II Thess. 2:6,7 & Belgic Confession, Arts. 13, 36 (30)

Dear Forum members:

In talking about that aspect of common grace that is called “the inner restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the unregenerate.” I was talking about the Scriptural proof offered to support this idea. I continue an investigation of this proof.

Another passage of Scripture quoted in support of this idea is II Thessalonians 2:6, 7: “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.”

As far as the text itself is concerned, this is a very difficult passage for various reasons and many interpretations have been offered of it. It is not my intention to mention all these various interpretations and to exegete the passage in detail to learn what the Holy Spirit has in mind in this verse. My intention is simply to ask and answer the question: Can this text in any way support a doctrine of the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the unregenerate that enables them to do works pleasing to God? And the answer to that question is certainly a negative one.

If one is to find in this passage a reference to the gracious restraining power of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the unregenerate, then some sort of interpretation similar to the following would have to be given. The apostle is speaking here of the rise of antichrist at the end of time. Antichrist is called “the man of sin” in the context. He is part of the “mystery of iniquity” that is present in the world (I John 2:18). But this rise of antichrist is graciously restrained by the Holy Spirit, for that which “withholdeth” is supposed to be a reference to the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will graciously restrain sin in the hearts of the reprobate, particularly in the antichristian development of antichrist in history, and enable those who stand in this historical development of antichrist to do good throughout most of the new dispensation until the man of sin, the antichrist, is revealed “in his time.”

This is strange exegesis indeed. The objections against such a view are compelling.

1) The apostle tells the Thessalonians that they knew that which was withholding. Now if the reference is to the gracious inner working of the Holy Spirit in the unregenertate, the apostle could not have said that the Thessalonians knew of this work of the Holy Spirit. How could they? In all the apostle’s writings there is no other mention of any such thing. Apart from the fact that this expression, “what withholdeth” is a strange way to speak of the Holy Spirit, found nowhere in Holy Scripture, this interpretation presupposes that the Thessalonians knew about common grace and knew about that aspect of it that involved the restraint of sin almost 2000 years before it became a doctrine sanctioned by the church.

2) The idea of the restraint of sin emphasizes that this restraint is in the hearts of all men in general to restrain all kinds of sin and to enable sinful man to perform good works. But here in this text the expression is limited to the development of the antichrist. In fact, it would seem to me to follow that this restraint of sin is to be found in Antichrist himself, that he is the object of grace, that the Spirit graciously restrains him, and that he is able to do good in the eyes of God.

3) If the Holy Spirit and His work is the reference here, then the last line of the text would have to read this way: “But the Holy Spirit who restrains sin will continues to restrain sin until “he be taken out of the way.” The cessation of the work of the Holy Spirit is ended when the Holy Spirit is “taken out of the way.” What a strange and unbiblical way to speak of the Holy Spirit. It ought to be clear to anyone with a modicum of understanding of Scripture that this interpretation cannot possibly be correct.

It would have been extremely helpful if the texts cited in support of common grace had been exegeted and explained by the Synod that adopted these doctrines. But one looks in vain for any explanation; it seems to have been considered sufficient merely to quote texts without any explanation.

Whatever the apostle may be referring to in the text, someone or something, known to the Thessalonians, was preventing a premature appearance of antichrist and would be taken out of the way at God’s time, that is, when in God’s time the time of Antichrist had come. And, therefore, no restraint of the Holy Spirit can possibly be referred to. Such an interpretation of the text is foisted on the text in such an unnatural way that no one can accept it as true.
* * * *
We turn now to the articles in the Belgic Confession (Sometimes called The Netherlands Confession of Faith, or simply, The Confession of Faith).

Two articles were referred to. The pertinent parts of the articles read as follows: “This doctrine (of divine providence, HH) affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are taught thereby that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the direction of our most gracious and heavenly Father, who watches over us with a paternal care, keeping all creatures so under his power that not a hair of our head (for they are all numbered), nor a sparrow, can fall to the ground, without the will of our Father, in whom we do entirely trust; being persuaded that he so restrains the devil and all our enemies that, without his will and permission, they can not hurt us” (Article 13; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3 [Baker Book House, 1983] 397).

Berkhof tells us why, in his opinion, Article 13 is relevant. “The doctrine of providence is thus comforting for God’s people. It contains among other things this comfort especially, that God controls their enemies with a bridle. In their anger, these enemies cannot go further against the church than God permits. They are under the rule of the heavenly Father and are controlled by Him” (Louis Berkhof, De Drie Punten in Alle Deelen Gereformeerd [The Three Points Reformed in Every Part] {Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1925] 40. The translation is mine.)

Berkhof is aware that some critics of this proof have said that, according to Article 13 of the Belgic Confession and the interpretation given it by the CRC, God also gives his common grace to the devils, for the article speaks of God’s restraint “of the devil and all our enemies.” Berkhof, of course, repudiates this interpretation, although he does not make clear why he can exclude the devils as objects of common grace, if this article in the Belgic Confession is proof of common grace.

The proof which was offered for an inner restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all men indicates how meager and contrived the proof from the confessions really is. Berkhof himself spends almost no time in showing how this article proves an inner, divinely-worked restraint of sin, but spends his time, other than the quote given above, trying to free himself from the charge that the devils must also be the objects of common grace.

No Reformed man who believes in the sovereignty of God has ever denied that God restrains sin. No Reformed man has ever denied that included in God’s sovereign control are Satan and his black hosts from hell. Even while our Lord was on earth, the devils who were cast out of devil-possessed people, were subject to the Lord’s will. They could not even enter the pigs without the Lord’s permission (Mark 5:1-17). This profound truth of God’s sovereignty is taught in Article 13 of the Belgic Confession. But there is absolutely no mention made of an inner work of the Holy Spirit who restrains sin from within a man by changing man’s nature so that he can do good. Appeal to this article is an unwarranted twisting of the article on God’s providence.

The other article referred to is Article 36, which is titled “Of Magistrates.” “We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well” (Italics are in the original because the quotation is from Scripture. Article 36. [Idem, 432]).

Berkhof’s justification for an appeal to this article is: “These words speak for themselves. God demonstrates His goodness in this that, because of sin, He ordains a magistrate and gives him the sword. And the purpose that He has in mind with this is that the lawlessness of men is restrained, and with respect to human affairs, everything goes well.” (Idem., 41. The translation is mine.)

Who can disagree with that explanation? Again, it is clear to every Reformed man that indeed God ordains magistrates to keep order in society. But as one man once put it to me, “The second point (of common grace) confuses the Holy Spirit with the policeman” – or makes the sword of the magistrate the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to derive from this article anything even remotely resembling a work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of all men, bringing to these men God’s grace, and restraining man’s sin by these gracious internal influences. It is no wonder that Berkhof apparently felt such an appeal to Article 36 to be poor proof, for he makes only two or three short sentences in explanation. It is well that he adds, “These words speak for themselves.” It reminds one of a preacher who is somewhat doubtful about the correctness of what he wants to say from the pulpit, and so intersperses his remarks with comments such as: “This is as clear as the sun in the heavens.” Or, “Anyone can see how true this is.”

We need not delay ourselves with further argumentation on this matter of the proof for the restraint of sin. It is quite clear that there really is none.

Yet, the idea, first propounded by A. Kuyper, is one that has taken hold of many. It is well to notice this in passing. But there is also a positive truth set forth in Scripture that runs counter to the teaching of the idea of an inner gracious restraint of sin and we do well to note this truth. I shall deal with this in a future installment, God willing.

With warm regards,
Prof

Scriptural "proof" for the Second Point of Common Grace (29)

Dear Forum members:

I have described that aspect of common grace, which teaches the restraint of sin in the hearts of the unregenerate. In this letter I intend to begin to deal with the proof that was offered by the defenders of this view from Scripture and the Netherlands Confession of Faith. It is true that the latter is a Confession of the Dutch Reformed Churches, and is not of any confessional relevance to Presbyterians. But the teachings of the two articles quoted as proof bring up some interesting points that are worth discussing in connection with this error of an inward restraint of sin. We will look at the Biblical proof first of all.

The first text used for proof is found in Genesis 6:3: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.” This text is found in the context of the apostasy that took place from the covenant line of the seed of the woman and the consequent terrible wickedness that was found in the pre-deluvian world. It is recorded in Scripture as the introduction to God’s announcement of His judgment on a world that had filled the cup of iniquity. This word, therefore, paved the way for God’s instructions to Noah “who found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8) to build the ark.

If this text is to be quoted in favor of an inward restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the unregenerate, then the meaning of the text is this: for a long time, perhaps nearly a millennium and a half, the Holy Spirit had struggled in the hearts of those who belonged to the line of Cain to keep these wicked people from being as sinful as they were determined to be, but that, at last, the Holy Spirit, apparently failing in His efforts to restrain sin, withdrew from the wicked and God ceased from restraining their sin by His Spirit. It is an argument based on a strange assumption (The Holy Spirit had worked mightily for over 1000 years to restrain sin but had failed), and it is deduced from a negative statement (“My Spirit shall not always strive with man”) and made to mean a positive doctrine of an inner work of the Spirit in the reprobate that changes their nature for good, but does not save.

But, of course, the text does not say anything even faintly resembling such an idea, and, in fact, the picture drawn for us in Genesis 4 and 5 is quite different. One is hard-pressed to find any restraint of sin of any kind in the hearts of these wicked people; one finds, rather, a frightening development of sin that within 1650 years or so almost destroyed the church and made the world ripe for judgment.

Cain was guilty of fratricide and the blood-soaked ground under Abel’s body cried out for vengeance (Gen. 4:8-12). When God pronounced the curse upon Cain (Gen. 4:11), Cain, and subsequently, his descendants, moved away from the church, where the seed of the woman “began to call upon the name of the Lord,” (Gen. 4:26) to find their way in the world apart from the church.

Lamech, from the line of Cain, was apparently the world’s first bigamist and defied God’s creation ordinance for marriage. He also took it upon himself, not only to murder one of the people of God, but to compose a song to celebrate his dastardly deed (Gen. 4:23, 24); and he dared God to punish him for committing such a terrible sin: “If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold, truly Lamech seventy and seven fold” (Gen. 4:24).

In chapter 6 we have that chilling description of the dreadful sins that took place when those of the line of Seth sought cooperation with those of the line of Cain: “. . . the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. . . . There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:2-5).

But the sin to which we are pointed in these chapters of Genesis, which was the worst of all, was the sin of the persecution of the church. It began early with the murder of Abel. It continued with Enoch who was taken to heaven, because he was being hunted by wicked men (Gen. 5:24, Jude 14, 15, Heb. 11:5, 6. Note in Hebrews 11: 5 that the text says that “he was not found,” indicating that he was being hunted, but was delivered by a miracle of translation to heaven without dying.). The entire church in a world that must have numbered millions was reduced to eight people at the time the flood came. If the flood had not come when it did, no church would have survived.

All of these things do not speak of an inward restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit, but just the opposite: a violent and rapid development of sin so that the world became ripe for judgment in a relatively short time.

But we must still explain what the text does mean. The text can only refer to the preaching of the gospel that took place prior to the flood. This is evident, first, from the fact that the preaching of the gospel is always accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit never works independently of the preaching, but He always works where the preaching takes place –whether that work is to save or harden. Second, we know that prior to the flood God had His preachers in the world. Two are mentioned in Scripture: Enoch who “prophesied of these (wicked men who ‘went the way of Cain’, HH) saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 11, 14, 15). Noah also is said in II Peter 2:5 to be a “preacher of righteousness.” It is clear from the description of Enoch’s preaching, found in Jude15 and of Noah’s preaching found in II Peter 2:5, that the preaching contained all the elements of true preaching: the command to repent from sin, the warning of certain judgment on unbelievers and the call to believe in Christ and the gospel of salvation in Christ. That Noah preached salvation in Christ who was to come is evident from the fact that Noah was a preacher of righteousness as Hebrews 11:7 makes clear. Both Noah and Enoch not only preached the gospel that righteousness could only be found in the Seed of the woman who was to come, but both also called to repentance and warned against coming judgment. For this they were persecuted.

This powerful preaching was mocked, opposed and hated. And so God said He would withdraw this preaching and its accompanying work of the Spirit – as He always does to apostate churches and as He did to wicked Israel (Amos 7:11, 12). In churches where the gospel is no longer preached, the Spirit is withdrawn. The work of the Spirit is no longer present. The striving of which the text speaks is, therefore, the preaching of repentance from sin, which the preachers of the pre-deluvian world proclaimed, and that truth of the gospel impressed on the consciences of men by the Spirit. It all is a warning to today’s rapidly departing churches that the Spirit is no more present where the gospel is perverted. And the sound of the gospel is no longer heard in nations in which these apostate churches are found, and which have rejected the gospel.

If you ask: What was the work of the Spirit that accompanied the preaching, the answer is that the Spirit convicts of sin, reproving sin in the consciousness of the wicked and impressing upon the wicked the certainty of judgment (John 16:8-11). When God takes His Spirit from a church, or nation, or person, such are not longer even warned of their sin and impending judgment and the consciousness of their sin is lost. This is dreadful.

* * * *

Additional proof offered for the restraint of sin in the hearts of the unregenerate is a group of texts that speak of God giving man over to sin. It might be well to quote the texts here.

“But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would have none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lusts: and they walked in their own counsels” (Psalm 81:11, 12).

“Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness” (Acts 7:42)?

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” (Rom. 1:24). The same expression is found further in this passage in verses 26 and 28.

It is difficult, if not impossible to see an inward restraint of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the unregenerate in these verses. Presumably, the argument is that if God gives a man over to sin, God must first of all restrain sin, and only after failing to restrain sin, God ceases His restraint. Yet no Reformed man would ever talk in a way that implies a frustrated God who cannot accomplish what He intended, nor can a prior restraint of sin be dug out of a passage that speaks of God’s work of giving man over to sin.

The meaning of these texts is rather, as I explained in connection with our discussion of Romans 1:18-32, that God punishes sin with sin. God’s wrath is revealed in His terrible judgments upon the wicked. One of those judgments is that God pushes as it were the sinner into greater sin. Romans 1 uses the language, “gives them over.” Idolaters who change the glory of God into an image made like unto corruptible man are punished by being given over to homosexuality. History is replete with examples of this. God is, after all, sovereign. He gives the sinner over to the sin that his wicked heart craves. Sin multiplies and becomes worse. And all this takes place until the cup of iniquity is filled. But all this has nothing to do with any kind of inner restraint of sin in the hearts of the wicked.

I shall say no more about this for the present, for I intend to discuss this further a bit later in another connection. But it ought to be clear in any case that it takes considerable exegetical legerdemain to extract from these passages an inward work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly that alters the depraved natures of the wicked and results in good works, but does not save.

With warmest regards,
Prof. Hanko

Implications of the Second Point of Common Grace - (28)

Dear forum members,

In my last letter I explained what is meant by the common grace that is a restraint of sin in the unregenerate. I did this by quoting Louis Berkhof who was a defender of common grace, and one of the chief authors of the formulation adopted by the CRC in 1924.

Before we move on, I need to make a few more remarks about what the restraint of sin means.

In the first place, I remind you once again that this restraint of sin is emphatically called grace. That is, this restraint of sin is a work which God performs in the hearts of the unregenerate because He is gracious to them, loves them, is merciful to them and earnestly desires their salvation.

Second, this restraint of sin is worked internally by the Holy Spirit. The result is that the unregenerate and unbelieving sinners have the Holy Spirit in their hearts as well as the people of God. While the second point of common grace makes this internal work of the Holy Spirit explicit, the same internal work of the Spirit and the subjective bestowal of grace is the teaching of the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. Although I intend to discuss this in more detail at a later date, it is worth mentioning now that grace, whether common or particular, always implies a subjective bestowal of spiritual benefits. In the gracious and well-meant gospel offer, this grace is a power within the unregenerated sinner that enables him to make a choice for or against the gospel offer. He is in a spiritual position to make up his own mind as to God’s offer of salvation whether to accept it or reject it.

This is then the relationship which exists between the doctrine of the restraint of sin and the doctrine of the gracious gospel offer. God so restrains the sin in the hearts of the reprobate and bestows on these reprobate blessings that enable them to accept the gospel – if they so will.

Third, this work of the Holy Spirit not only impedes the progress of sin or restrains its outbreak in the lives of the individual, but it also has a good effect on the nature of man so that he is morally better than he would be without this common grace. The work of the Holy Spirit does not actually regenerate a man; that is, the Holy Spirit does not actually give to the sinner the life of Christ and a new heart, but God does, in His internal work, alter the nature of man for good. That is, a totally depraved nature is made less than totally depraved by God’s common grace given through the Holy Spirit.

Those who hold to common grace and also profess to be Calvinists feel constrained to defend the doctrine of total depravity, one of the five points of Calvinism. In order to accomplish this extremely difficult, if not impossible, task of harmonizing the good change in the nature of the unregenerate with the doctrine of total depravity, they make a distinction between “total” depravity and “absolute” depravity. The latter means depraved completely. And sometimes is added, “beyond salvation.” The devils are described as being absolutely depraved. But “total” depravity, in distinction from “absolute” depravity, means that a man is depraved in every part of his nature (body, soul, mind, emotions and will) but not completely so. Each part of his nature is partially depraved, but also partially good. This, it seems to me, is playing with words and with Biblical truths. But, of course, the proponents of this restraint of sin have a difficult time of it when they try to explain how, as Calvinism insists, a man can be totally depraved and yet be able to do good by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, it is this restraint of sin that makes possible an area of cooperation between the believer and the unbeliever. This was, originally, Abraham Kuyper’s intent. If the Netherlands was to be the fountainhead of a stream of Reformed teachings that would spread throughout the world, with Kuyper himself the prime minister, he had to make some sort of theological ground for such cooperation between believers and unbelievers that would make his dream a reality. After all, the majority of the population in the Netherlands was unbelieving.

The result is that the current thinking on this subject is this: because of this so-called “neutral” area occupied by both believers and unbelievers, created by grace, believers and unbelievers are able to unite in common causes. For example, Reformed churches permit union members to belong to the church, because, though membership in unions involves cooperation with unbelievers in the common cause of protecting the worker from rapacious owners of businesses, the unions, though composed mainly of ungodly men, are seeking the welfare of the laboring man. Christians may cooperate with these ungodly men, because these unions are “neutral.”

I recall that many years ago I received a call from the national headquarters of the Right To Life Movement, with headquarters in Washington D.C. I was asked to cooperate with the Right to Life Movement to prepare a petition to be delivered to the president in which a plea would be made to stop abortions in this country. I responded that I would be willing to work on such a petition, for I was opposed to the dreadful sin of murdering unborn babies, but, because the Right To Life Movement is a humanistic organization, I reserved the right to protest this sin of abortion on strictly Biblical grounds. His response was, “I will call you again some time.”

In other words, the whole idea of the restraint of sin breaks down the wall of the antithesis and makes cooperation possible between what one of my professors in college called, “the marriage of Jerusalem and Athens.” But I wish to discuss this a bit more when we examine the “proof” for this position.

This view of common grace, namely that God restrains sin in unbelievers, leads to some very unbiblical positions. Dr. Janssen, professor of Old Testament in Calvin Seminary was, in 1922, relieved of his position in Calvin Seminary because he taught higher critical views of Scripture. He denied some of the miracles, believed and taught that Israel received parts of its religion from the heathen and that some of the incidents described in Scripture, such as Samson’s exploits, were myths and fables invented by the Hebrews who wanted myths like the Greeks and Romans. He did so on the grounds of common grace; particularly the restraint of sin and the consequent good that sinners do. It was his contention that common grace operating in unbelieving higher critics, led these higher critics to set down truth. It was the church’s obligation to recognize these “good” views of unbelievers, for they were the fruit of God’s grace. This view of common grace lies at the bottom of today’s church’s compromise with higher critical views of Scripture, views that deny infallibility.(See also D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008. See especially pages 49, 73, 168 as examples.)

Janssen also denied some of the miracles because they contradicted scientific findings. But again he justified his position on the grounds of the restraint of sin in scientists, who were able to discover truths concerning creation, by common grace. Later, the CRC did the same when it approved the teaching of theistic evolution in Calvin College.

There is a vast neutral area in which believers and unbelievers can work together for the good of mankind and the betterment of the human race. In this neutral area there is a sharing of ideas, a unity of effort and a benefit to be derived from such cooperation, for even an unbelieving man can discover truth.

Thus common grace becomes a bridge across the chasm of the antithesis on which unbelievers can come over to help the church and church members can cross to solicit the cooperation of wicked men and join with them in various endeavors.

These remarks are, of course, my criticism of the second doctrine of common grace. And it is better to wait with a criticism until I can bring all the objections together. But it is important to understand precisely what the gracious restraint of sin actually is and how it works out in the life of mankind and of the church. The gracious restraint of sin is, after all, a world-and-life view. And if it is not that exactly, it carries in it the seed of a world-and-life view that is quite
contrary to Scripture.

I think it better at this point to deal with the “proof” for this view. But I shall wait with a discussion of the proof until the next letter.

With warm regards,
Prof. Hanko

The view of "Restraint of Sin in Natural Man" (27)

Dear forum members,

The common grace doctrine of the restraint of sin originated with Dr. Abraham Kuyper. Prior to his work in this area little or nothing was ever said concerning such an evidence of common grace in the hearts of men. But the Christian Reformed Church, in 1924, took over this doctrine from Kuyper and included it in its official statement concerning common grace.

The history is briefly this. In 1834 a separation took place in the one National Church in the Netherlands called De Hervormde Kerk (The Reformed Church). A number of those who were a part of this otherwise sound, separating movement held to the doctrine of the gracious offer of the gospel. When immigrants from the Netherlands, who had belonged to the churches of the Separation (De Afscheiding), came to this country in the 19th century some of them took with them the idea of a gracious and well-meant offer of the gospel. These churches, when established in America, became the Christian Reformed Church.

Kuyper led another secession from the State Church, independent of the churches that had separated from the State Church (Hervormde Kerk) in 1834. His separation took place in 1886. People who were followers of Kuyper also came to America. But they came, not with the notions of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer, but with Kuyper’s version of common grace. Most of them also became a part of the Christian Reformed Church. They, under the spell of Kuyper, were excited about making America a Reformed country by permeating all the institutions of society with the Reformed faith.

Their presence in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) created strong divisions in the CRC between the older immigrants and the Neo-Kuyperians. When I was in Calvin College in the late Forties and early Fifties, I had a Dutch teacher who had lived through that conflict and who was still fighting that decades-old battle. He was a Neo-Kuyperian and had no use for the older immigrants who held only to a gracious offer of the gospel to all who heard it. He told us that the CRC came very close to a split at the time the controversy raged most fiercely.

The height of this controversy came about at the same time Herman Hoeksema was criticizing the whole idea of common grace. He had entered the ministry early in the first years of the controversy and, under the pressure of other circumstances, had paid close attention to the debate. He had come to the conclusion that Neo-Kuyperianism was contrary to the Scriptures, but that also the idea of a gracious offer of the gospel was a perilous introduction of Arminianism into the churches.

Hoeksema, a contributing editor of The Banner (the official church paper of the CRC), wrote against common grace, especially the Neo-Kuyperian brand. When he began his writings, no one took issue with him. But this changed when he was instrumental in forcing from his position a professor in the Seminary who openly taught higher critical views of the Bible (especially the Old Testament, his specialty) and did so on the grounds of Kuyperian common grace. While the professor (Dr. Ralph Janssen) was relieved of his position in the Seminary, the many followers of Janssen, some of whom Janssen had taught, were furious with Hoeksema for the role he had played in ousting Janssen. Their support of Janssen was, in large measure, rooted in their delight with Kuyper’s views on common grace. And so, imbued with these notions of common grace, they determined to drive Hoeksema from the denomination. They made common grace an issue in the church.

Other leaders in the church saw the controversy between Kuyper’s common grace and the older brand that emphasized a gracious gospel offer as a splendid opportunity to bring peace between the two warring factions. And so, when the case against Hoeksema for denying common grace came to the Synod of 1924, three doctrinal statements were drawn up, which, when adopted, included both the gracious gospel offer and Neo-Kuyperian common grace. The first point of the three points defines and officially states as Biblical and confessional doctrine the old ideas that date back to the Afscheiding (Separation) of 1834. It taught a general favor and love of God for all men made known especially in the gracious gospel offer. The second and third points define and claim as Biblical and confessional truth the restraint of sin in the hearts in the unregenerate and the subsequent good these unregenerate are now capable of doing because of the restraint of sin. So the 2nd and 3rd points brought Kuyper’s common grace into the official theology of the CRC.

The decisions in 1924 on common grace meant that the battle between these two viewpoints in the CRC was over and peace between the two camps was made – but at the cost of a serious and dangerous departure from the truth.

The second point of the three points, that deals with the restraint of sin, reads: “Relative to the second point, which is concerned with the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community, the synod declares that there is such a restraint of sin according to Scripture and the Confessions. This is evident from the citations from Scripture and from the Netherlands Confession, Arts. 13 and 36, which teach that God by the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart of man, restrains the unimpeded breaking out of sin, by which human life in society remains possible, while it is also evident from the quotations from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed theology, that from ancient times our Reformed fathers were of the same opinion.”

The decision, as I said, solved the problem of the violent disagreement within the CRC; but at a cost too high to pay. On the other hand, the subsequent deposition of Herman Hoeksema became the immediate occasion for the establishment of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).

The fact is that there were many in the CRC who did not agree with either the gracious gospel offer or with the common grace of the Neo-Kuyperians. They were solid and staunch defenders of the sovereign and particular grace of God, given only to God’s elect. Some, if not a majority, were followers of the Kuyper of particular grace and wanted no part of the Kuyper of general grace. And so, while the decisions adopting common grace brought unity to the warring factions in the CRC, these decisions also had the beneficial consequence, in the wonderful providence of God, to unite the orthodox under Hoeksema’s teachings, so that a new denomination could be formed that held to the doctrines of sovereign and particular grace.

* * * *
We turn now to Kuyper’s teaching concerning common or general grace. (These teachings can be best studied in English in Henry Van Till, The Calvinist Concept of Culture [Baker Book House, 1959], Henry Meeter, The Basic Idea of Calvinism, 6th edition, revised by Paul A. Marshall [Baker, 1990]; Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Stone Foundation Lectures [Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company] 1943.)

Kuyper began with the fall of Adam and Eve. It was his judgment that the common grace of God became manifested immediately after the fall. He claimed that the consequences of the curse upon Adam and upon the creation would have been so dreadful that, if it had not been for common grace, this world would have been uninhabitable and man would have become a beast or a devil. Hoeksema describes Kuyper’s view in these words – a summary of Kuyper’s teachings on this point in Kuyper’s work, De Gemeene Gratie (General Grace) : “He (Kuyper) explains that such a restraining, checking, preserving operation took place upon the nature of man from the moment of the fall in Paradise. If there had not been such a restraining operation of common grace, immediately after the fall or concomitant with the fall of Adam and Eve, man’s nature would have been totally corrupted there and then. Adam would have turned into a sort of a devil and the earth would have been changed into hell. The life and development of human society would have become an utter impossibility. But the Spirit intervened at once by his restraining grace. He did not permit human nature to become wholly corrupt. He left a seed of his original goodness in man’s nature. He stemmed the tide of corruption in man’s heart. Man did not become wholly darkness. He did not fully die. Some light was left him. Some life remained in him. And thus it is to be explained that in things natural and civil man lives a relatively good world-life that he strives for truth, justice and righteousness. He is able to do good in this present life” (Herman Hoeksema, A Triple Breach: in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth. A Critical Analysis of the “Three Points,” adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1924 [Grand Rapids: The Reformed Free Publishing Association; reprinted, 1942] 53, 54).

In a footnote to the paragraph quoted above, Hoeksema writes: “Dr. Kuyper employs here the well-known figure of a person that swallowed a dose of Prussian blue and whom (sic) is given an antidote. When God said in Paradise; ‘the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,’ this must not be understood as a threat and announcement of judgment, but as a friendly warning. Man, however, eats of the tree. Now, as someone gives his friend, whom he warned, but who nevertheless swallowed the Prussian blue, an antidote to save his life, so the Lord gave man the antidote of common grace, so that he partly vomited out the corruption of sin and death and did not become wholly depraved” (Idem).

An interesting question is: Where in Scripture is such a dire description of the consequences of the fall found? Without common grace, man turning to a devil? Without common grace this earth becoming a hell? But that must wait for a later discussion.

Louis Berkhof, one of the authors of the three points of common grace, wrote shortly after the controversy a paragraph explaining what was meant by the restraint of sin. He writes: “In the restraint of sin the general operations of the Holy Spirit are fundamental in importance. They (fallen men) maintain the glimmerings of natural light, that remain in man since the fall and through which he retains ‘some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. They cause the seed of external righteousness to bear fruit, but do not implant into the heart the seed of regeneration. This operation of the Spirit is not a creative operation but assumes the character of moral suasion. It makes man to a certain extent receptive for the truth in as far as it (the truth) still influences him from his own consciousness. It presents motives to the will, impresses his conscience, makes use of inclinations and desires that are present in the soul, and causes the outward good that is still remaining to come to development” (This quotation is from Louis Berkhof, De Drie Punten . . . page 37. I am using the translation found in Hoeksema, The Triple Breach . . . , page 49, 50).

It is worth noting that, according to Berkhof, the work of the Holy Spirit in His restraint of sin, also works some positive good things in the nature of the sinner – although never regenerating him.

But we will come back to this in the next letter.

With warmest greetings,
Prof Hanko

Common Grace: the "Restraint of Sin in all Men" (26)

Dear Forum members,

Greetings to all our readers as we close an old year and begin a new one. May your confession be, as we face the uncertainties of another year, the confession of Asaph: “Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with they counsel, and afterward receive me to glory" (Psalm 73:13, 14).

With this letter I begin to deal with another of the four doctrines that are included in the doctrine of common grace. Common grace teaches in general that God’s favor and love is towards all men and not only towards His elect. This second doctrine teaches that God’s universal favor and love to all is revealed in a restraint of sin in the hearts of all men by the Holy Spirit.

It must be emphatically understood that the subject with which I now deal, the restraint of sin in the hearts of the unregenerate, is also a manifestation of God’s general attitude of love and favor towards all men. We are talking, after all, about grace, or more particularly, common grace. Grace includes all God’s communicable attributes: love, kindness, benevolence, mercy, lovingkindness, and more. This grace, manifested to all, is given to men in different ways. When one stops to think about it, it actually includes many very important gifts that seem to rival the gifts of salvation to the elect.

One such gift, as we noticed in the last letters, is the gift of rain and sunshine, fruitful years, health and strength, riches and luxuries in the world, and prosperity in an earthly sense. But now, in the next series of letters, I am going to talk about another blessing of God’s general attitude of favor, a blessing that is also considered a gift of God’s common grace. I do not say that all defenders of common grace hold to this doctrine of common grace, but many do.

In a much earlier letter I reminded our readers of the fact that God’s grace towards the unregenerate is not simply an attitude of love and favor – of which the objects of that favor know nothing; it is also the actual bestowal of some gift of God upon the recipient, so that the sinner knows God’s favor towards him – even though he ultimately spurns it.

In this and subsequent letters I intend to deal with that “blessing” of common grace called the restraint of sin in the hearts of the unregenerate by the work of the Holy Spirit.

While the idea of a certain attitude of God’s favor towards all men was fairly common in the Dutch Reformed Churches from the late 18th century on, this idea of the restraint of sin did not appear in theology, either in the Netherlands or anywhere else in any developed form, until the time of Dr. Abraham Kuyper. He was the first to develop this idea and to popularize it.

But Kuyper did have ulterior motives in developing the doctrine of the restraint of sin. It might be well to know a bit of that history. I have mentioned some of these historical facts before, but repeat them here so that they may be before our minds.

Kuyper graduated from the university, ready to be ordained into the ministry of the gospel in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, as a theological liberal. He was really brought to any understanding of the Reformed faith by a simple housewife in his first congregation, who would not shake his hand because he was not reformed in his preaching. She pointed him to the Reformed faith as the truth of Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

In the first years of his ministry and after his conversion to the Reformed faith, he did battle with modernism and liberalism in the churches. In fact, he wrote an important book, “The Particularity of God’s Grace” (It has been translated by Marvin Kamps under the title, Particular Grace; it has been published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association and is available from them.). In this book Kuyper followed a strictly Reformed line and defended sharply the doctrines of sovereign and particular grace – even against the pernicious doctrine of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer to all.

But Kuyper had what to us is a strange view of a national Church. The Netherlands had for many years only one sanctioned and government supported national church, called De Hervormde Kerk (Reformed Church). It was Kuyper’s dream that the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, supported by a Reformed government, would be a fountainhead of the Reformed faith from which would flow the mighty stream of the Reformed faith to all parts of the world.

I might mention, in passing, that in the late 17th century and 18th century this dream seemed possible of realization, for the Dutch East Indies Trading Company and the Dutch West Indies Trading Company sent their ships to all parts of the world and established colonies in the Indonesian archipelago, the West Indies, North America, South Africa, Malacca and elsewhere. Ministers went along with these trading ships and when colonies were established, these colonies had ministers to organize Reformed churches and serve in them. They became centers of missionary work among the natives.

In order to implement this dream and guarantee a Reformed government, Kuyper resigned from the active ministry and formed the Anti-revolutionary Party, a political party primarily representing the Reformed Churches. Kuyper himself was elected to the Lower House, but aspired to the office of prime minister. His party, however, never succeeded in electing sufficient members to the Lower House to form a majority government. And so, in order to achieve his purpose of sitting in the prime minister’s seat, Kuyper had to form a coalition with the Roman Catholics. But such a bold and uncharacteristically Reformed move had to be justified. Kuyper developed his ideas of common grace to justify this coalition.

Kuyper succeeded in attaining the office of prime minister, but held that office for only two years. He never attained his ultimate goal, although Reformed Churches were established throughout the world. The Neo-Kuyperians in our day have never forsaken Kuyper’s dream and are still intent on so influencing government, as well as every other sphere of life, that these institutions of society become Reformed.

Kuyper never abandoned his insistence on the particularity of grace. While the idea of common grace (a general attitude of God’s favor towards all men) was prevalent in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kuyper wanted no part of it – if it included the teaching of a well-meant and gracious gospel offer. He even went so far as to make a distinction in the terminology: Algemeene genade was common grace that taught a gracious and well-meaning offer of salvation to all. Kuyper spoke rather of gemeene gratie, or general grace, a name given to his own particular brand of common grace. Nevertheless, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” and grace by any name is still grace. Kuyper’s grace was emphatically grace. And grace is God’s attitude of favor and love.

This is the common grace that fires the imagination of post-millenarian dreamers who look for some sort of worldwide conquest of all society’s institutions by the Reformed so that the Reformed faith can bring about the establishment of the kingdom of Christ here in the world. It has produced that insidious idea that our calling as Calvinists is to make this world a better place to live – in the sense of transforming society to conform to the kingdom of Christ.

Two more remarks have to be made in this letter.

Kuyper’s view had a broader purpose than a coalition with the Roman Catholics in order to capture the reins of government. The fact was that although the Reformed Church was a national church, and although technically all the citizens of the Netherlands were members of the church and were required to be baptized, married and buried by the church, not by any means all within the church were true believers. Yet these unbelieving members had to become a part of the enterprise to bring the Reformed faith to all parts of the world. On what doctrinal basis could that be done? Kuyper found the answer in his theory of general grace. Sin was restrained in all men by this general grace, with the result that all men were capable of doing good. Thus all, believers and unbelievers alike, could labor together for this common cause of bringing the Reformed faith to all parts of the world.

The second remark that needs making is this: the restraint of sin resulted, according to Kuyper, in the ability of the unregenerate to do good works, which could be used in the service of the cause of the establishment of the kingdom of Christ here in the world.

While, therefore, these two ideas of a general restraint of sin and the resulting ability of the unregenerate to do good works belong together, we are going to treat them separately.

Warmest regards to all our readers,
Prof Hanko

"General Revelation" Again (25)

Dear Forum members,

There is one more aspect of this matter of so-called “general revelation”, to which I wish to call your attention. It is not directly related to our discussion of common grace, but it is, in my judgment, an important positive truth concerning the creation, which will give us, I think, a deeper appreciation for God’s world and a deeper understanding that God’s works in creation cannot possibly be common grace, but are for the benefit and blessing of the church.

Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion has a very well-known passage in which he speaks of the book of creation as being almost illegible to the wicked, but which becomes an open book to those who put on the spectacles of Scripture. (See Book I, chapter VI, Section 1 for this metaphor.) This is an interesting and important metaphor that Calvin uses. It is true that the wicked can read, though barely, God’s Word in creation, but Scripture’s spectacles are needed to read what is really written at large in the things God has made. By the spectacles of Scripture Calvin refers not only to the Bible itself, but to that gift of faith that enables a man to believe all that God has revealed in the Bible. Even the wicked can read the Bible itself. One university I know of teaches a course in “The Bible as Literature 302”. This means nothing.

But we must remember that Scripture is the infallible record of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In other words, we are able to see God’s truth in creation through faith in Christ; and further, when we see God’s revelation in creation, we see Christ Himself. I want to explain this a bit more. Hebrews 11:3 speaks of faith as the way we understand creation; and faith always has as its object Christ revealed in Scripture.
The wicked, though they see God’s eternal power and Godhead in all the things that are made, suppress the truth in unrighteousness and slam the book of creation closed with disgust and hatred – and fear. Or, even though it is for them all but illegible, they claim to read it and find in it things that are not there, but things that fit their own ideas, ideas which are always wrong. Their spiritual eyesight is very poor. These are the theistic evolutionists so-called. Their attitude towards Scripture is like an architect who searches through an ancient castle to learn the origin of the castle and how it was built. He finds, when he first enters the castle, a book written by the builder himself explaining exactly how he built the castle. But he throws the book into the moat as irrelevant and untrustworthy, and goes instead to one of the high towers, to put a handful of dust in his bag in the firm conviction that a careful study of the dust will enable him to learn how the castle was built. So man sends explorers to the moon, so they can return with a few rocks, from which will be learned the origin of the universe. But the book by the Builder is mocked and discarded.

The tragedy of it is that men who call themselves Christians (and even Reformed) claim that evolutionistic theory of the origin of things is correct, while Scripture’s account of the origin of things is wrong. They justify their twisting of Scripture by saying that they can be evolutionists and still believe in Christ, for Scripture’s teachings concerning the origin of things is something entirely apart from the gospel. Creation has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That assertion is as false as it can be. Creation has everything to do with Christ. The whole of Scripture, from Genesis 1:1 to the last verse of Revelation 22 is God’s revelation of His work of salvation in Jesus Christ. Hence, the believer, who puts on the spectacles of Scripture, sees God in Christ throughout creation.

There are basically two reasons why wicked man cannot see God in creation in the pristine beauty in which God made Himself known in Paradise and of which He speaks in Scripture. The creation Adam saw did not reveal Christ to Adam, for sin had not yet entered the world and there was no need for a Savior. But, though God makes Himself known to all men through creation, it is a relatively dim knowledge of God that the wicked have. Calvin speaks of the fact that apart from the Scriptures it is possible to see God in creation only in a very dim way (“For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any book, however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written, are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words . . . “).

The first reason for the difficulty in reading the book is that the Word of God by which the creation was formed is almost drowned by the Word of the curse. Because man fell, the Word of God’s curse came upon the creation (Gen.3:17). This word of the curse is seen and felt in the death that comes upon all creation. Animals and man die; flowers and trees die; all things do not continue as they were from the beginning of creation (II Pet. 3:4) as the evolutionist contends. The curse is violent and terrible. It is God’s Word of the curse that sends tornados, tsunami waves, typhoons, earthquakes and all kinds of natural disasters, Nature is, as the poet said, “red in tooth and claw.” Any other word than the word of the curse can scarcely be seen and heard – except through the eyeglasses of Scripture.

The very fact of the curse itself demonstrates to the wicked that God brings the fury of His wrath upon all those who will not worship Him.
The second reason why the Word of God’s creative power is not clearly heard anymore is the sinfulness of man. The curse has come on him as well, darkening his understanding, blinding him to the truth, making it impossible to see clearly, and robbing him altogether of his spiritual sight. He holds the truth in unrighteousness. This paucity of knowledge that man possesses is his blindness. Sinful man is not only blind spiritually; he is also nearly blind in his powers of mind. He thinks he knows so much and boasts of his accomplishments. But in fact he knows very little of the creation and there are untold mysteries that he cannot solve.

Only Scripture enables a person to see God in creation. Scripture, as the revelation of Christ, gives eyes to see and ears to hear. Scripture works faith in the hearts of God’s people. To put on the spectacles of Scripture is to have faith, by which one holds for truth all that God has revealed in His Word, for “through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). The object of faith, which is first of all the sacred Scripture, is also Christ. Faith lays hold of Christ. Faith sees Christ and clings to Christ. And so, putting on the spectacles of Scripture, we see Christ revealed also in creation. This is a great blessedness. That evidence of Christ in the creation sounds loudly to the believer so that the awful word of the curse is no longer so loud.
In a certain sense of the Word, the original creation in which Adam lived for a time was already adapted, according to God’s plan, to God’s purpose in Christ. A few instances of this are the following. The creation of Paradise pre-figured the plan of the temple: the land surrounding Eden was comparable to the outer court; Paradise in the east of Eden was comparable to the Holy Place; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden was comparable to the Holy of Holies. It was at the foot of the tree of life that God came to Adam and had fellowship with him.
Adam was already created with an immune system – though he did not need it. Carnivorous animals were created with a digestive system that could eat and digest flesh, although they did not eat other animals before the fall, for there was no death. The fall did not happen outside God’s plan. The first Paradise was the building of the “stage” on which was to be enacted the drama of sin and grace, damnation and salvation in Jesus Christ. God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. That is, God did not only see that the creation was morally without defect; God saw that the entire creation was perfectly adapted to serve His purpose in Christ.

And so Christ is revealed in the creation. It is true that one cannot see Christ without believing in Him as revealed in the sacred Scriptures, what Calvin called the eyeglasses of Scripture. But putting them on, Christ is evident in all that we see.

This truth is the reason why Christ Himself is given names taken directly from creation. He is the Bright and Morning Star that announces the dawn of the perfect day (II Peter 1:19, Rev. 2:28). He is the Lion of Judah’s Tribe (Gen. 49:9, 10). He is the Lily of the Valley and the Rose of Sharon (Song of Solomon 2:1). He is the Sun who runs His course in the Heavens as the Bridegroom coming forth to meet His bride, the church (Psalm 19:4-6). And He is the Sun of Righteousness who arises with healing in His wings (Mal. 4:2). And so we could go on. I once heard a Christmas all-school program of one of our Christian schools in which a dear friend of mine, one of the teachers, prepared the entire program around the many names taken from creation and given to Christ. It was profoundly moving.

There are many Psalms that sing of the creation itself praising God, but always in the context of God’s people singing the praises of the great Creator (Psalms 147, 104, 145, 148, 29 and many more.). He who sees God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ through the Scriptures, is then in all creation moved to the depths of his being by God’s marvelous works. Even the events in the creation (earthquakes, destructive pestilences, floods, and all the other judgments God sends on the earth) are signs of the coming of Christ, for Christ comes through all history in judgment on the wicked and for the salvation of the church: Zion is redeemed with judgment (Isaiah 1:27). Christ is coming again; the whole creation groans and travails in pain waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-22).

God’s creation is a marvelous place in which, with the spectacles of Scripture firmly in place, one sees God’s power and majesty; and bows in humble worship with the words on his lips: “My God, how wonderful thou art.”

Creation is not a revelation of grace to all – only to those who by faith lay hold of the Christ of the Scriptures.

With warmest greetings in the Lord,

Prof Hanko

More On the Works of the Law in the Heart (24)

Dear Forum members,

At the end of the last installment I was in the middle of a discussion of Romans 2:14, 15, which reads: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”

I was commenting on this verse, because it stands closely related to chapter 1 verses 18 – 32. The point I was making was to show from these two passages that general revelation, so-called, is not common grace, though these are the two passages primarily quoted in support of the assertion that God shows His favor and grace to all men by revealing Himself to them in creation and by writing in their hearts the works of the law.

The points I was making were these: 1) The term “general revelation” is a misnomer. When referring to God’s self-disclosure, Scripture uses the term “revelation” exclusively for God’s work of grace in the salvation of the elect by which He gives them the knowledge of Himself. He does this by objectively revealing Himself to them, but also by giving them, through the work of the Spirit of Christ, eyes to see and ears to hear this revelation. 2 ) Romans 1 speaks of the fact that God does make Himself known through creation, not to show His love and grace to all men, but to reveal His wrath to them and to leave them without excuse (Rom. 1:18, 20). The clause, “So that they are without excuse” is a purpose clause and defines the purpose of God in making known the truth concerning Himself through the things that are made.

There is obviously no grace involved if God’s sole purpose in making Himself known to the wicked is to leave wicked men without excuse. In the judgment day, when Christ sentences the heathen to hell, Christ will do this in complete justice. For they changed the glory of the invisible God into an image make like unto the corruptible creature. They will never be able to say, as an excuse for their sin, “We did not know that we were called to worship God,” or, “We did not know there was a God who demanded that we serve Him. Our ignorance is our excuse.” If such a plea were correct, Christ would indeed do injustice to them in sending them to hell. But such is not the case.

Further, there is here no common grace because God punishes the suppression of the knowledge of Him, which He gives with the further sin of homosexuality. It is impossible to find any grace in that.

This truth is very difficult for people, even in the church, to believe. Evangelicals face a dilemma here. They want all men to be saved, and they want a god who desires to save all men. But throughout the history of the world the gospel does not come to all men, and, in fact, the majority of men never hear it. Most men, therefore, are never given a ‘chance’ to be saved. One would indeed think that such a strange phenomenon would be God’s fault, for He does not give everyone a chance.

A few comments about this are necessary and important.

Pelagians (already in Augustine’s day; Augustine died in 430 AD) were bothered by the same problem, and so concluded that, after all, God’s speech in creation was sufficient to save the heathen. The light of the gospel of Jesus Christ was not essential. The Arminians followed that idea and spoke of the “light of nature”, that could be sufficient to save one who possesses it and never knows the light of the gospel. The fathers at Dordt, aware of this claim of the Arminians, included a paragraph in their Canons repudiating it. This can be found in Canons 3/4, B 5. The rejection of this Arminian error reads: “The synod rejects the error of those who teach that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (note the use of the term by the Arminian, HH) (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, viz., 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.”

It ought to be clear that the heathen did not have the gospel, which alone could save them, because of God’s deliberate purpose, for God is able to send the gospel wherever He wants to send it. It was God’s choice that kept the gospel from the heathen. Yet the heathen are still without excuse when they are sentenced to hell. This is just and right – when God does this! How can that be? This is true because all the heathen know that the Creator of all things is the one true and living God. They know that God is their Creator and the Creator of all things. They know that God, therefore, imposes upon them the solemn obligation, upon pain of hell, to worship and serve Him alone.

They also know how they are called by God to obey Him, for they have the works of the law written in their hearts. So clearly do they know the law of God that their own consciences accuse or excuse them in their deeds. And the conscience is the voice of God in their consciousness that approves or disapproves their deeds. Yet the voice of God in the conscience is always connected to the objective Word of God, in the case of the heathen, the Word of God in creation .

But does not the doctrine of total depravity excuse the heathen? After all, their total depravity makes it impossible to worship the God who is made known to the heathen. They could not believe even if they wanted to do so. What good then is God’s manifestation of Himself in creation?

But what is the answer of Scripture?

Interestingly, the answer of Scripture is stated with precision in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 4. I sometimes think that already in this early Lord’s Day, Ursinus and Olevianus, the authors of the Catechism, separated the truth of Scripture sharply and unmistakably from the Roman Catholic and Arminian error – although the Catechism was written almost 60 years before Dordt met. But here is the point where the Reformed faith diverges from all Roman Catholicism and Arminianism and sets a true Biblical path to follow in all its development of Scripture’s truth. Let me quote the whole Lord’s Day.

“Doth God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?
“Not at all, for God made man capable of performing it, but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own willful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

“Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?
“By no means, but is terribly displeased with our original as well as actual sins, and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, as he hath declared, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them.’

“Is not God then also merciful?
“God is indeed merciful, but also just; therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.”

The point of the Catechism is that man, even if he never heard the gospel, is damned to hell; that the reason is his total depravity not only, but that his total depravity is his own fault. He has no one to blame for it but himself. Why? Because he sinned in Adam and is responsible for Adam’s rebellion; that his responsibility for Adam’s sin includes the guilt of Adam’s sin, imputed to him, but also the depravity of Adam’s nature. Guilt and depravity came upon him as the just punishment of God for his transgression in Adam.

Understanding that fundamental point of Scripture and the Reformed faith, we can have no trouble with the just punishment of the heathen who know God only through the creation.

Romans 5:12-14 is the key Scripture passage for this truth: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

Without going into detail in an explanation of this passage, the point is that death came on Adam for his sin, but that death also came upon all men, for that all have sinned in Adam. That this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we are conceived and born in sin (Psalm 51:5) – original sin and guilt being the death of which Paul speaks (Eph. 2:1). We do well, however, to remember the crucial importance of the last line in the passage, “Who was the figure of him who was to come.” Take away the imputation of guilt and the reality of death from the human race because of original guilt and original pollution, and you take away the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the great work of sanctification for the elect..

I shall make a couple more remarks about this, though they are somewhat in passing, for they do not have direct bearing on the question whether there is such a thing as general revelation, and whether, if there is, that general revelation is grace to all men.

The passage in Romans 1:18 and following clearly states that God’s temporal punishment on the idolater is an act of God in which He gives the sinner over to the terrible sin of homosexuality. Sin is punished with sin – more sin, greater sin. In this way God reveals His wrath from heaven.

If one understands these things aright, he cannot possibly slip into the error of common grace, for there is no room for any kind of common grace in this Biblical and confessional doctrine. Hence, to maintain common grace is, sooner or later, going to be the abandonment of these fundamentally Reformed truths. And so it is; the modern church is a wasteland, laid desolate by rampant Arminianism.

And finally, let this be a solemn call to all who still love the sacred Scriptures and cherish the truth of God’s absolute sovereignty, to abandon the man-centered errors of Arminian theology, and find their hope and solace in God’s sovereign and unchangeable purpose.

With warm greetings in Christ,

Prof H. Hanko