Not too many years went by of Rev. Ophoff’s work as pastor of the congregation of Hope before he became actively embroiled in the common grace controversy. As we noticed already in another connection, the controversy over common grace had long agitated the church before it became an ecclesiastical issue at the Synod of 1924. And Rev. Ophoff had come to an independent conclusion on the issue while he was still a student in the Seminary. It is not our intention in this series of articles to go over the whole controversy as it led up to and was “settled” by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church when it adopted the three points in 1924. This material can be found in many other writings, particularly: “The History of the Protestant Reformed Churches” and ‘‘Therefore Have I Spoken.” Furthermore, Rev. Ophoff himself played no active role in the history of the Synod. His views at the time of the Synod had not been publicly expressed and were not an issue at the Synod. The Synod did not deal with him and his views when it formulated the three points, and Rev. Ophoff himself was not a delegate to that Synod. Rev. Ophoff enters the picture after the Synod was held.
He enters the picture with the Publication of The Standard Bearer. For those who are interested in the history of The Standard Bearer, the anniversary volume of this periodical can be consulted. A short history appears in the second issue of Volume 50, pages 32-34. Rev. Ophoff was not among those who formed the original publication committee. According to the minutes of that committee, Rev. Ophoff joined the organization on October 27, 1924, and was immediately appointed to a position on the editorial staff. Nevertheless, his name appears on the masthead of the very first issue. He had, therefore, committed himself to the cause of the truth at the very outset of the movement.
Rev. Ophoff s first article appeared in the second issue, dated November, 1924.
A few quotes from it will give some idea of his own personal sentiments concerning the whole common grace question. It will, at the same time, show some of the characteristic spiritedness and total lack of fear which were to be such significant features of Rev. Ophoff’s writings throughout the years.
In an article entitled “A Declaration’’, Rev. Ophoff writes as follows:
“And thus it happens that I, the undersigned, am of the group editing this periodical. The fact that I agree to serve upon the editorial staff of the “Standard Bearer’’ amounts to an admission on my part that I too reject the views and conception of things which the term common grace stands for. For me it is quite impossible to adhere to the principles embedded in the term common grace and remain on friendly terms with Scripture.
I am aware of it that he who has the audacity to deny common grace is regarded as disgustingly dense, inconceivably conceited and destructive. In the October issue of “Religion and Culture”, page 69, Prof. Van Andel writes: “And that now some young American ministers of Dutch descent contend that this doctrine of common grace is not traditionally reformed. How little hold has the reformed truth had on some of us that they do not feel that they are undermining the very foundations of Christian that is Calvinistic Theology, ethics and philosophy.” You see, the huge mental and spiritual denseness and the inconceivable conceit of the deniers of common grace staggers the brother. We are ramming in pieces the very foundations of Calvinistic theology, ethics and philosophy.
No doubt we should have trembled in our boots when this monstrous accusation was hurled our way, I suppose for the purpose of terrifying our souls. And I suppose we ought to have blushed when our friend let us see how blunted our receptive and assimilative faculties are. Yet we did not blush, neither did we tremble. And why not? Because we are too hardened and insensible to blush? No. Because our nerves are of steel so that nothing shocks us? No. We were not disturbed because we had no guarantee whether or not the professor was simply seeing things again. This happened before with him. History proves that the professor is subject to hallucinations. According to Pillsbury (a writer in Psychology, H.H.), a hallucination does not arise from objective phenomenon.”
After describing what this “hallucination” was, Rev. Ophoff goes on to give his reasons for rejecting common grace.
“Well do we realize that among the adherents of the views which we reject is found the master mind. The chief exponent of the doctrine of Common Grace, the late Dr. A. Kuyper, was a recognized genius. This man devoted time and energy to the development of the doctrine of Common Grace. A work of three volumes was the result. Yet a careful study of Scripture and our standards on the one hand and the doctrine of common grace on the other hand convinced me that the views and the conception of things which the term “common grace” stands for, clash with Scripture. Therefore, I could not do otherwise than break with the doctrine. However, it was not without considerable hesitancy that I did so. It is a difficult matter to part company with a great Christian thinker like Kuyper. One is constantly haunted by the thought that it is one self who errs. What is more, the existence of common grace is a settled thing. We have come to believe in it as a matter of course. So be it. I cannot see it otherwise but that the doctrine of common grace dashes with Scripture.”
Rev. Ophoff goes on then to show how the writings of those who defend common grace deny in fact the truth of total depravity. He concludes this with the remark:
“I, as a reformed preacher, cannot and will not preach total depravity and in the next breath assure my hearers that the depraved sinner, in his depraved state, performs noble deeds, has pure emotions, and thinks good thoughts. God’s Word unclothes the sinner, strips him of every virtue and sends him naked to Christ. God forbid that I stop that sinner on the way to cloth him in the beautiful garments of common grace. I should fear lest that sinner would no longer feel the need of Christ….
Such and similar thoughts finding their way in this (article) did its share in opening my eyes to the dangers and fallacies of common grace. There are other things which caused me to break with common grace….”
By this, Rev. Ophoff referred particularly to many inconsistencies and problems which the defenders of common grace themselves brought up, which led him to the conviction that such views were contrary to the clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture. He concludes this section with the words:
“These methods of some of the exponents and defenders of common grace, their faulty thoughts, illogical reasonings, their blunders, their noise, widened the breach between me and common grace. I thought, it cannot be there is so very much to say in defense of common grace after all. Then too, it seems to me that the exponents of common grace are bent on misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misinterpreting the opponents of common grace….
All these different things taken together disengaged me from the doctrine of common grace. I regard the doctrine dangerous, as well as the views and conception of things which the term stands for. I shall use my talents to help expose, in the light of God’s Word, the dangers and fallacies of common grace. The Synod of 1924 declared itself for common grace. Yet the Synod evaded the real issues. The Synod failed to furnish proof. The existence of common grace has never been proven. The objections raised against it have never been removed.”
Well, that was a sharply, unequivocal stand. And from that resolve, Rev. Ophoff never wavered all his life. But such a firm commitment to the cause of the truth led to trouble within a matter of weeks.