chatwithstumac
Puritan Board Freshman
Does anyone have a cliff note version on Herman Hoeksema's view of Common Grace? I've heard he is anti-common grace. It that true and why?
By His Grace,
Stu
By His Grace,
Stu
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Three Points of Common Grace Adopted by the Christian Reformed Church in 1924
Point I
Concerning the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the elect, the Synod declares that it is certain, on the ground of Scripture and the Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen unto eternal life, also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to all His creatures. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt II, 5, and III and IV, 8 and 9, where the general offer of the Gospel is discussed; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
Point II
Concerning the restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and Confession, there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Belgic Confession, Art. 13 and 36, where it is taught that God through the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart, restrains sin in its unhindered breaking forth, as a result of which human society has remained possible; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
Point III
Concerning the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good (Canons of Dordt, II, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt, III and IV, 4, and the Belgie Confession, where it is taught that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
For starters, he was reacting with the 3 points on common grace of the CRC. I think he had some valid points, because the common grace views in the CRC certainly took them down a bad path. You can find lots of articles from various PR sites.
For starters, he was reacting with the 3 points on common grace of the CRC. I think he had some valid points, because the common grace views in the CRC certainly took them down a bad path. You can find lots of articles from various PR sites.
This is an important point. Hoeksema's strong criticism against common grace stems from the CRC's teaching that common grace was saving in nature. However, Abraham Kuyper, who developed the doctrine of common grace, used two different dutch words to distinguish between saving grace and common grace. The the three points of common grace fail to maintain this distinction.
All that said, from my reading, I believe Hoeksema rejects common grace, even if defined as not containing salvation. Common grace teaches a favorable disposition of God to all men. Hoeksema asserts that God is not and cannot be favorable to the reprobate. All the "good things" he gives to them by his providence are meant only to further condemn them.
That said, I believe some use the terms common grace and providence interchangeably. From a human perspective, God's providence to all men may appear as though he is blessing them. However, Hoeksema would argue that this not because of grace or favor from God.
So, yes - Hoeksema is anti-common grace. But especially, when implied in one's flavor of common grace is the idea of salvation.
For starters, he was reacting with the 3 points on common grace of the CRC. I think he had some valid points, because the common grace views in the CRC certainly took them down a bad path. You can find lots of articles from various PR sites.
This is an important point. Hoeksema's strong criticism against common grace stems from the CRC's teaching that common grace was saving in nature. However, Abraham Kuyper, who developed the doctrine of common grace, used two different dutch words to distinguish between saving grace and common grace. The the three points of common grace fail to maintain this distinction.
All that said, from my reading, I believe Hoeksema rejects common grace, even if defined as not containing salvation. Common grace teaches a favorable disposition of God to all men. Hoeksema asserts that God is not and cannot be favorable to the reprobate. All the "good things" he gives to them by his providence are meant only to further condemn them.
That said, I believe some use the terms common grace and providence interchangeably. From a human perspective, God's providence to all men may appear as though he is blessing them. However, Hoeksema would argue that this not because of grace or favor from God.
So, yes - Hoeksema is anti-common grace. But especially, when implied in one's flavor of common grace is the idea of salvation.
Isn't he part of the Protestant Reformed Church? They lean high Calvinist and I believe reject the free offer so it only makes sense they would deny that God has any 'common grace' for all other people outside of the elect.
Does anyone have a cliff note version on Herman Hoeksema's view of Common Grace? I've heard he is anti-common grace. It that true and why?
By His Grace,
Stu
Earl,
Where in the WCF is the teaching on "lesser degrees of punishment in hell" in reference to grace? Also, should "effects" be "affects"? I do not want to misunderstand the meaning of your post.
In the below we see the WCF is speaking of "unregenerate men". Now to draw the conclusion that some of these men will end up in hell (unelect) the confession states what is "more sinful". So when the unregenerate unelect man ends up in hell they will find the punishment worse because they neglected what God commanded (that is common grace) which is "more sinful" vs. those who did performe the works God commanded (once again common grace) will be punished less severly.
In the below we see the WCF is speaking of "unregenerate men". Now to draw the conclusion that some of these men will end up in hell (unelect) the confession states what is "more sinful". So when the unregenerate unelect man ends up in hell they will find the punishment worse because they neglected what God commanded (that is common grace) which is "more sinful" vs. those who did performe the works God commanded (once again common grace) will be punished less severly.
What do you mean that common grace is what God commands? Wouldn't common grace be the power by which an unregenerate man does what God commands. I don't understand the idea of God commanding common grace…
Doesn't this portion of WCF state that even by doing works that God commanded, that the unregenerate does not make himself meet to receive grace from God?
Man either knows what he ought to do, which includes both what God revealed in scripture and or by the conscience. The commands in scriprture are gracious, as is the conscience that every man has by His grace.
The confession says that if man does not do what is commanded it is more sinful, implying that if they do what is commanded it is less sinful. Also God is not obligated by any man to give any grace.
Man either knows what he ought to do, which includes both what God revealed in scripture and or by the conscience. The commands in scriprture are gracious, as is the conscience that every man has by His grace.
The confession says that if man does not do what is commanded it is more sinful, implying that if they do what is commanded it is less sinful. Also God is not obligated by any man to give any grace.
I am not nearly as familiar with the WCF as most members of this board. Is this the common interpretation of this portion of the WCF? Especially with respect to your statement that the commands are gracious?
Is this a "proper use" of such language? Or, as the PRCs have continued to argue along with their predecessors for about a century, is it absurd to try to "rehabilitate" such an abuse of the term "grace?"Error: The corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (which for the Arminians is the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself. In this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ to all men, since He administers to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary for the knowledge of Christ, for faith and repentance.
That seems to me more of a private conclusion or inference made within the Confession's bounds, rather than a confessional position per se. It's not something found directly in the language of that portion. It's true that some will be beaten with many stripes, others with fewer; and God allows or prevents greater sins occurring in his wise providence. The result is manifest in the various punishments people must endure.Pastor Buchanan, as a Presbyterian, can you speak as to whether Earl's quote of the WCF in post #4 is regularly used as a proof for common grace?
So, grace as an gift that might soften the pains of hell to those who end up there--personally I'm not comfortable with that language, and I wouldn't say its popular among anyone I'm familiar with.