The History of the Free Offer Chapter 10 The Controversy in the Christian Reformed Church in 1924
|
Because
the history of the controversy in 1924 is so
important for our discussion, we shall be somewhat detailed in describing it.
The
problem really started in connection with the so-called "Janssen Case." Dr.
Janssen was a professor in Calvin Seminary, in Old Testament branches, who introduced
higher critical views into his teachings. When he was required to give an account of his
views, he appealed to the doctrine of common grace in support of them. His views of common
grace were chiefly those of Kuyper and he connected common grace to his higher critical
views in various ways, into which we cannot enter here.106 While
Dr. Janssen never mentioned a well-meant offer in his writings, he brought the issue of
common grace before the churches.
While
his higher critical views were condemned by the Synod of 1922, the Synod did not make any
decisions with respect to common grace itself. That crucial question, the basis for
Janssen's defense, was left untouched. In a way this was sad, for the outcome of the
common grace struggle might have been considerably different had the issue been tackled
then.
However
that may be, many Janssen supporters remained in the Church, though Janssen himself was
deposed from office. Because of their presence in the Church, nothing was really resolved.
Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, at that time minister of the Word in the Eastern Ave. Christian Reformed
Church, determined to bring the matter of common grace before the consciousness of the
Church in the hopes that the Church would see the error of it. He began a series of
articles in the Church paper, "The Banner," in which he subjected the whole
doctrine to a careful Scriptural analysis and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was
contrary to the Word of God.107
The
result of this was that many protests were lodged against him both from members of his own
congregation and others in the denomination. These protests not only took exception to his
views on common grace, but also challenged his position on the free offer of the gospel.
Eventually all this material came to the Synod of 1924 where the issue was
resolved. Three doctrinal statements were
made concerning the doctrine of common grace and the free offer. We quote them here.
1. Regarding the first point,
touching the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the
elect, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession it is established,
that besides the saving grace of God shown only to the 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 Scripture passages that were quoted and the Canons of Dort, II, 5 and III
& IV, 8 & 9, where
the general offer of the gospel is set forth; while it also is evident from the citations
made from Reformed writers belonging to the most flourishing period of Reformed theology
that our fathers from of old maintained this view.
2. Regarding the second point
touching the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and of society in general,
synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession there is such a restraint of
sin. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were quoted and from the Netherlands
Confession, Arts. 13 and 36, which teach that God by a general operation of His Spirit,
without renewing the heart, restrains the unbridled manifestation of sin, so that life in
human society remains possible; while the citations from Reformed authors of the most
flourishing period of Reformed theology prove, moreover, that our fathers from of old
maintained this view.
3. Regarding
the third point, touching the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the
unregenerate, synod declares that according to Scripture and the Confession, the
unregenerate, though incapable of doing any spiritual good (Canons of Dort, III & IV, 3)
are
able to perform such civic good. This is evident from the Scripture passages that were
quoted and from the Canons of Dort, III & IV, 4, and
from the Netherlands Confession, Art. 36, which teach that God without renewing the heart,
exercises such an
influence upon man that he is enabled to do civic good; while it is, moreover, evident
from the citations made from Reformed writers of the most flourishing period of Reformed
theology that fathers from of old maintained this view. 108
A
detailed analysis and criticism of these three points is not important here for our
present study. We are concerned mainly about two points: 1) the teaching concerning the
free offer; and, 2) the relation between the teaching of the free offer and common grace.
It is
especially in the first point that the free offer of the gospel is mentioned, and then it
is mentioned somewhat in passing. When the Synod offered its proof for "a certain
favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general," the Synod turned
to the Canons of Dort which, in Synod's judgment, spoke of the free offer.109 So the reasoning of the Synod was, apparently, that the free
offer of the gospel is proof of God's general attitude of favor and grace to all
creatures.
Notice
that the Synod spoke of a general grace: i.e.,
a grace which is shown to God's creatures in general, by which latter expression Synod
apparently meant not trees and stars, grasshoppers and bedbugs, but people. Thus common or
general grace is an attitude of favor or grace on God's part which is shown to elect and
reprobate alike: "
toward
mankind in general and not only toward the elect
." This
grace is different from saving grace and must not be confused with it. From the Scriptural
proof which Synod offered ( Ps. 145:9 ,
Mt. 5:44, 45, Lu.
6:35, 36, Acts
14:16, 17 ) it is clear that Synod included in common grace also such things as rain
and sunshine and all God's good gifts. Nevertheless, there is no mention of these things
in the doctrinal statement proper. The only evidence, according to the wording of the
first point, of God's general grace is the free offer. So the free offer is especially the
way in which God's attitude of favor or grace is shown to mankind in general. Thus, God
shows that He is favorably inclined to all men without exception by offering them Christ
in the gospel. The conclusion is inescapable that this means and specifically refers to
God's desire (in His love and grace) to save all who hear the gospel. God manifests
Himself as a loving and gracious God, full of mercy and compassion to all in His offer of
the gospel to them. Thus the salvation in Christ that God prepared through the cross has
universal availability: it is there for all as far as God is
concerned. That all do not in fact receive this salvation is due to its conditionality.
Only those who fulfill the condition of faith and accept that which is offered actually
receive it as their own possession.
The
second point speaks of a restraint of sin by the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of
all men. This is, it must be remembered, also a part of God's universal attitude of favor.
God shows His favor also to all men, elect and reprobate, by giving His Spirit so that sin
is restrained in them. Now, while the connection between the teaching concerning the free
offer and this restraint of sin is not clearly set forth in these statements, the
conclusion is obvious. The free offer and the internal and subjective restraint of sin in
the heart are both manifestations of the same grace of God. Hence, there is at least
suggested here the idea that this grace which restrains sin is a kind of preparatory grace
which makes one amenable to the gospel in which Christ is offered. And this is in keeping
with what Bavinck taught in the reference to his writings earlier in these articles. So
this internal and gracious operation of the Spirit puts every man into a position where he
is able to accept or reject the gospel. This idea is strengthened by the third point where
it is specifically taught that, as a result of these restraining, though not saving,
influences of the Spirit, man is able to do good. It is true that the Synod specifically
stated that this good is not spiritual but civic good; but the fact remains that it is
good -- good
in the sight of God. And the idea that this good is somehow of such a kind that man is more
susceptible to the gospel offer is implicit in the formulation and was indeed taught by
defenders of' this theory.
Concerning
these doctrinal statements we must make some conclusions.
In the
first place, these statements laid to rest the controversy that had raged in the Christian
Reformed Church between the Kuyperians in their view of common grace and the people of the
Afscheiding and their views. In a rather neat way, these points of' doctrine
combined the two into one doctrinal teaching, unfaithful to the genius of' Kuyper, but
satisfying to all. The common grace (gemeene gratie) of' Kuyper which had nothing to do
with the free offer and the general grace (algemeene genade) of part of the Afscheiding
tradition were merged into one doctrinal statement.
In the second place, while the Synod spoke boldly of' this teaching as being the teaching of all Reformed theologians in the most flourishing period of Reformed theology, the Synod was badly over-stating itself. It offered no proof for this bold contention, and none can be found. The simple fact of the matter is that this view is not to be found anywhere in early Reformed theology; it is rather an innovation of a rather late date and must be traced back, not to Dort and Calvin, but to Arminius and Amyraut. It is, without question, a serious and fundamental departure from the genius of the Reformed faith.
In the third place, as the doctrine of common grace and the free
offer developed in the Christian Reformed Church, the Arminianism inherent in it soon came
to clearer
manifestation. Not only did free-will Arminianism begin to flourish in the Christian
Reformed Church, but in the Sixties Prof. H. Dekker could openly
teach and write that the atonement of Christ was universal in its extent,
availability and intention, although he limited the efficacy
of the atonement to the elect alone. He could do this without ecclesiastical penalty and
thus committed the Christian Reformed Church to an explicit universalism. And because the
love of God was manifested in the cross (so Dekker), the saving love of God was
universalized.
In the
fourth place, this had serious consequences for the basic and fundamental doctrines of
sovereign grace. The truths of total depravity, sovereign predestination, irresistible
grace, limited atonement, and the perseverance of
the saints were not only seldom heard any longer, but were in many instances openly
denied.
Finally, because Rev. Hoeksema continued to deny these aberrations in the Reformed faith he was ultimately deposed from office and put out of the denomination even though the same Synod that adopted these doctrinal statements testified of him that "he was basically Reformed, though with a tendency towards one-sidedness." It was this deposition and ultimate ouster that was the historic occasion for the beginning of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
Return to Table of Contents
Go to Chapter Eleven
Foot-Notes
106 For a detailed examination of
this question, see my book, A Study of the Relations
between the views of Prof. Janssen and Common Grace, available from the
Seminary in syllabus form.
107 Rev.
H.
Hoeksema began to write against common grace before the
Janssen controversy arose in the churches. He criticized especially the common grace of
Dr. A. Kuyper
109
With this interpretation of the Canons we do not agree. A cursory
reading of the Canons themselves in these three articles and a study of the Canons
in their historical context will clearly show that the appeal to these articles was a vain
effort to find some Confessional proof for Synod's contention.