A. C. Boekoel
[Source: The
Standard Bearer, vol. 5, nos. 2-5 (Oct-Dec, 1928—pp. 51-52, 75-76,
99-100, 123-124)]
Introduction
Ever since the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of
1924, there has been considerable agitation in the camp of the defenders of the
Three Points to propagate the idea that the formulation of these Points was
based upon historically Reformed truth.
In order to substantiate this statement, the foremost of the defenders
searched the writings of the various Reformed theologians from the sixteenth
and the seventeenth centuries and of later date. Many lectures have been devoted to prove that
the action of the Synod of 1924 was in conformity with the historical
development of Reformed theology. It
stands to reason that in these lectures much use has been made of statements
found in Calvin’s Institutes, the work of Van Mastricht, and in those of
others. The Synod at least, in order to
prove its contention, called for support upon the writings of these
theologians. Some quotations have been
made which you will find in the Acta Synodi of 1924.
It is not out intention to give you a detailed thesis of
Calvin’s teachings in re the Points in question. We desire to meet Synod upon its own ground, attempting
to prove that the quotations of Calvin actually have nothing to do with the
issue, and by showing that the intended quotations do not contain the whole
truth of this Reformed theologian. It
appears somewhat deplorable, and not very scholarly, to have to fail so
miserably in the attempt to use these quotations of the Institutes properly,
and yet not to be able to discriminate the truth which they contain. No doubt most of us will recall that our “Editor-in-Chief”
has called our attention to the fact that Synod—through its committee—has quoted
statements from Van
Zonde en Genade, which in turn were quotations taken from the late Dr.
A. Kuyper’s Gemeene Gratie, and the Synod condemned the brethren in
question upon a statement of its greatest supporter. It is evident, therefore, that if Synod made
this unpretended(?) and unpremeditated(?) error in this instance, there is no
reason why it should not have made many others.
To maintain that Synod is infallible, as seems to be the tendency, is to
identify its decisions or declarations with the Word of God. The Pope may attempt to stigmatize his
declarations as being infallible, but surely you must be a Pope to do so.
The First Point
The first of the Three Points, as restated in its final
formulation in the Acta Synodi 1924, Article 12, reads in a free translation
as follows:
The Synod declares that, in
regard to the favorable attitude of God toward humanity in general, it is
determined according to Scripture and the confessions that besides the saving
grace of God shown only to the elect to everlasting life, there is also a
certain favor or grace of God, which He manifests to His creatures in general.
It is evident that the emphasis of this First Point is:
that God manifests a certain favor or grace to His creatures in general. This means, then, that cosmological creation
is not implied as being the recipient of this favor or grace of God. Very explicitly, it is stated: “Zijn schepselen
in het algemeen.” With creatures (schepselen) are implied all
rational beings, therefore excluding all other of God’s creation. The rational creatures are divided into two
classes. The one contains the elect, the
other is comprised of the reprobate.
The argumentation of Synod appears, in the light of
scriptural truth, very strange indeed.
Does the declaration not state that the elect alone are the recipients
of the saving grace of God? And does it not, in the second place, state that
there is a grace in general of which the elect as well as the reprobate are the
recipients? But what do the reprobate
not receive in conjunction with the elect? Of course, Synod would answer: How
preposterous, for they (the reprobate) receive damnation. But how can this be harmonized with the truth
of the First Point? Should it really be
necessary to have the elect share in the same grace with the reprobate? Is saving grace not all sufficient for time
and eternity? Would God withhold from His own the necessities of life, in order
to grant them these blessings in conjunction with the reprobate? Let us put it in the language of Synod. Does God manifest His love for the elect by
granting them saving grace, and does He then at the same time withhold some of His
love, which He desires to manifest to them in conjunction with the
reprobate? Rather absurd.
If the gifts of the Spirit are a manifestation of God’s
favor or grace upon the reprobates, it follows that such gifts must have
eternal value. God does not do anything
without a purpose, neither does He bestow His favor upon those whom He has
rejected from eternity. God is
immutable, and being that, He certainly maintains the identity of His act of
predestination. God is God, and because
He is such, He cannot (and neither is there any proof for such statements)
bless and curse the same individual at the same time. We know from Scripture that whatever the
reprobates receive is for their damnation.
If the contrary of this truth were held, then to be sure, the reprobates
would receive blessings, and these have eternal value.
The reprobate is God’s instrument or agency to further
His cause. The manifestation of His
glorious kingdom is revealed also by the damnation of those who are
rejected. Nevertheless, God reveals unto
them truths which find their source in Him, because He is the truth. But so far as this revelation is concerned,
they (the reprobates) are used as mere agencies to cause its development. This, however, shows that as far as the
reprobates are concerned, they do not at all become the recipients of God’s
favor or grace. This is an entirely different matter. Subjectively, the reprobates are never
conscious of this favor, and objectively they cannot become the recipients of
this favor since God retains His identity.
Blessings for the reprobates have eternal value, be it for the alleviating
of their punishment, and this, too, is absurd.
Synod seemed to think that it could quote Calvin to
substantiate its claim. In so doing, it quotes the Institutes, Book II,
Chapter II, 16:
Nor is there any reason for
inquiring what intercourse with the Spirit is enjoyed by the impious who are
entirely alienated from God. For when
the Spirit of God is said to dwell only in the faithful, that is to be
understood of the Spirit of sanctification, by whom we are consecrated as
temples to God Himself. Yet it is equally
by the energy of the same Spirit that God replenishes, actuates, and quickens
all creatures, and that, according to the property of each species which He has
given it by the law of creation. Now, if
it has pleased the Lord that we should be assisted in physics, logic,
mathematics, and other arts and science, by the labour and ministry of the
impious, let us make use of them; lest, if we neglect to use the blessings
therein freely offered to us by God, we suffer the just punishment of negligence.
This is the first quotation of the Institutes by
which Synod attempted to assert that it would add strength to the argumentation
as contained in Point I. Fact is, that
in this quotation nothing can be ascertained as to any favor or grace
manifested to His creatures in general.
No deduction can possibly be attained from it that in the least
intimates or conveys such a doctrine.
The very opposite is implied. The
argument of the quotation is that God uses the reprobates as agencies to
manifest His glory in the development of truth.
Of a general “favor” or “grace,” Calvin does not make mention, and he
had no idea at all to assert such a contradictory action. This becomes evident
when Calvin continues his discourse, which we are about to quote. It appears strange that the committee of
Synod, which formulated the Three Points and their substantiations, never continued
Calvin’s quotation. Calvin continues
with a “But.” Is it possible for the
Committee to have overlooked the conclusion of the matter? For men of learning, it seems not. But then …! The following paragraph states the very
opposite from what Synod intended to prove.
It reads:
But, lest any one should suppose
a man to be truly happy, when he is admitted to possess such powerful energies for
the discovery of truth relating to the elements of this world, it must likewise
be added, that all that faculty of understanding, and the understanding which
is the consequence of it, is, in the sight of God, a fleeting and transitory
thing, where there is not a solid foundation of truth. For the sentiment of Augustine, with whom, as
we have observed, the Master of the Sentences, and the Schoolmen have been
constrained to coincide, is strictly true—that as the gratuitous or supernatural
gifts were taken away from man after the fall, so these natural ones which
remained have been corrupted; nor that they can be defiled in themselves as
proceeding from God, but because they have ceased to be pure to polluted man,
so that he can obtain no praise from them.
From this quotation it is evident that Synod’s attempted
proof has been obliterated and torn asunder. Its language is lucid and clear;
an added exposition of us would obscure the thought. Judge for yourself whether
Synod had any right to call upon Calvin for support in the matter.
There is a second quotation of the Institutes in
verification of Point I from Book III, Chapter XIV, 2:
We see how he [i.e., God—ACB]
confers many blessings of the present life on those who practise virtue among
men. Not that this external resemblance of virtue merits the least favour
from him [italics mine—ACB]; but he is pleased to discover his great esteem
of true righteousness, by not permitting that which is external and
hypocritical to remain without a temporal reward. Whence it follows, as we have
just acknowledged, that these virtues whatsoever they may be, or rather images
of virtues, are the gifts of God; since there is nothing in any respect
laudable which does not proceed from him.
Also from this quotation it is evident that Synod stretched
its imagination by attempting to prove that God bestows favor or grace
upon the reprobates. It is clear from this quotation that Calvin desires to
state that man, created in the image of God, has remained such in essence after
the fall. Man remained a rational-ethical creature, notwithstanding the fall
into sin, and because of it, he can do no otherwise than to manifest that which
he is.
Regarding Calvin statement, that “God confers blessings
of the present life on those who practise virtue among men,” what is to be
proven is that Calvin maintains that there is a possibility for reprobates to
be truly virtuous. If such can be
proven, then Synod has gained its Point as far as the argument is
concerned. If you will but continue to
read, where Synod’s quotations discontinued, then you will notice the
impossibility of a fair representation of the matter. Book III, Chapter XIV, 3:
Nevertheless
the observation of Augustine is strictly true—that all who are strangers of the
religion of the one true God, however they may esteemed worthy of admiration
for their reputed virtue, not only merit no reward, but are rather deserving of
punishment, because they contaminate the pure gifts of God with the pollution
of their own hearts. For though they are
instruments used by God for the preservation of human society, by the exercise
of justice, continence, friendship, temperance, fortitude, and prudence, yet
they perform these good works of God very improperly; being restrained from
the commission of evil, not by a sincere attachment to true virtue, but either
by mere ambition, or by self-love, or by some other irregular disposition. These actions, therefore, being corrupted in
their very source by the impurity of their hearts, are no more entitled to be
classed among virtues, than those vices which commonly deceive mankind by their
affinity and similitude to virtues [italics mine—ACB].
Calvin’s conclusion of the matter is very clearly stated
in the above quotation. These external,
seemingly good acts of men, commonly called virtues, cannot possibly be called
such, in as much as their source is corrupt and polluted. It is evident, therefore, that Synod has also
in this respect misquoted and misinterpreted Calvin. Hence, this quotation of Calvin does not add
very much strength to Synod’s argument.
Supposedly Synod followed “the path of least resistance,” by refusing to
interpret Calvin fairly. Synod should have made Calvin say what he meant, and
not what it thought would be expedient for him to say.
The Second Point
The Second Point, by which Synod tended to prove the doctrine(?)
of common grace to be Reformed in the historical sense, has for central thought
that God restrains sin in all men by the general working of His Spirit. Translated freely from the Acta Synodi
1924, Article 132, it reads:
In regard to the Second Point,
having reference to the restraining of sin in the life of the individual, as
well as in that of the community, Synod declares that there is such a
restraining of sin according to Scripture and the confessions. This is evident
from the quoted passages of Scripture and of the Netherland Confession,
Articles 13 and 16, in which is taught that God by the general working His
Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains sin in its uninterrupting
ebullitions, by which life in the community has remained possible. Besides, it
is evident from the quoted statements of Reformed authors, of the developing
period of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers also maintained this
point of view for some time.
This last sentence is added to strengthen the
argument. Synod only makes quotations of
two Reformed authors in substantiating the versity of this Second Point.
It is our intention, also in regard to this point, to
find the truth of Synod’s quotation of Calvin.
We earnestly desire to remain honest in divulging and analyzing the
quotation of Calvin, in order to put Synod’s argument in its proper light. We will discuss very briefly in outline form
this Second Point; next, we will attempt to answer the question, whether Calvin
in Synod’s quotation of the Institutes means the same thing as Synod
does.
We may say, at the very beginning of this discussion,
that Synod has made a bold attempt to elude the minds of the church members as
to the real historical worth of Calvin’s quotation. We hasten to say that we would not dare to
conceive of the possibility that Synod purposed to make any false pretentions on
behalf of the truth. We can conceive,
however, that in order to attain its objective, namely, to construct some
statements by which sooner or later the pastors involved might either
voluntarily resign their offices, or to depose them, it had to lend itself to
peculiar methods of fairness. Synod’s
committee of pre-advice hastily gathered its material without carefully
considering its worth. Indeed, haste
makes waste. It is pitiful, to be sure,
to attempt to build a castle on sinking sand. But terrible to dig a pit for
others, not knowing that the ground on which they stand is quickened.
Synod’s declaration in the Second Point amounts to this:
God, by a general working of His Spirit, restrains sin in the individual. This indeed is a very important thesis. We will discuss this doctrine(?) in the light
of historically Reformed truth.
It is specifically stated that this general working of the
Spirit, does by no means work inwardly, by renewing the heart. Hence, this is no thought for argument. Fact
is that God does work with His Spirit in a general way in the hearts of men
(Synod’s conception), which checks him from committing the sin, which otherwise
he had to commit. To be sure, there is
no statement in Synod’s declaration that possibly man’s respect for law, his natural
sense of shame for selfish reason, his aptitude to have a virtuous life which
is intensified by a feverish desire to receive honor and praise of men, checks
the manifestation of atrocious sins.
Romans 2:14 has not been taken into consideration. But all this
certainly has nothing to do with the general working of His Spirit. We suppose
that the fact that man is a sane being is because of the general working
of the same Spirit, otherwise this world would consist of insane creatures.
Such a supposition, to be sure, is very silly indeed, and yet it is the logical
consequence of the truth of the Second Point.
For why is it impossible for Synod to conceive of the truth of “lumen
naturalis” [natural light], which every individual has retained after the
fall? As long as man is a
rational-ethical being, by virtue of this natural light, he cannot possibly act
any differently from what he does. Every
individual has a conscience, which is somewhat of a guide as to what is
ethically legitimate. But the fact that
the conscience witnesses and guides does not prove that such is the general
working of the Holy Spirit. You can
never identify the acts of the conscience with the working of the Spirit. Here you must apply Romans 2:14. Synod, however,
has made such a misleading identification.
The fact that some men are not permitted to actually commit the sins
which were thought out is because there are various reasons why they do not
commit themselves to such heinous manifestations of their thoughts. The sole
reason why men do not commit themselves is personal aggrandizement. And for all this, Synod had no eye. We are quite certain that Synod has been too
assuming in resolving upon this Second Point.
In order to establish the truth of this Second Point,
Synod called also upon the Institutes for verification. Synod’s quotation from the Institutes
you will find in Book II, Chapter III, 3.
There you read:
A
question, nearly the same as we have already answered, here presents itself to
us again. For in all ages there have
been some persons, who, from the mere dictates of nature [italics
mine—ACB], have devoted their whole lives to the pursuit of virtue. And though many errors might perhaps be
discovered in their conduct, yet by their pursuit of virtue they afforded a
proof, that there was some degree of purity in nature … These examples, then, seem [italics mine—ACB] to
teach us that we should not consider human nature to be totally corrupted,
since, from its instinctive bias, some men have not only been eminent for noble
actions, but have uniformly conducted themselves in a most virtuous manner
through the whole course of their lives.
But here we ought to remember, that amidst this corruption of nature
there is some room [italics mine—ACB] for Divine grace, not to
purify it, but internally to restrain its operations. For should the Lord
permit the minds of all men to give up the reins to every lawless passion,
there certainly would not be an individual in the world, whose actions would
not evince all the crimes, for which Paul condemns human nature in general …
There is no furious beast, that would be agitated with such ungovernable rage;
there is no river, though ever so rapid and violent, that would overflow its
boundaries with such impetuosity. In his
elect, the Lord heals these maladies by a method which we shall hereafter describe. In others, he restrains them, only to prevent their ebullitions so far
as He sees to be necessary for the preservation of the universe.
After reading the above passage of the Institutes,
the Synodical committee of pre-advice deemed it sufficient to be used as a
corroboration of the argument of Point II.
The question for us to answer is the following: Does Calvin actually
teach in this passage that there is a general working of the Holy Spirit which
restrains sin in every individual so as to make life in the community possible? Re-read if you will the passage in question,
and you will note that Calvin has no summary or concluding statements that in
the least intimates the contention of Synod.
In the first place, Calvin contends that there “are
persons, who from the mere dictates of nature have devoted their whole lives to
the pursuit of virtue.” This is in
perfect harmony with the truth of Romans 2:14 and is therefore simultaneously
in contradiction with the declaration of Synod—for Synod contends that there is
a general working of the Spirit necessary in the pursuit of a virtuous
life. This does not coincide with the truth.
Calvin contends the very opposite. Too bad that the committee of Synod did not
notice this contradiction.
Calvin contends, in the second place, that “these
examples seem [italics mine—ACB] to teach us that we should not consider
human nature totally corrupted.” “These
examples” having reference to those persons who are in pursuit of a virtuous
life. However, Calvin makes no definite
statement as to claim that there is no such a thing as total depravity. Synod is reading something in the Institutes
which is not there and which could not possibly be the implication. All that is stated is that, from a mere human
point of view, it would appear—seem—as if man was not totally corrupted. Read if you will Book
II, Chapter III, 2. Here you will
find that Calvin substantiates his conviction that man is totally corrupted. Says he: “But the soul
immersed in this gulf of iniquity is not only the subject of vices, but totally
destitute of everything that is good” (italics mine—ACB). Moreover, the Institutes would be a
contradictory piece of nonsense if Calvin would deny, in one paragraph, what he
infers in the foregoing. The argument of
the Second Point is to assert that, in as much as there is a restraining of sin
by the general working of the Holy Spirit, it is evident that this keeps man
from being totally corrupt. The
contention of the Second Point is that man is capable of withholding (checking)
the execution of his sinful thoughts with he aid of the Holy Spirit;
hence, it cannot possibly be true that he is as bad as Scripture paints
him. Synod made a dogma of its
resolution, whereas Calvin’s statement has not even the possibility of a fact.
Calvin states in the third place:
But here we ought to remember
that amidst this corruption of nature there is some room for Divine
grace [italics mine—ACB], not to purify it, but internally to restrain its
operation.
As you have noticed, Calvin does speak of some room for
Divine grace to restrain sin. We ask: Is
that, too, Synod’s contention? To be
sure, a positive untruth. If Synod
desires to make Calvin’s statement say what suits its purpose, it must be done
by—inlegkunde—and not by a scientific interpretation and research. We wonder what method of reasoning the Synodical
committee used to warrant its conclusion, and then to call upon the Institutes
for support. Neither the inductive nor
the deductive method will ever warrant such an erroneous conception of the
truth. Nowhere does Calvin maintain, as
Synod claims he does, that God restrains sin by the general working of the
Holy Spirit. Calvin speaks of the
possibility that there is “some room for Divine grace.” Does this then mean that there is present an
operation of the Holy Spirit? “Some
room for Divine grace” has something explicit about it. You can never infer from this positively that
Calvin here states that there is Divine grace present. To say that there is some room for Divine
grace, is not saying that there is Divine grace. We would positively disown such a statement
that there is Divine grace, even though Calvin should have misrepresented the
matter as Synod did, since such a conception is not based upon scriptural
versity. But outside of that, do you wish
more proof that Calvin does not maintain such a point of view as Synod makes
him state? Read the last sentence of this same paragraph, Book II, Chapter III,
3. There you read:
Thus God by His providence
[emphasis added] restrains the perverseness of our nature, from breaking out
into external acts, but does not purify it within … Hence, some by shame, and
some by fear of the laws, are prevented from running into many kinds of
pollutions, though they cannot in any degree dissemble their impurity; others, because
they think that a virtuous course of life is advantageous, entertain some
languid desire after it; others go further, and display more than common
excellence, that by their majesty they may confine the vulgar to their duty.
Such language repudiates the whole matter of Point
II. And any honest scholar will admit
such. We think it not unreformed to say
that the external manifestations of sin are checked by a natural desire to
have a virtuous life. But this has
nothing to do with a general working of the Holy Spirit. Besides, it is
admitted that God has provided ways and means in His providence which will
prevent men from committing heinous sins.
In His providence, God provided for authority and government, which, in
turn, means the institution of laws and bylaws, etc. The presence of a man in authority may
prevent the manifestation of serious crimes, although the sin itself has
already been committed, be it then in thought.
But all this has nothing to do with Synod’s conception of the matter.
The Third Point
In regard to Point III, in which Synod contends that the
reprobate is able to perform and does perform acts which are in themselves
good—“civil righteousness”—we can be brief.
The acts which are called good, are such because God influences them in
some way (Synod’s conception). The scriptural
and the confessional proofs for this declaration are wanting. We marvel not therefore that Synod is unable
to quote Calvin, in order to substantiate this Point. It is certain that the argument of this Third
Point is an innovation of the late Dr. A. Kuyper. Perhaps this whole idea of the Third Point
was rather premature for the Reformed theologian of Geneva. In as much as Synod failed to quote Calvin,
it is of no use, at the present, for us to further elucidate the material in
question. What we were concerned about
was to prove that Calvin’s conception of the material contained in the Three
Points is not that of the Synod. We are
justified, then, to state that Synod misrepresented the truth about
Calvin. It is not a question whether we
agree with Calvin in every detail as to his conception of all Reformed
truth. We may say, without any
hesitation, that we are not a hundred per cent Calvinist, or, if you will,
Calvin is not, in every detail, in perfect harmony with Reformed truth. If anyone would state it differently, he
would deny at the same time the development of truth; or if you will, he would
spurn the development in God’s revelation.
Certain it is that Synod, in 1924, is entirely out of
harmony with the general truth of Calvin’s writings. It is all the more deplorable that Calvin’s
ideas have been so misconstrued.
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment