About The Three Points

The First Point, as we have repeatedly indicated, is the most important of the three. Yet, in connection with the theory of “common grace,” also the second and third points are significant. Hence, in the report of the committee of the Christian Reformed Church that met with a committee of the schismatics, also the latter we discussed.

We better first quote the “Second Point” in its entirety. It reads as follows:

“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 Confession. This is evident from the citations from Scripture and from the Netherland Confession, Art. 13 and 36, which teach that God by the general operation 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 of Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed theology, that from ancient times our Reformed fathers were of the same opinion.”

The committee of the schismatics have the following to say about this second point:

“1. We agree that there is a restraint of sin in the present world and that this restraint of sin is ascribed to the ‘gracious God’ as Article 36 states: ‘Our gracious God appoints government to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained.’

“2. Our difference consists in this:

“a. That neither Article 13 nor 36 makes it evident that this is to be ascribed to the general operation of the Holy Spirit. Because this is saying more than the Confessions literally state, we believe that the wording needs revision. In expressions words must be exact.

“b. That Point II, by putting the restraint of sin solely in the context of the goodness of God which makes human society possible, fails to enunciate it in the larger context of Gen. 3:15 with its spiritual antithesis. We hold the church to be the apple of God’s eye and that God preserves her against the rage of the whole world (Confessions, Art. 27). This restraint of sin serves also to bridle the raging world in defense of His Church (Psalm 105:14, 15; Isaiah 45:14; Arts. 13 and 36, and Lord’s Day 10).

“c. That Point II, although stating that amid all the restraint the heart of the natural man is not renewed, yet, in connection with III, it nevertheless leaves the impression that after the fall there is still much good left in man, that is preserved by the Holy Spirit and nurtured unto good works. This endangers the doctrine of total depravity, and leaves out of perspective Canons III, IV, 3, 4, which state that man holds the remnant under in unrighteousness.

“Therefore, we propose a reformulation somewhat as follows:

“There is a restraint of sin, which, within the providence of God, brings about a degree of good order and decency in society. It curbs the dissoluteness of man and makes human society possible, but it serves especially to defend and preserve the church in the world. This expression is not to be interpreted to mean that there is any essential improvement in the depraved sinner.”

What shall we say about this?

Although the schismatics present some points of difference with the second point, yet, they essentially agree: there is a restraint of sin.

They also try to maintain that this restraint of sin is “common grace” when they emphasize that the “gracious God” instituted governments.

Their points of difference are:

1. That the Confessions do not make it evident that this restraint of sin is to be ascribed to the general operations of the Holy Spirit. They do not even deny that this may be true, but simply claim that the Confessions do not literally state this.

2. That the restraint of sin, besides being the manifestation of the goodness and grace of God over all men, in this case, of course, especially over the wicked, also serves to defend and preserve the Church.

3. That the second point, by leaving the impression that, after the fall, there is still much good left in the natural man, endangers the doctrine of total depravity. Especially from this last point, it is evident that the schismatics rather freely consulted my book on “The History of the Protestant Reformed Churches.” The difference is that I did not write that the “second point”endangers but that it denies the doctrine of total depravity.

Hence, we may formulate the schismatics’ idea of the second point in this fashion:

“There is a general goodness or grace of God, especially over the wicked, according to which He restrains sin in them, so that they will not sin as much as they would without this restraint. Through this common grace the dissoluteness of man is curbed and human society is made possible and the church in the world is preserved. But there is no essential improvement in the depraved sinner.”

Rather than criticize this compromise of the schismatics in detail we will present our own positive conception on the matter.

We believe that man, after the fall is totally depraved so that he is incapable of doing any good and inclined to all evil. Nor is there any “common grace” that restrains his depraved nature. All the natural gifts left him after the fall he employs in the service of sin and he holds them under in unrighteousness. But, like the whole human race, so sin follows the line of organic development. Adam was the root as well as the head of the human race. His sin, therefore, was a root-sin and this root-sin bears fruit in all the actual sins of the human race. As the human race develops and life with all its different relationships becomes more complex, sin also reveals itself as corrupting more and more the whole of life and all its relations until the measure of iniquity is filled. But there is no “common grace.” Nor, although all men do not commit all sin, but each one sin? according to his character, his position in life, and other limitations, upon this organic development of sin, is there any restraint. Under the power and control of God, the development proceeds as fast as possible. All things hasten unto the end and the Lord comes quickly.

The “second point” is a pernicious perversion of the truth.

Such is our conviction.

—H.H.

Evolution, Long Periods, or Days

In our last article on the above subject we began the discussion of the creation of man on the sixth day, particularly according to Gen. 2:7. We pointed out that the very fact that God formed man, something which is not said of any of the other creatures, indicates that man is a distinct creature, surely not developed from the lower animals.

However, we have more to say on this point.

When we read in Gen. 2:7 that God formed man out of the dust of the ground we must not interpret this as meaning that God first formed a lifeless lump of clay in the shape of a human body and afterwards breathed life into that body. Undoubtedly, the forming of man from the dust of the ground refers to the creation of the body, that is to man from the material aspect. But, in the first place, do not overlook the fact that the human body is a marvelous structure, with its sense of sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell, with its entire nervous system, leading from those senses to the inner man or soul; and that thus this human body is perfectly adapted to the outside world. In the second place, we must not forget that the act of forming man, the entire man, is one act, though it be twofold. We do not read that God formed a lifeless body from the dust of the ground and afterwards breathed a soul into that body, but, on the contrary, that God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and thus man became a living soul. In other words: by this twofold act of God man became one living soul. Man, too, is not two but one, even though he may be distinguished as body and soul or spirit and even though for a time his spirit, as in death, may be separated from the body.

Hence, when we read that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life we must interpret this as meaning that God gave to the human nature its own life in distinction from the animals, a life according to which he was related to the present world through his senses, but also to God. By this wonderful twofold act of God man became one physical, psychical, spiritual being. We may, therefore, distinguish in the one man various elements or aspects. In the first place, there is the physical aspect, according to which, through his senses, he is related to the outside world. In the second place there is the psychical aspect of his body, according to which, through the nervous system, he is related to his inner soul. In the third place, there is what I would call the physical part of the soul, by which the inner man received the sensations from the outside world. In the fourth place, there is the psychical part of the soul with intellect and will. And, finally, there is the spiritual part of the soul, according to which man is a person and stands in conscious personal relation to God. All this is very beautifully and succinctly expressed in Gen. 2:7: God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul.

Needless to say that this is quite opposed to the theory of evolution. According to the latter, God did not form man separately, but by a long process of gradual evolution he descended from the lower animals, perhaps finally from the ape. In that case, of course, man has no distinct being and nature but is nothing else than a higher animal. Strange it may be regarded, indeed, that we see nothing of this process of development in our present world. Nor do we see any further development of man. To be sure, he develops in the world. He still reveals the remnant of his original power and dominion over all things. He also develops in sin and destruction. But, always he remains the same man and there is absolutely no development in him from a lower to a higher being. But even apart from this, the whole theory of evolution is contrary to the Scriptures which we believe to be the infallible Word of God. For that Word of God teaches us very plainly that man did not descend from the lower animals, but that God gave a distinct existence by forming him out of the dust of the ground and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life.

The same is true of the theory of long periods, which is nothing but a camouflaged form of the theory of evolution. According to this theory, God must have taken thousands or even perhaps millions of years to create man. But this certainly is not in harmony with the account in Gen. 2:7. Did it require thousands of years to form man out of the dust of the ground and to breathe into his nostrils the breath of life? We know better. Rather we conceive of it as an act of one moment, for that is certainly the impression Scripture makes upon us.

Hence, neither the theory of evolution nor that of long periods can possibly be brought into harmony with the Scriptural account of the creation of man.

Here we must choose between the Word of God and the philosophy of mere man.

—H.H.