Bernard Kok (1903-1997)
[Source: The Standard Bearer, vol. 19, no. 6
(December 15, 1942), pp. 142-144]
It
is generally maintained by the defenders of the doctrine of “Common Grace” that
Calvin, the father of Reformed theology, also believed in a grace of God that
was common to all mankind. They have
even gone so far as to maintain that Calvin believed in four kinds of
grace. They are enumerated as
follows: Universal Common Grace, which
God bestows on all creatures; General Grace, a grace which God bestows
upon men as men; Covenant Grace, which is common to God’s elect and all
those who live in the covenant sphere; and Saving Grace, which God
bestows unto salvation, unto the elect only (cf. Calvin on Common Grace,
by Dr. H. Kuiper, pp. 179, 180). They
have also been classified as Common, Common Grace; Common Special
Grace; and Special Grace. It
cannot be denied that if one seeks support in Calvin’s writings for the present
day theory of “Common Grace,” there are certain expressions in the writings of
this eminent Reformed theologian which apparently would lend themselves for
this purpose. Even the Pelagians, in the
days of Calvin, quoted from the writings of Augustine to support their doctrine
of the free-will of man. It cannot even
be gainsaid that these arduous supporters and defenders of the theory of “Common
Grace” have been able to glean some chaff from the voluminous writings of this
great reformer in defense of their doctrine.
One marvels at the fact how these enthusiasts seek out this chaff and
grasp every straw, while ignoring, or ever loathing, the many golden kernels of
grain emphasizing God’s sovereign grace, which are so plentiful in the writings
of this great scholar.
One
of these enthusiasts is compelled to admit, after a very painstaking study of Calvin’s
works, that in all his writings, “there is not a single [passage] which gives
something like a comprehensive view of the whole subject” (Idem., p.
177). This writer continues: “So we must
proceed without the aid of such a standard passage. And meanwhile our
difficulty is increased by the fact that Calvin sometimes [?—BK] makes
statements which at first glance at least seem to contradict what he teaches in
other places concerning common grace, and by the lack of technical terminology
in Calvin’s writings” (Idem.).
Note especially the word “sometimes” in the sentence quoted
above. There is hardly a paragraph in
Calvin’s writings which does not contradict the present-day theory of “Common Grace.” Therefore, the defenders of this doctrine
find themselves confronted with hopeless contradictions in the writings of this
Reformed scholar. The writer quoted
above first speaks of “seeming contradictions,” but later on in his book, this
same writer accuses Calvin, not of “seeming contradictions,” but of real contradictions. We quote:
With regard to these contradictions we
readily acknowledge that they are not merely seeming contradictions. They are real contradictions. We may as well try to budge a mountain of
solid granite with our finger as endeavour to harmonize these declarations.
There is nothing left for us but to agree that Calvin’s writings contain
irreconcilable paradoxes (p. 223).
Not
Calvin, but the defenders of the theory of “Common Grace” involve themselves in
hopeless contradictions. This is a mercy, or kindness of God, which in the last
analysis, due to the fact that they speak of a certain grace or love, according
to their own admission, is not grace, love, mercy, or kindness at all. This is
evident from the following quotation from the above-named writer:
Calvin sometimes declares that God loves
only the elect believers who are one with Christ. (See e.g. II, 2, 32) At first sight, such declarations appear to
be flat contradictions of what he teaches in other passages to the effect that
God also loves men who do not belong to the circle of the elect … Besides,
there need be no cause for wonder that Calvin sometimes writes as though only
the elect are the object of God’s love. For that love which God manifests
towards the believers exclusively so far surpasses the love which God bestows
on non-elect men that, when the two are compared, it hardly seems proper to
term the latter love” (p. 215).
We
would ask Dr. H. Kuiper, If the “love” (?) which God bestows on non-elect men
cannot be properly termed love, then what is it? If it cannot be properly termed love,
for the above-named reason, then for the same reason it cannot be properly
termed grace, goodness, or mercy.
There
is, I believe, a far better way of explaining these seeming contradictions in
the writings of Calvin. It is true that
Calvin often speaks of the love, goodness, mercy and beneficence of God in connection
with the reprobate ungodly, while on the other hand he repeatedly emphasises
that God loves and is gracious only to the elect believers who are one with
Christ. This is, however, no
contradiction if we keep in mind that 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.
Let
us now briefly examine the various kinds of “Common Grace” as Universal Common
Grace which God bestows on all creatures.
They refer, among others, to the following passage of Calvin’s Institutes:
But if we inquire the reason that induced
him first to create all things, and now to preserve them, we shall find the sole
cause to be his own goodness. But though
this be the only cause, it should be more than sufficient to attract us to love
him: since according to the Psalmist, there is no creature that does not
participate in the effusions of his mercy. (Inst. 1.5.6).
It
is self-evident that Calvin here speaks of the goodness of God as an attribute
of perfection of God. The very next paragraph, moreover, clearly indicates
that Calvin never intended that the truth of God’s providence should be
regarded as signifying an attitude of grace over against the reprobate
ungodly. In paragraph 7 of Chapter 5, we
read:
In the second species of his works, such as
happen out of the ordinary course of nature, the proofs of his perfections are
equally clear. For he so regulates his providence in the government of human
society, that while he exhibits, in innumerable ways, his benignity and beneficence
to all, he likewise declares, by evident and daily indications, his clemency to
the pious, and his severity to the wicked and ungodly. For no doubt can be
entertained respecting his punishment of flagitious crimes: inasmuch as he
clearly demonstrates himself to be the guardian and avenger of innocence, in
prospering with his blessing the life of good men, in assisting their necessities,
assuaging and comforting their sorrows, alleviating their calamities, and
providing in all things for their safety. Nor should it perplex or eclipse his perpetual
rule of righteousness, that he frequently permits the wicked and guilty for a time
to exult in impunity; but suffers good men to be undeservedly harassed with
much adversity, and even to be oppressed by the iniquitous malice of the
ungodly. We ought rather to make a very
different reflection; that, when he clearly manifests his wrath in the
punishment of one sin, he hates all sins; and that since he now passes by many
sins unpunished, there will be a judgment hereafter, till which the punishment
is deferred. (Inst. 1.5.7.)
Calvin
here certainly does not teach that the temporary well-being of the ungodly in
this world is to be conceived of as “Common Grace.”
The
teachings of Calvin that man is a rational-moral creature, endowed with the gift
of intelligence, able to regulate his present life in the midst of society, and
to cultivate the various arts and so-called sciences, are usually referred to
as “General Common Grace.” These teachings
of Calvin are found especially in Chapters 1-4 of the first book of his Institutes. However, when Calvin emphasises that man in
his sinful state remained a rational-moral and intelligent being, he does not
do this to show the blessedness of natural man, but to emphasise the
greatness of his corruption, and to show that he is wholly inexcusable
before God. That Calvin loathed the
conception as though there were any good in man is evident from the following:
For as long as our views are bounded by the
earth, perfectly content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and strength, we
fondly flatter ourselves, and fancy we are little less than demigods. But if we once elevate our thoughts to God,
and consider his nature, and the consummate perfection of his righteousness,
wisdom, and strength, to which we ought to be conformed: what before charmed us
in ourselves under the false pretext of righteousness, will soon be loathed as
the greatest iniquity; what strangely deceived us under the title of wisdom,
will be despised as extreme folly; and what wore the appearance of strength,
will be proved to be most wretched impotence.
So very remote from the divine purity is what seems in us the highest
perfection (Inst. 1.1.2)
In
general, we may say that Calvin’s teaching concerning the external calling in
the preaching of the Word, is usually referred to as Covenant Common Grace, or
Common Special Grace. Calvin does
emphasis a general calling in the preaching of the Word, but nowhere does he
teach a general well-meaning offer of salvation. In his Institutes, he clearly teaches
that God intends the preaching of His Word as a savour of death unto death for
the reprobate wicked. For a further
study of this question, I would refer the reader to the pamphlet of the Rev. H.
Hoeksema, Berkhof, Kuiper and Calvin: A Comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment