Q. 1. “Why stand alone against the vast majority of
confessional Reformed churches who believe in both common grace and the free offer?”
Why did Athanasius stand practically alone on the
deity of Christ? or Jan Hus on the need to reform the church biblically? or
Gottschalk on double predestination? or Martin Luther on justification by faith
alone? We don't count truth by numbers – that is the argument of Rome! Besides
on the Free Offer, many (and most of the best) theologians agree with us, e.g.,
Augustine, Calvin, Turretin and Kuyper. Check out the following quotes:
https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/againstwellmeantoffer/
We are not alone on common grace either. For
example, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia (EPCA) and the
Bastion of Truth Reformed Churches in the Philippines (BTRCP) are entire
denominations (besides the Protestant Reformed Churches in the US and Canada (PRCA),
the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in N. Ireland, the Limerick Reformed
Fellowship in the Republic of Ireland, the Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church
in Singapore, the Protestant Reformed Churches in the Philippines and other
churches, e.g., in India, Myanmar, etc.) who also reject common grace. Check
out also the following quotes:
https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/uncommongracequotes/
############################
Q. 2. “But did not all the men cited as ‘standing
alone’ in church history (Athanasius, Gottschalk, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, etc.)
do so on core Bible doctrines at times when the church was at its lowest ebb
spiritually and doctrinally? The seriousness of the issues on which they took
their stand was proved by the fact they carried the church at large with them
as it was persuaded from scripture of their views. The same cannot be said of
the issues on which the EPCA, PRCA, and BTRCP have gone out alone ...”
The one arguing this has a more favourable view of
the modern age than we do. The Reformed and Presbyterian Church world is
smaller and weaker today than probably at any time since the Reformation.
Besides, who are we to suppose that God has to act
in the same way and in the same time frame regarding unity in a biblical
doctrine? There are other issues whereon there used to be unity or at least a
majority position in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches (e.g., Psalm
singing, infant baptism, reprobation etc.), but now most Reformed and
Presbyterian churches are hymn-singing, have Baptists as members
and either do not believe or down play reprobation (common grace and the
well-meant offer having had a significant hand in the latter).
Besides, it was several centuries before Anselm's
biblical teaching on the necessity of Christ's substitutionary atonement became
the widely accepted view in the Christian church.
As for common grace (CG) and the free offer (FO)
not being that important, 1) they have been and are being used to weaken
Calvinism further and cooperate with Arminianism. 2) CG is a basis of false
ecumenism, retaking the world, Christian witness in a secular world, and indeed
everything that an unbeliever gets is supposed to be CG. 3) The FO and CG
affect one’s view of God, election and reprobation, providence, gospel
preaching, etc.
People on our side say these are important issues,
and people on the side of CG and the FO (e.g. Berkhof, John Murray, David
Silversides etc.) also say that they are important issues. In 1924 the CRC made
them a binding position and disciplined people for opposing them. It went to
the synod/general assembly of the OPC, with John Murray’s paper, The Free Offer of the Gospel. The
Reformed Presbyterian Church in Ireland also took a synodical position against anyone
who criticises these teachings. With regard to those who do hold CG and the FO
and who say that they are not really important so that we don’t witness about
them, if they really do hold these things as unimportant why don’t they agree
with us or not criticize our position or leave us free to circulate our views
without comment?
############################
Q. 3. “Regarding most of the theologians cited in
favour of EPCA/PRCA/BTRCP interpretations of CG and the WMO, they may be
claimed to support their interpretations, but that claim has been vigorously
disputed in regard to most of these men.”
The support we have regarding God’s effectual
saving desire with regard to the elect alone is far stronger than most of our
detractors realize or admit. Some even refuse to acknowledge that Augustine or
the Geneva Theses (1649) agree with
us, despite all the evidence! So wedded are they to their views. Some
theologians in the CRC () now admit, however, that their denomination was wrong
on the adopting of the well-meant offer in 1924 so they now oppose this false
doctrine. Probably the greatest living authority on Reformed orthodoxy, Richard
A. Muller, has said that our position is well within the Reformed tradition.
The quotations we use from theologians to support
our position touch on various aspects of the common grace controversy and are
not designed to imply that all these authors never make erroneous statements on
this subject or that all their writings are always entirely consistent with
themselves on this point. For a list of these quotes, see the following link: https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/uncommongracequotes/
############################
Q. 4. “Were there
not theologians during the Westminster Assembly that held to common grace and
the well-meant offer? What about the Puritans that appear to hold to these
teachings also?”
“Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is
not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in
church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time
in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the
doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound
doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel
of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear
understanding of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a
long time was the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant
evils. No orthodox Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many
quotations of theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works.”
(David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 79-80)
[At] the time that
the Westminster Confessional Standards
were drawn up, there were, and had been, English Puritan Presbyterians and
Independents, who held to various tenets and expressions of common grace. [There]
were a small number at the Westminster Assembly, whose actions at the Assembly,
if not their writings, show that they, to varying degrees, believed that there
is a non-saving love in the Godhead for all men, and that He desires their
salvation … [Although] because of this division at the Westminster Assembly,
the Confessional Standards do not
specifically condemn all the Amyraldian/Davenant teachings … it is plainly a
matter of historical record that while Edmund Calamy and others sought to have
their views of a universal grace Confessionally expressed, it was strongly
opposed by the Scots, among others, and that the final expression of truths
relating to the grace of God, were all particularistic. There is no place, we
believe, where common grace and its related doctrines can be found in the Confessional Standards, though it was
proposed that it embody such sentiments. (Evangelical
Presbyterian Church of Australia, “Common Grace,” p. 7)
A careful reading of many of the Puritan divines claimed
as support by the proponents of the “well-meant” offer reveals that they held
views that so militated against the idea of contradictory wills within God and
universal love and grace, that they can not be so claimed. Admittedly they used
the term “common grace” but this had a fundamentally different meaning then
from what it has now. It meant what we have described as the goodness of God
upon His creation as sovereign benevolent Creator. (Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
############################
Q. 5. “What about
the many citations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of
Reformed Theology which teach that the gospel is a well-meant offer of
salvation on the part of God to all who outwardly hear the preaching?”
“Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is
not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in
church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time
in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the
doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound
doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel
of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear understanding
of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a long time was
the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant evils. No orthodox
Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many quotations of
theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works.” (David
J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 79-80)
It is very well possible that there have been writers in the past who confessed
the Reformed truth, yet who thought they should maintain a general, well-meant
offer of grace and salvation on the part of God. Not only is this conceivable
and possible, but we are well aware that this is true. Such writers are still
among us. . . . [If], as we have shown, such a presentation is actually not according
to Scripture and the Confessions, it will only go to show that a certain false
presentation is perpetuated and branded as being Reformed, because others
formerly taught this. As much then as we value the opinion of some of these men
(by no means all of them) [it must be admitted] that they also could err and
could find no solution for some problems, for which there nevertheless is a
solution. At the last instance the Scriptures alone determine. Even the
Confessions must be put to the test by the Scriptures. Blindly confessional we
may not be. Much more should the quotations of various writers be judged in the
light of the Scriptures! (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation”)
############################
Q. 6.
“Is not common grace (God’s attitude of favour towards all men) said to be a
doctrine taught by Calvin?”
John Calvin (1509-1564):
“[Whatever] God grants and bestows on the ungodly, cannot, properly speaking,
be deemed as an evidence of his favor and grace; but he thus renders them more
unexcusable, while he treats them so indulgently.” (Comm. Jeremiah 33:8)
Bernard Kok (1903-1997):
“whenever Calvin speaks of the love, grace and goodness of God in respect to
the reprobate ungodly, he speaks of these as divine qualities or attributes,
but never as a gracious attitude. And the reason why Calvin always emphasises
this innate goodness, love and grace of God in connection with the reprobate
ungodly is that they should be without excuse. For them, the goodness, love and
grace of God is never a blessing, but rather an increase of condemnation” (“Calvin's
Four Kinds of Grace,” in “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 19, no. 6 [Dec. 15, 1942],
p. 143)
“Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is
not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in
church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time
in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the
doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound
doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel
of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear
understanding of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a
long time was the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant
evils. No orthodox Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many
quotations of theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works.”
(David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 79-80)
(a)
Calvin vs CG/WMO:
1) It is admitted by all students of Calvin that
passages can be found in his writings, especially his Institutes, which suggest this. But to understand properly these
writings of Calvin, we must not forget that Calvin was writing in a time when
the issue of God’s favour towards all men was not a topic of debate and was not
even consciously thought of as an important doctrine. We must not become guilty
of the sin of anachronism (putting back into Calvin’s time our own debates and
teachings), and appeal to Calvin on questions, of which he was not even aware,
as proof for our position.
2) When Calvin repudiated the idea of an attitude
of favour toward all men as it was expressed in the preaching of the gospel
(see here) he basically repudiated also the idea of an attitude of favour on
God’s part towards all men, manifested in the good things of God’s creation.
The well-meant gospel offer is said, by its defenders, to be one evidence among
others that God has an attitude of favour towards all men. His attitude of favour
is shown in His expressed desire to save them.
3) Calvin’s repudiation of the well-meant gospel
offer is rooted in God’s sovereign decree of election and reprobation, and
reprobation means that God hates the wicked, a doctrine emphatically taught by
Calvin.
4) Calvin spoke frequently of the fact that God
reveals His goodness in all the gifts He bestows on man; but Calvin held to
Asaph’s position in Psalm 73:18, that God puts the wicked on slippery places by
means of these good gifts.
5) Finally, although Calvin may have made some
statements that in the light of later controversies are not totally
satisfactory, when Calvin came to the heart of this theology, the core of all
he taught, the centre of the truths of sovereign and particular grace, he was
Biblical and beyond criticism. We may safely conclude that, whether we hold to
a general, gracious, well-meant offer or repudiate it, Calvin did not teach it.
We ought not to be surprised by the fact that Calvin sometimes said things that,
in later years and in the light of later controversies, proved to be
unfortunate statements. We ought rather to be surprised that Calvin, so
recently escaped from Rome, was as solidly Biblical as he was. This is amazing
and reason for gratitude to God. (Herman
Hanko, “Common Grace Considered”)
-----------------
(b)
Translational errors in modern Calvin publications:
Calvin, originally wrote in a language other than
English. [Many who appeal to John Calvin for support for common grace and the free/well-meant
offer seem] to quite nonchalantly assume that the English translation of his
works is unquestionable, when in fact it is one of the seriously debated issues
in historical scholarship.
Recent scholarship examining the 19th century translation
of Calvin’s Old Testament commentaries from French to English made by the
Calvin Translation Society has discovered material that is seriously defective,
with whole chunks of the original French or Latin being by-passed, and the
actual translation often ‘massaged’ to make Calvin say in English what a true
and stalwart (so-say) nineteenth century English evangelical Calvinist believed
he ought to have said, but what in fact he did NOT say. (British Reformed Journal)
Check out Prof. David J. Engelsma’s review of four
Calvin commentaries:
http://commongracedebate.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/a-brief-review-of-four-calvin.html
Calvin
can be also quoted equally, if not more copiously, in support of the very
opposite position:
http://commongracedebate.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/john-calvin-quotes.html
-----------------
(c)
Calvin the free offer of the gospel:
[We]
must remember that John Calvin is not the court of last appeal. Calvin could be
*incorrect* in his exegesis, and he
himself would be the first to admit this. Scripture itself is the court of last
appeal, even as Scripture is its own interpreter. Hence, when Calvin is
incorrect, I do not hesitate to disagree with his exegesis. In the second place,
for many reasons it should not surprise us that Calvin would be upon occasion
mistaken in his exegesis. Not only was he an extremely busy man and a prolific
writer, but he also stood at the beginning of the movement of the Reformation,
when Scripture again came into its rightful place in the church. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Calvin himself found it necessary to clarify and to
correct positions which he assumed earlier in his career. Thus, with respect to
… the so-called “offer of the gospel,” Calvin in several instances speaks more
clearly and correctly in his later treatises which have been published under
the title Calvin’s Calvinism.
In
the third place, it should be kept in mind that the term “offer” in Calvin does not have the same
significance as it does in today’s usage. In Calvin, this term, as derived from
the Latin, simply means “to present, to exhibit or set forth.” Finally, [it
should be remembered] that, whatever Calvin has written on this subject, he
does not hold to the theory of two wills in God: one will according to which
God wills the salvation of all men, and one will according to which God wills
the salvation of the elect only. This theory of two divine wills is basic to
the entire doctrine of the well-meant offer of salvation … But Calvin himself
explicitly denies such a twofold will
of God, as can be easily demonstrated from his writings [e.g., on page 118 of Calvin’s Calvinism, he states: “For as to that distinction commonly
held in the schools concerning the twofold will of God, such distinction is by no means admitted by us” (emphasis added). Moreover, the
late Professor John Murray … admits in this connection that Calvin insists upon
the *simplicity* of the will of God;
and Professor Murray admittedly parts ways with Calvin on this subject. (Homer. C. Hoeksema, “John Calvin and
Erroll Hulse”—in the Standard Bearer, vol. 55, no. 7 [Jan 1, 1979], pp.
149-151)
############################
Q. 7. “The Oxford
Latin Dictionary doesn’t take into account the ‘ecclesiastical’ use of the
word, whereas other dictionaries such as Leo Steltin’s Ecclesiastical Latin Dictionary place ‘offer’ even as one of the first
connotations in the list.”
Yes, but what does “offer” mean? They need to get a
desire of God to save the reprobate out of it. The word does not mean that in
English or Latin. (Rev. Angus Stewart)
############################
Q. 8. “Since the Oxford Latin Dictionary specifically states that Christian Latin is
not included and that usage overall is until the 2nd century, is the O.L.D. a
reliable resource for defining words in a 16th century Christian text?”
The debate regarding “offero” is very simple. They
need to get desire of God to save
everyone head for head. It does not mean this. (Rev. Angus Stewart)
############################
Q. 9. “What about traditional reformed thought on the
subject of God’s love? Some Reformed divines were not averse to referring to a
benevolence in God towards all men, elect and reprobate alike. E.g. Francis
Turretin, whilst explaining God’s love of Jacob (the elect) and hatred of Esau
(the reprobate), distinguishes it from ‘God’s general love and the common
providence by which he is borne to all his creatures’
(Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, 400).”
The reason for adopting this terminology appears to
have been the original relation which God sustained to the creation prior to
the fall of man. It is in consideration of the fact that the creature is the
perfect work of His own hands, and man in particular is made in His image and
after His likeness. Sin has certainly been introduced into the created order so
that the creature is now subjected to vanity and man as the image of God is
defaced. Yet, the Scriptures sometimes speak of the Creator relating and acting
towards the creation as considered in its original condition, as when the
shedding of man’s blood and the cursing of a man’s person is forbidden because
man is still regarded as the image of God (Gen. 9:6; Jam. 3:9). Hence, some
warrant seems to be afforded for the view that God bears a general love
to the creature as His creature; and that not on the basis of a disposition or
tendency of the Divine nature, but because of the eternal decree to be disposed
in this way towards the creature.
What should be kept in mind with regard to this
love as expounded by these divines is its generality. If it is
appropriate to say that God bears a general love to the creature as His creature,
such a love must, by its very nature, be without reference to particular
persons or any special purpose. In other words, it is God’s love to mankind
considered as a whole, or as the apostle describes it, as a lump of clay (Rom.
9:21). But as God did not only decree to create man, but also “of the same lump
to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour,” the one to love
and the other to hate, it is impossible to speak of God’s love to this or that
man for this or that purpose without predicating something of God’s special
electing love. As John Knox has said: “You make the love of God common to
all men; and that do we constantly deny, and say, that before all beginning God
hath loved his Elect in Christ Jesus his Sonne, and that from the same
eternitie he hath reprobated others.”23
Consequently, the question as to whether God loves the reprobate becomes
rhetorical. The answer must be “no,” because the very nature of the question
requires an answer with respect to God’s special purpose to love or not to love
particular persons.
It is in this sense that the [theology of the
free/well-meant offer] is out of accord with those divines who suggest that it
is appropriate to think of a general love of God. It does not refer to a
general love and providential care which God exercises over His creation as
such, but to a special love with regard to “reprobate as well as elect.”
Moreover, [the actual wording in free offer writings] suggests that this love
“is exercised towards them in their ungodly state” and has some bearing “upon
the grace of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel” [see Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 4 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1982), pp. 113-132]. In other words, it is not a general love
to the creature as a creature, but a special love to the
creature as a lost, miserable sinner who stands in need of salvation. All
reformed divines, however, are adamant that this love to sinners is restricted
to elect sinners.
(Matthew
Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review”)
############################
Q. 10. “Do you know of any major figures today that do not refer to
denial of the well-meant offer (a desire of God for the salvation of all men)
and a denial of common grace as ‘hyper-Calvinism’?”
(1) James White
In the following video, James White discusses “hyper-Calvinism.”
Note: In none of his definitions of “hyper-Calvinism” does he include
the following:
(i) a denial of the well-meant offer (a desire of God for all men to be
saved), and
(ii) a denial of common grace.
Click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffLXFPcKe1A
N.B. According to Phil Johnson’s definition of hyper-Calvinism in his
article “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism,” James White is a hyper-Calvinist.
However, as shown in the following interview, Johnson will not call White a
hyper-Calvinist. He will, and does, call the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC)
hyper-Calvinists.
Click
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPv_v-9_iZI
(2)
Sam Storms (one of the leading “New Calvinists”)
In an article entitled “What is Hyper-Calvinism?” Storms quotes from David
J. Engelsma’s book, Hyper-Calvinism and
the Call of the Gospel, with approval.
He also doesn’t list “denial of common grace,” and “denial of the
well-meant offer” as tenets of hyper-Calvinism as popular preachers Phil
Johnson and Matthew McMahon erroneously do.
Click here: http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/what-is-hyper-calvinism
############################
Q. 11. “The authors of
the Canons of Dordt held to a very
different doctrine of grace than Herman Hoeksema and PRC, teaching, for
example, that ‘grace has not been totally withdrawn from the reprobate.’
Therefore any reading of Canons at
odds with that is necessarily erroneous. They are not going to teach at the
University of Leiden doctrines that are contrary to the Canons which THEY wrote.”
“Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is
not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in
church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time
in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the
doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound
doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel
of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear
understanding of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a
long time was the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant evils.
No orthodox Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many
quotations of theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works.”
(David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 79-80)
“Do we sign up to all the doctrines
held by the authors of the Nicene Creed
or the Creed of Chalcedon? We’d be in
trouble then! The early church fathers taught some errors, including some with
regards to sovereign grace.” (Rev.
Angus Stewart)
“The University of Leiden doctrines
are not the creed. We subscribe to the text of the Canons. That is all.” (Rev.
Martyn McGeown)
############################
Q. 12. “But how can we
read and interpret a creed or confession in a way that the original authors
didn’t intend? For example, the original authors of the Heidelberg Catechism believed that man is still in the image of God
and they also believed and taught the traditional Covenant of Works doctrine …
What constitutes ‘Reformed’?—the general consensus of their overall beliefs
(e.g. as summarized in Heppe’s Reformed
Dogmatics) or just the bare text of the confession itself and nothing
else?”
It is not possible to subscribe to a
book like a Dogmatics. A creed has to be simple and short. And we do not
subscribe to Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg
Catechism or to the Leiden Synopsis.
(Rev. Martyn McGeown)
############################
Q. 13. “Doesn’t Heppe’s Reformed
Dogmatics summarise what ‘Reformed’ entails?”
Heppe’s Reformed
Dogmatics consists of a list of citations from works, which gives a decent
summary of some things along the lines of the six loci of dogmatics.
Heppe is, however, not the last word. His Reformed
Dogmatics was written in 1861. There has been some development since then. (Rev. Martyn McGeown)
############################
Q. 14. “But has not the
Holy Spirit been leading the church into all truth? Then an appeal to the past
is always in order. What has the
church taught should be our question. Surely a rejection of the consensus of
Reformed thought and Reformed tradition is a denial of the Spirit’s work in
leading the church into truth?”
No, it is not. The Spirit leads the
church into all truth gradually. The
Spirit did not stop with Heppe, and doctrinal development requires correction
of the past and refining of the truth. If we are to go along with your
suggestion, then Calvin should have accepted Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper
or even Zwingli’s view … for “the Spirit led them into all truth.” No: Calvin
took what was good and corrected what was not good, and his final authority was
Scripture.
The truth, however, does not end
with Calvin, Heppe, Bavinck, or even Hoeksema.
However, careful refining does not
mean that we chuck out everything and start from scratch. We build on the past,
but we do not slavishly follow it. (Rev.
Martyn McGeown)
############################
Q. 15. “Is Herman
Hoeksema the only theologian in history who says that God only loves Himself,
is gracious towards Himself and is merciful towards Himself? Some say this is a
brand new idea never thought of before in church history. Has there ever been
theologians prior to the 20th century that also taught that God only loves Himself
(be it only a few of them)?”
The idea that God loves Himself in
the Trinity is present in the Christian tradition all the way back to
Augustine, especially in his work on the Trinity, for there is love between the
Persons of the Godhead.
With regard to grace and mercy,
etc., even if Herman Hoeksema was the person God used to set forth this truth
for the first time, his reasoning is perfectly sound: (1) God is merciful, etc.
(2) God is self-sufficient. Therefore (3) God is self-sufficient in His mercy! Hoeksema
then looks closely at the words for mercy in the Bible, and their use therein,
to get to their root-idea and to show how this fits with the nature and Persons
of God. The people who oppose this betray their man-centeredness—a man-centeredness
that is contrary to the genius of the Reformed faith.
############################
Q. 16. “Many notable and reputedly conservative
Presbyterian and Reformed theologians hold to common grace ... therefore common
grace can’t be all that bad ...”
“Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is
not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in
church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time
in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the
doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound
doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel
of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear
understanding of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a
long time was the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant
evils. No orthodox Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many
quotations of theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works.”
(David J. Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 79-80)
That is a perfect example of what’s known as the
“honor by association” fallacy.
The logical fallacy of “honor by association” is
claiming that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or
organisations who are related to it, or otherwise support it.
Examples:
George W. Bush will make a good president, because
his father was a good president.
Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob.
Therefore, Bob must be an expert in law.
This fallacy is therefore the opposite of “guilt by
association,” and also shares some characteristics of an “appeal to authority.”
In common grace debates, this fallacy rears its head statements such as the
following:
“You say common grace is false teaching? ... Well,
John Calvin held to it [[Calvin quote]], and Herman Bavinck held to it
[[Bavinck quote]], and Cornelius Van Til held to it [[Van Til quote]] ... then
its can’t be as bad as you make it out to be …”
No comments:
Post a Comment