Discussion of the Three Points

In Torch and Trumpet the Rev. Fred H, Klooster discusses the “Three Points.” In a footnote he informs us that what now appears as an article in Torch and Trumpet was originally a paper read before the Holland-Zeeland Inter Nos.

The article has three divisions. The first part discusses the general features of the decisions of 1924; the second section offers a brief discussion of the “Three points” proper; the third attempts to prove that the “Three Points” are Reformed.

We are interested chiefly in the second and third parts. First of all, then, we will discuss the First Point. We will quote it here in full, then see what the Rev. Klooster has to say about it and, finally present our own view of the matter.

The First Point reads as follows:

“Relative to the first point which concerns the favorable attitude of God to humanity in general and not only towards the elect, Synod declares it to be established according to Scripture and the Confession that, apart from the saving grace of God shown only to those that are elect unto eternal life, there is also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general. This is evident from the Scriptural passages quoted and from the Canons of Dordrecht, II, 5 and III, IV, 8, 9, which deal with the general offer of the gospel, while it also appears from the citations made from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed Theology that our Reformed writers from the past favored this view.”

Such is the First Point, which is also the most important of the three.

Now what does the Rev. Klooster have to say about this?

Fact is that he says very little about this which could probably be expected from a brief essay on such an important subject, but which, nevertheless, is deplorable. I could wish that the Rev. Klooster would write a series of articles on the “Three Points” and then enter into a thorough discussion especially of the proof the Synod offered from Scripture and the Confessions. He does nothing of the kind.

What he writes on the Scriptural proof I will quote here:

“The passages mentioned are Psalm 145:9, Matthew 5:44, 45,Luke 6:35, 36, Acts 14:16, 17, I Timothy 4:10, Romans 2:4; as well as the passages concerning the well-meant gospel offer,Ezekiel 33:11 and Ezekiel 18:33. Unfortunately the advisory committee does no more than list the passages in proof-text method. However, the problem involves divergent exegesis of each passage. It is not possible to evaluate each passage here. It must be admitted that they are not all equally valid. It seems to me that one of the strongest passages in defense of the Synodical decision is Luke 6:35, 36; ‘But love your enemies, and do them good never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for He is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.’ If this passage is parallel to Matthew 5:44, 45, as I believe it is, then this attitude of kindness and mercy is applied to the gifts of rain and sunshine given to all men as well.”

This is all.

In reality, therefore, the Rev. Klooster can produce only one sure text in proof of the doctrine of the universal favor or grace of God.

For about the other passages of Scripture to which the Synod refers he writes himself that “the problem involved divergent exegesis of each passage.” And again: “it must be admitted that they are not all equally valid.” Hence, the only passage he has left is the one in Luke 6 and the parallel text in Matthew 5.

But is it Scriptural and Reformed to base an entire doctrine on a single text of Holy Writ? We know better.

Even if the text in Luke 6 in connection with Matthew 5 would seem to teach universal grace, which it does not as I hope to show later, I surely would not dare to base an entire doctrine on it especially in the light of the fact that the Bible teaches very clearly that God hates the wicked every day.

At any rate I wish that the Rev. Klooster would still offer a careful exegesis of all the passages which the Synod of 1924 quoted in favor of the First Point. Only then can we possibly get something worthwhile.

The Rev. Klooster also refers in his article to the so-called proof of the First Point the Synod of 1924 adduced from the Canons. And again I will quote him in full. Writes he:

“The Synodical decision seeks support for the well-meant offer of the gospel by an appeal to the Canons of Dordt. The Canons (III, IV, 8, 9) are indeed quite explicit in asserting the doctrine of the well-meant gospel call, for they say’: ‘as many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called.’ But I do not think the Canons say much concerning the precise point at issue; namely, whether this well-meant offer of the gospel is evidence of an attitude of favor on God’s part to mankind in general. Perhaps the statement that ‘God calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts’ (III, IV, 9) comes closest to the point at issue. The Synod claims further support for the first point by an appeal to the classic Reformed theologians who have maintained this doctrine.”

Do we not receive the impression from the foregoing that the Rev. Klooster does not believe that the Synod of 1924 adduced any proof for the First Point from the Confessions?

First he writes that the Synod “seeks support for the well-meant offer of the gospel by an appeal to the Canons of Dordt.” This already leaves the impression that the Rev. Klooster is not sure that the Synod succeeded. Then, although he asserts that the Canons are quite explicit in teaching the well-meant gospel call, he evidently doubts whether this proves the main point at issue, namely, the favorable attitude of God to all mankind in general. And finally, he writes that a statement in Canons III, IV, 9 “perhaps comes closest to the point at issue.” Hence, we claim that the Rev. Klooster is not at all sure that the First Point finds any support in the Confessions.

And as far as I am concerned, as the Rev. Klooster well knows, there is no proof at all in the Confessions for the doctrine of “common grace.” And what is more, I maintain that all our Confessions teach the truth of particular grace and stand diametrically opposed to any favorable attitude of God to the wicked and ungodly.

This I hope to prove in future articles.

—H.H.

Evolution, Long Periods, or Days

I meant to write on this subject already for some time, but several important subjects demanded my attention.

Now, however, I will put my thoughts on paper immediately.

The occasion for this is that a certain brother, who is himself a student at Calvin, approached me in connection with an article in the SB in which I wrote that the theory of evolution was taught at Calvin College. He claimed that this was not true.

In our conversation he emphasized that, at Calvin, no Darwinism was taught. This I readily admitted, but, at the same time I claimed that Darwinism is dead and that no one believes anymore in the theory of evolution as Darwin taught it.

He admitted, however, that at Calvin long periods of millions or even of billions of years of creation were taught instead of, as Scripture has it, days of twenty-four hours. And this I claimed is the same as the theory of evolution.

Well, this may explain why I write on the above mentioned subject at the present time.

Let me, first of all, write a few words about Darwinism, as this subject was brought up in the conversation I had with the brother I referred to above.

It is many years ago that I made a study of the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin. I investigated especially two works of his, namely, the book on “The Origin of Species which he emphasizes “natural selection” and that on “The Descent of Man” in which he literally teaches that man is a descendant of the ape or chimpanzee.

Without entering into detail, I may say:

1. That Darwin denies creation altogether. The world was not created by God at all, whether through long periods of time or in six days as the Bible teaches. This is evident from the following quotation from “The Descent of Man”:

“Thus we can understand how it has come to pass that man and all other vertebrate animals have been constructed on the same general model, why they pass through the same early stages of development, and why they retain certain rudiments in common. Consequently we ought frankly to admit their community of descent; to take any other view, is to admit that our own structure and that of all the animals around us, is a mere snare laid to entrap our judgment. This conclusion is greatly strengthened if we look to the members of the whole animal series, and consider the evidence derived from their affinities or classification, their geographical distribution and geological succession. It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion. But the time will before long come, when’ it will be thought wonderful that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation.” p. 41.

I can quote other passages from the same work of Darwin.

2. That Darwin was an atheist. This stands to reason in view of the fact that he does not believe that God created the universe. He who denies the latter has no God left. Even the consciousness that there is a God is, according to Darwin, a matter of gradual development. He denies, of course, revelation altogether, whether in nature or in Scripture, and without revelation we cannot possibly have any knowledge of God. Let me quote once more from his “The Descent of Man.”

On pp. 636-637 he writes:

“The belief in God often has been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is, however, impossible, as we have seen, that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand, a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed distinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long continued culture.”

This is downright atheism. It is a denial of sin, of revelation, of man’s consciousness of God.

And this is the necessary implication of any form of the evolution theory, and not only of Darwinism.

—H.H.