The Three Points

We said in our last editorial on the subject of “The Three Points” that the Synod of 1924, in its anxiety to prove the theory of so-called common grace from Scripture and the Confessions, lapsed into the error general grace in the Arminian sense of the word. We also stated what is the Biblical and Reformed position on this point. The Reformed position is, of course expressed in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches. To these we must now refer.

First of all, then, I refer to some passages from the Heidelberg Catechism. In Question 20 we read: “Are all men, then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?” And the answer is as follows: “No; only those who are engrafted into him, and receive all his benefits, by a true faith.” This is the truth of sovereign grace in regard to salvation. No Arminian would ever express himself thus. Notice, first, that this is an answer to the question whether or not all men are saved. Notice, secondly, that the answer is not simply “no; only those that believe in Christ,” which would in itself be true, but: “only those that are engrafted into him.” This means that God is the subject of this engrafting into Christ and that the one so in grafted into Christ is wholly passive. Who, then, are thus engrafted into Christ? Those that are determined by God unto this purpose. Who are they? The elect. And notice, thirdly, that this is also indicated by the word “receive.” Those that are engrafted into Christ do not merely “accept” but “receive all his benefits by a true faith.” This is Reformed.

Is then, God gracious, in the preaching of the gospel also to those whom “the Holy Ghost by the gospel” does not engraft into Christ? Is, in other words, the preaching of the gospel “common grace”? Such is the doctrine of the “First Point.” And this is not Reformed but principally Arminian.

If you will carefully read what is taught of Christ and all his benefits in questions 21-52, you will find the same language throughout. No one can preach from the Catechism and, at the same time, preach the general grace of the “First Point,” without corrupting it.

I will make one more quotation from the Catechism, this time from the question and answer concerning the Church: “Question 54. What believest thou concerning the holy catholic church of Christ? Answer. That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member thereof.” It is not our purpose, of course, even to give a brief explanation of this question and answer. Our sole purpose is to show that the general grace of the “First Point” is surely in flat contradiction to this part of the Catechism, and that the Reformed truth is as I have presented it in my former editorial. Notice, first, that it is the Son of God that gathers His Church. Notice, secondly, that He does so by His Spirit and word i it is all of God, there, is nothing of man in it. Notice, that the Church is chosen to everlasting life and that the elect are gathered out of the whole human race. Question: what grace of God is there for those that are not so gathered even though they hear the preaching of the gospel? The answer of the Arminian is: God is gracious to all that hear the gospel for as far as He is concerned He will save them all. This is also the answer of the “First Point.” The Reformed answer is: “God is gracious only to the elect that are gathered by the Son of God into His Church by His Spirit and Word.” There is no grace for the reprobate and emphatically not in the preaching of the gospel.

The same language is found in the Netherland Confession.

I will refer in this connection only to Art. XVI which speaks of eternal election and which reads as follows:

“We believe that all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin, by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: Merciful since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all, whom he in his eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness, hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works: Just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.”

My purpose is to call your attention particularly to the last sentence of this article where it is said that God reveals his justice in the fact that He leaves others in their perdition. We understand, of course, that in this article the infralapsarian position is presented, but this does not make any difference with regard to the subject about which we are writing at present: the “First Point.” The doctrine of the First Point is that God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel also to the reprobate to those whom” God determined to leave in their fall and perdition. But this is not in harmony with this article of our Confession: God is merciful to the elect, just to the reprobate. Hence, even in the preaching of the gospel He is not merciful to the latter but only just. How, then, can the “First Point” appeal to the preaching of the gospel as a proof for so-called common or general grace?

It is a well-known fact that the, truth of predestination and of sovereign grace has always met with opposition in the churches and that, too, in the Reformed Churches. Again and again the church was called upon to defend this fundamental truth over against all kinds of heresies. In the latter part of the sixteenth century and the first part of the seventeenth this doctrine was attacked by the well-known James Arminius. He died before this controversy was settled, namely in 1609. But his followers and adherents of which there were many in the old country at the time continued it and in 1610 formulated five articles in which they set forth their views. The articles are known as the “Remonstrantie” or the Five Arminian Articles. They so formulated that many in the Reformed Churches of Holland could, at first, detect nothing wrong with them. Yet, they deny the truth of predestination.

Briefly expressed they teach:

1. Predestination on the basis of foreseen faith and perseverance, although they emphasize that is by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

2. Universal atonement: Christ died for all men, though only the believer receives the benefits of that death.

3. Saving grace is only the gift of God. This third article, taken all by itself, appears to be quite Reformed, but in the context of the rest of the articles it cannot possibly be. For the question arises whether this grace is sovereign and irresistible.

4. Grace is all of God and even the regenerate man can do nothing apart from this grace. But as concerns the mode of the operation of this grace, the article states that it is not irresistible. Virtually, this is also the doctrine of the “First Point” in as far as it maintains that the preaching of the gospel is grace for all that hear, which grace is, of course, resistible.

5. The perseverance of the saints through the grace of the Holy Spirit, provided the believers themselves are ready for the conflict and desire the help of Christ. But whether they can never fall away is a question which the Remonstrants, cannot answer in the affirmative. Hence, they really deny the perseverance of the saints.

These articles of the Remonstrants were elaborately treated in the Canons of Dordrecht from which also the Synod of 1924 quoted in support of the “First Point.”

But about this next time, D.V.

—H.H.

Evolution, Long Periods, or Days

It stands to reason that, when I combat the idea of long periods instead of six days of twenty-four hours of the creation week, that I do so only on the basis of Scripture. No argument derived from science that apparently would contradict the clear testimony of the Word of God in this respect can have any weight with me and should have no weight with anyone that believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is verbally inspired.

This also implies that, within the Reformed Churches, I have no argument with those that deny the infallibility of Holy Writ. For the Reformed Churches stand on the basis of the Three Forms of Unity. And these maintain, without a doubt, that the Scriptures are infallible. Even about this we cannot argue, as is now being done in the Christian Reformed Church. This whole argument is, within the limits of the Reformed Churches, fundamentally dishonest. One that disagrees with the infallibility of the Bible, ought either to file a gravamen or objection against the Confessions or leave the Church, but he should not write publicly against the plain language of the Confessions as does M. Hoogland in Stromata. Nor should the Church permit him to write thus and oppose his writing by counter arguments in the papers but demand of. him that he retract or be censured. For that the Confessions teach very plainly that Scripture is infallible in spite of what Hoogland alleges ought to be sufficiently evident from just one quotation from the Netherland Confession, Art. VII, which speaks of “The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, to be the only rule of faith.” The article reads as follows:

“We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God; and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires .of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven as the apostle Paul saith. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, nor the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible (I underscore) rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.”

I could quote much more. But let this be sufficient.

You will understand, however, why I refuse to argue, as far as the days of the creation week are concerned, in the Reformed Churches, with anyone that, denies the infallibility of Scripture. A fallible Scripture implies that there are errors in the Bible and when once this is admitted, who will determine what is truth and what is error? Ultimately, only the subjective opinion of the interpreter. Then the account of creation in Gen. 1 may be nothing but a beautiful myth and you can make of the creation-days, limited by evening and morning, billions of years.

In this connection, I also wish to refer to an item of trouble that has arisen in the Reformed Church in America, particularly in Classis Passaic.

The history of this case is briefly as follows.

A candidate for the ministry was examined by Classis Passaic in May-June, 1958. At the time this candidate was refused a Certificate of Licensure on the ground that he denied the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, particularly the real existence of Adam. It was decided to give the candidate a second opportunity for examination. For this purpose Classis Passaic met on Sept. 16, 1958. And now I quote from a pamphlet issued by the Consistory of the Sixth Reformed Church of Paterson, N.J.:

“A motion then prevailed to re-examine the candidate as stated in the call for the meeting, and the candidate indicated his willingness to be re-examined. This examination revealed that the candidate not only denied the historicity of Adam, as expressed in his first examination, but he also denied that Abraham was a flesh and blood individual. John 8:52-59 was read to him with the comment that the Jews thought Abraham historical and, more significantly, our Lord spoke of Abraham as historical. But this was not conclusive for the candidate. The connection between and Adam and the doctrine of imputation, and between Abraham and the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace were mentioned, but these important implications did not seem to impress him either. It was then proposed that the candidate agree to consult with several brethren of the Classis for a period of about six months so that he might be instructed in the Biblical and Reformed faith on these matters. This he declined, saying that his Seminary training was adequate, that the case should be decided by General Synod, and that he was willing to be the symbol of the position which he had been taught at Seminary and which Classis refused to honor” . . . .

The case is not finished. It will be decided by a General Synod.

Do you not see the connection between this and what we have written before?

First it is taught, regardless of Scripture and on the basis of false so-called science, that the days of creation are long periods of billions of years.

Secondly, the infallibility of Gen. 1 and, of course, the infallibility of Scripture is denied.

Thirdly, the historicity of Adam is denied as well as related doctrines. And also the historical reality of Abraham and other historic persons is denied.

Thus, finally, we lose the whole of the Bible and have nothing left.

Let us beware, lest this corruption also invades our churches!

More about this next time, D.V.

—H.H.