Herman Hoeksema's "The Triple Knowledge"

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I'd like to know if this set is worth reading. I'm a little foggy about his basic theological stance (although I do know that he's allegedly a hyper-Calvinist and denies common grace), so I'm wondering if his take on the Heidelberg Catechism is worth my time.

Anyone up on Hoeksema?
 
I'd like to know if this set is worth reading. I'm a little foggy about his basic theological stance (although I do know that he's allegedly a hyper-Calvinist and denies common grace), so I'm wondering if his take on the Heidelberg Catechism is worth my time.

Anyone up on Hoeksema?

Denies covenant of works, though I don't know how prominent it is in this series. I mostly agree with him on common grace.
 
The main problems with Herman Hoeksema are that he denies the covenant of works and rejects the confessional position on divorce and remarriage. There is also a tendency to describe things like the well-meant offer, hypothetical universalism, and common grace as Arminianism, which is not accurate. (I speak as one who generally agrees with the substance of what Hoeksema says on those issues, though not with his semantics.) He is a very good devotional writer, so that certainly helps with a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Still, while I have not read The Triple Knowledge, I get the impression that it may tell you more about the author than about the subject. The followers of Hoeksema often disparage what they call "historicism", i.e. interpreting historical documents according to their original intent. Anyone who rejects the historical method when it comes to interpreting historical documents simply cannot be a safe guide as to the meaning of such sources. If you reject the historical method, then the source means whatever you want it to mean. I did, nevertheless, find his son Homer's commentary on the Canons of Dort to be very useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top