Further evaluation of the "good" of the reprobate (37)

Dear forum members:

The problem we face in our discussion of the good works that unregenerated people are capable of performing by the common grace of God is the meaning of civil good. This term was used by the formulators of this doctrine at the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1924, which is the most explicit statement of this doctrine one can find. Some of the defenders of this doctrine have said that the following characteristics are implied in civil good. 1) It is worked in the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit who restrains sin in the wicked. 2) It consists of good works that are pleasing in the sight of God and meet with His approval, though not, according to Berkhof, with merit in God’s records. 3) It is a good that is not the fruit of regeneration or salvation and is to be sharply distinguished from saving good; that is, from the good that is the fruit of regeneration and conversion. 4) But it is, emphatically, the result of God’s grace that is given through the Holy Spirit.

I suggested various kinds of good that might be included in the scope of this term “civil good.” We could add to the list given in my last installment, the efforts of wicked men to make this world a better place in which to live. By grace the wicked conquer disease; explore the mysteries of the universe; establish welfare programs to aid the poor and needy; build institutions that care for wounded veterans, people with dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease; open orphanages and try by various ways to better the lot of mankind. Even some unregenerated people fight against abortion and homosexual practices and marriages. All these and such like things are said to be good and pleasing in the sight of God.

I think it important that we understand clearly that no single person of whom I have knowledge, much less myself, mean to deny that there is much good in the world, if one defines “good” by human standards. None in his right mind would say that it is an intolerable evil to do those good deeds which I have described in the previous paragraph. No one would ever claim that it is just as bad to build hospitals and train doctors to help people to regain health as it is to kill the sick and dying – although this also is being proposed in some countries. No one would ever say that to work in laboratories to find cures for cancer is as evil as letting cancer patients suffer and die without any efforts to help them. One who opposes the murder of unborn babies, though unregenerate, is not as great a sinner as the doctors in abortion clinics who perform abortions on a regular basis. Nor is it as great a sin to help a man with a flat tire as it is to pass him by and let him struggle on his own – even if he happens to be an old man of 80+ years.

There are degrees of evil in this world and I do not deny that some sins are greater than others. The Lord Himself taught this when he told the Jews that it would be more tolerable in the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, than for Capernaum and Bethsaida, for the sin of the latter cities in Palestine was greater than the sins in the heathen cities the Lord mentioned. In Luke 12:47, 48, Christ underscores this point: “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

In fact there is even more to be said about this in Scripture. I can best explain this by referring you to the history of Israel. There were times in Israel’s history when the nation was ruled by God-fearing kings such as David; when the temple worship flourished because godly priests served in the tabernacle and temple; and when prophets brought the Word of God to Israel. The whole nation prospered at times like this, even though many in the nation were godless and unbelieving. In most cases these unregenerate people followed the practice established by good kings, priests and prophets, even though it was only outward conformity to the law of God.

There were also times when the wicked were in control. Evil kings sat on the throne – such as Ahaz; evil priests sacrificed to idols; evil prophets brought their own words instead of the Word of the Lord. God’s wrath fell on the whole nation until it was destroyed. And the godly suffered also under the fury of God’s wrath. Terrible judgments came upon Judah when Nebuchadnezzar led the nation into captivity, but God-fearing Daniel and his three friends also went to Babylon.

The whole house of Potiphar was blessed for Joseph’s sake (Gen. 39:3). And Paul instructs Timothy to pray for all in authority in the sphere of government, not only because God saves secular rulers as well as other elect, but also “that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 2:1-4).

The same principle holds true today. Nations in the past have attained great power and influence, only to be destroyed for dreadful sins against God’s law. The Roman Empire is a case in point, for its final destruction at the hands of barbarian invaders was brought about by internal moral rot. The nation in which the law of God is outwardly observed is a prosperous nation. Many wicked countries are proof of this, and in them the church flourishes. The nation that breaks God’s law with impunity also soon turns against the church, which condemns the wickedness present in the land.

We must not make the error, as common grace does, of equating material and physical prosperity with God’s blessing. Asaph’s Psalm (73) warns us in no uncertain terms that to think this way is grievous error that will surely rob the people of God of their assurance of God’s favor. Try telling the people of God in Myanmar, who can scarcely keep body and soul together, that material prosperity is indicative of God’s favor. Mere prosperity must never be construed as blessing from God. One reason why God gives prosperity to a nation that outwardly keeps God’s commandment is for the sake of the people of God that they “may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 2:2). Generally speaking, it is easier for the church to carry out her calling in a nation peaceful and prosperous.

I hold firmly to the truth that a wicked man who lives faithfully with the wife of his youth, cares for his family and sends his children to college, is better than the man who abandons his wife because he lusts after some other woman, turns his back on his children and has no regard for their welfare. I hold firmly to the truth that the man who brings groceries to his neighbor when the neighbor is in need is better than the neighbor who shoots the husband in a drunken brawl.

By repudiating the common grace that enables the wicked to do good in the sight of God, I do not intend to deny all these obvious facts. But we must come to grips with two crucial points. Is the good that sinners do good in God’s sight? And, if not, how do we explain this good of which sinners are capable? And their prosperity?

Before I enter into these questions, there is one element to the position that the defenders of common grace hold that is startlingly offensive and casts a huge cloud over the whole concept. I refer to the fact that the objects of common grace, according to the defenders of this doctrine, go to hell. The Holy Spirit dwells in them. They are, through the work of the Holy Spirit, the recipients of God’s grace. They are the objects of love and benevolence. Sin is restrained in them so that the outbreak of sin is less than it would be apart from grace. The Spirit works in them to produce good works that please God and earn His approbation. Yet they go to hell. God casts an object of His love into hell. God’s kindness, suddenly and at the moment of death, turns to fury and hatred.

That is not the whole story, however. God is pleased with his own work – always. God cannot be displeased with what he does. He is pleased with the work of the Spirit in the hearts of the wicked. He is pleased that his Spirit restrains sin. He is pleased with his work of producing good in the lives of the ungodly. Yet he turns His back on what he does and rejects that of which he is the Author and in which he formerly found delight. He, as it were, considering his own work in the ungodly, decides after all that he wants no part of it; that, indeed, the one whom he loves must go to hell everlastingly.

This is strange not only, but a dreadful disparagement of God’s holiness. Such conduct on God’s part involves God in hopeless contradiction and in a changeableness that denies his immutability. How it is possible for one who fears God to think such incredible thoughts about God is impossible for me to understand. I am deeply offended by such characterizations of God.

There is, as far as I can see, only one solution to this problem that is available to those who defend such ideas. That solution opens the door wide to every form of Arminianism and Pelagianism. It is a solution that teaches that God’s common grace puts man in a spiritual position to recognize God as one who is ready to save him, but does not do so until he himself accepts God’s overtures of love. Then punishment is due to God’s anger over man’s refusal to act favorably to God’s sincere efforts to save him. Man is then the one who determines his own salvation, and God’s work of saving the sinner depends upon man’s reactions to God’s initiatives and overtures of love. This, I say, drives us into the arms of Pelagianism, which the Canons calls a doctrine out of hell.

And so, however you may explain this strange doctrine, you wind up with a god who is a caricature of the God of the Scriptures.

With warm regards,
Prof Hanko

What of the unbelievers' "good works?" (36)

Dear Forum members,

I have finished our discussion of that part of common grace that speaks of an inner restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly that changes their natures for the better, mitigates somewhat the devastating power of total depravity, enables the man thus blessed with grace to do good in the sight of God, but nevertheless fails to save him, so that eventually he goes to hell in spite of all these gracious influences. It is a strange, but nevertheless a widely taught error.

I have now to turn to that part of the doctrine of common grace that emphasizes the good that sinners are able to do by these gracious works of the Holy Spirit. In the nature of the case, I have talked a bit about this aspect already, for it is really impossible to speak of the gracious restraint of sin without talking about the good deeds that result. But we have to deal with this aspect of common grace separately, for it is separately mentioned and it is given separate “proof”.

I remind our readers of a few things we talked about earlier that also have bearing on this point. It was Dr. Abraham Kuyper who introduced this idea into the whole view of common grace, which was not held earlier in the churches of Scotland, England and the Netherlands, except insofar as Arminianism with its doctrine of freewill was held. The commonly-held view of common grace had chiefly to do with the gracious and well-meant gospel offer that was taught so widely in the post-Reformation churches. Kuyper’s purpose was different; he wanted to engage the entire country in Netherlands, believers and unbelievers alike, in his efforts to plant the Reformed Faith in all parts of the world. Neo-Kuyperianism has prostrated itself at the feet of Kuyper.

In order to have clearly before us the issues of common grace that teach that the unregenerate are capable of doing good that is pleasing to God, I quote the third point of the decisions of the Christian Reformed Church. I quote this decision because it is, so far as I know, the only official decision in Presbyterian and Reformed Churches on this subject. The view is widely taught and many hold to it, but rarely has it been officially adopted as dogma in any denomination of note. The point at issue reads:

“Relative to the third point, which is concerned with the question of civil righteousness as performed by the unregenerate, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confessions the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good. This is evident from Dordrecht, 3/4.4, and from the Netherlands Confession, Article 36, which teach that God without renewing the heart so influences man that he is able to perform civil good; while it also appears from the citations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from ancient times were of the same opinion.” (Quoted from: Hanko and Hoeksema, Ready to Give an Answer [Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1997] 125.)

In dealing with this third kind of common grace, we shall follow the treatment of the idea as it has been explained in the decision of the Christian Reformed Church in 1924. Nowhere else is this work of grace so explicitly set forth as in this point.

The difficulty in understanding this work of God’s common grace in the unbelievers is to understand the distinction which is made between “civil good” and saving good. Herman Hoeksema discusses at some length the evasiveness and disagreement that existed over this question among the defenders of common grace. (See Hoeksema, Ready to Give an Answer,126-128]. But the best we can do is quote Louis Berkhof, himself; he played a major role in the formulation of the decisions, and he took the time to explain them in a pamphlet he wrote.

He writes: “His [the unregenerate man] works may be called good, in a subjective sense, in as far as they are the fruit of inclinations and affections touching the mutual relations of men, which are themselves relatively good, are still operating in man; and in an objective sense, if they in regard to the matter as such are works prescribed by the law, and in the sphere of social life correspond to a purpose that is well-pleasing to God.” (The quotation is taken from Berkhof, De Drie Punten . . . [The Three Points] 50, 51. I am, however, using the translation that appears in Hoeksema, Ready . . . , 127.)

In his Manual of Reformed Doctrine, Berkhof writes: “Common grace enables man to perform what is generally called civil righteousness or natural good, works that are outwardly in harmony with the law of God, though entirely destitute of any real spiritual quality.” (Louis Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1933] 228.)

While it remains difficult to understand precisely what is meant by civil good or civil righteousness, the following seem to be implied. 1) It is to be distinguished from saving good. Emphasis on this point is thought to preserve the doctrine of total depravity. 2) Because this good involves inclinations and affections, the good which this aspect of common grace produces includes good thoughts, desires, emotions and other activities of the mind and will. Presumably, in this category of good can be found the love of a man for his wife and children, though he is not regenerated. 3) The natural man does civil good when he keeps outwardly in his external conduct, the law of God. Examples are probably such things as stopping for a red traffic light, being an honest employee who does not steal from his employer, is no child molester, etc. 4) Such civil good would also, I presume, include donations to build hospitals, establish foundations for research in various genetic diseases, giving to charitable institutions that feed, clothe and provide sleeping quarters for “street people.” 4) Such works as bringing groceries to the next-door neighbor when the husband is out of work, pulling a car out of the ditch for a family that has slid into the ditch on icy roads, and helping the man across the street build a shed for his lawn mower.

But it must be remembered that common grace teaches that such “good works” are the fruit of the operations of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the unregenerate, which operations restrain sin and produce these good deeds. That is, if the Holy Spirit is the Author in the unregenerated man of these works, they are surely pleasing in the sight of God. And, in addition, these good works are present in the unregenerate because God is gracious to the unregenerate and manifests His love for the unregenerate in giving him the power to do good works.

Various Biblical passages were also quoted in support of this position that the unregenerate man is capable of civil good. These passages are: II Kings 10:29, 30; II Kings 12:2; II Kings 14:3; II Chronicles 25:2; Luke 6:33; Romans 2:14; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. The reader is asked to look up these passages and study them with a view to discovering himself whether they teach what the synod claimed they taught. I will discuss them in later installments in this forum, but it seems to me that it does not take much exegetical acumen to realize that the proof that synod appealed to is spurious.

In the meantime, there is another aspect to this question that must not be forgotten. The four aspects of the one doctrine of common grace are all parts of one whole and thus belong together. The underlying doctrine of all aspects of common grace, expressed in the first point, is that God is gracious, loving and kind to all men, elect and reprobate alike. It is this universal grace that manifests itself in various gifts: the offer of the gospel, the good gifts God gives to man, especially in rain and sunshine, the work of the Spirit in restraining sin, and the ability of man to do good.

But there is also an internal connection between the four aspects of God’s universal attitude of favor towards all men. On the one hand, it is the inner work of the Holy Spirit in man that enables him to do good (a relationship between the second and third points). On the other hand, it is this same work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men that enables them to accept or reject the gospel offer.

But there is another internal connection. In fact, God’s gifts of good things, His inner restraint of sin and the good works which the sinner is able to perform all point to the chief goal of common grace, the salvation of all men. The gracious gospel offer is the final purpose of God in giving all these many good things to man. In the end, God wants to save man. He expresses His desire to save all men, He does all He can so that on His part there is nothing more to do. He loves all men; He tells them of His love in the gospel; He gives them countless good gifts to show His love for them. He restrains sin in them by His Holy Spirit; He gives them the power to accept or reject the offer. He enables them to do good in the world. What more can God do? Wicked men are surrounded by His goodness and experience this goodness in their hearts. It only remains for them to accept God’s love or reject it.

I am aware of the fact that Dr. Kuyper originally invented this idea of common grace because he was searching for a why to explain that there is a lot of seeming good in the world, which makes it possible for the church to survive. But Kuyper was also looking for some theological basis to justify cooperation between the wicked and the people of God; he found that theological basis in his theory of common grace. Because the Holy Spirit enables the unregenerate to do good, therefore the righteous may work along with the wicked in the pursuit of certain mutually desirable goals that can be realized in this world. These mutually desirable goals serve to bring about the kingdom of Christ here below.

Kuyper did not deny that the kingdom of Christ was heavenly and that it would be realized only at the time of Christ’s return, but in some more limited way the kingdom would also be realized in this present world, so that Christ, when He comes, can take the kingdom, already established, into heaven.

Post-millennialism, especially of the Neo-Kuyperians, takes the whole concept a step further and speaks of a complete realization of Christ’s kingdom here in the world. And their conclusion is a logical deduction from the teachings of Kuyper. It is not strange that Neo-Kuyperian post-millennialists appeal to him in support of their position.

I am aware of the fact that defenders of common grace do not specifically and in detail draw out all these relationships and internal connections. I am also aware of the fact that some would limit God’s manifestation of common grace to less than that expressed in the three points of common grace adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1924. Nevertheless, grace is grace, and the objects of grace receive grace, not only objectively in hearing the preaching of the gospel, which tells them of God’s love for them, but also subjectively in their hearts by God’s Spirit.

Common grace is a pernicious error and influences all theology and life.

With warmest regards,

Prof. Herman Hanko

Protestant Reformed Position regarding Common Grace (35)

Dear Forum members,

I spent the last installment calling attention to two articles in the Reformed creeds, the Canons of Dordt and the Confession of Faith, which have been appealed to in support of common grace. Both articles deal with natural light: the Canons with “glimmerings of natural light” and the Confession of Faith with “a few remains” of those excellent gifts man received at man’s creation.

Setting aside for the moment the question of what is meant by glimmerings of natural light, it is interesting to note that these two articles refute Dr. Abraham Kuyper’s views in at least one respect. You will recall that when we were talking about Kuyper’s view of the fall, we noted that Kuyper’s idea was that if God had not intervened with his common grace, man would, after the fall, have become a beast or even a devil. But these articles teach emphatically that after the fall man remained man. He was just as much a man after the fall as he was before the fall. His essential character as a man did not change. He still possessed a body and soul, a mind and will. He still remained a rational and moral creature responsible for all he did.

But as both articles make clear, man’s spiritual character changed radically. Man lost the image of God, which the Confession of Faith describes as making man “good, righteous and holy.” But man, losing the image, became wicked, perverse and corrupt in all his ways, and all the light that was in him was changed into darkness” (Article 14). He became totally depraved.

What then are the few remains of which the Confession of Faith speaks? and the “glimmerings of natural light” of which the Canons speaks?

It is traditional in Reformed theology to speak of man as a rational and moral creature. That is, he was created with a mind and a will. Because he possessed a mind and a will, he could know God through God’s Word in the creation and worship and serve God as was his calling. His delight was in the Lord his God, and God’s will was his only joy.

Because he was a creature with a mind and will, he was also image bearer. But the image of God is a spiritual concept, in distinction from the natural gifts of Adam’s rational and moral being. The image of God in man included the true knowledge of God, righteousness, and holiness. Man reflected God’s infinite moral perfections in his own nature, although he did so in a creaturely way.

The Confessions teach that when man fell, he lost the image of God entirely. The Confession of Faith puts it this way: “We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin. . . . And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God. . . ” (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 588).

Those excellent gifts, which man lost are the image of God in man, namely, knowledge, righteousness and holiness, These are attributes that belong to God but which are given graciously to man at his creation. The Confession of Faith teaches that man lost the image in its entirety. Many defenders of common grace hold to the fact that man retained some remnants of the image because, so they say, the “remnants” and “glimmerings” of which the confessions speak are remnants and glimmerings of the image of God. It is also true that some have, as I said, included rationality and morality in the image of God, and thus refer to the fact that man retained some remnants and glimmerings of these attributes that make man a man. There is no objection to that view, but just as soon as one says that man, even after the fall, retained some elements of the image of God, he is bound to add that man retained some remnants of the knowledge of God, righteousness and holiness.

Scripture never says that rationality and morality belong to the image of God in man, and it is wrong to include them in the image.

So it is that Reformed theologians have sometimes distinguished between the image of God in man in the “broad” sense, and in the “narrow” sense. By the former is meant, in addition to knowledge, righteousness and holiness, also rationality, morality and sometimes, immortality. (See as an example, Louis Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1933] 129, 130) But our Confessions do not make that mistake, and there is no ground for such a distinction in Scripture (See Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10).

This does not mean that rationality and morality are not important. Rationality means that man is a thinking creature; morality means that man possess a will, which is finally decisive in man’s moral conduct; that is, in doing good or evil. Man can be an image bearer of God only because he has a rational, moral nature. A tree or an animal cannot be an image bearer. Rationality and morality, and thus the ability to be an image-bearer belong only to man.

When man fell, he lost God’s image. But that does not mean that he is no longer an image bearer; he is. The terrifying reality is that man, instead of bearing the image of God, now bears the image of Satan. The true knowledge with which he was endowed was changed into the lie, for Satan is a liar from the beginning. The righteousness of God in man was changed into unrighteousness, and his holiness into corruption. Jesus speaks of this when he tells the Pharisees, those model law-keepers: “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it.” (John 8:43, 44). Children bear the image of their father; children of Satan bear the image of Satan. The Pharisees were of their father the devil.

Our confessions, summing up the doctrines of Scripture on the fall of man teach that, although man lost the image of God, man remained man. Abraham Kuyper was terribly wrong when he denied that. The tragedy of the fall is that man fell and became a sinful and corrupt man. He is not a beast; he is not a devil; he is a man. There is no need for the introduction of a common grace in order to preserve his manness. As the devils, after they fell remain fallen angels, so man, after he fell, remains man.

Because he remained a man, he also remained a rational and moral creature who is capable of being an image bearer – though now of Satan; but always one in whom the image of God can be restored. He is rational and he is moral. He has a mind and a will. He can know things and he can make choices. He is responsible before God for what he does because he is rational and moral.

Now the Confessions say, about man’s rationality and morality, that he retains a few glimmerings of these powers. Or, as the Canons put it, he retains glimmerings of natural light – note: not spiritual light, but natural light, light that belongs to his nature. Remnants and glimmerings are not much. One finds remnants when moths have spent a whole year in eating a fur coat and only a few drooping tatters are left. Glimmerings are like the flickering flame of a candle when compared to the sun. So, although man brags endlessly about his powers of intellect and will, he doesn’t possess much any more in comparison with what Adam possessed in Paradise. Even his natural powers are severely reduced till almost nothing is left.

Such devastating erosion of man’s natural powers is due to the curse on the creation and on man, and the total spiritual corruption of his nature, including mind and will. The consequences of man’s sin were dreadful indeed. Even learning, thinking, figuring things out, understanding the creation, penetrating the mysteries of God’s world, remembering what he learned, organizing his knowledge -- all these operations of the mind are performed with the utmost difficulty and with strenuous labor. He is prone to mistakes, easily deceived by appearances, led down wrong paths in his thinking, and only recovering after many trials. Man at his best is not much.

How true this is when men adopt the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of things. Evolutionism, on the surface, is ridiculous and unable to explain many obvious things in the creation. But men swear by it, promote it as absolute truth, explain all things by it and even hate those who oppose it.

The same is true of the powers of the will. Man has only “glimmerings.” He can choose between going to church and staying home to sleep; he can choose between buying a Volvo or a Kia. He can choose between eating radishes or a t-bone steak; he can choose between being a physicist or a brain surgeon. But that is about all. He cannot choose between doing good or doing evil, for his will is enslaved to sin. The will has lost its greatest power, the ability to choose for God and live in joyful and willing obedience to the Most High. Now his choices are limited, minor, insignificant matters, in no way of any importance either in the history of the world or in his own 70 or 80 years in the world. Because his will is no longer able to make the one important choice that makes all the difference in his life now and forever; all he possesses are “remnants.” Sin has chained his will in the service of Satan.

Even in a broader sense, his powers of will are limited. If he is a drunkard, his will is powerless to turn him to sobriety even if he knows that the path he takes is self-destructive. The drug addict is even in a worse condition. Homosexuality, though leading to sexual diseases, is preferred by him, even when he realizes the dreadful consequences of his life. These choices for sin in opposition to decent and healthier behavior are only natural choices. His will is weak. He does not have much will-power.

Nevertheless, his glimmerings of natural light are sufficient to give him “some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil.” He “discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.” (Canons 3/3.4).

Let us look at that list of things he can know and do. According to Romans 1, he can know that there is a God and that that God alone is to be worshipped and served as the only true God – as we already noticed was taught in Romans 1:18ff. He can know some “natural things,” such as 2 + 2 = 4 and that a walnut tree produces a different kind of a nut than a pecan tree produces. According to Romans 2:14, 15, he can know the difference between good and evil: the difference between living all his life with one wife, never forsaking her, never marrying again if she should forsake him; the difference between putting money into the bank and robbing the bank. This knowledge of the difference between keeping the law and breaking the law is not the only difference between knowing what is good and what is evil. The unregenerated man knows what is pleasing to God and what is displeasing. He knows that he must worship God alone and that all idolatry is sin – even if he cannot and does not do what God commands. But even this knowledge he suppresses in unrighteousness.

The Confession of Faith (Art. 14) speaks of the fact that the unregenerated man by knowing these things is without excuse. He is judged righteously by God when he is consigned to everlasting darkness.

Does all this mean that man, apart from saving grace, can do good that is pleasing in the sight of God? It does not. When all that the natural man is capable of doing is evaluated by the Canons, the conclusion is: “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” (Canons 3/4.4).

So we can only conclude that common grace is wrong, seriously wrong on two counts: it errs when it describes the effects of sin on man at the time of the fall and thus creates room for the intervention of common grace. It is wrong when it interprets the natural light of which the creeds speak as being spiritual light. It thus denies the truth of total depravity.

With its wrong interpretation of key concepts in Scripture, common grace paves the way for a thorough-going Arminianism. May God save us from that pernicious error.

With warmest regards,

Prof Herman Hanko

What do the Confessions teach about restraint of sin? (34)

Dear Forum members,

Before I get into the material for this installment, I ran across an interesting quote from Augustine, the church father who served as bishop of Hippo and died in the year 430 AD. He, more than any other church father, was quoted by Calvin. I quote this in connection with the previous installment that dealt with God’s sovereignty over sin. The quote is as follows: “For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God, who without doubt can as easily refuse to perish what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For he is not truly called Almighty if He cannot do whatsoever He pleases or if the power of His almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature whatsoever” (Enchirdion, XCVI). It is this doctrine, rejected by Augustine’s own church, which was promoted by Calvin and all subsequent Calvinists.

· * * **

I have really finished what I had to say on the error of an internal operation of God’s Spirit in the hearts of all men, which graciously restrains sin in the natural man, with the result that he is capable of doing good in the sight of God. I pointed out that every Reformed man believes in a restraint of sin. He is compelled to do this simply because he believes in a sovereign God who rules over all, including the wicked. But this truth of God’s sovereignty is a far cry from a gracious operation of the Spirit in the hearts of men, which changes their natures for good, even though this operation of the Spirit does not save.

This letter that I now send to you is a sort of bridge between the idea of common grace that teaches a restraint of sin, and an additional doctrine of common grace, which teaches that the natural man, apart from regeneration, is capable of doing good in the sight of God.

This installment deals with two quotations from our Reformed Confessions that defenders of common grace use in support of both a restraint of sin and the good that sinners do. One quotation is from Canons 3/4.4; the other is from Article 14 from the Confession of Faith (sometimes called the Belgic Confession or the Netherlands Confession).

The quotation from the Canons reads: “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 differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society and for maintaining an orderly external deportment” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931 edition) 588, The article in the Confession of Faith reads: “[Man] hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931 edition) 398, 399.

The argument of the defenders of common grace in their appeal to these two articles in their support of common grace is an appeal to what the Canons calls, “the glimmerings of natural light,” and what the Confession of Faith calls “remains of the excellent gifts man received at his creation.” Further, the defenders of common grace point out that these glimmerings of natural light enable man to retain some knowledge of God and natural things; enable him to know the differences between good and evil; enable him to discover some regard for virtue, good order in society and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.

So, following the reasoning of those who hold to common grace, the internal gracious and restraining work of the Holy Spirit preserves in man these glimmerings or remains of natural light, and these glimmerings are the fruit of the inner restraint of sin in the heart of the sinner by the Holy Spirit. The good works the natural man is capable of performing are those listed in the Canons: some knowledge of God and natural things, some regard for virtue and good order, some ability to maintain an orderly external deportment; and because of common grace, these good works are the fruit of the Spirit’s work. Things get stranger and stranger.

At bottom, the assumption that is made is this: These glimmerings of natural light and remains of God’s excellent gifts are spiritual powers or faculties. What the Canons calls “natural light” is by the theory of common grace changed into spiritual light. Is it not true that the Holy Spirit works a change in man, which alters man’s nature for the better? Is not this a spiritual fruit of the Holy Spirit? And, are not the good works that proceed from this improvement in the nature pleasing in the sight of God? And, if they are pleasing to God, then they have spiritual value and are of spiritual worth.

The Canons themselves dismisses that idea of a spiritual good in man with some very sharp and penetrating words. It is interesting that when the Synod of the CRC adopted the three points of common grace and appealed to these articles in the creeds as proof, the Synod quoted only the first part of Canons 3/4.4, which I have quoted above. But that same article goes on to say, “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, the 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” (Idem, 588). Why did not the synod quote this part of the article? Perhaps because it completely negated their argument? I think so, but we cannot be sure, for the reasons lie in the hearts of men.

So the article itself repudiates many claims that common grace insists the article teaches. Common grace teaches that this light of which the Canons speak makes man more susceptible to being saved; the Canons say that it does not. Common grace explicitly talks about the ability of the natural man to do “civil good”; the Canons say that the natural man cannot use this light of nature “even in things natural and civil”; common grace say that the natural man is capable of some good works; the Canons say that the depraved man renders this natural light in various ways “wholly polluted.” The article to which common grace appeals is itself designed to repudiate common grace. It is not possible that those who composed the three points were unaware of what the rest of the article said. Did the authors of the three points really think that no one was going to read the rest of the article? And thus be persuaded that Canons 3/4.4 actually taught common grace? If so, they had a very low estimate of their opponents.

But much the same can be proved from other expressions in Article 14 of The Confession of Faith. The article describes the creation and fall of man. After briefly describing man’s creation, it goes on to say, “But being in honor, he understood it not (his creation in the image of God, HH) neither knew his excellency, but willingly subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death, and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was the true life, having corrupted his whole nature, whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness” (Idem, 398, 399). It is very difficult to find any common grace of any kind in this article; and only one with common grace-tinted glasses is able to see it.

It is spiritual foolishness to appeal to these articles in proof of any kind of common grace.

But, having said that, we are not relieved of the responsibility of explaining what the two articles really mean. But another installment will be the appropriate place to delve into these questions.

With warm greetings in the Lord,

Prof Hanko

What does the Spirit work in the reprobate? 33

Dear Forum members,

Before I continue our discussion of the restraint of sin and the good the wicked do, I ought to answer a few questions that I received from one of the forum members. These are the questions.

To what extent does the Spirit of God work in the heart of the reprobate?
While never gracious, what is the nature of this work? To what purpose does it serve?
Scripture gives us accounts of the Spirit’s work of hardening hearts (Pharaoh) and restraining sin (Abimelech) in wicked men. How would you further distinguish and explain these two aspects of the Spirit’s work in the lives of the reprobate?
Is it accurate to say that God controls sin by hardening and restraining it in the lives of wicked men until He alone decides when the cup of iniquity is filled?

These questions came from one of our foreign readers. The questions indicate clearly that many throughout the world are interested in holding firmly to the truth of God’s absolute sovereignty. This is encouraging and reason to give thanks to God.

It is indeed true that the questions arise out of a deep sense of the truth of God’s sovereignty. And they cannot be answered in any other way than out of a profound commitment to the truth of God’s sovereignty in all things, including evil. Some years ago when I was still teaching in the Seminary, I and one of my colleagues were discussing how little was the truth of God’s sovereignty maintained in today’s churches. There were many, so he went on to say, that claimed to be Calvinists, but who refused to confess God’s sovereignty in crucial doctrines. The ultimate test, so my colleague stated, of whether a man is truly committed to the truth of God’s sovereignty is: Does he hold to the doctrine of sovereign reprobation?

The questions quoted above have to do with the doctrine of reprobation. But the questions force us to think of sovereign reprobation in a broader way than I have, up to this point, discussed it. I have more than once mentioned reprobation and pointed to its significance in our on-going discussion concerning the question whether God’s grace, in any sense of the word, is general or common, or whether it is only for the elect. These questions suggest an additional aspect to the subject. Granted that God’s sovereignty is also exercised in His control of sin and in His execution of the decree of reprobation, is it Biblical to say that this aspect of God’s sovereignty is effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit?

The two instances the reader brings up are the cases of Pharaoh and Abimelech. The reader who asked the questions referred not to Abimelech, the son of Gideon, but rather the Abimelech who was king of a people in the southwest part of Canaan. Abraham sojourned there for a time during his wanderings in the promised land, but he employed the same ruse here as he had done earlier in Egypt. He told Sarah his wife to tell all they met that she was Abraham’s sister and to keep secret the fact that she was his wife. Abimelech, in the integrity of his heart, determined to make Sarah his wife, but was prevented by God from doing this. God warned him of the sin of marrying Sarah. Abimelech obeyed God, but protested his own innocence. God recognized that Abimelech was indeed innocent, and said to Abimelech, “Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her” (Gen. 20:6).

The questioner asks whether this is a special operation of the Holy Spirit in the reprobate wicked that restrained the sin of Abimelech. It is my judgment that Abimelech was not a reprobate, but a true elect believer. While the text does not say this in so many words, the entire narrative in Genesis 20 very strongly suggests that.

Nor is this necessarily surprising. After Babel and the division of mankind into races and nations, the true religion continued for some time in various places. Although God narrowed this true religion to the descendants of Shem, He did this over a period of many years. Pockets of the true worship of God could be found. Examples would include Job in the land of Ur, a contemporary of Abraham, Melchisedek, king of Salem, a type of Christ’s office of king-priest, Jethro in the wilderness of Sinai, later to become Moses’ father-in-law, and probably Abimelech who seemed on very intimate terms with God in his conversations with God in his dream.

There is no question about the fact that God, by His Holy Spirit, restrains sin in the lives of His people, even sins of ignorance. It is a part of their salvation.

Nor, so far as I know, is the Holy Spirit mentioned in connection with the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.. Scripture certainly makes a point of it that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This is mentioned no less than ten times. It is also said in Scripture that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but, strikingly, a different Hebrew word is used and that only four times.

That God hardened Pharaoh’s heart brings up the question: Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart by the Holy Spirit? If not, how was this accomplished sovereignly by God?

I do not think that the question can be answered with any certainty. I do not know of any passage in Scripture that teaches explicitly that the Holy Spirit is the means God uses to accomplish His purpose in the ungodly.

Having said that, however, the fact seems to be a necessary conclusion from other teachings in Scripture.

As I noted in an earlier installment, Romans 1:19 reads literally, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them” It would seem to me that it is not at all doing violence to the text to interpret that phrase “in them” to mean that God seals the consciousness of His power and glory upon the wicked by the Holy Spirit. The same is true of Romans 2:15: “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts . . . .” The wicked, totally apart from grace, know the difference between right and wrong; and they know that God is the One who determines right and wrong. While all these things can be and are known through the creation, it is very well possible that God seals this knowledge upon on the hearts of the wicked by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This is at least implied in what we are told: that God makes Himself known that the wicked may be without excuse.

Further, all God’s works are works which He performs as the triune God. We must never ascribe some works to the first person of the trinity, some to the second person, and some to the third person. That is a sort of tri-theism, which the church has never taught. All that God does, He does as the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But in all the works of His hands, God makes Himself known. God makes known His own Trinitarian life in such a way that He works as the triune God, through Jesus Christ, and by means of the Holy Spirit. God executes His will sovereignly in all the works of His hands, and does so, according to His eternal determination, through Jesus Christ, His own Son, and by the Holy Spirit given to Christ at Christ’s ascension. Even in the OT there were manifestations of Christ in the Angel of Jehovah (whom Scripture calls God, Gen. 32:30, Gen. 19:24, etc.) and of the Holy Spirit of Christ with whom the office bearers were filled in their work, and by whom the OT Scriptures were written (I Peter 1:11).

If God is sovereign in all He does, including His control over the wicked, surely He does this in the same way He does all His works. If one would consider, for example, Proverbs 21:1 “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” it surely makes no essential difference whether God triune acts directly on the heart of a king to turn it, or whether God turns the heart of a powerful monarch through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture strongly suggests this same truth in connection with the preaching of the gospel. In II Corinthians 2:14-17, Paul says, “Now thanks be unto God which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.”

The apostle is clearly saying here that he gives thanks to God when the response to his preaching (which brings the savour of the knowledge of God to men) is a rejection of the gospel, as well as the fact that he gives thanks to God when his preaching is received by faith. He gives thanks to God in both instances, because God’s purpose is accomplished in both the reception of the gospel by faith and the rejection of the gospel in unbelief. Both reception and rejection are a sacrifice whose odor is pleasing to God. In both God’s purpose is accomplished. So God works faith that saves, but also works unbelief that rejects the gospel. The cross of Christ, set forth in the gospel, is the means of working faith, but also of working unbelief.

The text does not specifically say that unbelief is worked by God through the Holy Spirit, but it makes no difference whether God does this by a direct work on the hearts of men or by a work He performs through the Holy Spirit of Christ.

God sovereignly accomplishes reprobation as well as election. I talked of this earlier, and pointed out that election and reprobation are, according to the Canons of Dordt, one decree. This does not deny that God executes reprobation differently than election. Election is the fountain and cause of faith, and therefore of salvation. Reprobation is accomplished in the way of the sin of the wicked.

And here lies mystery – not contradiction, but mystery. God is sovereign over sin; yet He executes His sovereignty in such a way that the will of sinful man is not violated and man remains responsible for His own sin. The sinner is not coerced by God’s sovereignty to sin. He sins because he wants to sin. He is culpable and is punished. Where the execution of God’s sovereign will, whether or not it is through the Holy Spirit, touches the will of man, we find mystery.

Maintaining these truths, we hold to Scripture.

With warm regards,

Prof. Hanko

Does God 'Restrain Sin"? (32)

Dear Forum members:

I have shown that the doctrine of the gracious restraint of sin is a heresy that holds dire consequences for the church that adopts it. The truth that Scripture teaches is exactly the opposite of a gracious restraint of sin. Scripture teaches that the world gets worse in its sin as time goes on, and that the sinfulness of man climaxes in the man of sin, Antichrist. To this truth I devote this installment.
* * * *

Before I proceed any further in our discussion, let me emphasize that Scripture most emphatically teaches a restraint of sin. My opposition to this doctrine of common grace is not that God never restrains sin. He does. My quarrel is with the idea that the restraint of sin is a gracious operation of the Spirit of Christ in the heart of the natural man that changes the moral character of a man’s depraved nature, but does not save him.
God does however, restrain sin. He restrains sin by His providence in such a way that a sinner is limited in the expression of sin by the circumstances of life in which God’s providence places him. Man is totally depraved apart from the work of regeneration. He is as bad as he can be. Nothing at all alters the total corruption of his nature. He is completely incapable of doing anything morally good and pleasing in the sight of God. Everything that proceeds from his evil nature is contrary to God’s moral will. It is not only a matter of passively having a corrupt nature, but that nature expresses itself in his thoughts, words, deeds, desires and activity. All the expression of his corrupt nature is actively opposed to God. Scripture paints a picture of man that is dreadful to contemplate.

A clear instance of God’s providential restraint of sin is found in Genesis 11:1-9. To prevent a premature realization of the one-world kingdom of Antichrist under Nimrod, the Lord divided the people into nations, races and languages, for if a one-world government had been formed then, the elect church of God could not have been gathered through the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the truth of total depravity stands.

If we doubt the Biblical teaching on this doctrine, then we need only consult Paul’s scathing description of the natural man in Romans 3:10-18, where the apostle affirms the teachings of the OT Scriptures by quoting them with approval. We may also take seriously what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1, in which passage he describes the sinner as “dead in trespasses and sins.” The sinner exists in the world, but he is morally and spiritually dead and is as incapable of doing anything good as a corpse is incapable of any signs of life. It is easier for a corpse to raise its head and talk than for a totally depraved sinner to do good.

But man is limited by the all-comprehensive providence of God from expressing his sin. It is in this area that sin develops. God is sovereign in all this creation. He is sovereign also over sinful men and devils. He does all His good pleasure according to His eternal determination of all history in His eternal counsel. Such sovereign control extends also to the development of sin in this world.

Several points have to be made in connection with this development of sin.

The history of the pre-deluvian world was an illustration of such development. I discussed this at some length in an earlier installment and will not repeat what I said then. But all the elements of the development of sin from the flood to the end of the world were also present in that world that was destroyed by the flood. And, the chief point is that God destroyed that old world with the flood because it had filled the cup of iniquity. That is, the depraved nature of man had manifested itself in every possible sin when the flood came. The world could not have gotten more sinful than it was at that time. It was filled with totally depraved men not only, but the depraved nature of man had expressed itself in every possible sin that could have been and was committed. Chiefly, this was true because the line of Cain developed the creation to its fullest extent and used all the powers of creation in the service of sin. In addition to this remarkable development, the world so persecuted the church that the church was reduced to one family of eight members. Divine judgment at that time was necessary to preserve the church. The ultimate sin is, therefore, the persecution of the church.

But let me go back a bit. I said earlier in this installment that God restrains sin by providentially controlling the circumstances of people in their life in the world. A poor man with little possessions cannot sin as a Rockefeller can sin. A man who works on an assembly line cannot sin as much as a man who owns ten prosperous companies. A mere citizen cannot sin as much as a politician. A quadriplegic cannot sin as much as a Tiger Woods. A man in the jungles of Mindanao cannot sin in the same way that an inhabitant of New York City can sin. God determines all the circumstances of a man’s life, including every detail. And so, while all men are equally depraved, the expression of their depravity is limited by God’s providential determination of the circumstances of their life. The time and age in which they live (whether the fifth century or the twenty-first century), the country of which they are citizens, the position of power that they hold in politics, the economy (whether prosperous America or poverty-stricken Zimbabwe) and in the use of their earthly possessions – all outside their control – determine the sins they commit.

God also restrains sin because He gives all men a knowledge of right and wrong. We discussed earlier the passage in Romans 2:14, 15, which clearly teaches that all men know what is pleasing to God and what is displeasing to Him. This knowledge of right and wrong that the wicked possess is not an evidence of God’s grace to them (why should it be?), but is God’s way of leaving the wicked without excuse. They sin and know that they sin. For this they go to hell.

But in the lives of some in the world these wicked men see clearly that law and order ought to be maintained in the world, because without it society cannot survive. And man sees too that an outward observance of the ten commandments is the way to maintain law and order. This is unsanctified common sense and it does not require regeneration or common grace for anyone to see this. If the sixth commandment is not enforced by the magistrate and murder becomes commonplace, society disintegrates and becomes a jungle. Even an unregenerated child can see that.

Job teaches us that God even restrains the devil. When God gave the devil power to take away Job’s possessions and his health, God told Satan that he would not be able to kill Job (Job 2:1-6). God’s sovereign control, even of devils, is so total that all the wickedness of man is overtly expressed only as God wills it.

But even then, the fact is that if man can break the commandments of God and to all appearances “get away with it,” that is, not suffer the consequences of it, he will do so. He violates the Sabbath with impunity. While piously prolonging life of aged people, some of whom have lost their powers of rationality, he murders unborn infants by the millions. He will manifest his sin as much as he dares without jeopardizing his own comfortable place in life.
But more than this, increasingly he will blind himself to the consequences of his sin in order to justify his continual pleasure in the sin. It is evident to all that homosexual practices lead to sexual diseases including the HIV virus. Does this curb homosexual practices? No. The solution to the problem, according to the world, is not to refrain from sin, but to find a cure for sexual diseases. And anyone who dares to say that the prevalence of HIV is God’s judgment on the sin of homosexuality is in danger of being tarred and feathered, if not worse. Though divorce and remarriage lead to badly hurt children and open fornication, still man closes his eyes to the terrible consequences of such immorality and approves of the practice, even legalizing it. What is worse, the church itself approves.

This too is the development of sin. As wicked man thinks he can sin without having to suffer sin’s consequences, he indulges the more readily in his corruption. When he knows that fornication could result in an unwanted pregnancy, his fear can be assuaged by the knowledge that obtaining an abortion is not difficult – and that the government may even pay for it; and so he continues in his fornication and, indeed, becomes increasingly promiscuous, because he fears no unwanted consequences.

One more element must be considered in connection with the development of sin. Man was given the so-called cultural mandate prior to his fall. He was to be fruitful and multiply, and he was to subdue the earth. Now it is that last part that is of interest. To subdue the earth means to use the whole creation and all its powers in the service of God and to the glory of His name.
When man fell, the cultural mandate remained in effect and man remained able to keep it insofar as subduing the earth is concerned. Man was still called to subdue the earth. And he eagerly assumes responsibility for doing this. But what he does not do is use the creation in the service of God and to the glory of God’s name. Rather, he uses whatever powers he discovers in the creation and whatever contraptions and tools he can make to increase his means of expressing his sinful nature. He harnesses these powers in the service of sin. He is bent on forcing all these powers into the sinful use of them to satisfy his own lusts, and to promote his own false theories of evolution.

This is a major contributing factor in the development of sin. Cain could not sin with a Lexus sports model and Nimrod could not sin with a TV set. People in bygone years could not sin with our modern inventions and pornography could not become so all-pervasive without the internet and cell phones. Or, to put it a little differently, with every modern invention man has a new way to express his depravity, something he is bound to do. The sleaze and filth that have become so much a part of our modern culture would be impossible without modern technology. The creation is God’s and its powers are marvelous, but every one of these powers in the hands of the wicked has become a new way to sin.

It is true, of course, that modern inventions can be used for good purposes. The miracles of modern medicine can and do prolong life. (Whether this is always good is quite another thing. It doesn’t take too many visits to nursing homes filled with doddering and irrational people to make one wonder whether long life is a good thing.) Communications bring people closer together. The power of the atom can generate electricity and drive ships over the seas. But all these “good” things only prove that there is no evil in the creation itself nor in the powers that man discovers; but sinful man uses them to sin and to satisfy his own lust for pleasure and prolong his life out of fear of death and the judgment.

This doctrine deserves more extensive treatment, but I reserve further discussion until I discuss the doctrine of common grace that teaches that the unregenerated man can do good.

As man discovers the powers of creation and puts them to his use, his sin becomes worse, even though man claims that by these powers he is solving the problems of society and bringing prosperity to the world. As a matter of fact, he will undoubtedly be successful in this endeavor as well. He will, according to Scripture, attain to a kingdom of universal peace and prosperity. It will apparently be such a “wonderful” kingdom that people will be duped into thinking that Christ’s kingdom has indeed been realized here in the world and all the promises of Scripture brought to reality by the might and ingenuity of man. But in fact it will be the kingdom of the Antichrist who claims that he is Christ (II Thess. 2:3, 4).

In that kingdom I have no doubt but that all the powers of the creation will have been discovered and put to man’s use. The earth will have been entirely subdued and man can expect no more inventions, for he has attained his goal. But it will be a kingdom of great sin, for Antichrist is called in Scripture “the man of sin” (II Thess. 2:3); that is, he will be the total embodiment of all sin that preceded him and that reaches its culmination in him.
But in that kingdom there is no room for the faithful people of God ( Rev. 13). The Antichrist, with the full cooperation of the wicked world, will commit that greatest sin of all, the extermination of the church. It is the same world that crucified Christ that now vents its hatred of Christ by destroying Christ’s bride. No greater sin can be committed. The church is Christ’s bride, the object of His love, the bride for which He gave His own life. His one great concern throughout all history is the salvation of His bride, which bride is His reason for His universal rule. His love for His bride is so great that He will do anything at all for her. That bride the world spits on, slaps in the face, mutilates and abuses, mocks and scorns, and finally kills. Does anyone think that Christ will witness this dreadful treatment of His bride without being moved to the fiercest of anger? With such a great sin, the cup of iniquity is filled and judgment is not longer restrained.

The mighty and apparently glittering kingdom of Antichrist will be shown to be a house of cards that collapses by its own internal rot, and judgments come both swift and terrible.
Such is the teaching of Scripture. Any one who cannot see this happening in the world around him is one who deliberately shuts his eyes to reality. The world getting better and better? It takes some powerful self-delusion to convince one’s self of the truth of this notion.

I close with a personal experience. In a time when I corresponded at some length with an ardent post-millennialist, I asked him how he could justify his position that the time would come when the world accepted the Reformed faith – how he could maintain this in the light of every day experience. One need only read the newspapers and their sad tale of sinful horrors to abandon that position. His response said something to the effect that, yes, the world was getting worse, but this would continue until the world itself realized that it had made a mess of things and that solutions to the world’s woes were to be found elsewhere. The place where the world would find solutions to its problems would be, he claimed, in the Reformed faith, and to it the world would turn out of sheer desperation. That idea is not much on which to pin one’s hope for the future.

With warm regards,

Prof Hanko

Sundry Arguments for "gracious restraint of sin" (31)

Dear Forum members:

In my examination of the proof that has been offered in support of a common grace of God that is given men by a gracious operation of the Spirit of God in the hearts of all men, which restrains their sin, I demonstrated that the proof offered is not adequate to support such a theological doctrine. The simple fact is (and it can hardly be disputed) that no Scriptural or confessional proof can be found for such a preposterous teaching. Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures will immediately find such a teaching at odds with the whole body of Scriptural truth

There are other objections to this view. I bring them to your attention for your thoughtful analysis.

One objection is the supposition of Dr. Abraham Kuyper (who first promoted this view) that the fall would have resulted in Adam and his posterity becoming beasts or devils if God had not intervened with His common grace. There is not a shred of evidence in Scripture for such a supposition, not even in the narrative of the fall of Adam and Eve as it is described in Genesis 3. But let us take a look at this supposition. It is obvious, first of all, that man would not and could not have become a devil. Man is of this creation, a part of the material world, made from the dust of the earth. It would be impossible for him to become a creature who is not material nor made from the stuff of this world. His very essence would have to be changed to something like the essence of angels, in which event he could no longer live in this world. Or, if as Kuyper sometimes said, man would have become a beast when he fell if God did not intervene, I think I would consider this preferable to remaining a man. A beast cannot go to hell. When a beast dies, that is the end of it: it has no existence beyond death. Adam remained a man; that is the tragedy of the fall.

In any case, the Canons of Dordt repudiate such speculation when in 3/4.16 the fathers write: “But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin, which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks . . .” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. III [New York: Harper & Brothers, no date] 591.) It is difficult if not impossible to imagine how Dr. Kuyper, sworn to loyalty to the Confessions and fully aware of this article, could teach what he did.

The terrible part of the fall is that man remains man. He is still a rational and moral creature, answerable to God for what he does, subject to terrible punishment when he, by a choice of his own will, defies God.

A second objection to this so-called inner and divine restraint of sin is its denial of the total depravity of the natural man. The inner restraint of the Holy Spirit in all men does deny total depravity in spite of the protestations of the supporters of common grace. It is a gracious work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men that alters morally the nature of man. This is a denial of the total depravity of the natural man apart from regeneration, and therefore a sacrifice of a crucial part of Calvinism. Hence, the question and answer found in Lord’s Day 3 is denied: “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness? Indeed we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God” (question and answer 8). The defenders of common grace would have to answer the question by saying, “Indeed we are except we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit or have the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to restrain sin, though never saving us.” If Calvinism no longer teaches the total depravity of the natural man, then salvation is not entirely the work of saving grace, but involves man’s cooperation.

But there is an interesting aspect to this whole question, which is frequently overlooked. The inner working of the Holy Spirit in the natural man is, after all, said to be grace. It is one gift of God’s favor upon the natural man. Though he is not an elect of God, and, presumably, though Christ did not die for him, and though he will not go to heaven with this kind of grace, it is a grace that changes his nature from one of total depravity to one that is partly good and partly bad. The reason for this is that even this work of the Holy Spirit puts man in much more favorable position to be saved. This kind of grace, an improvement over his totally depraved state, enables him to do some good, namely to accept or reject the offers of the gospel. The gracious and well-meant gospel offer is also a work of common grace to a sinner who already has the grace of the restraint of sin and the resultant change of his nature for the better.

All this is Arminian language and a denial of the sovereign grace of God in the work of salvation. It is a theological heresy that is specifically mentioned in the Canons of Dordt as a doctrine that needs to be condemned. Canons 3/4.B: Error 5 reads: “We condemn the error of those who teach that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that in this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since He applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion.”

“Rejection: For the experience of all ages and the Scriptures do both testify that this is untrue. He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his ordinances, they have not known them (Ps. 147:19, 20). Who in the generations gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 13:16). And: And they (Paul and his companions) having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit suffered them not (Acts 16:6, 7). (_______, The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches [Published by the Protestant Reformed Churches, 2005] 171, 172. The rejection of errors, an important part of the Canons, is not found in Schaff, The Creed of Christendom).

Thus common grace, though taught by professing Reformed men, militates directly against the Canons of Dordt. This is inexcusable and culpable conduct.

Also serious is the claim that the inner restraint of sin destroys the Biblical truth of the antithesis. Already in 1924, Rev. Herman Hoeksema warned the Synod that adopted the three points of common grace that the error of an inner and gracious restraint of sin in the hearts of all men would destroy the antithesis and open the way for a flood of worldliness that would pour into the church. And so it has happened. While worldliness is a grave danger against which we all have to fight and which has had its own influence on our lives, the difference is that a true church fights against it and condemns it, while churches that adopt such a view as common grace officially justify it, for these churches have given worldliness a doctrinal foundation.

It is not my purpose to enter into the question of the antithesis at this point. But a few remarks would not be out of place.

The antithesis is most clearly expressed by Paul in II Corinthians 6:14 – 7:1: “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? Of what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

The apostle uses the figure of two animals being yoked together to make his point. Two animals bound together by the same yoke will be of no value if they are unequal; that is, if they are a young antelope and an old ox yoked together, or if they are of two different minds so that one refuses to pull, or if each is determined to go a different direction. Being yoked together will work if they are both of approximately equal strength and are both working for the same goal – to pull a plow exactly where the farmer wishes them to go. They must have the same purpose. But the believer and unbeliever have two separate and distinctly different purposes in life and every effort to unite them in a common purpose will fail. The believer pulls in the direction of God, the unbeliever pulls in the direction of sin.

The totally depraved wicked are under the control of their master Satan and the hordes of demons who are subject to Satan’s will. As they work in this creation, which God created and still upholds, they have as their purpose the goal of using God’s world to serve their own wicked pleasures and satisfy their own evil lusts. The believers are, by nature, the same, but through the work of regeneration, they are made servants of Christ, representatives of God’s covenant in the world and are called to live according to an entirely different rule of conduct than the wicked. Their book of conduct is the sacred Scriptures, which calls them to use all things to the glory of God’s name through the use of God’s world to advance the cause of the preaching of the gospel and the gathering of the church.

Scripture uses different ideas to indicate the place and calling of believers in this world. They are pilgrims and strangers in the earth, because the wicked rule and dominate and the righteous have their home in heaven towards which they bend their footsteps as they travel their spiritual journey (I Peter 1:1, 2:11; Heb. 11:13; Psalm 39:12. The wicked seek to make this world the kingdom of darkness, while the people of God are citizens of another kingdom that shall only be established when “the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ.” (Col. 1:13, Rev. 11:15). The wicked have Satan as their father (John 8:44); while the righteous have God as their Father and Christ as their elder brother.

Both do have one thing in common: this creation. They both live in the world. They both are citizens of an earthly country. They both must earn their daily bread by means of their occupation. They both eat and drink what the creation provides. They both marry and have children. They both make use of the powers of God’s world: wind, rain, sunshine, electricity, as well as automobiles, TVs, radios, airplanes, clothing, cell phones and the money they earn.

Yet, they do not have grace in common. And so the wicked live out of the principle of their totally depraved natures in their use of the things of this world, while the righteous live out of the principle of a regenerated heart. The former seek the things that are below, the latter seek the things which are above where Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1-3).

And so the antithesis cuts through the whole of life: truth versus the lie, right versus wrong, what is proper conduct in the world and what is in obedience to the law of God; how one dresses and what one reads; what music one listens to and what art is God-glorifying; why one weeps and laughs, though both do the same; what is one’s goal in life and what ends does he pursue; what organizations does he join and what organizations does he abhor; how he uses his computer and electronic wizardry and for what reason he drives his car; why he marries and has children, and why he spends the Lord’s day in church rather than out on the beach. In short, the antithesis involves principally different world-and-life views that affect the whole of his life and every part of it; they are contrary to each other.

The doctrine of the restraint of sin gives to believers and unbelievers a certain area of life that both have in common. It is a morally neutral area in which there are no rights and wrongs. It is a “playing field” where righteous and unrighteous play by the same rules. It is a place where Christ and Belial (to use Paul’s expression) can sit in front of the fireplace, enjoy one another’s company, and have fellowship in a common life. It is an important area of life in which those who belong to the temple of God can work with those who belong to the synagogue of Satan. It is a “yoking together” which drives both to work towards a common purpose – the establishment of a kingdom of Christ in the world, a better place to live, a wholesome atmosphere in which to bring up children.

It is understandable and inevitable that in this sphere where evil men and godly men work together that godly men are going to join in promoting the goals of evil men. Evil men are totally depraved; godly men have only a small beginning of the holiness of God. From working together to build the same house, they drive together to the local pub to “have a beer.” From the local pub they go to each other’s home to enjoy each other’s company. But the evil man is not going to budge an inch in his pursuit of sin, and the godly man is going to put himself into areas in which his sinful nature will drag him into the camp of the enemies of God. It’s hard enough to live a godly life without companying with wicked men who do only evil.

Common grace says, “Yes, all cooperation and fellowship are possible for all have grace.” No wonder the world overwhelms the believer and worldliness engulfs the church. But those who believe and hold to the truth of particular and sovereign grace heed the call of Christ: “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (II Cor. 6:17).

I must mention one more serious objection to the idea of a gracious and inner restraint of sin. The objection is this: Such a view leads to a post-millennial view of the kingdom of Christ. I have no evidence that Dr. Abraham Kuyper was a post-mil – as the Neo-Kuyperians claim, but his view leads directly to such a post-mil conception of the kingdom of our Lord. If Kuyper wanted the Netherlands to be a fountainhead of the Reformed faith, the water of which would flow into every country on earth and establish the Reformed faith as the dominant faith in that country (as was the case in the Netherlands) this could only be because the kingdom of Christ would be attained here in the world. This was the main point of Kuyper’s book, Pro Rege (For the King). All creation and all institutions of society had to be subjected to the rule of Christ. When this should happen, as Kuyper confidently expected that it would, the kingdom of Christ was realized in this world.

It is with some justification that the Neo-Kuyperians who have become thoroughly post-mil, appeal to the Kuyper of common grace for their support. But post-mil is a serious error, and the spiritual danger of post-mil theology is that the people of God identify the kingdom of Antichrist with the kingdom of Christ, for Antichrist brings peace to the nations, solves the world’s ills, and claims himself to be the Christ.

* * * *

Over against this serious departure from the truth, the Scriptures set another doctrine, which, in Reformed theology, has come to be called “The Organic Development of Sin.” To this positive truth we will give our attention in the next letter.

With warm regards,

Prof Hanko