About The Three Points

Here follows the report of the Christian Reformed Committee that was deliberating with the schismatics about the notorious Three Points. Here, too, as we did with regard to the report of the schismatics, we, first of all, discuss what they offer on Point I:

“Regarding Point I. Inasmuch as the brethren of the Protestant Reformed Churches (sic! God forbid! H.H.) have informed us that their churches fear that our declarations in Point I jeopardize the doctrine of God’s elective decrees and the doctrine of irresistible grace, we wish to state: (1) Our committee declares that it is fully persuaded that the Synod of 1924 in no way countenanced the undermining of the important doctrines of Holy Writ, and we repudiate any interpretation of Point I which would in any way be antagonistic to these truths; (2) Our committee grants (without denying the well-meant offer of salvation—which we believe to. be both biblical and confessional—and to which further reference will be made by us) that the passages in the Canons of Dordt cited in the declarations of Synod 1924 (II, 5; III, 8 and 9) do not specifically state that the general offer of salvation is an evidence of God’s favor toward mankind in general; (3) That our committee also grants that the placement of this item in the context of the favorable attitude of God to all men, apparently gave rise to a measure of confusion.

“Coming back to the well-meant offer of salvation, we desire to stress however, that in the call of the gospel there is, indeed, a manifestation of a certain favor of God to all that hear that gospel. This is in harmony with the Confessions (Canons I, 1-5; II, 5: III, IV, 8 and 9) which state that God promises salvation, rest of soul and eternal life to everyone who repents and believes; and this promise is made without distinction to all those to whom the gospel is preached. And although it is true, that among those who are called by the ministry of the Word, there are those who refuse to come and be converted . . . (the cause or guilt of their unbelief) is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon them various gifts . . . the fault lies wholly in themselves . . .’

“We also declare that Point I in no way countenances the teaching that in the making of the offer of the gospel God purposes to bestow upon all men who hear the gospel the gift of justifying faith . . . . Canons II, 8.”

Later in the report we read:

“Your committee believes that it can report as follows with respect to the examination of the similarities and differences as requested in our original letter to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1957:

“1. With respect to Point I.

“a. That both committees have agreed that there is a certain favor or grace shown to the creatures in general.’

“b. With respect to the preaching of the gospel, both committees agree that it is a separate matter and should not appear in the context of Point I.

“c. With respect to the ‘well-meant’ offer of the gospel (refer to P.R. committee report). However, our committee has not reached unanimity of opinion on the question of the ‘well-meant’ offer in the context of God’s favorable attitude.”

What shall we say about this?

We remark the following:

1. That the committee of the Christian Reformed Church did not concede one tittle or iota, in regard to the First Point, to the schismatics, although the latter plainly admit that there is a grace of God to all men, wicked and righteous. They not even as much as suggest a new formulation of the First Point. It is evident that, if the schismatics are ever to be received again in the Christian Reformed Church, they will, as far as the committee is concerned, have to agree with the First Point in all its implications. Nor should this be difficult for them in view of the fact that they already admit that God is gracious to all men.*

2. It is true that the Christian Reformed committee appears to make a concession when they state that the preaching of the gospel is a separate matter and should not appear in the context of the First Point. But in reality they not even grant this. For notice, in the first place the wording of the report on this matter. They state that the Canons do not specifically (Italics mine, H.H.) state that the general offer of salvation is an evidence of God’s favor toward mankind in general.” They also grant that the placing of this item in the context of the First Point “apparently gave rise to a measure of confusion.” However, in the very next paragraph they contradict this again for there they state that the well-meant offer of the gospel is indeed “a manifestation of a certain favor of God to all who hear that gospel” and they make this claim on the basis also of the very quotations from the Canons to which the Synod of 1924 refers in support of the First Point. Here, then, is a palpable contradiction. Let me put the two statements side by side so that the reader may clearly see the contradiction:

1) “Our committee grants that the passages in the Canons of Dordt cited in the declarations of the Synod of 1924, II, 5, III, IV, S and 9, do not specifically state that the general offer of salvation is an evidence of God’s favor to mankind in general.”

2) “In the call of the gospel there is, indeed, a manifestation of a certain favor of God to all who hear the gospel. This is in harmony with the Confession, Canons 1, 1-5; II, 5 and 6; III, IV, 8, 9.”

O, I understand very well that the committee now changes “mankind in general” into “all who hear the gospel.” But what is the difference? It is not the question to how many the grace or favor of God is shown in the preaching of the gospel but whether that grace is common. It is even absurd to maintain that the preaching of the gospel is grace to all mankind. It is still more absurd to say that the preaching of the gospel is grace to “the creatures in general.” But the simple question is whether the grace of God in the preaching of the gospel is common. This the committee still maintains. And it now adds to the so-called proof from the Confessions also Canons I, 1-5.

I have no space to quote this part of the Canons. I ask the reader to consult it for himself. But I claim that Canons, I, 1-5 teach the very opposite from common grace in the preaching of the gospel. They teach that even the gospel is sent to whom God wills and when He pleases, that the wrath of God abides on those that believe not, that those that believe are saved, that the guilt of unbelief is not in God but in man himself, but that faith and salvation are the free gift of God. Where in all this is there any suggestion of so-called common grace?

Hence, I still maintain that the theory, that the preaching of the gospel is common grace, is not Reformed but Arminian.

3. However, the committee appears to make one concession when it says that the preaching of the gospel is a separate matter and should not appear in the context of the First Point. In the light of what precedes, however, I cannot understand this concession. The committee has already maintained that the “well-meant offer of the gospel” is common grace. Why, then, eliminate this well-meant offer from the First Point? Besides, is not this rather dangerous? If this should be eliminated, the First Point appears entirely without any confessional basis for the only ground of the Confessions is exactly the general offer of the gospel as taught in Canons II, 5; III, IV, 8 and 9. Is it possible for a Reformed Synod to declare an altogether new doctrine, such as that God is gracious to His creatures in general, without any reference to the Confessions? I wish that the committee of the Christian Reformed Church would shed some light on this question. I seriously ask them to explain how it is possible to eliminate the preaching of the gospel from the context of the First Point without stripping this Point of all Confessional grounds. In fact, if they really mean this, they must, also repudiate many of the Scriptural passages quoted in support of the First Point. And they really destroy the most important part of this Point. Hence, please, explain.

—H.H.

Evolution, Long Periods, or Days

We were discussing the sixth day of the creation-week, particularly the creation of man. We said that it is impossible to harmonize what Gen. 1 tells us about the creation of man with the theory of evolution or, what is practically the same thing, with that of long periods. In proof of this, we called attention to the fact that the sixth day was certainly limited by evening and morning, i.e. by the setting and rising of the sun. We also remarked that man was created in the image of God and that such an exalted creature certainly could not gradually have developed from one of the lower animals.

Now:

3. We call attention to the fact, before the creation of man, there was a pause. God spoke: “Let us make man in our image.” To whom did God say this? Certainly not to the angels, for man was not formed after the image of the angels and, besides, the angels could have no part in the creation of man. He, but God spoke to Himself as the triune God: there is here already an indication of the plurality of God’s personal existence. But the point I wish to make is that this pause in the creation narrative clearly indicates that man is formed as a distinct creature. He certainly is related to the animals as well as to the entire creation over which God gave him dominion; but he is not developed from the animal but is a very distinct creature. This is indicated by the pause in the narrative, but the fact that God spoke to Himself before He created man, as well as by the contents of this speech of God.

4. The same truth, namely, that man is a very distinct creature, formed in a moment of time, and not developed from the lower creation, is also indicated by the very way in which God formed man. We read in Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul.”

Here we may note several elements that are of interest for our discussion of the creation narrative in connection with the theory of evolution and of long periods.

First of all, we may note that the narrative tells us that “the Lord God formed man.” This is said only of the creation of man. In respect to all the rest of creation we read that God simply spoke His Word and the creature thus called came into existence. Even when fish and fowls were created from the waters, and the land animals from the earth, they were called forth by the Word of God. This, however, is not the case with man. He was not simply brought forth by the earth, nor did the earth produce him through the Word of God, but the Lord God formed him. This points to a very clear distinction from all the rest of creation, even also from the rest of the animals. All other animals are called forth from the earth. But man is separated from the earth by a distinct act of God. He is, therefore, from the outset entirely different from the rest of the animals even as far as his form is concerned.

More about this next time, D.V.

—H.H.

* See, however, under 3.