Part
7
Introduction
Common grace is
extended to everyone. It is God’s goodness to humanity in general whereby God
graciously restrains the full expression of sin and mitigates sin’s destructive
effects in human society. Common grace imposes moral constraints on people’s
behavior, maintains a semblance of order in human affairs, enforces a sense of
right and wrong through conscience and civil government, enables men and women
to appreciate beauty and goodness, and imparts blessings of all kinds to elect
and non-elect alike.1
In our last six editorials, we have (1) introduced
the basic charge that Phil Johnson levels against the Protestant Reformed
Churches (PRC) and, therefore, also against the BRF, which agrees with the PRC
on these matters; (2) explained the difference between the serious gospel call
and the “well-meant” or “free” offer of the gospel; (3) refuted genuine
hyper-Calvinism, which denies the duty of all men to repent and believe in
Christ; (4) refuted the theory of “common grace,” which is a supposed favour of
God toward the reprobate; (5) addressed some of the texts that Johnson adduces
in favour of his theory of common grace; and (6) addressed some objections made
by real hyper-Calvinists. The quote above from Johnson indicates the subject of
this final editorial—God’s grace and the
restraint of sin.
Remember that Johnson
claims to be a genuine Calvinist: “Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions
lie, I am a Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.” Before we address Johnson’s point
above, we examine the Canons on the
subject of human depravity. It is my contention that Johnson’s view denies the doctrine of total depravity
as set forth in the Canons, and that
God’s restraint of sin can be affirmed without recourse to the error of “common
grace.”
The Canons
and Total Depravity
In Canons III/IV:1, after setting forth man’s original, created
righteousness, the Synod explains the consequences of Adam’s first act of rebellion:
… he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary entailed on
himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of
judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure
in his affections.
Notice what the Synod
affirms—this is what man became, not
what he would have become but for “common grace.” This is what man is. This is what the unbeliever is.
This is what that friendly, unbelieving neighbour on your street is. This is what your friendly, unbelieving
postman is. This is what your kind,
helpful, obliging but unbelieving colleague or family member is. And this is what you, believing
reader, still are by nature, but for
the grace of regeneration and conversion. Do you believe that or is that too
strong? If it is too strong for you, do not call yourself a Calvinist and do
not claim that you “affirm without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt.”
Having set that forth in
Canons III/IV:1, the Synod concludes,
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath,
incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto,
and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they are neither able nor
willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to
dispose themselves to reformation (Canons
III/IV:3).
The “Glimmerings of Natural Light”
The debate between the
advocates of “common grace” and the BRF comes to a head in the interpretation
of the next article of the Canons. In
fact, that article was quoted in the infamous “Three Points of Common Grace”
adopted by the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in 1924. In the second point, we
read, “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;” and in the third point, we read, “the unregenerate,
though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good” and “God, without
renewing the heart, so influences man that he is able to perform civil good.”
Johnson appears to believe essentially the same thing.
Canons III/IV:4 consists of two parts. First, the Synod explains what man,
despite the fall, still retains in terms of “natural light.” Second, the Synod
explains what man does with this “natural light.” Herman Hoeksema and Herman
Hanko take note of the fact that “the committee [that the CRC] synod had
appointed to serve her with advice in this matter did not quote the article
entirely, but only the first sentence of it.”2
Here is the part of the
article to which the CRC appeals in its advocacy of “common grace”:
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
difference between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good
order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment …
Article 4 was not
written in order to contradict Articles 1-3—Dordt does not return with the
right hand what it took away with the left hand. Articles 1-3 are an
uncompromising, biblical statement of total depravity, the first petal in the
Reformed TULIP. Dordt is not claiming in Canons
III/IV:4 that man is still good after all or that man is still good in some
sense. Article 4 is not a denial or a dilution of total depravity. It is,
however, an explanation or a clarification. What did man become after the fall?
Has he become a beast or a demon? Does man commit every possible sin? Is man’s
depravity such that life is impossible, inasmuch as all men are raping,
murdering, rampaging demons? And if all men are not raping, murdering,
rampaging demons, is that due to common grace or due to the remnants of some
goodness in man? Those are the issues in Canons
III/IV:4.
The key phrase is “the
glimmerings of natural light.”
Before the fall,
according to Canons III/IV:1, man was
“adorned with a true and saving [Latin: salutary,
beneficial] knowledge of his Creator and of spiritual things.” That is gone—in
its place is “blindness of mind.” The light that man retains is merely “natural.”
Everyone has natural light, which is the natural light of reason. However,
fallen man retains only “glimmerings” of that light. Imagine the power of Adam’s
natural light before the fall compared to man’s darkened mind after the fall.
We think that we are modern, sophisticated and intellectual. Adam’s intellect
far exceeded ours. What is the power of this “natural light” of reason? Article
4 lists several things: (1) he retains some knowledge of God; (2) he retains some
knowledge of natural things; (3) he retains some knowledge of the differences
between good and evil; and (4) he discovers some regard for virtue, good order
in society and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.
And he does all of this while remaining totally depraved.
Let us explain and prove
these various aspects of “natural light.”
First, the totally
depraved unbeliever retains “some knowledge of God.” This is, however, not a “true
and saving knowledge” of God, not the knowledge of love and fellowship, and not
a spiritual appreciation of God. Nevertheless, even the dullest atheist knows
that God exists. Even the demons know that God exists and they know that
without “common grace.” The reader should consult Romans 1:18-23 and James
2:19.
Second, the totally depraved unbeliever retains “some
knowledge of … natural things.” This is, however, not a “true and saving
knowledge … of spiritual things.” Sinful man can engage in intellectual
pursuits. He can study the world, develop science and become proficient in many
fields of study, but all of it is merely in natural things. That is part of the
so-called “cultural mandate” of Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion …” Man pursues science,
art, culture and philosophy, and he does so as
totally depraved. An unbelieving, cultured scientist with a PhD in physics
is as depraved as an idolatrous, cannibalistic savage in the jungles of Papua
New Guinea.
Third, the totally depraved unbeliever retains “some
knowledge of … the differences between good and evil.” He knows, for example,
that murder is wrong, that theft is wrong and that living faithfully with one
wife is good. He knows that because his inner judge—his conscience—reminds him of that.
Romans 2:14-15 states,
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 shew 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.
When Gentiles do “the
things contained in the law,” they do not obey God’s law, which is impossible
(Rom. 8:7), but they display external virtue and avoid external vice. When they
display “the work of the law written in their hearts,” this does not mean that
God has written the law on their
hearts—that is regeneration (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10)—but it means that God has
written the knowledge of right and wrong in their hearts, and He testifies it
to their consciences. All men know the difference between right and wrong. This
does not make them good, or even partially good, but inexcusable!
Fourth, the totally
depraved unbeliever “discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society,
and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.” Even the basest of sinners
prefer to live in a nation of laws. They see some need for a criminal justice
system, even if they hope to escape human justice, and they see the benefit of
complying with some moral code. Most people generally obey the law of the land.
However this is not “civil righteousness”—it is self-preservation. Law is good
for them and law is good for society. Most are astute enough to discern that
lawlessness is counterproductive. Many are restrained by a natural sense of
shame or a fear of punishment. But unless the Holy Spirit regenerates a sinner
and writes God’s law on his heart, that sinner will never serve God out of
thankfulness from the heart.
These “glimmerings of
natural light” do not amount to much—they do not produce good works, they do
not constitute righteousness, they are not pleasing to God and they are not
spiritual or saving good. And their existence has nothing to do with “common
grace.”
An Inexcusable Omission
However, the Synod of
Dordt did not finish there.
Here is the part of Canons III/IV:4 that the CRC Synod did not quote:
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.
Notice those damning
words. Not only do the “glimmerings of natural light” not improve totally depraved man, they actually make his judgment
before God even worse because of his
misuse of them. Unregenerate man is “incapable of using it [i.e., the light of
nature] aright even in things natural and civil.” When man seems to fulfil the “cultural
mandate” of Genesis 1:28, he sins. (In fact, all of his endeavours are not a
fulfilling of the “cultural mandate” but a selfish pursuit of pleasure, wealth,
power and sin). When man develops science, medicine and technology, he sins.
When man pursues any field of study, he sins. When man behaves in an outwardly
moral fashion, even when he lets conscience be his guide and when he follows God’s
law externally, he sins. When man lives as a law-abiding citizen, in
faithfulness to one wife and loves his children, he sins. Everything man does,
he does in the service of sin. He cannot use natural light aright even in things natural and civil (cf.
Prov. 21:4).
Of course, if, instead of
pursuing a cure for cancer, man makes and deploys a terrorist bomb, he sins
even more. If, instead of living in faithfulness to his wife, he commits
adultery or, if instead of loving his children, he neglects or abuses them, he
sins even more. If instead of living as a law-abiding citizen, he becomes a
criminal, he sins more. The issue is not between depravity and “common grace,”
but between different expressions of depravity.
Moreover, “this light,
such as it is [and it is not much], man in various ways renders wholly
polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness.” Man pollutes—he wholly pollutes—his intellectual gifts,
his knowledge of God, his knowledge of good and evil, his conscience, and his
natural sense of morality and external virtue. He wholly pollutes it! Do you believe that or is that too strong? If it is
too strong for you, do not call yourself a Calvinist and do not claim that you “affirm
without reservation the Canons of the Synod
of Dordt.”
The Synod of Dordt did
not invent this out of whole cloth. The Synod echoes the teaching of sacred
Scripture. Romans 1:18 states that unbelievers “hold the truth in
unrighteousness,” where the verb “hold” means to “hold down” or to “suppress.”
I Timothy 4:2 speaks of those “having their consciences seared with a hot iron.”
Titus 1:15-16 warns that
unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even
their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in
works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good
work reprobate.
Romans 3:12 simply
teaches, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” No one does spiritual good,
saving good, moral good, natural good, civil good or any other kind of good
before God.
Yet Johnson writes
without a shred of biblical evidence:
Common grace is extended to everyone. It is God’s goodness to humanity
in general whereby God graciously restrains the full expression of sin and
mitigates sin’s destructive effects in human society. Common grace imposes
moral constraints on people’s behaviour, maintains a semblance of order in
human affairs, enforces a sense of right and wrong through conscience and civil
government, enables men and women to appreciate beauty and goodness, and
imparts blessings of all kinds to elect and non-elect alike.
At the same time, he
insists, “Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist,
affirming without reservation the Canons
of the Synod of Dordt.” If Johnson affirms the Canons, then he must affirm Canons
III/IV:4, including the second half of the article, which the CRC in her “Three
Points of Common Grace” inexcusably omits.
Walking by Faith, Not by
Sight
All
of this raises a legitimate question. Total depravity does not seem to be true
and “common grace,” as Johnson describes it, seems to be true. We all know nice
unbelievers. Not all men are actual rapists and murderers. Not all men behave
like Adolf Hitler. There are people whom you know, who are unbelievers, to whom
you would entrust your house, your car and even your children. Does not God
indeed restrain them through “common grace,” so they do not kill you and steal
your possessions?
First,
we do not judge doctrine by experience. That is a recipe for disaster. What
does the Word of God say? “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. 6:5).
Let
these words sink in:
“the wickedness of man was great in the earth.”
“[The] imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was … evil.”
“every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was … evil.”
“every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil.”
“every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.”
The
question is not, “Do you see and observe that?” but, “Do you believe that?”
Second,
do you know the heart of your kind unbelieving neighbour? If you could look
into the heart of your kind, unbelieving neighbour, as God can and does, what
would you see? You would see that every imagination of the thoughts of your
kind, unbelieving neighbour’s heart is only evil continually. And if we could
display the imagination of the thoughts of your kind, unbelieving neighbour’s
heart on a large screen for you to see, you would no longer think that he was
good. If we could do that with the imagination of the thoughts of your heart, we would not think you are
good either.
So
perhaps we think that we find “good people.” God finds none (Ps. 14:2-3; Rom.
3:10-18).
The
answer, then, is not to deny total depravity; it is not to find some remnant of
good in man; it is not to teach that God counteracts the natural outbreak of
evil in man’s heart by a generous dose of “common grace,” so that he is less
evil than he could be. The answer is that sin develops in a human being, in
society and in history. Sin develops in God’s providence, not under God’s “common
grace,” and sin takes time to reach its full potential.
This
teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism
is that “we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness” (Q. 8). The teaching is not that we
actually perform every conceivable form of wickedness. Evil is like a seed in
us, which has the potential to grow, but not all wicked people develop in sin
in the same way. Some men are more inclined to sexual sins than others: they
might develop into pornographers, adulterers or even rapists. Some men are more
inclined to greed than others: they might develop into thieves, robbers,
fraudsters or simply live as misers. Every one of us has a sinful nature and
every one of us is capable of every conceivable sin. And each of us is totally
depraved by nature.
Moreover,
not all men have the same opportunity to develop in sin, because the
development of sin takes time. As sin develops in a man’s life and in society, that
man or that society becomes ripe for judgment. For example, Adam and Eve were
totally depraved as soon as they disobeyed God in the Garden, but Adam did not
immediately break out into every conceivable form of wickedness. When God
declared in Genesis 15:16, “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full,” He did
not mean that the Amorites were not yet totally depraved—they were—but He meant that the Amorites had not
fully developed their potential for wickedness.
Take Adolf Hitler as an
example. When Hitler was six years old, he was as totally depraved as he was
when he died at age fifty-six. But at age six, Hitler had neither the
imagination, nor the opportunity, nor the power to mastermind the Holocaust.
The same is true with society: everyone from Adam and Eve onward was totally
depraved, but it took over 1,600 years before the whole world was filled with
violence and had reached a point where it was ripe for destruction (Gen.
6:11-13). The same is happening in our day: our society is developing in sin,
man is finding new ways to sin, which development will culminate in the man of
sin, at which point sin will be fully ripe and God’s wrath will be filled up.
The development of sin,
as all other things, is under the sovereign control of God. God wills that sin
develop in the human race and that sin reach its full potential. God does not
will this because He delights in sin—He hates sin!—but because God wills that
sin be seen as the dreadfully wicked thing that it is, so that He can be
glorified in saving sinners from it and so that He can be glorified in
punishing it.
In addition, God does restrain man’s sin, but He does not
restrain sin inwardly and graciously by His Holy Spirit. God does not restrain
sin in such a way that man becomes less
than totally depraved or even able to do good. God restrains sin through
various means—He uses the law as a restraint; He uses a sense of fear, shame,
self-preservation and other motives to restrain sin; He even uses sickness and
death to restrain sinners. All of these restraints act like a muzzle on a rabid
dog.
But that is not “common
grace.”
Conclusion
We have now come to the
end of our answer to Johnson’s “Primer on Hyper-Calvinism.” I remind the reader
why I took up the pen in the first place. Johnson slandered the PRC, and, by
extension, the BRF and others who agree with the truth of particular grace,
with these words:
The best-known American hyper-Calvinists are the Protestant Reformed
Churches (PRC). They deny that there is any sort of “offer” (in the sense of a
proffer or tender or proposal of mercy) in the gospel message. They also deny
that they are hyper-Calvinists, because they insist that the only variety of
hyper-Calvinism is that which denies the gospel call (Type-1 above).3
The most articulate advocate of the PRC position is David Engelsma,
whose book Hyper-Calvinism
and the Call of the Gospel is an interesting but in my view terribly
misleading study of the question of whether PRC theology properly qualifies as
hyper-Calvinism. Engelsma does some selective quoting and interpretive
gymnastics in order to argue that his view is mainstream Reformed theology. But
a careful reading of his sources shows that he often quotes out of context, or
ends a quote just before a qualifying statement that would totally negate the
point he thinks he has made. Still, for those interested in these issues, I
recommend his book, with a caution to read to very critically and with careful
discernment.
We have taken issue with
Johnson’s remarks not out of denominational loyalty or in order to defend our
theological friends or even in order to defend ourselves but because Johnson’s
statement is not true. The ninth
commandment, as explained in the Heidelberg
Catechism, requires that “I love the truth, speak it uprightly, and confess
it; also that I defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good
character of my neighbour” (A. 112). God hates lies and He especially hates
lies about Himself. Johnson labels an entire denomination of churches and one
of those churches’ leading theologians, Prof. David J. Engelsma, with the
dishonourable epithet of hyper-Calvinist. He also makes unsubstantiated charges
against Engelsma’s book, Hyper-Calvinism
and the Call of the Gospel, accusing Engelsma of “selective quoting and
interpretive gymnastics.” For this charge, he has not offered one word of
evidence.
We have found Johnson’s
fivefold definition of hyper-Calvinism wanting. Only one of his five points,
namely, a denial that faith is the duty of every sinner, is genuine hyper-Calvinism. A denial of the
“well-meant” or “free” offer is not
hyper-Calvinism. A denial of “common grace” is not hyper-Calvinism. The standard against which genuine Calvinism
is to be measured is not Phil
Johnson, not even Calvin’s Institutes and certainly not the New
Dictionary of Theology, but it is the Canons
of Dordt, which Johnson claims to “affirm without reservation.” The Canons explain the relationship between
the serious call and the saving desire of God, and from the Canons one would never reach Johnson’s
faulty definition of hyper-Calvinism. Ultimately, of course, the authority is
the Word of God, which is why we have given a careful exegesis of key texts of Scripture
pertinent to the topic.
Finally, I pray that in
my writing of these editorials and in your reading of them, we have not
harboured rancour against Johnson in our hearts. In much theological polemics,
there is more heat than light. We have as much as possible avoided
personalities. We have been interested in expounding the truth: the truth about God, about Christ, about man, about sin, and
about salvation.
It is my desire that
Johnson might re-examine his “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism” and come to realize
that, while he might not agree with us on this matter, we do not deserve to
bear the opprobrious name of hyper-Calvinists, for we insist most strongly that
God’s grace is particular and that the reprobate, who are never partakers of
that particular, effectual, saving grace, are nevertheless required by God to
repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ as He is set forth in the
gospel.
That is, we are genuine,
biblical, Reformed, creedal Calvinists!
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
2. Herman Hanko and Herman Hoeksema, Ready
to Give an Answer: A Catechism of Reformed Distinctives (Grandville,
MI: RFPA, 1997), p. 137.
3. Johnson is mistaken here also. The PRC (and the
BRF) do not deny the false charge that we are hyper-Calvinists “because [we]
insist that the only variety of hyper-Calvinism is that which denies the gospel
call [Type-1 above].” We deny that we are hyper-Calvinists because we insist
that the only variety of hyper-Calvinism is that which denies duty faith (and duty repentance) [Type-2
above].
No comments:
Post a Comment