Having discussed in the last issue of Beacon Lights some of the doctrinal controversies which troubled the Christian Reformed Church in the first two decades of the 20th Century, we turn now to that controversy which interests us more particularly, i.e., the controversy concerning common grace.
We have a couple of remarks to make at the very outset.
In the first place we do not intend to enter into the history of this controversy as such. The reasons for this are: 1) A detailed treatment of the history would take too many issues of the Beacon Lights; and yet an abbreviated history would be difficult to make. 2) The whole history is treated extensively in the book “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” a book which most of our readers have in their possession. We do want to take the opportunity though to urge our young people, especially, to read this book (if they have not already done so) in order that they may become thoroughly acquainted with the history of the origin of our own denomination. That knowledge of this history is important cannot be denied, for it is a history of the Churches of which you and I are members; and our traditions are precious to us.
In the second place, the entire controversy which brought about our Protestant Reformed Churches swirled about important church political questions as well as doctrinal questions. In fact, these church political questions really were the immediate occasion for the beginning of our own denomination. Much of the time of the Consistories, Classes and Synod involved in this controversy was spent in deciding church political matters. But also these questions we intend to leave out of our present discussion. There are several reasons for this: 1) also these church political questions can be learned from “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America” where they are all discussed in detail. 2) Also the kind of discussion these issues warrant would involve too many separate articles in Beacon Lights. 3) The main purpose of this entire series of articles is to show that our own Protestant Reformed Church stand in the doctrinal tradition of the Calvin Reformation and the history of the Reformed Churches through the Synod of Dordrecht and up until today. We shall lose sight of this main purpose if we enter into a detailed discussion of these church political questions.
It ought to be mentioned in passing however, that the chief political issue, and certainly the church political issue that was the immediate occasion for the beginning of our own denomination, was the issue of whether a Classis or a Synod may suspend and depose office bearers from a local congregation. Especially Classis Grand Rapids East (and later Classis Grand Rapids West) took the position that such power was indeed provided for these assemblies by the Church Order. Classis Grand Rapids East suspended and deposed Rev. Hoeksema from office as well as the entire Consistory of Eastern Ave. Christian Reformed Church. Classis Grand Rapids West deposed Rev. H. Danhof and the Consistory of the First Christian Reformed Church in Kalamazoo, and Rev. G.M. Ophoff and the Consistory of the Hope Christian Reformed Church in Riverbend.
Yet this was very wrong, for suspension and deposition from office is an exercise of the key power within the Church of Christ. And Christ has not committed this key power to a Classis or a Synod, but only to a Consistory of a local congregation. These broader ecclesiastical assemblies acted entirely outside their Christ-given jurisdiction. But this error was only the chief of many church political mistakes which the Christian Reformed Church made on both the classical and the synodical level at the time our own Churches were begun.
In the third place (and still by way of introduction) we shall quote in this article, the entire decision of the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of 1924 with respect to common grace. That is, we shall not only quote the “three points”, but the whole decision as it was finally adopted by that Synod; for there are several interesting and important features about it that we shall have to take into account in our discussion. The quotation follows taken from “The Protestant Reformed Church in America” pp.85ff.
“1. Regarding the first point, touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the elect, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession it is established, that besides the saving grace of God shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace o God which He shows to His creatures in general This is evident from the Scriptural passages that were quoted and from the Canons of Dordt, II, 5 and III, IV, 8, 9, where the general offer of the gospel is set forth; while it is also evident from the citations made from Reformed writers belonging to the most flourishing period of Reformed theology that our fathers from of old maintained this view.
“2. Regarding the second point touching the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and of society in general, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Netherland Confession Art. 13 and 36, which teach that God by a general operation of His Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains the unbridled manifestation of sin, so that life in human society remains possible; while the citations from Reformed authors of the most flourishing period of Reformed theology prove, moreover, that our fathers from of old maintained this view.
“3. Regarding the third point, touching the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, synod declares that according to Scritpure and the Confessions, the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any spiritual good (Canons of Dordt, III, IV, 3) are able to perform such civic good. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Canons of Dordt, III, IV, 4, and from the Netherland Confessions, Art. 36, which teach that God without renewing the heart, exercises such an influence upon man that he is enabled to do civic good; while it is, moreover, evident from the citations made from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed theology that our fathers from of old maintained this view.
“Synod expresses that several statements in the writings of the Reverends H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema cannot very well be harmonized with what Scripture and the Confession teach us regarding the above mentioned three points. Synod also judges that the pastors referred to, in their writings use some strong expressions, from which it is evident that in their presentation of the truth they do not sufficiently adhere to the way in which our confessions express themselves, especially Point 1 of the Utrecht Conclusions.
“On the other hand, synod declares that these ministers in their writings, according to their own repeated declarations, do not intend or purpose anything else than to teach and maintain our Reformed doctrine, the doctrine of Scripture and the Confessions; and it cannot be denied that they are Reformed in respect to the fundamental truths as they are formulated in the Confessions even though it be with an inclination to one-sidedness.
“On the other hand, synod declares that these ministers in their writings, according to their own repeated declarations, do not intend or purpose anything else than to teach and maintain our Reformed doctrine, the doctrine of Scripture and the Confessions; and it cannot be denied that they are Reformed in respect to the fundamental truths as they are formulated in the Confessions even though it be with an inclination to one-sidedness.
“With a view to the deviating sentiments of the Reverends H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema regarding the above mentioned three points, and with a view to the controversy that arose in our Church regarding the doctrine of Common or General Grace, synod admonishes the two brethren to abide in their teaching and writing by the standpoint of our Confession regarding the three points that were discussed, and at the same time she admonishes the brethren and the Churches in general to refrain from all one-sidedness in the presentation of the truth, and to express themselves carefully and with sobriety and modesty.
“On the other hand, in as far as the pastors H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema in their writings warn against worldly-mindedness, synod judges that there is, indeed, reason for such warning with a view to a possible misuse of the doctrine of Common Grace, and, therefore, synod considers it its calling to send the following TESTIMONY to the churches.
“Now synod expressed itself on three points that were at stake in the denial of Common Grace and thereby condemned the entire disregard for this doctrine, she feels constrained at the same time to warn our Churches and especially our leaders earnestly against all one-sided emphasis on and misuse of the doctrine of Common Grace. It cannot be denied that there exists a real danger in this respect. When Doctor Kuyper wrote his monumental work on this subject he revealed that he was not unconscious of the danger that some would be seduced by it to lost themselves in the world. And even now history shows that this danger is more than imaginary. And also Doctor Bavinck reminded us of this danger in his Dogmatics.
“When we consider the direction in which the spirit of the time develops round about us, it cannot be denied that our present danger lies more in the direction of worldly-mindedness than of false seclusion. Liberal theology of the present time really obliterates the distinction between the Church and the world. It is more and more emphasized by many that the great significance of the Church lies in her influence upon social life. The consciousness of a spiritual-ethical antithesis becomes increasingly vague in the minds of many to make room for an indefinite notion of a general brotherhood. The preaching of the Word concerns itself largely with the periphery of life and does not penetrate into its spiritual centre. The doctrine of particular grace in Christ is more and more pushed to the background. There is a strong tendency to bring theology into harmony with a science that stands in the service of infidelity. Through the agency of the press and various inventions and discoveries, which as such are, –undoubtedly, to be regarded as good gifts of God, the sinful world is to a great extent carried into our Christian homes.
“Because of all these and similar influences, exerted upon us from every side, it is peremptorily necessary that the Church keep watch over the fundamentals; and that, though she also maintains the above mentioned three points, she vindicates the spiritual-ethical antithesis tooth and nail. May she never permit her preaching to degenerate into mere social treatises or literary productions. Let her be vigilant that Christ and He Crucified and risen always remain the heart of the preaching. Constantly she must maintain the principle that the people of God are a peculiar people, living form their proper root, the root of faith. With holy zeal she must constantly send froth the call to our people, especially to our youth: ‘And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable will and perfect will of God.’ With the blessing of the Lord this will keep our churches from worldly-mindedness, which extinguishes the flame of spiritual ardor and deprives the Church of her power and beauty. (Note: for some unknown reason this “Testimony” was never sent to the Churches.)
“In connection with the overtures that would urge Synod to express itself on the doctrine of common grace as such, or to appoint a committee to study the matter, synod decides as follows:
“a. At the present to formulate no statement relative to the standpoint of the Church regarding the doctrine of general or common grace in every detail and all its implications. Such a statement would presuppose that this doctrine had already been thoroughly considered and developed in all its details, which certainly is least of all the case. Preparatory study, necessary to this purpose, is almost entirely wanting as yet. Consequently, there is in the Reformed Church as yet no consensus of opinion at all in this case.
“b. Neither to appoint a committee to devote itself to the study of this matter, in order to reach the formulation of a dogma concerning this matter, which eventually may be received as part of the Confession.
“(1) Because dogmas are not made but are born out of the conflict of opinions, and, therefore, it is desirable that the establishment for a certain dogma be preceded by a lengthy exchange of opinions. Participation in such a discussion must be as general as possible and must not be limited to a single group of churches:
“(2) Because a certain truth must live clearly in the consciousness of the Church in general, or in the consciousness of a particular group of churches, before the Church is able to profess such a truth in her Confessions. It cannot be said, that this indispensable condition exists at the present or will exist after two or four years.
“c. But to urge the leaders of our people, both ministers and professors, to make further study of the doctrine of Common Grace; that they give themselves account carefully of the problems that present themselves in connection with this matter, in sermons, lectures and publications. It is very desirable that not a single individual or a small number of persons accomplish this task, but that many take part in it. Grounds:
“(1) This will be most naturally conducive to a fruitful discussion of the question of Common Grace, and such an exchange of thoughts is the indispensable condition for the development of the truth.
“(2) It will be instrumental to concentrate the attention of our people upon this doctrine; will serve to elucidate their conception of it and to cause them to feel its significance, so that they become increasingly conscious of this part of the contents of their faith.
“(3) It will, undoubtedly, in the course of a few years, lead to a consensus of opinion in this matter, and thus it will gradually prepare the way in our Churches for a united confession concerning Common Grace.”
Thy will be done on earth, O Lord,
As where in heav’n Thou art adored!
Patience in time of grief bestow,
Obedience true in weal and woe;
Our sinful heart and will control
That thwart Thy will within the soul.
Give us this day our daily bread,
Let us be duly clothed and fed;
Forgive our sins, that they no more
May sore displease Thee as before,
As we forgive their trespasses
Who unto us, have done amiss.
Into temptation lead us not,
And when the foe doth war and plot,
Deliv’rance from all evil give,
For yet in evil days we live;
Redeem us from eternal death,
E’en when we yield our dying breath.
Amen! Amen! So let it be!
Strengthen our faith and trust in Thee,
That we may doubt not, but believe,
That what we as we shall receive;
Thus in Thy Name and at Thy Word
We same Amen; now hear us, Lord!
Martin Luther