The "Common Grace" issue in the Christian Reformed Church (13)

.
Dear Forum Members,
.
In the last installment I pointed out that the Christian Reformed Church (henceforth, CRC) was composed of basically two groups when divided theologically. There were, first of all, the immigrants who had their roots in the Churches of the Secession and many of whom held to a certain common grace that emphasized a gracious and well-meant gospel offer. Secondly, there was a sizeable group that had its roots in Kuyper’s movement, had adopted Kuyperian common grace and had immigrated to this country where they had succeeded in taking over important positions in the church. A third group could be found, however, composed of immigrants (or children of immigrants) who, though the members of this group had their roots in the Churches of the Secession, did not hold to the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. Many of these were from the Northern part of the Netherlands where the more orthodox people of the Secession could be found. Also belonging to this third group were many from Kuyper’s new denomination who were advocates of Kuyper’s early teachings on particular grace, but, although perhaps unable to pinpoint exactly what Kuyper’s errors were, were too Reformed to be devotees of Kuyper’s common grace.
.
God, in His providence, works in strange and unexpected, but marvelous ways. So He did also in the CRC in the first quarter of the 20th century. The tensions in the CRC over common grace and Kuyperian theology were grievous and had the potential of splitting the church into two denominations, each of which supported either Kuyperian common grace or Secessionist theology. A split in the CRC seemed inevitable.
.
The whole issue of Kuyperian common grace came indirectly to the broader assemblies of the CRC through the teachings of a professor in the Seminary by the name of Dr. Ralph Janssen. He had received his advanced education in European universities, and had learned the arts of higher critical studies of Scripture. These higher critical studies and their teachings became the content of many of Dr. Janssen’s courses. At bottom was a denial of the infallibility of Scripture and a natural explanation of Scripture’s contents that robbed Scripture of its divine authorship and reduced Scripture to man’s work – at least in part. Among other views of higher criticism that he held, Janssen insisted that the miracles recorded in Scripture did not have to be explained in terms of God’s direct work, but could easily be interpreted in such a way that scientific laws of nature were not violated. For example, the manna that Israel ate in the wilderness was not given by God directly, but was found naturally in a certain plant common to the wilderness. The miracle lay in Israel’s ability to find it. How that plant could provide sufficient food for 3,000,000+ people for forty years we leave to the imagination of unbelievers. He also taught that the water that came from the rock at Rephidim was always present in the rock and not specially created by God. The miracle lay in the fact that Moses happened to hit the rock in a particularly thin spot. His blow broke the rock and the water, always there, was released. He also insisted that the religion of Israel came not from divine revelation in its entirety, but was a modification of heathen religions to suit Israel’s unique position among the nations.
.
While we need not enter into these views in any kind of detail, we are interested in the fact that Janssen appealed to Kuyperian common grace in support of his position. He argued that, because it was true that the unregenerate could do such good works as created a neutral area of cooperation between the church and the world, scientific discoveries ought to be included in the church’s thinking, and the church’s interpretation of Scripture could be modified so as to make Scripture scientifically acceptable. He also argued that if the heathen possessed common grace, their religions had many elements of good in them, with the result that Israel could pick up these elements and incorporate them into its own religion.
.
Rev. Herman Hoeksema was, far and away, the most vocal critic of Janssen’s views. He wrote against Janssen’s views in the church paper, The Banner, until its pages were closed to any discussion of the controversy. When the views of Dr. Janssen became an issue in the Seminary, Rev. Hoeksema was appointed to a committee to study these views and bring conclusions and recommendations to the synod, the church’s highest governing body. The report that was finally adopted by the Synod of 1922 was a report based on the word of and mainly drafted by Rev. Herman Hoeksema. However, the report did not address itself to Janssen’s main line of defense, Kuyperian common grace, but limited itself to the issue of higher criticism itself.
.
The Synod of 1922 condemned Janssen’s views, but, following the leading of the committee report, did not deal with the question of common grace. Hoeksema, in later years, regretted that the committee and the synod did not tackle the problem of common grace in connection with Janssen’s errors. Although Janssen was relieved of his teaching responsibilities in the Seminary, nothing was said about his views on common grace, which he had used as a basis for his teachings.
.
The reason why both the committee and the synod refrained from dealing with the deeper issue of common grace does not appear in the record, but it can be conjectured that both the committee and the synod were aware of the deep tensions in the church over this question and were hesitant to bring these tensions to the floor of a major assembly at a time when the church was threatened by the deadly error of higher criticism.
.
But because Kuyperian common grace was wide-spread in the CRC, there were also many Janssen supporters in the college and throughout the churches. These men were furious that their mentor had been condemned, and decided to make common grace an issue that the church would be compelled to face. They did this by way of protests against the preaching of Herman Hoeksema, who, they knew, denied both Kuyperian common grace and the well-meant gospel offer. It is interesting that Hoeksema himself had been born and raised within the tradition of the Secession Churches, but had never held to a well-meant gospel offer. And when, while still in the Netherlands, he came into contact with Kuyper’s teachings, he learned from the Kuyper of sovereign and particular grace, not the Kuyper of common grace.
.
The result was that Hoeksema’s teachings went to the Synod of 1924. Strangely enough, Hoeksema’s teachings were never condemned by the synod; and, indeed, the synod officially declared him to be Reformed. But, in spite of that, the synod took it upon itself to draw up an official statement on the doctrine of common grace. The leaders in the CRC, who were especially interested in such a statement, saw also an opportunity to heal a widening breach in the churches between the followers of Kuyper and the followers of the Secession leaders. And so they adopted a statement of common grace that approved both kinds of common grace: a gracious and well-meant gospel offer and a common grace in the unregenerate that restrained sin and enabled the wicked to do good works.
.
The decision served its purpose, and the breach in the CRC was healed by the decisions of this synod.
.
On the other hand, a little more than a half year after the synod, Hoeksema was deposed from office and driven out of the CRC for his denials of common grace. But in the good providence of God, that segment of the CRC that repudiated both the common grace of the Secession Churches and Kuyperian common grace, saw in the teachings of Hoeksema the solid and uncompromising truth of the Reformed faith taught by Calvin, on through Dordt and many Reformed theologians, and which was preserved to the present. They went with Hoeksema and became the nucleus of the Protestant Reformed Churches, a denomination that today holds firmly to the doctrines of sovereign and particular grace.
.
And thus we bring our brief historical study to an end. It ought, I think, be evident that history does not support the theories of common grace, but is on the side of those who stand for sovereign and particular grace.
.
God willing, we will enter into the doctrinal ideas of common grace vs. sovereign and particular grace in subsequent forum installments.
.
With warmest regards,
.
Prof Herman Hanko