As a waiting member of Reformed Believers Publishing and a contributor to the magazine (re: Langerak’s response to his isolation and separation theology) I want to write in response to Mouw’s comments on John Calvin and Vadsquez’s comments concerning Christian counseling. My comments surround truth being found in all men. Mouw is correct when he makes this assertion. The Canons of Dordt state that man has natural light in himself whereby he can tell the difference between good and evil, have some knowledge of God, virtue, natural things, good order, etc (3rd & 4th Head, article 4). The truth found in all men is not saving in nature. But how can we deny this truth? No one is saying that we do not use our Reformed antenna when we receive Christian counseling, let alone every word that comes out of the mouth of man. It is a dreadful error to deny the truth of natural light in all men for it stunts Christian growth and hinders activity in the world (mainly Christian witness).

Thank you for taking your time listen. My hope is that these comments will be a helpful contribution to the Sword and Shield.

Henry Jonathan Hoekstra

REPLY

It must not be forgotten that there are two sides represented in article 4 of the third and fourth heads of doctrine. Just as the decision of the Christian Reformed synod in 1924 declared this article to be a ground for the teaching of common grace, Dr. Mouw does the same. Both emphasize the first part of the article as that ground, but both also overlook the second part to great peril.

I can appreciate that in your letter you omit the term common grace. I am relieved of the duty to engage on the matter of terminology. But I do not see your letter any more convincing for its omission.

I wish, however, that I had a little more to go on from your words “The truth found in all men is not saving in nature.” What do you mean? What does Dr. Mouw mean? Is “the truth” what remains of the knowledge of God, etc., in fallen man—the first part of the article? Or is it what man does with that knowledge—the second part of the article? A man observes that the star he views is so many light-years away from earth. He speaks of the earth therefore as being at least that many years old, the light requiring that amount of time to traverse the distance from that star to his eyes. Is the distance true? Does the truth of the distance make the period of time true? Is the truth comparative? Is the truth of God’s word to be compared with anything that proceeds from man’s mouth? Are both worthy of our trust? Do we have two authorities by means of this statement—“truth that is not saving in nature”—the Bible and man?

Yes, how many agree with you when you point out this article of the Canons as a ground for your assertion about the thoughts of men. But there is one insurmountable obstacle that all of these people ignore. That obstacle is the second part of the article. That second part, not to mention the fact that the whole article is contained under the third and fourth heads of doctrine, is not about how good man is and how man has truth that is not saving. The article is about how bad man is. It is about the total depravity of man, the T of TULIP.

The second part of the article says more about the “glimmerings of natural light” than that they are “not saving in nature.” The second part draws a comparison from lesser to greater with its coordinating conjunctive phrase “so far…from.” With this phrase the Synod of Dordt did two things. The first was that the synod drew a very clear distinction between “the glimmerings of natural light” as the remains “in man since the fall” and man’s actual use of those glimmerings. Your brief letter does not reckon with that distinction and simply speaks about “truth found in all men.” To make this distinction clear by exaggeration, the blind man can stand in the light of the noonday sun; but for all his ability and purposes, he might as well be enveloped in the greatest darkness; it makes no difference. The point of the Canons is not to praise man but to declare his depravity. The point is not “the glimmerings of natural light” but what man does with them.

One additional thing the synod did with this comparative phrase was to move the point from bad to worse. To express the structure of Canons 3–4.4 a little differently: It is bad enough that this light of nature is insufficient to bring man to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion; even worse, man is incapable of using the light of nature aright even in things natural and civil. Even then, the worst news of all is told last. The synod first gave a reminder of the objective nature of the “glimmerings of natural light” with the phrase “such as it is.” Then the news: “Man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it [this light] in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God” (Confessions and Church Order, 167).

Far better it is to appropriate the various things you mention under the Reformed creedal term the providence of God. How much more blessed it is to receive all things not from men but from our heavenly Father, in and for the sake of Jesus Christ and in and for the sake of particular grace in him! How much better to know that with Christ all things are ours and that in the light of his cross all things must be for us and nothing against us (1 Cor. 3:21–22; Rom. 8:37). Vastly superior it is to know that God is a God of means and that his means also comprehend the productions of men, both the righteous and the wicked.

The providence of God is also a powerful protection from an erroneous need to judge. Who is reprobate? Who is elect? Whose word can I trust? Can I trust a doctor without knowing whether he is elect or reprobate? Can I buy from a store or shop whose owner I don’t even know? Whose thoughts are right, saving, or non-saving? Is there truth found in all men, or is there truth found on the lips of all men?

How the child of God must heed the judgment of the truth of God’s word: “Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged” (Rom. 3:4).