist, the final
manifestation of the man of sin, the son of perdition.
If you ask how the
progress and development of sin are possible if the Holy Spirit restrains sin’s
corrupting power, those who maintain this view answer that the Holy Spirit
finally releases his restraining hold on the sinner and gives him over in
unrighteousness. If you ask for what reason the Holy Spirit gives the natural
man over in sin, the answer is inevitable: because the sinner resists the
restraining operation of the Spirit and goes from bad to worse. The checking
power of the Spirit is not efficacious. Man is stronger than God. The Spirit
loses the battle with natural man. Or, as Berkhof expresses it, “The Spirit
strives in vain. He attempts to check the power of sin and to lead men to
repentance, but he strives in vain, he fails.”29 With respect to all
these fundamental principles the second point is a deviation from the truth of
Scripture and the line of Reformed thinking.
But there is more.
My chief objection against the second point as interpreted by Berkhof and
understood by the Christian Reformed Church is its denial of the total
depravity of the fallen human nature. This second point is related to the third
as cause and effect. It opens the way; it creates the possibility for the third
point. The third declares that the natural man can do good works, although only
in this present life and in the natural and civil sphere; the second points to
the good left in human nature through common grace as the source of good works.
The second point teaches that the human nature since the fall is not wholly
corrupt if the restraining power of common grace had not intervened. Therefore,
the second point is a denial of the total depravity of natural man.
… [The] second
point always presupposes that some of the original righteousness of paradise is
left in man, some moral integrity remains in him, some element of good is
preserved, some love of the neighbor, some receptivity for the truth is still
discovered in him. If this is not presupposed, there is nothing to keep, to
preserve, and to check. For that reason the second point, in which the theory
of common grace as expounded by Abraham Kuyper was fully adopted, implies a
denial of the total depravity of fallen man. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed
Truth”)
#################################
Q.
26. “You maintain that the doctrine of Arminius and of Pelagius was in
principle adopted in the second point in connection with the first?”
The
first declares that the grace of God is a matter of a well-meant offer to all
men, that the preaching of the gospel is common grace. That is Arminian. The
main tenet of Pelagianism is the denial of total depravity. Man is inherently
good. He did not become wholly corrupt, dead in sins and trespasses through the
fall. You can call him ill or dangerously sick but not dead. Pelagianism must
have nothing of the doctrine that the natural man is wholly incapable of doing
any good and inclined to all evil. This is also the doctrine of the second
point. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” pp.
402-403)
#################################
Q.
27. “But isn’t there a huge difference between Pelagianism and the common grace
teaching of a restraint of sin?”
I
admit that there are some points of distinction … Pelagianism expressly teaches
that the natural man by a proper use of his fundamentally good will can attain
to the higher and saving knowledge of God. The second point does not teach this
in so many words, although the case is left open to suspicion. This will be
evident in a comparison of the first point—a general offer of salvation—with
the second—a certain receptivity for the truth. I grant that the second point
does not expressly maintain that the natural man of himself can attain to
spiritual knowledge of God and Christ. But the fact remains that it
emphatically maintains that the natural man, by the good remaining in him from
paradise since the fall, can live to a certain extent a good world-life before
God.
Pelagianism
attributes the good left in man since the fall to the character of the fall.
Through the fall man did not cast himself wholly into darkness and corruption
and spiritual death, so that nothing good remains in him. On the contrary, the
will of man remained fundamentally intact, good, and sound. The second point
explains the good left in man after the fall by a restraining and preserving
operation of the Holy Spirit. The result, however, is in principle the same in
both cases: man is not wholly corrupt. Pelagianism explains the good found in
every man by an individualistic conception of the race; every man stands and
falls as his own master. It denies original guilt and corruption. The second
point explains the good in natural man, in the race, by a continual preserving
and restraining operation of the Holy Spirit. The fact remains, both have in
common a postulation of goodness in fallen man and a denial of his total
depravity. The second point is in principle Pelagian. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q.
28. “But does not God restrain sin in the world in
some sense?”
We all understand and heartily confess,
that God holds in His power and perfectly controls by His providence all the
deeds of the wicked, both devils and men, so that they cannot accomplish aught
against His will. He does this directly by His power, frequently frustrating
the counsels of the ungodly in a way which is even beyond our comprehension,
for their very thoughts and desires are in His hand and under His control. But
He also controls and restrains the wicked indirectly and mediately. The ungodly
are dependent on and limited by time and occasion and circumstances; by their
place and position in life; by their talents and power and means; by their own
ambitions and fears and by the powers that be; yea, they are limited by their
own character and disposition. This outward restraint of the sinner no one
denies. But it is not this external restraint of the sinner in his sinful deeds
to which the second point refers. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” [1947], p. 356)
All men are totally depraved. It is not the case
that some men are something less than totally depraved. Instead of saying that
God restrains sin, it is more correct
to say that God restrains the “manifestation”
of sin. God’s restraint of the manifestation of sin is not by a gracious work
in the reprobate sinner, as the 2nd Point of 1924 teaches. God’s restraint of
the manifestation of sin includes the fear of punishment by the state, a desire
to avoid the unpleasant feeling of a guilty conscience, concern over loss of
face to other people, etc. (Rev. Angus
Stewart)
Scripture
most emphatically teaches a restraint of sin. [Our] opposition to this doctrine
of common grace is not that God never restrains sin. He does. [Our] quarrel is
with the idea that the restraint of sin is a gracious operation of the Spirit
of Christ in the heart of the natural man that changes the moral character of a
man’s depraved nature, but does not save him. (Herman C. Hanko, “Common Grace Considered”)
Our
objection … is not that God restrains sin. God does restrain sinners from doing
every conceivable wicked deed. It that were not the case, the world would be
chaos. Our objection to the second point is that it teaches that God restrains
sin by a gracious operation of His Spirit and in an attitude
of favour toward them. If this is not the
teaching of common grace, then I have no problem with the second point [of
1924]. All by itself, the second point can be true. (Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#################################
Q. 29. “If there is no such thing as common
grace, how is the world not as bad as it could be?”
All men are Total Depraved. For various (always
sinful) reasons, people don't always choose the worst sins - e.g. to avoid
societal shame, to pretend to themselves that they are good, to avoid a bad
conscience, not enough money to indulge in the sin, it would cause more grief
with one's friends or spouse than pleasure derived, etc. (Rev. Angus
Stewart)
#################################
Q. 30. “Why do not men commit every sin
imaginable?”
[Some of the reasons include] lack of time, lack of
resources, fear of the consequences, instinct to self-preservation [etc.]. (British Reformed Journal, Issue 9
[January - March 1995], p. 19)
There
are other explanations, though, (besides the operation of the Holy Spirit in
their hearts) why men do not commit every sin imaginable. The church father
Augustine gave one. He explained that the wicked were so busy pursuing one lust
that they did not commit all of them. If they were lovers of money, for
example, they would forgo all kinds of other sins (drunkenness, drug use,
gluttony) in order to pursue this one lust of theirs—to get as much money as
possible. Other explanations can be given why men do not commit every possible
sin. An obvious reason is that men do not desire to suffer the evil
consequences of evil. According to the Canons
of Dordt,
they still have regard for good order and decency in society. But they have
regard for this because they see it is profitable for them. A man refrains from murder, but not
because God
restrains him; he refrains from
sinning because he knows the miserable consequences if he murders; he wants to
save his own hide (this is Calvin’s explanation; see Institutes: 2.3.3). As the Belgic
Confession teaches, God ordained the magistrate, “to the end that the
dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them
with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy
with the sword ...” (Barry Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A
Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#################################
Q. 31. “How does God restrain sin
in the wicked, if not by an operation of grace in the heart of the natural
man?”
God
restrains sin by providentially controlling the circumstances of people in
their life in the world. A poor man with little possessions cannot sin as a
Rockefeller can sin. A man who works on an assembly line cannot sin as much as
a man who owns ten prosperous companies. A mere citizen cannot sin as much as a
politician. A quadriplegic cannot sin as much as a Tiger Woods. A man in the
jungles of Mindanao cannot sin in the same way that an inhabitant of New York
City can sin. God determines all the circumstances of a man’s life, including
every detail. And so, while all men are equally depraved, the expression of
their depravity is limited by God’s providential determination of the
circumstances of their life. The time and age in which they live (whether the
fifth century or the twenty-first century), the country of which they are
citizens, the position of power that they hold in politics, the economy
(whether prosperous America or poverty-stricken Zimbabwe) and in the use of
their earthly possessions—all outside their control—determine the sins they
commit.
God
also restrains sin because He gives all men a knowledge of right and wrong …
Romans 2:14, 15 […] clearly teaches that all men know what is pleasing to God
and what is displeasing to Him. This knowledge of right and wrong that the
wicked possess is not an evidence of God’s grace to them (why should it be?),
but is God’s way of leaving the wicked without excuse. They sin and know that
they sin. For this they go to hell.
But
in the lives of some in the world these wicked men see clearly that law and
order ought to be maintained in the world, because without it society cannot
survive. And man sees too that an outward observance of the ten commandments is
the way to maintain law and order. This is unsanctified common sense and it
does not require regeneration or common grace for anyone to see this. If the
sixth commandment is not enforced by the magistrate and murder becomes
commonplace, society disintegrates and becomes a jungle. Even an unregenerated
child can see that. (Herman C. Hanko, “Common
Grace Considered”)
[God restrains the
manifestation of iniquity] by various gifts and talents, by disposition and
character, and by times and circumstances. All men do not commit the same sins;
everyone sins according to his place in the organism of the race and in history.
The sin of apostate Jerusalem is greater than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sin
is determined by various, often contradictory, motives in the deceitful heart
of the sinner, such as fear of punishment, shame, ambition, vainglory, natural
love, carnal lust, love of money, jealously, envy, malice, and vengeance. These
various motives often conflict with one another, but they remain sinful,
although one sinful desire or motive will often prevent the sinner from
satisfying another. Sin is directed in certain channels by the different forms
of life and social institutions, the home and the family, the economic years,
the state, and even the church. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q.
32. “Does not the preaching of the gospel also serve as a protection from all
kinds of sins for those who are not saved by it? Are they not to that extent
are still spared from a greater eternal punishment? Does not the calling,
through the law and the gospel, restrain sin, and check the corruption and the
misery of mankind to some extent?”
That the preaching safeguards from all sort of sins is only true in the sense that it causes sin to develop in a different manner. In other words, it may safeguard from some forms of sin, only to cause the sin to be revealed in another and worse, be it a more refined form. A very refined professor in an unbelieving university probably does not bow before wood and stone, but he tears the Scriptures to shreds and mocks the cross of Christ. That is worse than gross idol worship. Otherwise, how is it possible that someone’s judgment could ever be increased by the preaching of the gospel? Scripture also gives us a different picture of the influence of the preaching of the gospel upon those who perish. Matters become continually worse with them and they gather unto themselves treasures of wrath. (Herman Hoeksema, "A Power of God Unto Salvation," pp. 69-70)
#################################
Q.
33. “Is not the preaching of the gospel a ‘blessing’ for mankind in general in
that it activates religion and morality, restrains sin, and checks corruption
and misery, and decreases guilt?”
This is certainly not in harmony with God’s Word, which teaches plainly that the guilt of those who reject the gospel is increased and they in due time will be beaten with double stripes. Nor is this in harmony with the history of Israel, which makes a point to teach us that no nation is so wicked as the one that in a historical sense abides under the covenant, and yet is rejected. Nor is this in harmony with Christendom, which offers us the same spectacle as that of Israel. Nor is it in harmony with our experience. Sin may take on another form, may present itself to us in a more refined form, but never can we speak of improvement or a restraint of sin through the preaching of the gospel. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 83)
#################################
Q.
34. “We maintain that the doctrine of a restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit
doesn’t ‘destroy’ the doctrine of total depravity, but in actual fact ‘proceeds
from’ the assumption and is ‘based on’ the presupposition that man by nature is
wholly corrupt and dead in sin.” (Louis Berkhof)
The
second point speaks of a restraint of sin, of a checking of the process of
corruption. But how can the process of corruption be checked in anything that
is already wholly corrupt? Is it of any avail to add salt to a piece of meat
that is thoroughly spoiled and rotten? How then can corruption be checked in a
human nature that is wholly depraved? Surely, the second point (the doctrine of
a gracious restraint of sin) cannot rest on that presupposition. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are
Hewn,” p. 395)
#################################
Q. 35.
“The second point of 1924 attributes the restraint of sin to the general operations of the Holy Spirit,
and this is not referring to a change
in the state of spiritual death of the natural man. These operations of the
Spirit not only fail to quicken him who is spiritually dead, but also they do
not bring him one step nearer to life. The second point declares that God restrains
sin through the general operations of the Holy Spirit, without renewing the heart. In other words, man in this way is not
regenerated. This naturally excludes all thought of spiritual improvement
preceding regeneration.” (Louis Berkhof)
I never understood
the second point as referring to any spiritual good in the natural man, that
is, to the good that is the fruit of the Spirit of Christ. I understand very
well that the second point attributes to the fallen nature a good that is not of the Spirit of grace. This element
constitutes exactly my chief objection against the second point. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” p. 397)
#################################
Q. 36. “Can you
cite passages of Scripture that directly contradict the doctrine of a general
operation of the Holy Spirit, whereby the progress of corruption is curbed in
man’s fallen nature?”
Scripture
constantly declares that the natural man is wholly darkness, corrupt and evil,
and dead through trespasses and sins. God’s evaluation of the natural man is
that the imaginations of his heart are only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). The
Lord looks down from heaven on the children of men to see if there are any who
understand and seek God, but he finds none. They are all gone aside, they are
altogether become filthy, there is none who does good, no not one (Ps. 14:2–3;
53:2–3).
Scripture teaches
that even though the light shines in the darkness, the darkness does not
comprehend it (John 1:5). The word of God emphatically declares concerning all
men without distinction that their throats are open sepulchres; with their
tongues they use deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; their mouths
are full of cursing and bitterness; and their feet are swift to shed blood
(Rom. 3:9–18). It teaches that the natural mind is enmity against God; it is
not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:5–8).
Scripture judges
that we are by nature dead through trespasses and sins, that we also walk in
these, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience
(Eph. 2:1–2). It condemns us as being by nature children of wrath as others,
having our conversation in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of
the flesh and of the mind (v. 3). It emphasizes that by nature our
understandings are darkened, we are alienated from the life of God through the
ignorance in us because of the blindness of our hearts, and we are given over
unto lasciviousness and work all uncleanness with greediness (Eph. 4:18–19). It
declares that by nature we are darkness and it is a shame even to mention the
things we do in secret (Eph. 5:8, 12).
Scripture teaches
that we are foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures,
living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another (Titus 3:3). It
speaks not of a general operation of the Holy Spirit whereby sin is checked in
its progress of corruption, but of an operation of wrath from heaven whereby
sin is developed Rom. 1:18–32). It finally calls out loudly, “He that is
unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy
still,” for the righteousness of God must be manifest over all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, and sin must become fully revealed as sin, that God may
be just and that every mouth be stopped (Rev. 22:11). (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed
Truth”)
#################################
Q. 37. “Can you
cite any material from the confessions that directly contradict the doctrine of
a general operation of the Holy Spirit, whereby the progress of corruption is
curbed in man’s fallen nature?”
[The confessions]
emphasize that in paradise our nature became so corrupt that we are all
conceived and born in sin; this corruption is so great that we are incapable of
doing any good and are inclined to all evil (Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 7–8). They describe this corruption of
our nature as “blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness
of judgment,” and picture fallen man as “wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in
heart and will, and impure in [all] his affections” (Canons of Dordt III/IV:1). Of the race the confessions say it is “a
corrupt stock” producing a “corrupt offspring.” Of this corrupt offspring they
further say that “all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of
wrath, incapable of any saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage
thereto; and, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are
neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their
nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation” (Canons of Dordt III/IV:2–3).
True, there remain
in man the glimmerings of natural light, but even natural light is so corrupted
by sin that man wholly pollutes it and holds it under in unrighteousness, even
in things natural and civil (Canons of
Dordt III/IV:4). He retained a few remains of his natural gifts, but still
all light in him is darkness (Belgic
Confession 14). (Herman Hoeksema,
“A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q. 38. “You
maintain that in paradise man’s nature became wholly corrupt and depraved, so
that there is no remnant of his original goodness, or righteousness, internal
or external. But wasn’t man’s nature preserved at the fall? After all, he
didn’t become a beast or a devil, but remained a man.”
I understand that his nature was not destroyed, that he remained a rational, moral creature, and that he retained a remnant of his original gifts from a natural viewpoint. He was not changed into another creature. He is still a being with mind and will. But in the nature–the mind and will of the natural, fallen man–all is perverse from an ethical, spiritual viewpoint. His knowledge is changed into darkness, so that he believes the lie; his righteousness is changed into unrighteousness, and his holiness is changed into corruption. His whole nature is subject to the rule and power of sin, which is enmity against God. There was no check on this corruption. His nature is exactly as corrupt as it could become. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q. 39. “Can you
explain what you mean by the ‘organic development’ of sin in mankind? If there
are no restraints upon the corruption of sin, are there no ‘limitations’ on the
manifestation of sin in the world?”
I also maintain
that the corruption and sinfulness of fallen nature come to manifestation in
all their horror of darkness in the actual sins of every man, but only in
keeping with the organic development of the human race. According as the race
develops and life becomes more complex and gives rise to more and various
relationships, sin also reveals itself as corrupting the whole of life in all
its phases and relations, and the depravity of human nature comes to fuller
manifestation. The root sin of Adam bears fruit in all the actual sins of the
whole race until the measure of iniquity will be filled. There is no check on
the corruption of the human nature, nor is the organic development of sin
restrained in history.
Do not overlook
that the organic development of sin is limited by various factors and
influences. It is subject to the all-dominating rule of God, who gives man over
in unrighteousness and punishes sin with sin in his righteous judgment, but who
so directs the development of the sinful world that his counsel is fulfilled.
This development is limited and determined by various gifts and talents, by
disposition and character, and by times and circumstances. All men do not
commit the same sins; everyone sins according to his place in the organism of
the race and in history. The sin of apostate Jerusalem is greater than that of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Sin is determined by various, often contradictory, motives
in the deceitful heart of the sinner, such as fear of punishment, shame,
ambition, vainglory, natural love, carnal lust, love of money, jealously, envy,
malice, and vengeance. These various motives often conflict with one another,
but they remain sinful, although one sinful desire or motive will often prevent
the sinner from satisfying another. Sin is directed in certain channels by the
different forms of life and social institutions, the home and the family, the
economic years, the state, and even the church.
But in all these
channels and under all these determining and directing influences and factors,
the current of sin moves irresistibly and uninterrupted onward, never stemmed
or restrained, constantly emptying itself into the measure of iniquity
determined by the Host High, until that measure will be filled. Then the
judgment will come, God’s righteous wrath. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q.
40. “Scripture speaks concerning the world of the Gentiles of their knowledge
of the law and their conformity to its external demands (e.g., Rom. 2:14-15).
Is this not evidence of a ‘common grace’ of God working in the hearts of
unbelievers to perform good?”
It
is not grace that enables them to live lives in conformity with the law of God
externally, but simply that even wicked man can see the social benefit of
keeping the law outwardly. Society and life in society would be impossible if
people stole and murdered without any restraint. It does not take regeneration
or grace to see that laws defining what is right and what is wrong are
necessary and that society is better preserved when law enforcement agencies
are given the authority to punish violators of the law.
Dr.
A. Kuyper and his followers claim this outward conformity to the law is common
grace. But such is not the case … Scripture speaks indeed of a general
knowledge that all men have of God and of morality … [but] this knowledge is
not common grace, for its sole purpose is to leave men without excuse; and that
only by faith in Christ is there salvation. (Herman
Hanko, “Common Grace Considered,” pp. 101-102)
[Man,] by nature
and by the light in him as a moral and rational creature, tries to adapt
himself in his life and walk externally to the law of God. He is able in a
general way to discern the law of God and to acknowledge that the way of this
law is good for him and for the community in which he lives.
In the state of
righteousness man stood in the world as God’s viceroy, as king-servant over the
earthly creation, in order that all creatures might serve man and that with
them he might serve his God. But man’s relation to God was subverted through
sin into its very opposite. From being a friend of God man changed into God’s
enemy. Man’s knowledge became darkness; his righteousness became
unrighteousness; his holiness became corruption and hatred of God. But man’s
relation to the creature, although marred and disturbed, was not destroyed.
Hence the sinner constantly attempts to maintain himself in the midst of and in
connection with the earthly creation, as a servant of Satan and an enemy of
God. Man wills the creature to serve him, and with that creature he wants to
serve sin.
The creation is
also subject to the ordinances of the Lord. Insofar as man by natural light can
discover these ordinances of God in creation and insofar as he discerns and
acknowledges that it is expedient for him to regulate his life externally
according to these ordinances, there is in him outward regard for virtue and an
orderly deportment. In this attempt to adapt himself outwardly to the laws of
God, man sometimes succeeds in part and for a certain length of time.
Ultimately, however, his sinful heart and darkened mind deceive him and lead
him astray, so that he tramples underfoot even the ordinances of God that are
for the benefit of his life.
As long as man
succeeds, he lives temperately and chastely, maintains peace and order in the
home and in his social and political life, and prospers in the world. When he
fails and the lust of the flesh deceives his wistful heart, his life is characterized
by intemperance, gluttony, adultery, dissipation, and drunkenness. He destroys
the home, works for the downfall of social life, and causes wars and
revolutions. But whether he succeeds or fails, always he lives and works from
the principle of enmity against God, and he never attains to what is good
before God.
Only when man is
converted, changed in the depth of his heart by the divine wonder of grace
called regeneration, does he know and in principle perform that which is
acceptable to God, for then all his delight is in the law of the Lord. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Triple Breach in the
Foundation of the Reformed Truth”)
#################################
Q.
41. “Do the unregenerate do nothing but evil?”
I
answer with the word of the apostle Paul, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”
(Rom. 14:23) and with the word of the author of Hebrews: “Without faith it is
impossible to please [God]” (11:6) (Herman
Hoeksema, PRTJ, vol. 2, no. 1, Dec. 1968)
#################################
Q.
42. “How can God hold the wicked responsible for being disobedient to His
commands, if they are, by nature, unable
to render obedience? Surely man must still have some ability to obey God’s commandments in order to be fairly judged
blameworthy?”
The
argument that blame or guilt necessarily implies “ability” on the part of man
is sheer Pelagianism. It is the hoary heresy that the duty implies the ability.
Luther destroyed this argument in his Bondage
of the Will. It is the argument considered and rejected in Q. 9 of the Heidelberg Catechism: “Doth not God then
do injustice to man, by requiring from him in His law that which he cannot
perform? Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the
instigation of the devil, and his own wilful disobedience, deprived himself and
all his posterity of those divine gifts.”
Inability,
which is the sinner’s fault, does not rule out responsibility.
Even
in human affairs, I may, with right, demand of my fellow what he is unable to
do, if his inability to perform something is due to his fault. For example, if
I loan money to a fellow human, and he squanders it foolishly, I may, with
right, demand repayment to the point of having him imprisoned for theft. It is
his fault that he is unable to repay.
I
note that the argument in question is not biblical, but mere (poor) human
reasoning. The Bible teaches that God punishes the race for its sinfulness even
though after Adam all are incapable of obeying God’s law. (David J. Engelsma, 12/05/2018)
#################################
Q. 43. “Fallen man possesses the ‘natural’ ability
to repent and believe, but not the ‘moral’ ability.”
Rather
than allowing for any kind of ability to believe in Christ, a sound preacher of
the gospel of grace emphatically denies all ability of the sinner to come to
Jesus and his utter dependency regarding coming upon the drawing of the Father:
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John
6:44). (David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 87)
With
regards to the distinction between two kinds of abilities, this was the
invention of Jonathan Edwards. The effect of the distinction was the apostasy
of New England Calvinism into sheer Arminianism and then modernism, as his
disciples ran with the “natural ability.” Scripture knows of no such thing as
natural ability to repent. On the
contrary, Scripture denies natural
ability to repent. The nature of the unregenerate is rebellion against God that
takes form in the refusal to repent. One does justice to biblical teaching when
he simply denies the ability of the wicked to repent, in any sense whatsoever.
To teach ability to repent in any invented way whatever is to make the fatal
concession to the free will doctrine of Arminianism. No man can come to Jesus,
in any respect whatever, except the Father draw him (John 6). All men by nature
are dead in sin (Ephesians 2). Deadness rules out ability in all sense
whatever. It is given to some humans to believe on Jesus, which includes
repentance as an aspect of faith (Philippians 1; Ephesians 2). (David J. Engelsma, 12/05/2018)
The
New School theologians ascribe to man natural as distinguished from moral
ability, a distinction borrowed from Edwards’ great work, “On the Will.” The import of their teaching is that man in his
fallen state is still in possession of all the natural faculties that are
required for doing spiritual good (intellect, will, etc.), but lacks moral
ability, that is, the ability to give proper direction to those faculties, a
direction well-pleasing to God. The distinction under consideration is
advanced, in order to stress the fact that man is *wilfully sinful,* and this
may well be emphasized. But the New School theologians assert that man would be
able to do spiritual good if he only wanted to do it. This means that the
“natural ability” of which they speak, is after all an ability to do real
spiritual good [Cf. Hodge, Systematic
Theology, II, p. 266]. On the whole it may be said that the distinction
between natural and moral ability is not a desirable one, for: (1) it has no
warrant in Scripture, which teaches consistently that man is not able to do what
is required of him; (2) it is
essentially ambiguous and misleading: the possession of the requisite faculties
to do spiritual good does not yet constitute an ability to do it; (3) “natural” is not a proper antithesis of
“moral,” for a thing may be both at the same time; and the inability of man is
also natural in an important sense, that is, as being incident to his nature in
its present state as naturally propagated;
and (4) the language does not accurately express the important
distinction intended; what is meant is that it is moral, and not either
physical or constitutional; that it has its ground, not in the want of any
faculty, but in the corrupt moral state of the faculties, and of the
disposition of the heart.” (Louis
Berkhof, “Systematic Theology,” Banner of Truth, 2005, pp. 247-248)
[Objections to the Popular Distinction between Natural
and Moral Ability].
In this country much stress has been laid upon the distinction between moral
and natural ability. It has been regarded as one of the great American
improvements in theology, and as marking an important advance in the science.
It is asserted that man since the fall has natural ability to do all that is
required of him, and on this ground his responsibility is made to rest; but it
is admitted that he is morally unable to turn unto God, or perfectly keep his
commandments … With regard to this distinction as it is commonly and popularly
presented, it may be remarked:—
1. That the terms natural and moral are not
antithetical. A thing may be at once natural and moral. The inability of the
sinner, as above remarked, although moral, is in a most important sense
natural. And, therefore, it is erroneous to say, that it is simply moral and
not natural.
2. The terms are objectionable not only because
they lack precision, but also because they are ambiguous. One man means by
natural ability nothing more than the possession of the attributes of reason,
will, and conscience. Another means plenary power, all that is requisite to
produce a given effect. And this is the proper meaning of the words. Ability is
the power to do. If a man has the natural ability to love God, he has full
power to love Him. And if He has the power to love Him, he has all that is
requisite to call that love into exercise. As this is the proper meaning of the
terms, it is the meaning commonly attached to them. Those who insist on the
natural ability of the sinner, generally assert that he has full power, without
divine assistance, to do all that is required of him: to love God with all his
soul and mind and strength, and his neighbour as himself. All that stands in
the way of his thus doing is not an inability, but simply disinclination, or
the want of will. An ability which is not adequate to the end contemplated, is
no ability. It is therefore a serious objection to the use of this distinction,
as commonly made, that it involves a great error. It asserts that the sinner is
able to do what in fact he cannot do.
3. It is a further objection to this mode of
stating the doctrine that it tends to embarrass or to deceive. It must
embarrass the people to be told that they can and cannot repent and believe.
One or the other of the two propositions, in the ordinary and proper sense of
the terms, must be false. And any esoteric or metaphysical sense in which the
theologian may attempt to reconcile them, the people will neither appreciate
nor respect. It is a much more serious objection that it tends to deceive men
to tell them that they can change their own hearts, can repent, and can believe.
This is not true, and every man’s consciousness tells him that it is untrue. It
is of no avail for the preacher to say that all he means by ability is that men
have all the faculties of rational beings, and that those are the only
faculties to be exercised in turning to God or in doing His will. We might as
reasonably tell an uneducated man that he can understand and appreciate the
Iliad, because he has all the faculties which the scholar possesses. Still less
does it avail to say that the only difficulty is in the will. And therefore
when we say that men can love God, we mean that they can love Him if they will.
If the word will, be here taken in its ordinary sense for the power of
self-determination, the proposition that a man can love God if he will, is not
true; for it is notorious that the affections are not under the power of the
will. If the word be taken in a wide sense as including the affections, the
proposition is a truism. It amounts to saying, that we can love God if we do
love Him.
4. The distinction between natural and moral
ability, as commonly made, is unscriptural. It has already been admitted that
there is an obvious and very important distinction between an inability arising
out of the limitations of our being as creatures, and an inability arising out
of the apostate state of our nature since the fall of Adam. But this is not
what is commonly meant by those who assert the natural ability of men to do all
that God requires of them. They mean and expressly assert that man, as his nature
now is, is perfectly able to change his own heart, to repent and lead a holy
life; that the only difficulty in the way of his so doing is the want of
inclination, controllable by his own power. It is this representation which is
unscriptural. The Scriptures never thus address fallen men and assure them of
their ability to deliver themselves from the power of sin.
5. The whole tendency and effect of this
mode of statement are injurious and dangerous. If a sinner must be convinced of
his guilt before he can trust in the righteousness of Christ for his
justification, he must be convinced of his helplessness before he can look to
God for deliverance. Those who are made to believe that they can save
themselves, are, in the divine administration, commonly left to their own
resources.
In opposition therefore to the Pelagian
doctrine of the sinner’s plenary ability, to the Semi-Pelagian or Arminian
doctrine of what is called “a gracious ability,” that is, an ability granted to
all who hear the gospel by the common and sufficient grace of the Holy Spirit,
and to the doctrine that the only inability of the sinner is his disinclination
to good, Augustinians have ever taught that this inability is absolute and
entire. It is natural as well as moral. It is as complete, although different
in kind, as the inability of the blind to see, of the deaf to hear, or of the
dead to restore themselves to life. (Charles
Hodge, “Systematic Theology,” vol. II, pp. 265-267)
When
we are taught that as a result of sin humans are incapable of any good and this
inability is called “natural,” this does not refer to physical necessity or
fatalistic coercion. Humans have not, as a result of sin, lost their will and
their increated freedom: the will, in virtue of its nature, rules out all
coercion and can only will freely. What humans have lost is the free
inclination of the will toward the good. They now no longer want to do good;
they now voluntarily, by a natural inclination, do evil. The inclinations, the
direction, of the will has changed. “The will in us is always free but it is
not always good” (Augustine, “On Grace and Free Will”). In this sense the
incapacity for good is not physical but ethical in nature: it is a kind of
impotence of the will. Some theologians therefore preferred to speak of a moral
rather than a natural impotence—Amyraut, Testard, Venema, and especially
Jonathan Edwards among them. Edwards in his day, one must remember, had to
defend the moral impotence of humans against Whitby and Taylor, who denied
original sin and deemed humans able to keep God’s law. They argued, against
Edwards, that if humans *could* not keep God’s law, they did not have to, and
if they *did* not keep it, they were not guilty. To defend himself, Edwards
made a distinction between natural and moral impotence, saying that fallen
humans did have the natural but not the moral power to do good. And he added
that only natural impotence was real impotence, but moral impotence could only
be figuratively so called. For sin is not a physical defect in nature or in the
powers of the will; but it is an ethical defect, a lack of inclination toward
or love for the good (J. Edwards, “Freedom of the Will”). Now Edwards did say
that human beings could not give themselves this inclination toward the good nor
change their will. In this respect he was completely on the side of Augustine
and Calvin. But by his refusal to call this disinclination toward the good
“natural impotence,” he fostered a lot of misunderstanding and actually aided
the cause of Pelagianism.
The Reformed, therefore, consistently spoke
of natural impotence. This word “natural,” however, can have different
meanings. One may use it to refer to the original human nature, created by God
in Adam according to his image, in the sense used by Protestants when they said
that the image of God is natural. In that case, the incapacity for good is not
natural, but rather contrary to nature, unnatural, and subnatural. One can mean
by it the physical substance or power of any creature, and in that case, too,
this incapacity—since all substance and power is created by God—cannot be
called natural. Incapacity for good is not a physical impossibility, like the
inability of human beings to put their hands on the stars. But, speaking of
natural impotence, one can also have in mind the characteristics of fallen
human nature and mean by it that the incapacity for good in this fallen state
is “by nature” characteristic for all human beings, congenital and not first
introduced in them from without by custom, upbringing, or imitation. In this
sense the term “natural impotence” is absolutely correct, and the term “moral
impotence” open to misunderstanding. “Morally impossible,” after all, is the
phrase often used to describe what is considered impossible for a given person
on the basis of that person’s character, custom, or upbringing. It is morally
impossible for a virtuous person all at once to become a thief, for a mother to
hate her child, or a murderer to strangle an innocent child. Such a moral
“impossibility” nonetheless definitely does occur under certain circumstances.
This kind of moral impotence is not what describes the incapacity for good.
Though ethical in nature, and an incapacity of the will, natural impotence
belongs to humans by nature; it is innate, and a property of the volition
itself. And precisely because the will, in its present fallen state, in virtue
of its nature cannot do other than to will freely, it cannot do other than what
it wills, than that to which it is by nature inclined. (Herman Bavinck, “Reformed Dogmatics,” vol. III, pp. 122-123)
#################################
Q. 44. “What about the existence of truth in this fallen world. Unbelievers
often speak the truth, and yet man is, by nature, a liar, and hates the truth.
Is this existence of truth, among the unregenerate, to be ascribed to an inner
operation of the Holy Spirit (for He is the Spirit
of Truth)?”
The
Spirit of Truth was promised only to the church.
That promise of Christ would be meaningless if, after all, He, as the Spirit of
Truth, is operating in the hearts of men generally. See the references to the
Spirit of Truth in John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:7-11, 13-14.
#################################
Q. 45. “Is the state a result of
common grace? God instituted the state and endowed it with the power of the
sword for the purpose of restraining sin. What a blessing.”
[The
notion that the state is a result of common grace] is pure philosophy. We know
the presentation of those who teach the theory of a certain common grace of
God. Their contention is that government was instituted as a blessing of common
grace for the restraint of sin. Accordingly, so we are told, this is especially
emphasized in the establishment of the covenant with Noah. Here, so it is said,
God gives the government the power of the sword in His common grace for the
restraint of sin.
Though
we also believe that the government bears the sword, and that the sword is
given to the government for the punishment of evildoers, this does not imply,
as is the contention of the common grace theorists, that government itself is
instituted because of sin, and for the restraint of sin. It should be very
plain to the student of Scripture that government is not instituted because of
sin at all, but it rises organically and directly from the family. Sin and the restraint
of sin had nothing to do with the institution of government. And what was true
in the creation of man and of the world, is true also in heaven among the
angels where there are principalities and powers, and this is true also in the
kingdom of Christ where there is government, authority and obedience to
authority apart from any consideration of sin. It must be plain also to all who
are acquainted with our Reformed Standards that this is the view expressed by
our fathers and is clearly the principle set forth in the exposition of the
Heidelberg Catechism in Lord's Day 39 relative to its treatment of the 5th
Commandment. (Rev. Marinus Schipper, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 34, no.
14 [April 15, 1958], p. 335)
No comments:
Post a Comment