Prof. Barry Gritters
Introduction
Three items
should be treated by way of introduction.
First, the
Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are not alone in their rejection of the
doctrine of common grace. Increasing in number, there are others who agree with
the PRC in their objections to this doctrine. There is a lengthy article
written by a Presbyterian in The Trinity Review called “The Myth of Common Grace” (March/April, 1987). There is Dr. Henry
Vander Goot, a professor of religion at Calvin College, and a champion, of
sorts, of the conservative cause there, who has spoken of the fundamental error
of common grace, even claiming that many of the problems in the CRC at present
can be traced to the doctrine of common grace. There are others.
In the second
place, supporters of the doctrine of common grace make quite a point of calling
John Calvin to witness for their cause. This has been done before, and often.
In fact, an entire book was written to try to show that (Herman Kuiper, Calvin
and Common Grace [1928]). About 10 years ago, I went through that book
and wrote an extensive paper to show that almost every reference from Calvin is
either a grasping at straws or taken so badly out of context as to make the
claim unsubstantiated (see Appendix III). In the fall of 1987, Dr.
Vander Goot spoke to a minister's gathering (“Why Herman Hoeksema Was Right in
1924”), the burden of his speech being to show that Calvin, taken in context,
does not teach common grace. I believe that he made a good case of it. My point
is that the claim to have Calvin on one’s side, a weighty advantage if it can
be proved, does not come easily.
Third, the issue
of common grace is not dead, but alive and well in the CRC. At times, the
words common grace are not used. At other times, explicit
reference has been made to common grace to promote heresy and unrighteousness
in the churches.
Regarding
doctrine: In 1962 Harold Dekker, a professor in Calvin Theological Seminary,
began his public defence of universal atonement by using the teaching of the
well-meant offer of the gospel, a teaching which was adopted by the CRC in 1924
with the teaching of common grace. (For Dekker’s position, see The Reformed Journal [1962-1964]). In the 1970s, Dr. Harry
Boer lodged a gravamen against two articles in the Canons of Dordt, using the doctrine of
common grace to bolster his attack against the doctrine of reprobation taught
there. More recently, in the late 1980s, God’s Word in the first part of
Genesis has been interpreted as myth, almost if not completely bereft of
historical fact. What is not so well known is that this troubling and heretical
interpretation of Scripture appeals to the doctrine of common grace. (See “Hermeneutical
Issues Then and Now: The Jansen Case Revisited” in Calvin Theological Journal [April, 1989]). These are a few of the
ways that the teaching of common grace has influenced faith.
Regarding
practice: ever since the synodical decision of 1928 (see below on the antithesis) and through the 1950s and
beyond, the churches have been appealing to common grace to sanctify the movie
and redeem the dance. This practice continues. Recently, one of the young women
in my congregation expressed concern to me that, at the Reformed college she
attended, there was frequent appeal to common grace to support behaviour and
fellowships that were contrary to historic Reformed principles.
Not
only in the past, but also in the present, some have claimed that common grace
is insignificant, that the controversy in the 1920s was unfortunate and
unnecessary (see J. Tuininga in Christian
Renewal [February 19,
1990], p. 14). My prayer is that all will see that, whether one agrees or
disagrees, common grace is an issue that is important and must be discussed.
A Clearing of Misunderstandings
I have heard that the Protestant Reformed Churches often
misrepresent the CRC’s position. Perhaps that has been the case. It is also the
case that the PRC’s position has not been fairly represented by the CRC in
times past. Perhaps this has happened because sin and pride have stood in the
way of a desire to be completely accurate, honest and fair. Because the
Protestant Reformed position has been misrepresented or misunderstood, I want
to make plain first what we do not mean in our rejection of common grace.
Regarding the First Point
The first point of common grace teaches a
favourable attitude of God towards all men in general, and not only toward the elect (see Appendix I). The proof given for
this point was the “rain and the sunshine” that the unbelievers receive from
God. When the Protestant Reformed Churches reject the first point of common
grace, our denial does not mean that we teach that the rain and sunshine the
wicked receive are not good. They are good.
The wicked must recognize them as good. And they are given to the wicked by
God. Our problem with that first point of common grace is that it teaches that
God gives those good things to unbelievers in His love for them or His favour towards them. The difficulty is there.
Regarding the Second Point
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 (Appendix I). He does that in their hearts without
regenerating them. When we
object to this second point, our objection is not with the truth that God
restrains sin. (This has been said by some of our critics. Whether purposely or
whether they just understood us to know that they meant otherwise, is a
question. But they have said quite plainly that God does not restrain sin. But
in the context of their writings, it becomes obvious that they say that God does restrain sin. If it has been said that God
does not restrain sin, I make bold to say that it should not have been said,
and ask that the writings be viewed in their context.)
Our objection to this second point 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. All by itself, the second
point can be true.
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 ...”
Regarding the Third Point
The third point teaches that unbelievers who are not
regenerated can do good works, not saving good, but civil good (Appendix I). When we object to
this third point, 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.
Our objection to the third point 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.
Having shown what the Protestant Reformed do not believe in their denial of common
grace, there are especially three vital tenets of the Reformed faith which the
doctrine of common grace touches and to which the doctrine does damage.
Common Grace’s Denial of Total Depravity
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.
Common Grace Denies this Reformed Truth
The
third point of common grace does not teach that man can do saving good. By that I take the CRC to
mean activities such as repentance, faith, or anything that would bring him
closer to God. But the third point does teach 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.
I
believe that common grace undermines the Reformed Confession of total
depravity. (It possibly undermines this truth also in the second point, which
teaches, if I do not misunderstand it, 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 undermines this teaching in the
third point, which teaches that natural man is able to do civil good.
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.
Our Defence of our Denial of Common Grace
Certainly, there are texts that seem to teach that
natural man can do good. Yet this question must be considered: what is the
prevailing teaching of Scripture? These texts must be explained in light of the
prevailing teaching of the Scriptures and the Confessions, which show that natural
man cannot do good in God’s eyes.
No more do the Protestant Reformed “explain away” the
texts which are presented to support the teaching of common grace, than all
Reformed believers are “explaining away” the texts in the Bible which Arminians
bring to us to support the false doctrines of universal atonement and
resistible grace.
The old Dutch saying is, “Elke ketter heeft zijn
letter” (“Every heretic has his text”).
There is claim that the confessions teach this ability of
natural man to do good. Reference is made to Canons III/IV:4. It must be pointed out that
very plainly the confession does not teach this ability. The first half of the
article says, “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of
natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and
of the difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue,
good order in society, and for maintaining a good, external deportment.” That
is all the farther that article is quoted in the 1924 synod’s study report. But
the last half is the key: “But so far is this light of nature from being
sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion,
that he is incapable of using it aright even
in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is,
man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness,
by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.” Whatever our fathers meant
when they said that natural man is unable to use the light of nature aright in
things natural and civil, it is clear that they mean here that natural man does
not do good.
The Free-Offer’s
Denial of Predestination
The
“free offer of the gospel” is the teaching that God offers salvation to all men
when the gospel is preached promiscuously to all. The free offer teaches that
God graciously and sincerely offers salvation to all who hear the preaching,
and honestly and sincerely desires to save all of them.
The
adoption of the first point of common grace in 1924 was an official adoption
(albeit in a backhanded way) of the teaching of the “free offer of the gospel.”
Sometimes
it is said that the Protestant Reformed put this teaching into the CRC’s mouth.
It is said that the teaching of the “free offer” was only part of the study
committee’s report. But the free offer was more than that. It was part of the
official decision of the synod (see Appendix
I). Besides, the defenders of common grace never tire of defending the free
offer. Thus, this paper, an analysis of the three points of common grace, takes
up a defence of the Reformed faith against the “free offer of the gospel”
taught in the first point.
We
believe that the “free offer” must lead to a denial of the Reformed teaching of
predestination.
The Reformed Truth of Predestination
The Reformed truth of predestination is that God has
decreed, willed, and intended that some be saved and others not be saved. God
determines to save a certain, definite number of people in Christ, whose names
are written in His book of life from eternity. This is the Reformed doctrine of
election. At the same time, God determines not to save a certain, definite
number of people, all those who are not in Christ. This is the Reformed
doctrine of reprobation.
Predestination is unconditional. God determines to save this specific
number of people, not because He saw ahead of time that they were going to believe or would be “save-able.” God
chose His friends unconditionally. To illustrate, our choosing of friends is conditional. It must be, most often. A Christian girl
or boy who wants to date must be selective and say, “I will date on one
condition—that (among other things) you are a Christian.” God’s choosing of His friends was not conditional.
He did not choose them because of what they were or would become. Also, God
determined to pass by others in this decree of election, not
because He saw that they were going to reject Him. God rejected them
unconditionally.
There is so much Biblical proof for this that the
difficulty is choosing the few texts that are clearest. In Ephesians 1:3-5 Paul
says,
Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ; according as he
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love: having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure
of his will (see also Deut. 7:6; Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; etc.).
That predestination is unconditional is seen in a number of passages,
especially Deuteronomy
7:7-8, “The Lord did not set his love upon you nor choose you [that’s
electing love!], because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were
the fewest of all people: but because the LORD loved you, and because he would
keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers ...” (If ever I loved a petitio
principii [circular
reasoning] it is this! The Lord loves you because He loves you!)
This comes out especially in Ephesians 1. God chose a people, not
because they would be holy, but He chose them in
order that they might be holy.
His election brings holiness. Good works are the fruits, not the
roots, of election. What standard was used by God for His election of us? “According
to the holiness of the people?” “According to the faith of
the people?” “According to their good
works?” Never. “According to the good
pleasure of his own will,” He chose a people.
That reprobation
is unconditional is seen
in more than one place. John 10:26 is a key text, “Ye believe not,
because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” They are unbelievers
because God did not choose them. I Peter 2:8 brings
that out as well. Jesus Christ is “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,
even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also
they were appointed.” Then it goes on, “But ye are a chosen
generation ...”
A reminder is in place here that predestination, election
and reprobation, is a fundamental truth of the Reformed faith, a non-negotiable
of the Reformed standards, the first of the five points of Calvinism:
Unconditional election (predestination).
This is confessionally Reformed.
The Heidelberg
Catechism, Question
52 says
that God “shall translate me and all his chosen ones to himself into heavenly joys and
glory.” Question
54, on the church, has: “The Son of God gathers, defends, and preserves
... a church chosen to everlasting life.” The Belgic
Confession becomes
more clear, especially regarding the unconditionality of election, in Article 16: “God ... delivers ... all
whom he ... hath elected in Christ
... without any respect to their works ...” The Canons
of Dordt I:7 claim:
“Election is the unchangeable purpose of God whereby ... he hath chosen ... a certain number of persons
to redemption in Christ ...”
And in I:9:
“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith ... or any ... good quality
... in man ...” In II:8:
“This was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God ...
that the ... efficacy of the ... death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon
them alone the gift of justifying faith ... That is, it was the will of God
that Christ ... should effectually redeem ... all those and those only who were
from eternity chosen to salvation
...”
The “Free Offer of the Gospel” Must Deny this Truth
The
free offer either explicitly or implicitly denies predestination. The first point
and the offer teach that God’s love is for all who
hear the preaching of the Gospel. But election is that the love of God in
Christ is eternally directed toward some, definite,
particular men, willing their salvation and effectually accomplishing it (see Deut. 7:6-8 and Rom.
8:28-39).
The
free offer of the gospel (explicitly or implicitly) either makes election
universal, or conditional, or both. If God wills the salvation of all men, then
He must will the salvation of those whom he has not chosen. How can that be?
Then God must have chosen all those to whom He offers salvation; or salvation
must be conditioned by man's believing—both of which we have seen are not
biblical and not confessional. How can God sincerely offer salvation to all men
when He has decreed (in predestination) not to save some of them? Can He be
sincere in that, His “expression of love?”
Another
way, out of the horns of the “free offer’s” dilemma—besides to deny
predestination—is to say that this is a contradiction in the Bible that we cannot
fathom. Friends, the Bible is not contradictory. “God wills to
save them; God does not will to save them”? The Bible
is mysterious and unfathomable, but it is not contradictory.
Not
only does the free offer undermine the truth of unconditional predestination,
it undermines other of the five points of Calvinism. If God’s grace is extended
in the preaching to all men, then God’s grace is not irresistible, as all
Calvinists and Reformed teach, but resistible, as the Arminian teaches, for not
all are saved by it. If God’s grace in the preaching is for all, from where did
this grace come? (And the grace in the preaching is certainly not common, but a
saving, special grace.) All grace is from the cross of Christ. But if this
grace in the “offer” came from the cross of Christ, then the atonement is not
limited, but universal. Or, if God offers salvation to all men in the
preaching, His offer is not sincere, since His Son did not die for all men. And
if God’s desire in the preaching is to save all, then our Almighty, sovereign
God is frustrated in His desires.
In
our defence of our denial of the free offer, we ask a question.
In
the view of the free offer, why are some saved in the preaching and others not?
The answer cannot be the grace of
God, because the grace of God comes to all in the preaching. The
answer cannot be the will of God in the preaching,
because the will of God is to save all alike. There are two alternatives:
Either it is due to the free will of the sinner (clearly Arminian) or it is a
paradox. But the Bible is not contradictory, flatly contradictory.
There
is a defence of the free offer in a number of texts that supposedly refer to
God’s desire and will to save all men. But the Reformed man must be careful in
his interpretation of them. The Arminians at Dordt had a basketful of proof
texts. It is striking that most of the texts appealed to in support of the free
offer of the gospel are the same texts used by the Arminians at Dordt. The
Reformed believer will consider seriously the interpretation of these texts by
John Owen, Francis Turretin and John Calvin, before he says that the interpretation
which denies the “free offer” is a ruthless, arbitrary distortion of the texts.
Our defence is that Scripture interprets Scripture, and that one text does not
contradict another. This is a fundamental principle of Reformed hermeneutics.
The
testimony of the Canons,
the expression of the faith of every Reformed believer, speaks loudly and
clearly on the question of the will of God to save: “For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God ... that the ...
efficacy of the ... death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of ... faith ...”
(II:8; emphasis mine; BG).
Clarification of our Denial of the Free
Offer
There always has been a misunderstanding of the
Protestant Reformed denial of the free offer of the gospel, which should be
cleared up. The PRC’s denial of the free offer does not mean that the preacher
must not preach to all promiscuously. He must! It does not mean that he does
not call all men to repent and believe. He does! It does not imply that God
does not promise salvation to all who will believe. God most certainly does!
The PRC’s denial of the free offer means this: that we
deny that there is grace in the preaching to all men, that we deny
that the preaching expresses God’s desire and purpose and intent to
save all men. He most certainly does not. Else they would be saved, because He
is a sovereign, powerful God.
Common Grace’s
Destruction of the Antithesis
What the Antithesis is
God
calls His people to live in opposition to the world. They are called to say
“Yes” to everything of God, and to say “No” to everything of the world. They
are called to live in spiritual separation from worldliness. This is the
antithesis.
When
the Reformed believer maintains the antithesis, it does not mean that he wants
to be an Anabaptist, fleeing from the world, taking no part in the life of this
world. He does not go, as the Dutch used to say, mocking, “met e’n bookje
in e’n hoekje” (“with a little book in a corner”). He lives in the
world and takes part in all the activities of labour and government and
society. The antithesis means that he has nothing in common with the world spiritually, that he is called to “come out
from among them” and be separate.
The
reason it is his calling to live the antithesis is that Christians are a
different people. The life of the regenerated child of God in the world has its
source in the new life of Christ and is directed by the power of God’s grace in
Christ. It is a living and walking in the Holy Spirit. It is exactly the
struggle of the child of God, day in and day out, to live, to think, to will,
to feel, to speak, and to act out of Jesus Christ, by the power of
the Holy Spirit. The life of the unregenerated unbeliever, in contrast, has its source in
the flesh, that is, in depraved human nature, and is directed by the power of
sin. It is a living and walking in sin. Therefore the life of the believer and
the unbeliever are in opposition.
The
antithesis must show itself, and show itself in all of life.
First, the life of the believer is subject to the Word of God, whereas the
unbeliever’s life is independent of the Word and in rebellion against it.
Second, the goal of life is different. The believer directs his life toward
God. His life is God-centred; the goal: God’s glory. The unbeliever leaves God
out; his life is man-centred.
Proof that the Antithesis is Reformed
Confessional
proof is not as explicit as [the other] fundamentals of the Reformed faith. But
this does not mean that the antithesis is not a biblical and Reformed idea.
Although the concept was developed more clearly by our Reformed fathers in the
19th century, it certainly is confessional. The Heidelberg Catechism says that “the Son of God gathers ... out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting
life” (A. 54). The Belgic
Confession brings out
the idea of the antithesis when, explaining the doctrine of baptism and taking
the cue from the significance of circumcision, it says that by the sacrament of
baptism “we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange
religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear
...” (34). The sacrament of baptism, then, is a great banner which proclaims to
the world, “Antithesis!”
There
is biblical proof. The nation of Israel was a prime example of the antithesis.
They were a separate people, called not to mix with the nations around them,
punished every time they intermarried and mingled with them. Time and again God
called them to be a separate people. This comes out in the New
Testament, generally, when God’s people are called “foreigners, pilgrims,
strangers” in the world; and specifically in II
Corinthians 6, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath
light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” And in James 4:4, “Know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity with God?”
Recent
history shows that the antithesis is a Reformed concept. The book by James
Bratt, Dutch Calvinism
in America, points out that the early Reformed settlers in America
desired to maintain the antithesis in their life here. Their attempts went to
extremes, even to the extreme claim that the preservation of their mother
tongue—the Dutch language—would bolster their antithetical life. But it points
out that God’s people were concerned about being a separate people, spiritually, about
living the antithesis.
That
the antithesis is our Reformed heritage was brought out clearly in the warning
that the Christian Reformed Church’s synod gave to the churches in the decision
of common grace in 1924.
If we observe the spiritual tendencies of the present time,
we cannot deny that there exists much more danger of world conformity than of
world flight. The liberal theology of the present time actually wishes to
eradicate the boundary between the church and the world ... The idea of a
spiritual-moral antithesis is weakening in large measure
in the consciousness of many, and gives way to a vague feeling of general
brotherhood ... The doctrine of special grace in Christ is more and more driven
to the background ... Through the press and through all sorts of inventions and
discoveries, that in themselves should be valued as gifts of God, a great part
of the sinful world is intruding into our Christian homes. Against all these
and more pernicious influences, which press upon us from all sides, there is a
crying necessity that the church mount a guard on principle; that she ... also
fight tooth and nail for the spiritual-moral antithesis ... Without ceasing may
she hold fast to the principle that God’s people is a special people, living
from its own root, the root of faith ... And with holy seriousness may she call
... her people and especially her youth not to be conformed to the world
(Bratt, p. 115; CRC Acta der Synode,1924,
pp. 146-147).
Common Grace’s Undermining of the Antithesis
The
doctrine of common grace undermines the antithesis in two ways, first, in that
it teaches a love and favour of God toward all men in common. If it is true
that God has a favour towards all men, that God loves all men, that God is
friend of all men, even those whom He wills to send to hell, even those who are
fighting tooth and nail against His kingdom (and they all are!), there is no reason that the child of God should not
be friends with the world. In
fact, given the doctrine of common grace, there is good warrant to call God’s
people to be friends with unbelievers, to fellowship with worldly men and
women.
Second,
common grace teaches that unbelievers are involved in works in this world with
which God is pleased. If God gives unbelievers an ability to work a work that
pleases Him, as a fruit of His grace (even though it is not “special grace”),
the logical conclusion is that, in all endeavours, the believer is able to work
side by side with the unbeliever in those endeavours—in the work of a labour
union, the work of social matters, the work of politics, even in the education
of their children. But according to the biblical truth of the antithesis, this
is impossible because the goals of each are different.
Common
grace undermines the truth that there is that “spiritual-moral antithesis”
between believers and unbelievers, and denies that there is no common ground
between Christ and Belial, between righteousness and unrighteousness. Common
grace implies, if it does not teach, that God’s people are no longer called to
come out from them, but to go in among them.
Historically,
the antithesis has been rejected on the basis of common grace.
In
his book Dutch Calvinism, James Bratt says that “over against
the antithesis, the Journal raised the idea of common grace
...” (p. 101).
Henry
R. Van Til, himself a proponent of common grace, in his book The Calvinist Concept of Culture (Baker, 1959), warns against
what he would call “abusing” the doctrine of common grace. He speaks of
a certain level of existence at which the army of the Lord
is immobilized, where it does not function as an army, but suddenly takes on
the appearance of crowds of vacationers, or the motley multitude at a fair and
pushing one another for a better position to see. Thus there is established
between the church and the world a grey, colourless area, a kind of no-man’s
land, where an armistice obtains and one can hobnob with the enemy with
impunity in a relaxed Christmas spirit, smoking the common weed.
A
CRC synodical declaration already in 1928 says,
The question arises, what basis of fellowship there can be
between the child of God and the man of this world. What have they in common
which makes a degree of communion possible and legitimate? ... The solution is
found in the doctrine of common grace ... The basis of our fellowship with
unbelievers should be ... the grace, common, which they have in common with us.
Note
that common grace is “The basis of our fellowship with unbelievers.”
And
in an issue of The Banner (December 12, 1988), an issue
devoted almost entirely to the question of the antithesis, there is a subtle
mockery of the historical teaching of the antithesis. The Reformed believer
grieves over the ridicule of the faith of our fathers, the faith of Holy Scripture.
The Reformed believer prays that God will show His people the truth because, in
the generations to come there will be no calling to live in spiritual
separation from the world.
Let
there be made an appeal to the experience of Reformed Christians. How often is
it heard that the children of God must be a separate people? How often is
reference made to II Corinthians
6? When is it heard that friendship with the world is enmity against God? If
this is lacking, one explanation may be that the doctrine of common grace is
alive and working, and that the common grace of the “three points” and the
antithesis are at odds.
Our
defence of the antithesis is to deny common grace, is to deny that there is a
favour of God common to all men, to deny that there is a common life that we
share because of common grace, and to deny therefore that we are to have
fellowship with the world. This is the practical aspect of the doctrine of
common grace.
Conclusion
A teaching that ended in the deposition of three ministers
from the church of Jesus Christ is a vitally important teaching, a teaching
that must be examined, a teaching that does not lie dormant in the archives of
the church.
Common grace is still appealed to today. Outside of the
Dutch Reformed tradition, appeal is being made to common grace, so that the
church and the world are yoked together. Within the Dutch Reformed tradition,
common grace becomes the unconscious (and sometimes conscious) basis for
unreformed teaching and practices.
Our prayer is that God will use this paper to show that
we are still interested—for our neighbour’s sakes—in these important issues,
interested to sharpen our spiritual senses for appreciation for the Reformed
faith, so that we might stand shoulder to shoulder in the maintenance of God’s
truth of total depravity, unconditional election, and the antithesis which God’s
people are called to live.
* * * * * * * * *
Appendix I
The
actual copy of the “Three Points of Common Grace,”
* * * * * * * * *
Appendix II
“For
the record ...”
Since
this study of common grace is made for the last part of the 20th century,
whereas the controversy occurred in the first part of the century (1924), it
may be helpful that a few notes of an historical nature be inserted for those
who are unfamiliar with the history. For a study of the history, the book The Protestant Reformed Churches in America, by Herman Hoeksema (long out of
print, but available from some libraries) may be obtained. A more popular study
(also out of print, but more readily available) is the 50th anniversary
commemorative study of the PRC, God’s Covenant
Faithfulness, edited
by Gertrude Hoeksema.
1.
The three points of common grace did not originate with the PRC, but were
statements drawn up by the Christian Reformed Church.
2.
The ministers involved in the debate (which climaxed at the 1924 Synod of
Kalamazoo) were required to subscribe to synod’s three statements. Because
three of them refused, they were deposed from the ministry of the CRC.
3.
These three men, Reverends H. Danhof, H. Hoeksema, and G. Ophoff were the founders
of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
* * * * * * * * *
Appendix III
Calvin on Common Grace
Since Calvin carries considerable weight with those in
the Reformed camp, it is worthwhile to hear what Calvin says about the subject.
The following is two sections of the author’s paper entitled, “Calvin and
Common Grace,” a paper analysing Herman Kuiper’s Calvin
on Common Grace and
presented at a Student Club meeting at the Protestant Reformed seminary in
1980:
On page 29, Kuiper says that Calvin (2.2.11-12) implies,
though not expressly, that those who possess miraculous faith are recipients of
divine grace, of a non-saving character. This does seem to be the case, and
Calvin uses language that sounds like common grace. He speaks of “present mercy
... a present perception of His grace which afterwards vanishes away ... God
enlightens the reprobate with some beams of His grace which afterwards vanishes
away ... God so far enlightens the mind that they discover His grace.” To
understand these statements, we must read farther, as this proponent of common
grace does not do.
Calvin explains it in this way: to some reprobate, God
gives a seed of faith (in this case, miraculous faith), but he “infuses no life
into that seed which he drops into their hearts” (Institutes 3.2.12). “Not that they truly perceive the
energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith, but because the Lord, to
render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable, insinuates Himself into their
minds” (3.2.11). The reprobate are similar to the elect, “only in their
opinion” but not in the eyes of God.
Strikingly, Calvin says that any grace or faith
attributed to the reprobate is only “by catechresis,
a tropical or improper form of expression; only because they ... exhibit some appearance of obedience to it” (3.2.9). He says that
this faith and grace are only a shadow or image of faith and grace, and are of
no importance, unworthy even of the name. He calls it common only “because there is a great similitude
and affinity between temporary faith and that which is living and perpetual.”
He calls their grace common only “because they appear, under the disguise of
hypocrisy, to have the principle of faith in common with them” (3.2.11). To the
elect, true faith and, therefore, true grace is given.
Had this controversy over common grace been an issue in
his day, we can be sure that Calvin would have emphasized more often that, when
he spoke of common grace, it was only by catechresis:
an “improper form of expression.”
Those who appeal to Calvin for support of common grace
look to the three points of 1924 as the basis for their definition of common
grace. But Calvin’s common grace has nothing to do with that of the present day.
Concerning the first point, that God has a favourable attitude toward all
mankind, especially in the offer of the gospel, Calvin has much to say. In
connection with the good gifts of God as a “favourable attitude,” Calvin says:
How comes it then that God not
only makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, but as far as the
advantages of this present life are concerned, His inestimable liberality is
constantly flowing forth in rich abundance? Hence we certainly perceive that
the things which really belong to Christ and His members, abound to the wicked
also ... in order that they may be rendered more inexcusable (3.25.9).
Concerning the “offer of the gospel” Calvin has something
to say. But first, it must be noted that Calvin wrote his Institutes in the Latin language. The word translated
“offer” in English is, not surprisingly, offere in the Latin. But this word did not
necessarily have the same connotations than as it does in English today. The
word offere primarily means “to present, to bring
towards, to thrust forward, to show, to exhibit.” Our word offer
has broader connotations and implies the ability to accept or reject,
as well as a desire on God’s part that the offer be accepted. Calvin says this
(which is omitted by Dr. Kuiper),
His sole design in thus
promising, is to offer His mercy to all who desire and seek it, which none do
but those whom he has enlightened, and He enlightens all whom He has
predestined to salvation (3.24.17).
That is, God’s mercy is offered in the preaching only to
those whom He has predestined to salvation!
What purpose then is served by
exhortations? It is this: As the wicked, with obstinate heart, despise them,
they will be a testimony against them when they stand at the judgment seat of
God; nay, they (the exhortations of the word; BG) even now strike and lash
their consciences (2.5.10).
When the mercy of God is offered
by the gospel (remember, "offered" is “offere,” to
present, to set forth; BG), it is faith, that is, the illumination of God,
which distinguishes between the pious and the impious; so that the former
experience the efficacy of the gospel, but the latter derive no benefit from it
(3.24.17).
God wills the salvation only of His elect, and never does
Calvin teach that any favour goes out to the wicked in the preaching.
Calvin writes very little concerning the second point. He
writes only that God restrains the outward deeds of the wicked, but never says
that God does this in His favour towards
them, nor that He restricts the corruption of the heart so that the good in
natural man can come out.
The third point, that by the work of the Spirit the
unregenerate is able to do civil good, is in violent contrast to what Calvin
says. First, Calvin claims that we have nothing of the Spirit except by
regeneration (3.3.1). This stands in contradiction to what the third point
states.
Second, Calvin says that we may as well try to draw oil
from a stone than expect good works from a sinner (3.15.7).
Concerning the works of wicked men which are apparently good, Calvin also has something to say.
Commenting on a passage by Augustine, Calvin writes: “Here he avows, without any
obscurity, that for which we so strenuously contend—that the righteousness of
good works depends on their acceptance by the Divine mercy”
(3.18.5).
Finally, Calvin says,
This being admitted will place
it beyond all doubt, that man is not possessed of free will for good works,
unless he be assisted by grace, and that special grace which is bestowed upon
the elect alone in regeneration. For I stop not to notice those fanatics, who
pretend that grace is offered equally and promiscuously to all (2.2.6; see also
2.2.13, 18; 3.15.7).
For more on this, see Ronald Cammenga, “Another Look at Calvin and Common Grace,” (PRTJ,
vol. 41, no. 2 [April, 2008], pp. 3-25).
No comments:
Post a Comment