September 26, 2016

John Calvin (1509–1564) on the Proper Office of the Gospel

The Gospel is preached for salvation: this is what properly belongs to it; but believers alone are partakers of that salvation. In the mean time, its being an occasion of condemnation to unbelievers—that arises from their own fault. Thus Christ came not into the world to condemn the world, (John iii. 17,) for what need was there of this, inasmuch as without him we are all condemned? Yet he sends his apostles to bind, as well as to loose, and to retain sins, as well as remit them. (Matt. xviii. 18; John xx. 23.) He is the light of the world, (John viii. 12,) but he blinds unbelievers. (John ix. 39.) He is a Rock, for a foundation, but he is also to many a stone of stumbling. (Isaiah viii. 14.) We must always, therefore, distinguish between the proper office of the Gospel, and the accidental one (so to speak) which must be imputed to the depravity of mankind, to which it is owing, that life to them is turned into death.
John Calvin, “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. J. Pringle, 22 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 20:161.

Along the same lines, in his comments on Romans 1:16, Calvin said:
The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savour of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness.
These quotes by other Reformed theologians say the same:

James Nalton (c.1600–1662):
...the Gracious pardon of God that is tendered in the Gospel, does not kill, or condemn any in it self, or in its own Nature, but through the contempt of those that do disregard it, in this regard, not simply, but accidentally, through the Corruptions of men’s hearts, and Natures, in this regard, the Gospel may be said to increase a man's curse and condemnation...
Matthias Martinius (1572–1630):
...and the gospel, which in itself is a savor of life unto life, becomes to the unbelieving a savor of death unto death, by accident, through their own fault,...
William Fenner (1600–1640):
It was Christ’s primary purpose, and the first end of his coming, to save the world: it is an accidental end, or rather an event of his coming, that the world is condemned.
Bio:  
Wiki

September 18, 2016

John Bunyan (1628–1688) on Reprobation and the Loving Heart of God

Consider, 1. That the simple act of reprobation, it is a leaving or passing by, not a cursing of the creature.

Consider, 2. Neither doth this act alienate the heart of God from the reprobate, nor tie him up from loving, favouring, or blessing of him; no, not from blessing of him with the gift of Christ, of faith, of hope, and many other benefits. It only denieth them that benefit, that will infallibly bring them to eternal life, and that in despite of all opposition; it only denieth so to bless them as the elect themselves are blessed. Abraham loved all the children he had by all his wives, and gave them portions also; but his choice blessing, as the fruit of his chiefest love, he reserved for chosen Isaac. Gen. xxv. 5, 6.
John Bunyan, “Reprobation Asserted,” in The Whole Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols. (1875; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:338.

Bio:  
Wiki

Note: The Reformed scholastics generally distinguish between preterition and pre-damnation in God’s eternal decree touching the non-elect. By the term “reprobation” above, Bunyan clearly has in mind the notion of simple preterition (negative reprobation), or the divine decree not to grant certain blessings, such as faith, to the non-elect. He’s not dealing with God’s purpose to give the non-elect over to damnation on account of sin (i.e. pre-damnation). Pre-damnation is always on account of sin (even in William Twisse’s supralapsarian construct), and so is conditional, but preterition is unconditional, and is therefore a simple passing-by.

Update (re: predamnation and Twisse):

Notice what Nicholas Byfield (1579–1622) said about preterition and predamnation:
Fifthly, that whereas Divines make two parts of the decree of reprobation, Preterition and Predamnation; all Divines [even the supralapsarians] are agreed for the latter [predamnation], that God did never determine to damne any man for his owne pleasure, but the cause of his perdition was his owne sinne. And here is reason for it: for God may, to shew his soveraignty, annihilate his creature; but to appoint a reasonable creature to an estate of endlesse paine, without respect of his desert, cannot agree to the unspotted justice of God. And for the other part of passing over, and forsaking a great part of men for the glory of his justice, the exactest Divines doe not attribute that to the mere will of God, but hold that God did first looke upon those men as sinners, at least in the generall corruption brought in by the fall. For all men have sinned in Adam, and are guilty of high treason against God.
Nicholas Byfield, A Commentary Upon the First Three Chapters of the First Epistle General of St. Peter (London: Printed by Miles Flesher and Robert Young, 1637), 312.

Notice that Byfield says all divines are agree on the cause of predamnation being sin. They know that to say otherwise entails blasphemy, since it would be against Gods just nature. It is also worth noting that the terminology of “predamnation” (prædamnatio) is frequently used among the Reformed orthodox. It’s in Lucas Trelcatius, Franciscus Junius, Francis Turretin (Institutes, 1:381, 382, 389), Richard Stock, Edward Leigh, Nathanael Homes, Adam Martindale, Johannes Wollebius, Thomas Manton, James Ussher, George Newton, John Trapp, and Edward Polhill, just to name a few. William Cunningham noted that there are “two distinct acts, which Calvinistic theologians usually regard as included in what is commonly called the decree of reprobation, namely, first, praeteritio, or passing by, which is an act of sovereignty; and secondly, praedamnatio, which is a judicial act, described in the [Westminster] Confession as ‘ordaining them to dishonour and wrath for their sin’” (Historical Theology, 2:422–23). For more on this, it is worth consulting Donald W. Sinnema, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine (PhD diss. University of St. Michaels College, University of Toronto, 1985).

On a discussion board, someone has posted this quote from William Twisse, as if it is contrary to what I said:
In like sort, if I am demanded whether God did decree, of the mere pleasure of his will, to refuse to give grace and glory unto some, and to inflict upon them damnation. To this I cannot answer at once, there being a fallacy in the demand. But distinguish them: I answer and say, that, as touching the point of denying grace, God doth that of his mere pleasure; but as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure, but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency, and all the bitter fruits that shall proceed from them. So that reprobation, according to our tenet rightly stated, is the decree of God partly to deny unto some, and that of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, for the curing of that infidelity and hardness of heart, which is natural unto all, and partly to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin, to wit, in infidelity and impenitency, and all the fruits that proceed therehence.
William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:5–6.

This quote actually substantiates my point about Twisse. Notice that, with respect to “denying grace,” i.e. negative reprobation, Twisse says this is of God’s mere pleasure. There is no cause in the creature that moves God either to elect some unto faith or to refuse others the grace of faith. However, “as touching the denial of glory, and the inflicting of damnation, he doth not decree to do these of mere pleasure [i.e. without a cause], but rather merely for sin, to wit, for their infidelity and impenitency,” and all sin that proceeds from this. Twisse then distinguishes between senses of “reprobation” in the decree of God: 1) to deny unto some, of his mere pleasure, the grace of faith and repentance, and 2) “to deprive them of glory, and to inflict damnation upon them, not of his mere pleasure, but merely for their final continuance in sin,” etc. 

The first sense is of God’s “mere pleasure,” or without a cause in the creature, but the second sense is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on account of sin in the creature. So, it is fair to say that, according to Twisse, the first sense, or negative reprobation, is unconditional (i.e. without a cause in the creature) and the second sense, or positive reprobation, is conditional (i.e. with a cause in the creature). As Twisse elsewhere said, “...God in this decree of condemnation hath alwayes the consideration of that sinne for which hee purposeth to damne them; for, undoubtedly, hee decrees to condemne no man but for sinne. It is impossible it should be otherwise; condemnation, in the notion thereof, formally including sinne” (A treatise of Mr. Cottons clearing certaine doubts concerning predestination together with an examination thereof [London: Printed by J.D. for Andrew Crook, 1646], 111; emphasis mine).

As Richard Muller has rightly noted, Twisse also distinguished between an unconditional election or predestination to faith and a conditional election or predestination to salvation. Zanchi and Bucer also made this distinction. Election to faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but election to salvation is through the instrumentality of faith and repentance, and so “conditional” in that instrumental sense, even though God grants the meeting of the condition in the elect. Corresponding to this in the case of the non-elect or reprobate, the denial of the grace of faith is of God’s mere pleasure, or unconditional, but the decree to damn is not of God’s mere pleasure, but on condition of final impenitence, infidelity, and all the sinful fruits that stem from unbelief.

Note what Twisse said:
In this respect of another will of God, I willingly confess, one may be accounted predestinate absolutely, and another reprobated absolutely, to wit, in respect of the will of giving the grace of faith and repentance unto one, and denying it to another [i.e. preterition, or negative reprobation]: And that because faith and repentance are not given and denied upon any condition, but absolutely, according to the mere pleasure of God; as we are ready to maintain. But herehence no species of contradiction arises, for like as it is not contradiction to say that God wills absolutely unto Paul the grace of faith and repentance, and conditionally wills unto him and everyone salvation, to wit, upon the condition of faith and repentance: In like sort, there is no contradiction to say that the same man predestinated absolutely unto faith, and conditionally unto salvation: In like sort it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith, and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation. And lastly, in like manner, there is no contradiction to say, that the same man is predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation; and yet absolutely reprobated from faith: especially seeing it is all one, to be predestinated conditionally to obtain salvation, and conditionally to obtain damnation: for he that is ordained to be saved in case he do believe, is therewithal ordained to be damned in case he believe not: The ground whereof is, that of our Savior “whosoever believes shall be saved, whosoever believes not shall be damned.” Now if God may both will unto a man salvation conditionally, to wit, upon the condition he believes, and yet withal will the denial of faith absolutely unto him, without all contradiction, (as I have already proven) it follows, that without contradiction, a man may be said both to be predestinated to obtain salvation conditionally, viz. In case he do believe, and so to be predestinated absolutely, to be hardened, or to have the grace of faith denied to him. So that this Author’s conclusion depends merely upon confusion of different denominations of a man said to be absolutely, or conditionally predestinated: which may be in respect of different things whereto he is predestinated, to the one absolutely, to the other conditionally, and consequently without all contradiction. For he that is absolutely reprobated from the grace of faith, may yet be conditionally predestinated unto salvation. For to be conditionally predestinated unto salvation, is to be conditionally predestinated unto damnation, and what sober man will say man will say, that there is any contradiction in this, to say that the same man is both conditionally reprobated unto damnation, and absolutely reprobated from faith. Faith being such a gift of God, that like as God absolutely bestows it on some, so as absolutely he denies it to others. But as for condemnation, that is inflicted on none but for sin, like as salvation is bestowed on none of ripe years, but as reward of obedience. In like manner, God decreed not either to bestow the one, or inflict the other but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other. Now if such confusion be committed in these denominations of the predestinate and reprobate, absolutely and conditionally, one the part of things willed by God, as namely in respect of grace and glory on the one side, and in respect of the denial of grace and glory, together with inflicting damnation on the other; How much more must this confusion be augmented, if not only different things willed by God (as before mentioned) are confounded, but over and above the act of God’s will is confounded with things willed by him. For as the act of God’s will, that it admits no condition, I have formerly demonstrated by diverse arguments…
William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:176.

This represents what Twisse is saying above:

ELECT NON-ELECT
Unconditionally predestined to faith. Unconditionally denied the grace of faith.
Conditionally predestined to salvation. Conditionally predestined to condemnation.

One can summarize Twisse’s view by saying, as Edwin H. Palmer said in his Twelve Theses on Reprobation, “Reprobation as preterition is unconditional, and as condemnation it is conditional” (The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972], 129).

Robert Reymond, a supralapsarian, said something similar:
And, while it is true that God’s determination to pass by the rest of mankind (this “passing by” is designated “preterition” from the Latin praeteritio) was grounded solely in the unsearchable counsel of his own will, his determination to ordain those whom he had determined to pass by to dishonor and wrath (condemnation) took into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.
Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 345.

Twisse said:
For as for God’s purpose to damne, we willingly professe, that as God damnes no man but for sin, so he purposeth to damne no man but for sinne. But as for his purpose to give or deny the grace of regeneration, the grace of faith and repentance, we as readily profess, that not the purpose only, but the very giving of faith and repentance, for the curing of infidelity and hardnesse of heart in some, and the denying of it unto others, so to leave their naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart uncured, proceeds merely according to the good pleasure of his will, according to that of the Apostle, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth; And by a cloud of testimonies out of Austin we can prove, that in this very sense he understood the Apostle in that place.
William Twisse, The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1653), 1:109.

Commenting on supralapsarianism and Twisse’s view, John Gill said:
I answer, the Supralapsarians distinguish reprobation into negative and positive; negative reprobation is non-election, or preterition, a passing by of some, when others were chosen; the objects of this decree, are men considered as not yet created, and so neither wicked nor righteous. Positive reprobation is the decree of damnation, or that which appoints men to everlasting ruin, to which it appoints no man but for sin. It is therefore a most injurious representation of the Supralapsarians, that they assert that God has reprobated, that is, appointed innocent persons to eternal destruction; when they, over and over, say, as may easily be observed in the writings of that famous Supralapsarian, Dr. Twiss, that God has not decreed to damn any man, but for sin: and that the decree of reprobation is of no moment, or reason of nature, before, and without the consideration of sin. Now, if it is not incompatible with the justice of God, to damn men for sin, it can be no ways incompatible with his justice, to decree to damn men for sin.
John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 157.

We see in Twisse and others that God’s determination to damn is on account of their sin, or, as Reymond put it, positive reprobation takes “into account the condition which alone deserves his wrath—their sin.” To say Twisse’s view is an “unconditional determination to damn men on account of sin” is incoherent, and not representative of Twisse’s thought. If God is taking into account men’s sin when he purposes to damn them, then that is clearly a condition in them, and so it is a conditional determination to damn men on account of sin. As Twisse said above, “God decreed not either to bestow the one [salvation], or inflict the other [damnation] but conditionally, to wit, upon the condition of faith on the one side, and upon the condition of infidelity on the other.” According to Twisse, “it may said without all contradiction, that the same man is both reprobated absolutely from faith [i.e. preterition], and yet reprobated conditionally from glory unto condemnation.”

Paul N. Archbald’s Summary of Theodore Beza (1519–1605) on the Grace and Love of God

Beza also occasionally speaks in terms of what could be called common grace. He suggests that, in a sense, Christ died for the wicked, because all things were created by the Father in the Son (1 Corinthians 15:22). The wicked therefore receive life and blessing, but all this turns to a curse for them. Only those grafted into Christ are made partakers of His resurrection-life.66 Beza rejects the idea that the incarnation made all without exception members of Christ. Union with Christ applies to the church alone. It is by covenant, not by nature.67

It is still possible, however, to speak of a universal love of God. At Montbéliard, Andreae asked if God has ever loved those who are now damned, or will be. Beza replied with Augustine’s distinction that God both hates and loves at the same time. He loves what He has created, and He loves His ordaining of human beings as vessels for some use or other. He hates the sinful works of men, the ungodliness which He Himself did not make. God, “in that He makes vessels of perdition of the mass of the lost, does not hate what He does.”68
_______________
66. Questions, 21a-22.
67. Ibid., 36-36a.
68. Coll. Mont., 212-213. [“...Deum odisse simul & amare homines: amare videlicet homines quatenus sunt opus suum, odisse vero in hominibus opera hominis, id est peccata...]
Paul N. Archbald, A Comparative Study of John Calvin and Theodore Beza on the Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement (PhD diss. Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 294–295. See also pp. 222–223. William Strong (d.1654), the Westminster divine, also said Beza taught God’s “common love” for all creatures as such, along with Calvin.

September 14, 2016

Jeremiah Burroughs (c.1600–1646) on Hosea 11:4 and the Difference in the Love of God

Again, He loves thee with the very same Love wherewith he loves Jesus Christ himself; In John 17, about the latter end, That thou mayest love them with the same Love wherewith thou hast loved me, saith Christ to the Father. Oh! to have the same Love that the Father loves Christ withal, Is not this a strong Bond to bind thy heart to God? If God had loved thee only so, as to give thee an estate and honors here in this world, this is no other love but that the Reprobate may have, and will this Love satisfy thee? Oh! the difference between the Love of God to his Saints, and the Love of God to other men! he loves the great ones of the world that are wicked with no other love, but with the love that he loves a Reprobate; but he loves the Saints with the same Love wherewith he loves his Son, and this Love will bring thee one day, to be one with the Father and the Son, and is not here a strong Bond of Love to gain thy heart to Himself?
Jeremiah Burroughs, An Exposition with Practical Observations Continued Upon the Eleventh, Twelfth & Thirteenth Chapters of the Prophesy of Hosea (London: Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange, 1651), 82–83. Some spelling updated.

Bio:

August 25, 2016

Malcolm Watts on “The Necessity and Justification for the Free Offer of the Gospel”

Rowland Hill once visited Bristol to preach the Gospel, commencing his series of sermons on the eve of Bristol Fair. His text was Isaiah 55.1 – ‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’ His opening words were: ‘My dear hearers, I guess many of you have come to attend Bristol Fair. So have I. You do not mean to show your goods until tomorrow; but I shall exhibit mine tonight. You are afraid purchasers will not come up to your prices; but I am afraid my buyers will not come down to mine; for mine [striking his hand on the Bible] are “without money and without price”.’

The subject of this article is the theological basis of the Gospel offer. The word ‘offer’ is derived from the Latin offerre which literally means ‘to bring to’, for acceptance or rejection. In Freund’s Latin Dictionary, the meaning of offerre is said to be ‘to bring before’, ‘to present’, ‘to offer’. The following example is given of its usage in Latin: ‘a good opportunity presented itself to me.’ Clearly, the thought is not that an opportunity was merely exhibited, but that it was there for the taking.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘offer’ as ‘a holding forth or presenting for acceptance; an expression of intention or willingness to give or do something conditionally on the assent of the person addressed; a proposal.’ An example is given illustrating the use of the word in the 17th century: ‘If any of his subjects hath any precious stone of value, and make not him the offer of it, it is death to him.’


Tender of a Benefit

Both the original Latin word and the derived English word mean the same thing: a proposal, or tender of a benefit. John Calvin repeatedly uses the word in this sense. In his comment on Luke 2.10 he writes: ‘At the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.’

On Romans 1.16 Calvin says: ‘Since, then, the Gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that which is lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall find him a Judge.’ His use of the term undoubtedly includes the thought of something being presented to the sinner for acceptance or rejection.

The term also appears in the famous Canons of Dort in 1618. The third and fourth heads of doctrine, articles 8 and 9, state: ‘That many who are called by the ministry of the Gospel do not come and are not converted is not the fault of the Gospel, nor of the Christ offered by the Gospel . . . ’

Here, once again, offer means more than presentation or exhibition. It means a proposal – a proposal which some evidently refuse. In complete accord with Calvin and the Canons of Dort, the Westminster doctrinal standards of 1646 make free use of the word ‘offer’, notably in chapter 7 section 3 of the Confession, where we read: ‘He [God] freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.’ Such an offer is addressed to sinners universally and indiscriminately, as truly to those who reject it as to those who receive it.

The Westminster Larger Catechism uses the term twice. In Question and Answer 32, we read: ‘He [God] freely provideth, and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith.’ Again, in Question and Answer 67, the elect are said to be ‘made willing and able, freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.’ The Shorter Catechism, in Question and Answer 31, speaks of ‘Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel,’ and in Question and Answer 86, faith is defined as ‘a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the Gospel.’

Turning to God’s Word, we should take account of those scriptures which unmistakably teach a general offer:

Psalm 34.8: ‘O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.’

Proverbs 1.24: ‘I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded.’

Isaiah 55.1: ‘Come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.’

Isaiah 65.1-2: ‘I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people.’

Matthew 22.2-3: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.’

Matthew 23.37: ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’

Luke 14.16-18: ‘A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: and sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse.’

John 3.16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’

John 6.32: [Addressed indiscriminately to those who were gathered around him] ‘My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.’

Romans 10.13: ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Revelation 22.17: ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’

It is important for us to establish that we are not basing our doctrine upon a few isolated texts. Be assured that these verses are but a sample of the scriptures which could be quoted in support of a free, open, and general offer of the Gospel.

‘Good News’ to All


Let us now examine the doctrine of the offer. Our word Gospel is compounded of two Anglo-Saxon words: god which means good, and spell which means message – good message. It corresponds to the Greek word, which it translates – euangelion – meaning good news. The Gospel is good news from Heaven of a Saviour in Jesus Christ.

The ‘protevangel’, or ‘first gospel’, preached to Adam, was the announcement of a Redeemer (Genesis 3.15). As preached to Abraham, it was simply the expansion of the original promise, and concerned the ‘seed’ in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed. In the New Testament it is more fully revealed but essentially the same. The Gospel is not the whole revelation of the Word of God, but is that part of the Word which concentrates upon the good news of Jesus Christ, the Saviour (Acts 13.38 – ‘through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins’).

It is all perfectly summed up for us in Luke 2.10 – ‘Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.’ Now, I ask, how can the Gospel be good news to all people if it merely declares the facts that God loves his elect, that Christ has secured them by purchase, and that the Holy Spirit will irresistibly call them to faith and salvation? That is how some define the Gospel. But thus understood, can it ever be good news to all people? Surely there is another and more consistent interpretation. I believe there is.

First of all, the Gospel is good news to all because it declares that Christ has been constituted the official ‘Saviour of the world’. ‘We have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world’ (John 4.42). This is repeated in similar words in 1 John 4.14.

Thomas Boston comments most helpfully on this: ‘Like as a prince, out of regard to his subjects’ welfare, gives a commission to a qualified person to be physician to such a society, a regiment, or the like, and the prince’s commission constitutes him physician of that society, so that though many of them should never employ him, but call other physicians, yet still there is a relation between him and them; he is their physician by office; any of them may come to him and be healed.’

This is the sense in which Christ may be said to be everybody’s Saviour and this is why it is lawful for all to apply to him for salvation. He has been given to people without restriction and without reservation. ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.’ The gift is general; as in John 6.31-33: ‘My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.’ Christ was speaking there to a mixed congregation, many of whom remained in unbelief. Yet he declares that in a way he was given to them all. How? As the manna was once given, by way of a common and indefinite grant. This being so, all may take and apply Christ for the salvation of their own souls. Expressed in another way, Christ is commissioned to save sinners, and this general truth encourages a person to appropriate and apply Christ, even though he reckons himself, along with Paul, the chief of sinners.

Secondly, the Gospel is good news to all people because it brings the Saviour and salvation within everyone’s reach. Titus 2.11 reads: ‘The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,’ or, as the margin has it, ‘the grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men, hath appeared.’ Dr Fairbairn comments: ‘In a word, the salvation-bringing grace of God is without respect of persons; it is unfolded indiscriminately, or to sinners of every name, simply as such.’ When this salvation is brought to all who hear, for acceptance, it is what Scripture calls ‘the common salvation’ (Jude 3).

Thirdly, the Gospel is good news to all people because it gives a ground for claiming possession of Christ and all his benefits. No less is promised to all who will believe; and the promise is the sinner’s legal warrant for receiving and resting upon the Lord Jesus for a full salvation. ‘Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God!’ (Isaiah 40.9.) ‘Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come’ (Isaiah 45.24). We conclude therefore that faith receives Christ as he is offered to us in the Gospel. ‘So we preach, and so ye believed’ (1 Corinthians 15.11).

‘To Every Creature’

This is the Gospel which must be proclaimed throughout the whole world. Christ says in Mark 16.15- ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ In our evangelism and Gospel services, it is the good news which must be preached, not Hodge’s, Dabney’s or Berkhof’s systematic theology! And it must be sincerely, warmly and freely preached to every soul.

Isaac Watts wrote, ‘None of the sons or daughters of Adam the sinner are excluded from this salvation when the Gospel is preached, but those who exclude themselves by stubbornness and unbelief.’ In view of that, let the good news be proclaimed world-wide, and let Christ be tendered to all. God does not name certain sinners as if some only are warranted to believe. He gives to every hearer an all-sufficient ground for believing.

Does this surprise you? My friends, the law does not name people. It speaks in general terms, commanding obedience and condemning disobedience. And the Gospel speaks likewise, not naming some as if they only may believe. In fact, the Gospel goes out to all, addressing ‘whosoever will’.

Preaching once upon the words, ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Romans 10.13), John Berridge told his congregation: ‘I would much rather it be written, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” – than, “If John Berridge shall call on the name of the Lord he shall be saved;” because how do I know that there might not be another John Berridge in the world to whom those words are addressed? But when I read “whosoever shall call . . .  ”, I know I must be included.’

All to be Called

Ministers are told to invite as many as they find (Matthew 22.9), even the most unlikely, described in Luke 14 as the maimed and the halt and the blind. According to Isaiah 55.6-7, the wicked must be called and offered God’s abundant pardon. In declaring such offers, we do well to remember the promise which Christ has given: ‘Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out’ (John 6.37). In view of that, we may rest assured that no sinner will ever perish at his door.

Yet, some insist that there are qualifications restricting the offer of the Gospel. We must reply carefully, making some important distinctions. It is perfectly true that the Holy Spirit, through what theologians call ‘a law work’, convinces men and women of their sins (John 16.8), and it is also true that until thus convinced no one will turn to Christ and believe in him. However, that deep, heartfelt sense of sin does not give the sinner any warrant to believe, or right to the Saviour: it simply moves him to take up the warrant and right which he – and every sinner – has in the Gospel’s gracious and free invitation. In the Parable of the Supper, for example, those first invited (and they were invited) made excuse and refused to come, whereas it turned out that the poor and the needy responded at once (Luke 14.16-24). Similarly, when Peter preached the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost, it was by way of a general invitation and offer (‘whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved’, Acts 2.21), but the fact is – and it is plainly stated – that those ‘pricked in their heart’ were brought to respond believingly 2.37-41).

Make no mistake about it: the Gospel is God’s sincere and earnest offer of Jesus Christ, in his person, offices, and benefits. We do well to observe that there are many Gospel invitations which do not even mention the sinner’s state, let alone any qualifications. This is true of John 6.37. Nothing is said here about a required condition or preparation. Romans 10.13 is equally unconditional. There is no justification for restricting and narrowing the whosoever when the Gospel is preached. Paul did not do that, and, as we have seen, neither did Peter, when he declared – ‘Whosoever shall call . . . shall be saved.’ And it is surely of the utmost significance that there is no qualification in the Bible’s final overture to unbelieving men and women – ‘Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22.17). True, only convinced sinners will come to Christ, but Thomas Bell is absolutely right when he says: ‘The offer is clogged with no exceptions, no conditions.’

We freely concede that there are passages in which the Lord appears to invite sinners of a particular kind. A well-known example is Matthew 11.28 – ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ But why do some assume that spiritual qualifications are in view there? The terms could simply be descriptive of a carnal state. Thomas Boston makes the point that all people labour in a sense, as we read in Ecclesiastes 1.8 – ‘All things are full of labour’ – and he also draws attention to Isaiah 1.4, where we read of men and women ‘laden with iniquity’. Understood in the light of such scriptures, Matthew 11.28 is the calling of sinners as sinners – without further restriction – to mercy, pardon and peace.

This also seems to be the case in Isaiah 55. Some make a great deal of the fact that it is ‘every one that thirsteth’ who is called to come. Here, they say, is a required and an essential qualification or preparation. But, again, we must ask, what is this thirst? It can hardly be the ‘spiritual thirst’ of so-called ‘sensible sinners’. The very next verse complains that they are not thirsting after Christ, but spending their money for that which is not bread, and labouring for that which does not satisfy. In other words, their desires are wholly carnal, but notwithstanding they are invited to come.

Even if it could be shown that, in such places, spiritual characteristics are intended, it would only mean that certain kinds of sinners (those particularly specified) are included in the Gospel invitation. It might even further suggest that particular kindness will be shown to those who have experienced the humbling work of the law, who are broken, and who are in real spiritual need. Let them come, however despairing and however hopeless they may feel. Indeed, we may be assured by such texts that they are especially welcome.

The overriding point, however, is that many scriptural offers have no limitation at all. The state of men and women upon the reception of the Gospel is sinful. Christ said he had come, not to call the righteous, but to call sinners (Matthew 9.13). This means that he did not come to call the half-sanctified, who fully appreciate the gravity of their sinful condition and who realize the all-surpassing worth of Christ. He came to call sinners: sinners in all their sin, sinners destitute of grace, and sinners who have nothing whatsoever to commend them to God.

It would be fatal to err at this point. The Gospel is for the ungodly (Romans 4.5), not for the half-godly. Sinners must not be misled into thinking that they need qualifying traits
. If they are, they will end up bitterly disappointed, for the rich he sends empty away (Luke 1.53). It is far, far better to say with Luther:

‘Most gracious Jesus and sweet Christ, I am a miserable poor sinner and therefore do judge myself unworthy of grace; but yet I, having learned from thy Word that thy salvation belongs to such an one, therefore do I come unto thee to claim that right which, through thy gracious promise, belongs to me.’

The Warrant for Faith

At this point we must underline and amplify the fact that the Gospel alone provides the warrant and authorization for faith. Mark 16.15-16 reads – ‘Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth . . . shall be saved.’ It is on the basis of the Gospel that people believe, not on the ground of inward evidence or inwrought persuasion. 1 Timothy 1.15 calls the Gospel – ‘a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation’, meaning that such is the Gospel revelation that all people may and ought to believe. Ephesians 1.13 says – ‘In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth.’ Again, it is the word of truth which gives us the ground for our trusting in Christ. In plain terms then, the Gospel offer is the warrant for faith.

In 1 John 5.11 we read – ‘This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.’ The sum of God’s testimony is that he has made available to sinners a full and free gift of life in Christ. This gift is not a gift in possession, but a gift in offer, for as the previous verse speaks of the possibility of rejecting the testimony, the verse following speaks of the possibility of rejecting the proffered gift.

God has laid in the record of the Gospel a firm foundation for the faith of sinners. They have his own warrant and therefore a perfect right to receive the Lord Jesus, in all his grace and fullness, for their salvation. Fisher’s Catechism asks: ‘What is the ministerial offer?’ It answers: ‘It is the publishing or proclaiming of Heaven’s gift, or grant, to sinners of mankind, without exception, as the foundation of their faith, or warrant to believe (1 John 5.11).’

This fact may be demonstrated, firstly, by the need of such a warrant. If there was no Gospel offer, what would faith be? At best, it would be presumption; at worst, plain robbery. Faith is receiving Christ, but no person can receive anything unless it is first offered to him as a gift (John 3.27; 4.10). Christ is given in the Gospel, and faith receives and rests on him alone. So the very way faith is described – as ‘reception’ – indicates that a gift has been tendered.

That the Gospel offer is the ground for believing may also be demonstrated from the fact that, in Scripture, the rejection of Christ is regarded as a dreadful sin. In John 3.18-19, for example, the unbeliever is condemned as a sinner. But rejection of Christ can only be a sin if it is contrary to God’s revealed design. It can never be a sin to refuse something which is not genuinely and authoritatively offered. But unbelief is a sin, and a sin of the first order, because it rejects the proposal of God almighty.

One further argument for demonstrating that the offer of the Gospel is the warrant of faith is the fact that God is so angry with those who refuse to hear and respond. This is brought out very clearly in Luke 14 – the parable of the man who provided a supper and invited many people to it. When they refused, we read that he became angry. Why was that? It was because in the generosity of his heart he had freely offered his provisions and the response had been indifference and ingratitude. Similarly, God is angry when, after giving sinners express warrant and every encouragement, they still refuse to come and avail themselves of his blessings. His offers are sincere and people are meant to accept them. He is provoked when they do not.

Other Warrants?

I am aware that there are those who make something else the warrant of faith. Some evangelical Calvinists believe the warrant of faith lies in ‘the name of God’. What they mean by that is the revelation of God’s nature, as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. Since God has manifested himself in Christ as a God of love, there is every reason to believe – or so it is argued – that Christ is ready to save and give eternal life to sinners. Appeal is made to such scriptures as Psalm 9.10 and 36.7. There is certainly encouragement to the sinner in God’s self-disclosure but, in and of itself, it is not the warrant.

Others see ‘common grace’ as the warrant. Observing that there is a divine benevolence towards Adam’s entire race, and that the Lord seems to take pleasure in the well-being of all (Psalm 145.9), they find ground to believe that God desires men to be saved (1 Timothy 2.4). In the faith of that, sinners are urged to turn to God for pardon. Ezekiel 18.32 is often quoted as a supporting text – ‘I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.’ We are far from denying common grace, and, again, it comforts sinners and gives them hope, but, on its own, it does not provide the clear warrant they need.

Still others find the warrant of faith in ‘the sufficiency of the atonement’. They rightly stress the glorious, infinite, all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, declaring it to be of such intrinsic worth that it is more than adequate ground for the salvation of all who rely upon it (which is not to deny, of course, that it had a very definite, limited design: the saving of God’s elect). Verses like Psalm 130.7 refer to ‘plenteous redemption’ and John 6.35 clearly teaches that a crucified Christ could give life to the whole world of mankind. Therefore, as one theologian [John Lafayette Girardeau] states it, ‘Men are invited to stand on a platform which is broad enough to hold them all, to rest upon a foundation which is strong enough to support them all, to partake of provisions which are abundant enough to supply them all . . . Were they all to accept the invitation, they would all be saved. So much for the intrinsic sufficiency of the remedy for human sin.’ The appropriate means of salvation having been provided, the sinner is invited on that basis – ‘All things are ready: come . . . ’ (Matthew 22.4). We agree wholeheartedly with Dr Robert S. Candlish that ‘to every one who hears the Gospel, assurance is given of the full and infinite sufficiency of Christ’s work for any, and for all, who will come to him. The dignity of his person, the merit of his obedience, and the value of his death, as a propitiation, secure this’, but the sinner needs more, even the warrant actually to come and avail himself of Christ’s full salvation.

I am impressed with these grounds, but I do not believe that any of them provides the sinner with exactly what he needs. Let me explain what I mean in the following illustration.

A friend says to me, ‘The Queen is an extremely kind woman.’ I say, ‘I believe you.’ My friend then says, ‘She is also known to be generous to many.’ I reply, ‘I am fully aware of that.’ ‘But there is something else,’ adds my friend, ‘the wealth of her palace would be sufficient to supply all your needs for the rest of your life!’ To this I respond by saying, ‘I have not the least doubt about that.’ Now, although I believe all this, do these things entitle me to walk through the gates of Buckingham Palace and take anything and everything that I want? No, they certainly do not! If I would have the liberty to do that, I must have nothing more or less than the invitation of Her Majesty, the Queen. And, my friends, God’s invitation – or offer – in the Gospel is what I must have if I would come and take Christ and all his saving benefits.

The warrant for faith, then, is the Gospel offer. We do not need to go beyond it, nor do we need to resort to sophisticated arguments which sometimes compromise the doctrines of grace. We have an infallible Word which wonderfully exhibits and tenders Christ to each and every one of us. It is enough, friends. It is enough – and more than enough
. A sinner may confidently draw near to the Saviour, saying:

Jesus, I do trust thee,
Trust without a doubt;
Whosoever cometh,
Thou wilt not cast out:
Faithful is thy promise,
Precious is thy blood:
These my soul’s salvation,
Thou my Saviour God!

In one of his sermons, Ralph Erskine asks the question, ‘How shall I know . . . whether I have a warrant to take and accept?’ He answers as follows: ‘You may be sure of this, if these two things concur, namely, if he be offering, and you be needing these things; if you want, and he have and be saying by this Gospel, Come and share.’

A Free Offer

What a Gospel it is! Christ, his love, his pardon, his righteousness, his Spirit, his holiness, his strength and his fullness, are all offered to poor, miserable sinners. How is he offered? He is offered freely! ‘Let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22.17). Nothing must interfere with this freeness.

Beware of giving the impression that people can buy anything in the Gospel market. God’s gifts are bestowed ‘without money and without price’. It is foolish and utterly pointless to try to bargain on the basis of your good works, your spiritual exercises, or your heart preparations. Freely you must receive.

He is offered wholly! He is made over to us in all his names, titles, offices, relations and benefits. ‘Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Corinthians 1.30). There is absolutely nothing in Jesus which a believer will ever lack. ‘Ye are complete in him’ (Colossians 2.10).

He is offered particularly! A general offer would not help us. We need to be persuaded that Christ is able and willing to save us. ‘To you is the word of this salvation sent’ (Acts 13.26). As Ebenezer Erskine observes, ‘Faith, which is the echo of the Gospel offer and call, must needs receive an offered Christ and salvation, with particular application to the soul itself. For a person to rest in a general persuasion that Christ is offered to the Church, or offered to the elect, or a persuasion of God’s ability and readiness to save all that come to Christ, is still but a general faith, and what devils, reprobates and hypocrites may have.’

He is offered sincerely! In the Gospel God says what he means and he means what he says. His heart is in his offer. ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not’ (Matthew 23.37).

He is offered repeatedly! As a friend who longs for reconciliation and love, God says: ‘All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people’ (Romans 10.21).

He is offered pressingly! It is ‘as though God did beseech you by us’ (2 Corinthians 5.20). God beseeches, or entreats, and his ministers pray or plead with sinners to accept the reconciliation God has provided. In fact, ministers are told to compel people: that is, to press and constrain them (Luke 14.23). Such words suggest a most urgent appeal.

He is offered lovingly! God’s strong affections make great stirrings in his heart, and all his desires go out to sinners when he calls them through the Gospel. ‘Mine heart is turned within me’, he says. He yearns for them, and his Gospel becomes ‘the word of his grace’ (Acts 20.32).

Now, it is essential for such an offer to be made if sinners are to turn to Christ, because if the offer is not preached, sinners are denied the warrant which they need. They must be told that they have God’s permission and his invitation. If we fail to preach the offer, the danger is that we shall make the warrant some inward qualification or impression. This may be a conviction of the Truth, a sense of wretchedness, a desire for Christ, a feeling that we are elect and redeemed, a hope of mercy, a disposition to hear more, or a quickening and stirring in our hearts.

But, neither separately nor together do these things constitute an adequate warrant for faith
. Why is this?

First of all, it is because the entire ground is subjective. All is made to depend upon feeling, which could be here today (giving assurance) and gone tomorrow (throwing the individual into despair). The heart is deceitful.

Secondly, it is because there can be no evidence of faith where there is no presence of faith. According to Scripture, sanctification does not precede believing. It is faith which purifies the heart (Acts 15.9).

Thirdly, it is because grounding the warrant of faith on inward impressions overthrows the order of grace. Although divine election is before faith, only after faith do people know their election. It is genuine, saving faith which marks people out as the objects of God’s loving choice. ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ (Acts 13.48).

The tragedy is that reliance on inward impressions, so productive of doubt and fear, actually hinders people from coming to Christ. It is a real stumbling-block. God forbid that any of us should be responsible for throwing such obstacles before sinners. Our mandate is clear: ‘Prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones’ (Isaiah 62.10).

The Lord is far kinder than we think. He genuinely grieves when people will not come to him. ‘Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life’ (John 5.40). The last thing he wants is to keep himself apart from the sinner. But the doctrine of qualifications and impressions tends only to do that. It makes people believe that the Gospel is only for ‘sensible sinners’ and, as a result, many spend their lives wondering whether their senses have been sufficiently exercised and whether they have known the correct impressions.

A brief comment must be made on how the doctrine of particular redemption relates to the free offer of the Gospel. The Gospel offer is the setting forth of Christ as the only Saviour given to sinners, with the invitation that if people take him as their refuge, they shall be saved. Now, in this offer, Christ is revealed as having died for all who place their trust in him, and it is asserted that all who do this shall be saved.

Professor W. G. T. Shedd remarks as follows: ‘The offer of the atonement is universal because, when God calls upon men universally to believe, he does not call upon them to believe that they are elected, or that Christ died for them in particular. He calls upon them to believe that Christ died for sin, for sinners, for the world; that there is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved; that the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin; and that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’

When the offer is accepted and we are conscious of having taken the Saviour as our hope and the only means of our salvation, we may then believe that, since Christ died for all who receive him, he died with the intention of saving us. Reformed theologians have carefully differentiated between these two acts of faith, calling the first direct and the second reflex or  . ‘The former is the act of faith, by which we fly to Christ as the only Saviour, cleave to him, and appropriate him to ourselves for salvation. The latter is the act by which, flying to Christ and resting on him, we trust that we have, and to eternity will have, communion with him in his death and benefits; and joyfully repose in the firm persuasion that he died for us, and by his death reconciled us to God’ (Professor Francis Turretin).

I would not be fettered when preaching the Gospel. I know from the clear testimony of the Scriptures that God has a people sovereignly elected by grace, who have been particularly redeemed by the Son, and who will be efficaciously called by the Spirit, but he commissions me, as a minister, to preach Christ and the overtures of grace to every soul of man, gladly proclaiming that all who turn to Jesus Christ and embrace his merit for salvation shall be granted the blessing of eternal life.

Come!

Vavasor Powell, the great 17th-century Baptist, wrote these words: ‘Prisoners, adjudged to die, and having pardons tendered to them, do not question whether those pardons were intended and granted for all in their condition; but they upon the first sight and hearing thereof, strive to grapple hard and to catch hold upon such a pardon: even so sinners, when pardon of sins and salvation in Christ are tendered and preached to them, they should, like Jacob, strive to have the blessing; or like the woman that strove for the child, they should cry, “It is my pardon, my pardon,” and not, “Is it for me? Is it for me?”

Christian friends, this is the preacher’s task. He enters the prison-house of humanity with a great handful of royal pardons and he is instructed of the King to give them to all who believe and apply for mercy. Let the preacher be uninhibited and unrestricted when making his proclamation. And let every willing sinner come to Christ with the assurance that no one who comes shall ever be refused. Let them come! Let them come!
Malcolm Watts, "The Necessity and Justification for the Free Offer of the Gospel," Sword & Trowel, No. 1 (June 2009).

August 24, 2016

David Silversides on the Warrant of Faith and the Free Offer of the Gospel in the Westminster Standards


(b) The warrant of faith is the free offer of the Gospel addressed to sinners as such

“....wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (WCF VII/III). The term ‘offer’ or ‘free offer’ also appears in the Catechisms (Larger An. 32, 63 and 68, Shorter An. 31 and 86). The usage in An. 68 of the Larger is of special interest in that it puts beyond all doubt that the offer is addressed to non-elect sinners; “...who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Christ.” The term ‘offer’ also appears in the Three Forms of Unity.20

(c) The Meaning of ‘offer’

Professor Hanko maintains that the term ‘offer’ can mean no more than ‘to exhibit’ or ‘to present’. He suggests that this was the intended meaning not only in the Three Forms of Unity but also in the Westminster Standards.21 It is more customary to regard the term as implying a gracious overture of mercy, an invitation to sinners in general which reflects God’s favour and kindness to all who hear the Gospel, a favour and kindness which is one part of what became known later as ‘common grace’. Hoeksema’s and Hanko’s denial of the doctrine of common grace in general and the concept of a gracious overture in particular raises serious questions.

(i) The Person of Christ

If the anti-common grace position were correct, then Christ as God in no sense loved the reprobate even while they were in this world. As a man ‘made under the law’ the command, “thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” applied to Christ. Only two options are open. The first is an heretical division of the person of Christ, by maintaining that Christ loved only the elect in His divine nature but loved all men in His human nature. Clearly this must be rejected. The alternative is to say that Christ, in both natures, loved the elect only and that our obligation to love all men is due to our ignorance of who the elect are. This means that we are required to love those whom God does not. Moreover, Scripture bases our obligation to love all men not on our ignorance of God’s mind, but the knowledge of it that we should have our duty to be patterned after Him (Matt. 5:43–48).

(ii) The Preaching of the Gospel

Are we to have compassion on all those to whom we preach reflecting our concern for their spiritual welfare (Rom. 9:1–3 and 10:1)? If so, do we express this compassion as ministers of Christ, acting “in Christ’s stead” (2 Cor. 5:20), or do we cease to act in that capacity at this point?

We submit that the tears of Christ over Jerusalem were the human tears of a Divine person and reflected divine compassion and that the Scriptures warrant the preaching of a gracious overture of mercy to all who hear the Gospel. We also submit that this was the overall position of the Westminster Divines. In support of this we offer the following five lines of evidence.

Firstly, the Minutes of the Assembly.

“Resolved upon the Q., These two questions and answers, Q. Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ? A. Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation but only such as are members of the Church invisible. Q. What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind? A. Besides much forebearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ as Lord of all, they by Him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the Gospel, and are under such dispensations of providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance.”22

“Ordered—Q. Are all they saved by Christ who live within the Visible Church and hear the Gospel? A. Although the Visible Church (which is a society made up of such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children) do enjoy many special favours and privileges whereby it is distinguished from other societies in the world and the Gospel where it cometh doth tender salvation by Christ to all, testifying that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, and excludeth none that come unto Him; yet none do or can truly come unto Christ, or are saved by Him, but only the members of the Invisible Church, which is the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one unto Christ their head.”23

“Resolved upon the Q. ‘Q. What is it to believe in Christ? A. To believe in Christ is to receive Christ according to God’s offer, resting on Him alone for pardon and all grace and salvation.’ Resolved upon the Q. ‘Q. What ground or warrant have you, being a sinner, to believe in Christ? A. The ground of my believing in Christ is God’s offer of Him in His word to me as well as to any other man, and His commanding me to believe in Him, as well as to believe or obey any other thing in His word.”24

Secondly, the Directory for Public Worship.

In the prayer before sermon in this Directory which the Westminster Assembly produced, we read, “Yea, not only despising the riches of God’s goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, but standing out against many invitations and offers of grace in the Gospel...”

Thirdly, the use of the term ‘goodness’ in the Shorter Catechism.
God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth (S/C Ans. 4).
That God shows goodness to all men can scarcely be denied (e.g. Rom. 2:4, Ps. 145:9). The question is whether “goodness” or “doing good” implies Divine favour or lovingkindness. Hoeksema, having acknowledged that goodness sometimes indicates mercy, grace and compassion, goes on to say, “Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten that this benevolence of God is not common, and that it may not and cannot be separated from His goodness as perfection. Only as the ethically perfect One is God the benevolent One. And because this is true, His goodness reveals itself as wrath and anger, as a consuming fire, to those that love iniquity.”25

By applying this sense of “goodness” to God’s dealings with His creatures, the way is open to evacuate all reference to God’s goodness towards men in general of the idea of benevolence, mercy, grace and kindness, except in the case of the elect who, because of their supposed justification from eternity past are at no point among “those that love iniquity” in the sight of God, even though they do love iniquity prior to their effectual call. John Murray on Romans 2:4 comments,
It needs to be noted that the apostle does not think of this restraint as exercised in abstraction from the riches of God’s goodness, the riches of his benignity and lovingkindness...It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies.26
When we turn to the Westminster Standards, we find the term ‘goodness’ in An. 4 of the Shorter Catechism replaces the terms “most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness...” in the Westminster Confession (II/I) and the Larger Catechism (An. 7). The Shorter Catechism has sometimes been criticized for not mentioning God’s grace or love in An. 4, but we must realize that whatever differences there may be in these various terms, the Westminster Divines saw God’s goodness as a basic umbrella term for them. This being so, since God is undoubtedly good to all, we submit that the Westminster Divines as a whole held to what became known as the doctrine of common grace in the sense that the Lord, in a variety of ways, displays His favour and lovingkindness even to the non-elect in this present life, without being pleased to regenerate them. The preaching of the Gospel and the overture of mercy which it includes is one part of that display of lovingkindness.

Fourthly, individual Assembly members.

Rutherford says, “He offereth in the Gospel, life to all...” He then calls this
God’s moral complacency of grace, revealing an obligation that all are to believe if they would be saved; and upon their own peril be it, if they refuse Chfrist...Christ cometh once with good tidings to all, elect and reprobate.27
Thomas Goodwin states, “God now in this life offers to deal with thee upon terms of friendship...”28 and speaks of “an invitation to come into the Ark, like to Christ’s inviting sinners to come unto him.”29

In 1657, a series of free offer sermons by Obadiah Sedgwick was published.30 Jeremiah Burroughs wrote a recommendation to Edward Fisher’s “Marrow of Modern Divinity” which featured so much in the defense of the free offer in Later Scottish Church history.31

If time permitted, so far as the members of the Assembly have left their views on record, we believe it could be shown that the free offer position was the norm among them.

Fifthly, the Puritan period in general.

The free offer or gracious overture position seems to have been held generally among the 17th century Puritans with little dissent. John Flavel preached a series of free offer sermons.32 John Owen has a relevant sermon on “a vision of unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners.”33 Erroll Hulse in his useful booklet on the subject gives appropriate quotations from Brooks, Charnock, Sibbes, etc.34

In Scotland, William Guthrie in his “Christian’s Great Interest,” published in 1658, makes references throughout to “gracious invitations,” etc.35 David Dickson and James Durham, around 1650, wrote their “Sum of Saving Knowledge” which if often printed with the Westminster Standards in Scottish editions. It has a whole section on “warrants to believe” and includes a treatment of Isaiah 55:1–5, saying that the Lord “maketh open offer of Christ and His grace by proclamation of a free and gracious market of righteousness....He inviteth all sinners...” On 2 Corinthians 5:19–21; “The earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to Him in Christ...”36 That whole section is worthy of study.

Taking all this into account, we feel justified in concluding that the Westminster divines and the Puritans went further than merely issuing the command. They besought men and did so as an expression of divine lovingkindness.

(d) John Calvin

From time to time the charge has been made that the Westminster Standards represent a significant departure from the position of Calvin. Usually, the charge is in the form that the Westminster position is more rigorously Calvinistic then Calvin. However, occasionally, the accusation is in the other direction. Were the Westminster divines at odds with Calvin in their view of the free offer of the Gospel? We suggest not. The following are samples from Calvin’s commentaries.

On Acts 13:46
He accuseth them (the Jews) of unthankfulness, because, whereas they were chosen by God out of all people, that Christ might offer himself unto them, they refused so great a benefit maliciously....because they do so willingly cast from them so grace a grace.37
On Heb. 2:12
Hence we conclude that the Gospel is offered to us for this end, that it may lead us to the knowledge of God by which His goodness is made known among us....This is what Paul says (2 Cor. 5:20) that he and others act as the ambassadors of Christ and exhort us in the name of Christ.38
On Heb. 3:13
The particle ‘so long as’ implies that the opportunity will not always be there if we have been slow to follow when God was calling us. God is now knocking at our door. If we do not open to Him, it will come about that in turn He will close the door of His kingdom to us. Then those who despised the grace offered today will find their groans are too late. Therefore, since we do not know whether it is God’s will to continue His call into tomorrow, let us not put off. He calls today; let us answer as soon as possible.39
On 2 Pet. 3:9, Calvin does not restrict the phrase “not willing that any should perish” to the elect. Rather he says
This is His wondrous love toward the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety. We must notice the order, that God is prepared to receive all men into repentance, so that none may perish. These words indicate the means of obtaining salvation, and whoever of us seeks salvation must learn to follow in this way. It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His lovingkindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world.40
Practical points:

1. We are to treat non-Christians as recipients of divine favours, including material blessings and gifts as well as the preaching of the Gospel. It is because they are real blessings (Gen. 17:20) that their ingratitude renders them so guilty. Unthankfulness relates to blessings not curses (Rom. 1:21). The fact that, in the case of the reprobate, these blessings become the occasion of greater guilt in accordance with the decree of God, does not mean they are not in themselves expressions of the free favour and mercy of God. We can therefore point out to the unbeliever that God has been merciful to him and the danger of abusing His mercies and “treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5).

2. We must do more than issue the Gospel command. We must exhort men to come to Christ, not in a “take it or leave it” fashion, but conveying to them that it is a matter of intense concern to us that they heed God’s sovereign and gracious overture of mercy and embrace in faith the Saviour whom they so much need. (There should be no confusion that it is they who need Christ and not vice versa as is sometimes the case in the Arminian presentation today).
_______________
20. Canons of Dort, Heads 3 and 4, Article 9.
21. H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal, op. cit. Nov. 1986, op. cit. 16–17.
22. Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (William Blackwood and Son, 1874), p. 369.
23. Op. cit. 393.
24. Op. cit. 309.
25. H. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 92.
26. John Murray, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 59.
27. S. Rutherford, op. cit. p. 129ff.
28. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 6, Banner of Truth, 1979, p. 150.
29. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol. 8, James Nichol, Edinburgh, 1864, p. 166.
30. Obadiah Sedgewick, The Fountains of Life Opened (1657).
31. See Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 1722 edition, p. 14.
32. John Flavel, Works, Vol. 4, Banner of Truth, pp. 3–306.
33. John Owen, Works, Vol. 8, Banner of Truth, pp. 2–41.
34. Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer (Carey Publishing Ltd., 1973).
35. William Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), pp. 122–127, etc.
36. The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, published in the Westminster Confession of Faith etc., Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1967, pp. 326–329.
37. John Calvin, Commentaries, Vol. 10, A.P. + A., p. 1152.
38. John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews and I & II Peter, Oliver & Boyd, p. 27.
39. Op. cit., p. 41.
40. Op. cit., p. 364.
David Silversides, “The Doctrine of Conversion in the Westminster Standards,” The Reformed Journal 9 (November 1993): 74–81.

In his conclusion, Silversides noted:
Herman Hoeksema was undoubtedly a great theologian, nevertheless, his distinctive views are significantly at variance with the Westminster Standards. The root of the problem seems to be a misapplication of the doctrine of the immutability of God. Hence, the elect can never be really under condemnation prior to effectual calling. Similarly, God cannot show grace or favour to the reprobate in this life since He does not in the next. (This view, though held to defend the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, actually sets limits upon that sovereignty by saying that God’s grace or favour must be unto eternity or nothing, whereas if He is free to show mercy as and when and how He pleases, He may indeed show favour to the non-elect for a time in this life and withdraw that favour in the eternal world). Finally, the concept of condition is seen as casting doubt upon the immutability of God’s decrees.
Ibid., 81.

August 2, 2016

Leonard Verduin (1897–1999) on Schism

Schism

Schism (pronounced sizm) is a Greek word. It means split.

Modern man is extremely averse to schism; he will go to almost any length to get things in one column rather than in two or more. Right now he is agitated to get the difference between a man and a woman eliminated; unisex is to his liking, and if he had his way we would all be hermaphrodites, I guess.

This quirk of the modern mind is not from God. For God as He is revealed in the Bible is as much a putter-apart as a putter-together. He “divided light from darkness” and “water from water.” He made creatures “after their kind” on land, in the air, in the water. He put man in an enclosure all by himself. And then he put a fence around Abraham and his seed—having “not dealt so with any other nation.” “All flesh is not the same,” and “there are diversities of gifts.” Pentecost, far from exhibiting sameness, is motley, and its sounds a medley.

Verily the God of the Bible is not averse to “differentnesses”; non-sameness is to His liking. He puts things in columns. You can’t tell Him that “he that believeth” is in the same category with “him that believeth not.” This God’s final act with this world will be a final and lasting setting-apart.

Schism is splitting, putting apart that which belongs together. It is to divide where God does not divide.

Of course it is wicked. To do anything in a way that fights with God’s way of doing it is wicked. “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder” holds in many other ways than in regard to holy matrimony.

But it is no less wicked to run together that which in the mind of God is diverse. This is the sin to which modern man is extremely prone, by reason of the quirk-of-mind of which we spoke.

Antichrist will try for a world in which non-sameness will not be tolerated, not even the claim to non-sameness.

Is the quirk-of-mind of which we spoke Antichrist’s invention?

It can be made to serve his cause. Handsomely.
Leonard Verduin, “Schism,” The Banner 110.18 (May 2, 1975): 3.

Anthony Hoekema (1913–1988) on Article 8 and the Mission Focus of the Canons of Dort

Article 8, dealing with the so-called well-meant gospel offer, is of crucial importance for the work of missions: “As many as are called by the gospel are earnestly called.11 For God earnestly and most sincerely reveals in His Word what is pleasing12 to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He also earnestly promises to all those who come to Him and believe rest of soul and eternal life.” Here the Canons express a most significant biblical insight. One is reminded of such passages as II Corinthians 5:20 (“So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God”) and II Peter 3:9 (“The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance”). If, now, the salvation of sinners is pleasing to God, certainly we who love the Lord should be eager to bring the gospel message to all men. Here again we note that this eagerness, this missionary passion, is clearly implied, but not expressly stated. Article 8 also tells us something about the way in which the missionary should present the gospel. As an ambassador for Christ he should urge men to be reconciled to God, not just because he, the missionary, desires this, but because this is what God himself desires.
_______________
    11 The Latin original here has serio vocantur. It is highly interesting to note that at this point the Synod of Dort took over the very language of the Remonstrants. In one of the statements the latter group had earlier submitted to the Synod, called “The Opinions of the Remonstrants” (Sententiae Remonstrantium, which can be found in translation in Crisis in the Reformed Churches [Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, Inc., 1968], pp. 222-29), they had said, “Whomever God calls to salvation, He calls seriously [serio vocat], that is, with a sincere and completely unhypocritical intention and will to save” (III-IV, 8). The Remonstrants were here saying: We believe that when God calls anyone to salvation he seriously and sincerely desires that such a person should be saved. In response to this statement, the Synod of Dort said in effect: On this point we have no argument; we agree with you one hundred percent. And thus it happened that the very words of one of the Arminian documents became part of the Canons of Dort!
    12 The translation of the Canons found in the Psalter-Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church has here: “what is acceptable to Him.” This is, however, a very weak and inaccurate rendering of the Latin word gratum. In my translation, therefore, I have used the English word pleasing to render the Latin gratum. I believe that this word brings out more clearly what the Synod meant to say: the salvation of sinners in response to the gospel call is not just something mildly acceptable to God (suggesting, perhaps, that God isn’t too happy about this turn of events, but is willing to tolerate it), but it is something highly pleasing to Him.
Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Mission Focus of the Canons of Dort,” Calvin Theological Journal 7.2 (November 1972): 217–218.

Bio: