Wise Advice for Open Air Preaching

Kevin Williams has posted his Guidelines for Open Air Preaching on the Puritan Fellowship blog.

Paul Hartog on Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement

The Baptist Bulletin says:

Paul Hartog (PhD, Loyola University, Chicago) has written a brief academic study that explores John Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement. This is available for a limited time as a free download (a 72-page electronic book in PDF format).

• Download A Word for the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement.

David has also blogged on it at Theology Online.

David Gay on the Free Offer and Incipient Hyper-Calvinism

After quoting passages from Jonathan Edwards and David Brainard on the subject of God's compassionate desire for the salvation of all men, David Gay wrote:

"This is getting close to our weak spot. We want the 'appearance of the divine power', do we not? We want the 'awakening' and 'convictions' of 'numbers of secure souls'. Do we preach with Brainard's pressing urgency to sinners and emphasise the 'ability and willingness of Christ to save'? I confess that I have not yet begun to preach the gospel to sinners biblically. The simple stark fact is, I have not appreciated just what this free offer involves. And because of that I have failed to preach the gospel properly. I have thought too much in negative terms, lesser terms. I have tried to defend the gospel from the ravages of Arminianism and 'easy-believism'. I have not understood the freeness of the gospel. Do you feel the same? This is a large part of our problem, I am sure.

But now I come to the heart of it.

It is clear that God delights in the salvation of sinners. It is proper to say that God takes pleasure in their salvation. But to say that does not go far enough; it falls short of the scriptural teaching on the free offer. The point is: Does God actually desire the salvation of sinners? Does he want sinners to be saved? And further, Does God desire the salvation even of those who are reprobate?

This is the fundamental point at issue in the free offer. John Murray put it this way: 'It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men'.

I assert that this is the heart of the matter. Does God desire the salvation of all men? The answer is, Yes! Therefore we must, in our preaching, declare indiscriminately to all our hearers that God desires to see them saved. Further, we are preaching the gospel to sinners properly, only when we are convinced of the truth of such a desire in God and say so very clearly. We can only persuade sinners to be reconciled to God when we are persuaded that God not only delights in their salvation, but he actually desires it."

David Gay, "Preaching the Gospel to Sinners: 2," Banner of Truth 371-372 (August-September 1994), 44–45.

In the first part, Gay makes it clear that he is writing these things because he sees "a practical, or incipient, hyper-Calvinism and a paralysis creeping upon us." He says "there is a kind of incipient hyper-Calvinism abroad," and so he urges his Calvinistic brothers to freely offer Christ "with pressing urgency and vigour." He observes how "we retreat into hyper-Calvinism as a defence mechanism" in response to an Arminian background and free-willism. See David Gay, "Preaching the Gospel to Sinners," Banner of Truth 370 (July 1994), 23.

James Boice on Common Grace and God's Good Purpose

"There is one more thing we need to learn about common grace from Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. It is in the words that immediately follow those I quoted earlier. Having spoken of grace, Paul concluded, "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:27-28). This is important. For it is a way of saying that God also has a good purpose in his good actions. He wants us to recognize his goodness, to turn from sin, to reach out and find him, and so be able to express our gratitude in true faith and proper obedience.

Paul writes the same thing in Romans, observing that the "kindness, tolerance and patience" of God are meant to lead us to repentance (Rom. 2:4)."

James Montgomery Boice, The Glory of God's Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 24.

Lloyd-Jones on God's Love and Judgments

"That is why God gives people over. But can you not see that the object of it all is love? God wants people to see what He is doing. God is trying to awaken the human race. People will not listen tothe Gospel; they laugh at it and ridicule it. They make fun of Jesus Christ and blaspheme His holy blood shed on the cross on Calvary's hill. But "God so loves the world" that He is trying to open their eyes to the inferno they are creating. This is God's way of calling men and women to repentance. As Paul puts it in Romans 2:4: "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."

Or as Peter says in the third chapter of his second epistle, "There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" (vv. 3-4). And Peter has his answer. Why does God tolerate the world as it is? Why has He not blasted it to destruction long since? Here is the answer: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (v. 9). Can you not see that God, by allowing men and women to reap the consequences of their own folly, is just trying to awaken us, to make us see our wretchedness, our rottenness, our vileness, our hopelessness, our utter helplessness? He is awakening us, calling us to repentance before it is too late. It is God's love that allows this. We will not listen to His appeals, so he tries another method, but it is all in love."

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Triumphant Christianity, vol. 5, Studies in the Book of Acts (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2006), 206–207.

Martin Lloyd-Jones on Common Grace

"And now I come in the third place, to a most important matter which is so often forgotten. It is the Holy Spirit who is responsible for what is called common grace. Let me give you some definitions of what this means. Common grace is the term applied to those general blessings which God imparts to all men and women indiscriminately as He pleases, not only to His own people, but to all men and women, according to His own will. Or, again, common grace means those general operations of the Holy Spirit in which, without renewing the heart, He exercises a moral influence whereby sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted. That is the general definition. The Holy Spirit has been operative in this world from the very beginning and He has had His influence and His effect upon men and women who are not saved and who have gone to perdition. While they were in this life and world they came under these general, non-saving operations of the Holy Spirit. That is what we mean by common grace.

Now, how does the Holy Spirit do this? Well, there are various answers to that question. You will remember that we are told in the prologue of John's Gospel about 'the true light which lighteth every man' (John 1:9). It does not matter how you translate that verse – 'the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world' says the Authorised Version; 'the Light that lighteth every man was coming into the world,' says another. We are not concerned about that. We are interested in the phrase 'the light which lighteth every man'. And there is such a light. It is a kind of natural light, as we call it, natural understanding. It is the light that is in the conscience and there is that light of conscience in every person born into this world. Now that is one of the operations of the Holy Spirit in what is called common grace. It is a light that comes from Christ, because He is the Head of the human race, but it is the Holy Spirit who puts that light into everyone who is born.

Then this same general light also manifests itself in governments, and in laws, and in the various 'powers that be' as Paul calls them in Romans 13:1. You see, it is not man who decided to set up governments and states; 'the powers that be are ordained of God,' says Paul. God divided up the bounds of the nations. He decided that there must be rulers, governors and magistrates and that they should not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4). This is God's work, and He has done all this and keeps it going by means of the Holy Spirit.

Now I think you see at once, without my emphasising it, that many Christian people are in grave error with regard to this matter. They seem to have the idea that God has nothing to do with the unsaved world. But that is not scriptural. Even those who are unsaved are under this influence of the Holy Spirit. It is not a saving influence, nor is it a redemptive influence, but it is a part of God's purpose.

Another way in which common grace manifests itself is by what may be called public opinion. There Is such a thing as a general public opinion, a general consensus of opinion about moral subjects. People who are not Christian at all believe that certain things are wrong and should be prohibited, that other things are right and should be encouraged. There is a sense of right and wrong in humanity. Now that is nothing but a manifestation of common grace. If the Holy Spirit were not operative in men and women in this general way, human beings, as a result of the Fall and of sin, would have festered away into oblivion long ago.

Next to that is what is generally described as culture. By that I mean arts and science, an interest in the things of the mind, literature, architecture, sculpture, painting and music. Now, there can be no question at all but that cultivation of the arts is good. It is not redemptive, but it improves people, it makes them live better lives. Now, where do all these things come from? How do you explain men like Shakespeare or Michelangelo? The answer from the Scripture is that all these people had their gifts and were able to exercise them as the result of the operation of common grace, this general influence of the Holy Spirit.

So you see once more that not only sinners and those who do not believe in God deny common grace, but that often even those of us who are Christians do the same. People tend to glory in Shakespeare, as if were responsible for his powers, but he was not. He had only what he had received. All these gifts that man and women have come from God. And that is why true Christians, as they look out, not only upon creation, but even at culture, discover a reason for glorifying and for praising God.

You see, what is wrong with culture is not the thing itself, it is rather that people give their worship, their praise and their adoration to those men and women who have produced the works rather than to the God who enabled them to do it. But if you look at these things under the heading of common grace, you will see that they all bring glory to God because it is through the Spirit that He dispenses these general gifts to humanity. We shall be reminded later of how our Lord Himself tells us that God sends his rain upon the evil and the good and causes His sun to rise on the just and the unjust – it is the same thing. The God who sends rain and sunshine and gives crops to the evil farmer as well as to the Christian farmer, dispenses artistic and scientific gifts in exactly the same way, indiscriminately, to bad and good, saved and unsaved. It is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Then another way in which common grace manifests itself is this. We read in Isaiah 45: 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil.' What does this mean? Not that God is the creator of sin, not that He is the author of evil – as such – but that He is the author of the evil consequences that follow certain actions. He controls everything. In that sense He makes peace and creates evil. In other words, it is the Holy Spirit who see to it that certain actions lead to certain painful and evil consequences. Those, then, are some of the ways in which common grace manifests itself.

But let us look now at the effects of all this. The first is that the execution of the sentence of judgment upon man and woman in sin was delayed. Have you not sometimes asked yourself the question: Why was it that God did not immediately punish sin by bringing the world to an end in the Garden of Eden? the answer is that God decided, in His own inscrutable and eternal will, not to do so.

But the further question is: How can the world go on existing at all in sin? The answer is that it is kept in existence by this power that the Spirit puts into it. It is the Spirit who keeps the world going. Human life is prolonged both in general and in particular. 'The goodness of God,' says Paul in Romans 2:4, 'leadeth thee to repentance.' Peter says the same thing in his second epistle: 'The Lord . . . is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish that all should come to repentance' (2 Pet. 3:9). God is patient and long-suffering; to Him a thousand years are as one day and one day as a thousand years. He keeps the world going by the Holy Spirit instead of pronouncing final judgment.

The second effect of common grace is that the Holy Spirit strives with men and women. Take that statement in Genesis 6:3: 'My spirit shall not always strive with man.' It does not exhaust the meaning of those words, but it does, at any rate, mean that a time was coming when instead of keeping men and women alive, in spite of their sin, God would stop and the flood would come and they would all be destroyed. The striving, in other words, has two meanings. It means 'keeping in existence, keeping going', and it also means that God was there, as it were, pleading through His Spirit, trying to get men and women to see the enormity of their sins and of their actions before it was too late. You find the same idea in Stephen's sermons recorded in the seventh chapter of Acts. He says, 'Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost' (Acts 7:51). The Holy Ghost is there, with this general work of conviction, but people resist it instead of yielding to it.

And, again, in Romans 1, we see the same thing. Paul there teaches that 'God gave them over to a reprobate mind' (Rom. 1:28). Read again in the second half of that chapter the terrible description of the moral iniquity, the horrible, foul perversions, of the world at the time when Paul was writing. Why was this? Paul's answers [sic] is, 'God gave them up unto vile affections' (v. 26). Now up to a point He did not do that. Up to a point, God, by the Holy Spirit, restrained men and women from these vile affections and that is why the world is not always as bad as it might be. God, through the Holy Spirit, restains the foulest manifestations of sin, but there are times when He gives people up to them. Are we, I wonder, living in such an age? Compare the twentieth century with the nineteenth. It is obvious that the moral level is very much lower today. That does not mean that everybody was a Christian in the Victorian era, but it does mean that even people who were not Christians were better men and women, speaking generally, than people now. Why? It was because of the general influence of the Holy Spirit. But it does look as if again, today, God is giving humanity over 'unto vile affections' as Paul outlines in Romans 1.

Therefore I deduce that one of the results of the operation of the Holy Spirit in common grace is that God does restrain men and women. He does specifically restrain sin. That is why God has appointed governments, authorities, magistrates and powers: it is to keep sin within bounds. Though God knows that there are certain people in the world who will never be saved, He does not allow them to live just as they please and to give fuller manifestation to sin; He restrains it in them.

In other words, there is a general sense of morality and right and even of religion in the world, apart from a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. We all know many people, do we not, who are religious but who are not Christian. There are many people who would say that they believe in God and who are concerned about practising religion, and some of them make great sacrifices for their religion. They do not believe that they are so sinful that nothing but the death of Christ can save them. They are not Christian in our sense of the term, but you have got to grant that they are religious. What is it that makes a person religious? It is nothing but the operation of common grace. It is one of God's ways of restraining sin, of keeping it within bounds. So every sense of morality and rightness and religion, the belief in goodness, beauty and truth, such as you have in the Greek philosophers – it is all the result of the operation of the Holy Spirit. Paul puts it clearly in Romans 2:14, 'For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.' That is the basis and the authority for saying all that.

And then lastly, under common grace, we have, as I have already mentioned, those common blessings which God gives – the sun and the rain. Our Lord spoke about it in the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5:44–5. Paul spoke about exactly the same thing at Lystra, where he healed a man who was lame and then made this remarkable statement:

Sirs . . . we also are men of like passion with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities [these gods] unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: who in times past suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. Acts 14:15–17

And, lastly, we have that statement of the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:10 where he talks about Christ as 'the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe'. That phrase, 'the Saviour of all men', does not mean salvation in the sense of the soul being saved but that He is the sustainer, the one who is kind and good to men and women."

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Creation and Common Grace" in Great Doctrines of the Bible, vol. 2, God the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003), 24–28.

Hamstra on the Tears of Jesus

"What is the significance of these tears of Jesus? Certain theologians have taught that they were of little value as they were but human tears. It is true that Jesus wept only in his human nature, for God cannot weep. We may indeed distinguish between the two natures of Christ, but we may never separate the one from the other. He possessed two natures; however, he was only one person. Furthermore, these tears have a rich significance for they were Messianic tears. Christ was the Messiah. As such he reveals who God is. He gives us a precious view of what lives in the heart of God. Without Christ, these secrets would have remained hidden for ever.

The sinless Saviour was fully in agreement with the Father's justice in punishing the impenitent. Likewise, he believed in the sovereignty of God, as is evident from his own words, especially those recorded in Matthew 11 verse 25: 'I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes'. Yet the Saviour's tears reveal the sacred inner emotions of his sorrow. It is a sorrow that can never be measured. How strong was ever his desire that sinners would be saved! Was not the design of his entire ministry? Did he not spend all his time and energy for that purpose? Indeed, in life and death, he sought as no other has ever done, the honour of his Father and the salvation of the lost.

Are not his utterances as recorded in the Gospel according to Matthew a commentary on these tears of Jesus? See him exclaim, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!'.

Ah, what a tenderness is here! How fervently the Saviour longs for the salvation of the lost! If only the unconverted sinner could know how rich a love dwells in the heart of our precious Redeemer! He understands the plight of the sinner as no one else. His gracious warnings are a proof of this; no less so are his tears. They cry out to the sinner: 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live' (Ezek. 33:11)."

Gerald Hamstra, "Jesus Weeping over the Holy City," Banner of Truth 385 (October 1995), 26.

Murray's Summary of Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism

In a Banner of Truth article in November of 1995, Iain Murray included an extract from his book on Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. Before the extract, he summarizes the intention of the book as follows:

"The book is intended to show the momentous difference between evangelistic Calvinistic belief and that form of Calvinism which denies any desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men."

Iain H. Murray, "John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon," Banner of Truth 386 (November 1995), 16.

Iain Murray on the Sincerity of God's Offer

"Finally, we can observe that the sincerity of God's offer even to the non-elect is in accordance with the truth that God does desire, delight and approve of things which, for other reasons, He has not determined to carry into effect. This distinction can be illustrated from God's commandments. His commandments express what He desires should be done. When the Israelites disobeyed them He cries–"O that my people had hearkened unto me." "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river . . ." (Psa. 81:13; Isa. 48:18; Deut. 5:29). Unmistakably such verses express what was God's desire. Yet we must say that though their actions were, in their own nature, displeasing to God, He had nevertheless willed and permitted such conduct for wise and holy ends. Similarly with the Gospel offer. God desires that everyone should believe it; He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11) but delights in their conversion[1]–thus Christ yearned for the salvation of the people of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37). Yet this desire, in the case of the non-elect, is for the fulfilment of something which in His inscrutable counsel and sovereign purpose He has not actually decreed to come to pass. This distinction between God's desire and His will, or, more correctly stated between the will of God's benevolence and His decretive will, underlies the free offer of the Gospel.[2] His benevolence and compassion, expressed in the universal call to repentance, extend to every creatures whom He has not decreed to save. At this mysterious evidence of the unsearchable character of God's ways the humble believer stops and says with Calvin "we go no farther than the Lord leads us by his Word."

1. "God delights in the conversion and eternal life of the sinner, as a thing pleasing in itself, and congruous with his infinitely compassionate nature, and therefore demands from man as a duty due from him to turn if he would live."–Francis Turretin (1623–1687), Professor of Theology at Geneva. Quoted in W. G. T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 483 (1889 edit.).

2. This distinction may be a new one to many readers but it is far from novel. Calvin, in expounding 2 Peter 3:9 (God is "not willing that any should perish"), distinguishes between God's wish or revealed will and His determinate (hidden) purpose in the following words: "But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the Gospel. For God there stretches out his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead unto himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world." Commentaries on The Catholic Epistles, p. 419.

Iain H. Murray, "The Free Offer of the Gospel: Viewed in the Light of the Marrow Controversy," Banner of Truth 11 (June 1958), 13–14.

Hulse on Hyperism, Responsibility and John Gill

I thought this might be a useful addition to David's post [at Theology Online] asking, Was John Gill a hyper-Calvinist?

"The essence of hyper-Calvinism is to minimise the moral and spiritual responsibilities of sinners. Hyperism undoubtedly affects preaching and teaching and is very dangerous because it can stultify and destroy the witness and life of a church. There are few exceptions. There have been some like William Gadsby, who although they intellectually adhered to hyperism nevertheless preached with such power and warmth that many were converted. They were better than the system to which they adhered. Gill's church on the other hand shrunk and we are not surprised. When Gill declared, "that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny", he was expressing with accuracy the deficiency of all his writings and works. Valuable though they may be in many other ways they are destitute of pleadings with sinners to repent, believe and be saved."

Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer of the Gospel: An Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Worthington and Haywards Heath, Sussex,. UK: Carey Publications, 1973), 15.

"John Gill, John Brine, Lewis Wayman and John Skepp were firmly in the hyper-Calvinist camp."

Ibid., 23.

Hulse's Definition of an "Offer"

"The etymology–the facts relating to the formation and history of the use of a word or words–of the term "offer" takes us back to 1548. At that time a proposal of marriage was regarded as an offer. The word means a proposal to give or do something, to tender for acceptance or refusal. To carry this forward, we could say that an offer means that someone is proposing or expressing willingness to do something conditional upon the assent of the person addressed. Thus God said to David: "I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them" (2 Sam. 24:12)."

Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer of the Gospel: An Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Worthington and Haywards Heath, Sussex,. UK: Carey Publications, 1973), 13.

Erroll Hulse on the Connection between Common Grace and the Free Offer

"2. The connection between Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel.

We have noted that the goodness of God extends to fallen mankind as a whole, not only in the provision of fruitful seasons, food and gladness, but in a multiplicity of benefits. But does God wish the very highest good for men, the highest blessing being eternal salvation? We say, Yes! The quotation just made from Acts 17 shows that common grace finds its fullest expression in the provision of a Gospel to be addressed to all without exception. Because he has provided the Gospel God now commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). But does he desire or wish salvation for all? We answer, Yes! He declares his feelings in unmistakable terms. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). Moreover the optative (expressing wish or desire) force of the words, "Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me" (Deut. 5:29; 32:29; Psa. 81:13ff.; Isa. 48:18) expresses the same truth.

Consistent with these expressions are the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 5:44–48; Luke 6:35, 36) where we are exhorted to be "merciful" even as our Father is merciful. This mercy must include the desire for the salvation of man. If some disagree they cannot deny the clearest expressions of Jesus concerning his wish for the people to be saved, firstly, when he asserts his frustration concerning the ingathering of the Jews: "How oft would I have gathered you and ye would not" (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34), and secondly in his tears over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44).

Again the connection between God's goodness to all mankind and the free offer of the Gospel is seen in Rom. 2:4. The express purpose of God's goodness and forbearance to sinners is to lead them to repentance.

Likewise Paul and Barnabas try to stop the idolatry of the priests at Lystra by showing that all good things come from the sovereign Lord. Why then sacrifice to men? The provision of good things is a witness to remind men of God and turn them from vanities to him (Acts 14:16, 17).

The goodness of God towards all men is most clearly expressed in Isa. 45:22, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else". The same goodness is expressed in 1 Tim. 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth". What could be clearer than that and who dare restrain the plain meaning of this verse or for that matter of 2 Peter. 3:9 where plainly the long-suffering of God is declared that the unrepentant might come to repentance?

The freeness of the Gospel overtures, or offers, as found in such passages as Isa. 55:1, "Ho, every one that thirstesth, 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", and the poetic constraint of the closing paragraph of the Bible. "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely", offers further cogent proof of the most gracious expressions of God concerning his will for all men to be saved, not to mention those passages of sustained reasoning with sinners to turn and live, such as Isa. 1:16–20 and Ezek. 33:12–20, and also shorter expressions belonging to the same category such as Matt. 11:28–30 and Rev. 3:20.

Common grace, then, finds its highest expression in that desire and will of God not only for fallen man's temporal well-being but for his soul's salvation and eternal happiness."

Erroll Hulse, The Free Offer of the Gospel: An Exposition of Common Grace and the Free Invitation of the Gospel (Worthington and Haywards Heath, Sussex,. UK: Carey Publications, 1973), 7–8.

These statements by Hulse are drastically different from the theology of other Reformed Baptists living in the United States! Few of them are speaking this way, or interpreting these passages the way Hulse is. It's now perfectly acceptable to deny all of this in some circles. There isn't a hint of resistance [except from Dr. Bob Gonzales] against those who deny God's desire for the salvation of all men, no not even from Dr. Tom Ascol of the Founders movement. Ascol is deliberately silent on the subject.

Iain H. Murray on God's Universal Love and Willingness to Save all Men

"...there is a general proclamation of the love of God which comes to men in the preaching of the cross." Iain H. Murray, "The Cross: The Pulpit of God's Love," Banner of Truth 494 (November 2004), 8.

"What but that same love can explain such words as, 'You will not come unto me that you might have life' (John 5:40)? Or the tears that accompanied, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!' (Luke 13:34; Matt. 23:37)? "Love towards all mankind in general', John Owen wrote, 'is enforced upon us by the example of Christ's own love and goodness, which are extended unto all.'[19] And Owen encouraged his hearers to dwell on 'the love of Christ in his invitations of sinners to come unto him that they may be saved'.[20]

Some have sought to escape from the force of Christ's example by referring it to his human nature and not to his divine! But, as R. L. Dabney[21] comments: 'It would impress the common Christian mind with a most painful feeling to be thus seemingly taught that holy humanity is more generous and tender than God.'

Christ's example, that reveals the very character of God, remains the permanent standard for the church. The same love of which he spoke to Nicodemus, and which he showed to the multitude, lies in his command that 'repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke 24:47). And the apostles understood it when they preached indiscriminately to the Jerusalem sinners, who had rejected the Son of God, the astonishing news that God has sent Jesus 'to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniquities' (Acts 3:26).[22]

Universal gospel preaching is proof of the reality of universal divine love. It is the same love of which we read in Ezekiel 33:11: "'As I live," saith the LORD God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?'" When the Pharisees complained of Christ, 'This man receives sinners, and eats with them', Jesus responded by speaking of the character of God: he is like the father of the prodigal son who 'saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him' (Luke 15:20). Christ's unwillingness that men should be lost is the same as the Father's. He desires that all men everywhere should turn and live. As John Murray has written:

There is a love of God which goes forth to lost men and is manifested in the
manifold blessings which all men without distinction enjoy, a love in which
non-elect persons are embraced, and a love which comes to its highest expression
in the entreaties, overtures and demands of gospel proclamation.[23]"

19. Works, vol. 15 (London: Banner of Truth, 1966), p. 70. The italics are in Owen.

20. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 422.

21. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (reprinted, London: Banner of Truth, 1967), p. 308.

22. For the way in which the gospel message is individualized in apostolic testimony see also Acts 2:38; 3:19; Colossians 1:28; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9.

23. Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 68.

Ibid., 8–9.

"If there is no love except special love for the elect, then no one has any right to apprehend any love in God for him before he has evidence of his election, which is to say, before he is converted. And that would mean that preachers must not speak of the love of Christ indefinitely to all their unconverted hearers. But that would be to subvert gospel preaching. It would no longer be 'good news' for all; and no longer an appeal 'not to refuse the offered love of God'.

The nature of conversion is an issue involved here. Are men brought into the kingdom of God by an action of God that by-passes the human mind and will, or are those faculties involved in the change from death to life? Does Christ draw men to himself irrespective of their thoughts and their consent? The scriptural answer has to be that conversion includes hearing and understanding; the Holy Spirit uses truth to convince of sin; that is the first work. But conviction of sin only speaks of God's holiness; it tells the sinner nothing of God's willingness to pardon; it does nothing to remove the suspicion – common to fallen man – that God is against him and unconcerned for his happiness. For that another message is needed. It is only the disclosure of love which can persuade the sinner of God's readiness and willingness to pardon, and thus the necessity that love be made known to all indefinitely in the free offer of the gospel. Love is the great attraction. Love stands foremost in the gospel appeal. 'It is not the over-heavy load of sin', says John Bunyan, 'but the discovery of mercy . . . that makes a man come to Jesus Christ . . . Behold how the promises, invitations, calls, and encouragements, like lilies, lie round about thee! Take heed that thou dost not tread them underfoot, sinner. With promises, did I say? Yea, he hath mixed all those with his own name, his Son's name; also, with the names of mercy, goodness, compassion, love, pity, grace, forgiveness, pardon, and what not, that he might encourage the coming sinner'.[11]

On the same point, John Owen wrote, 'Christ draws none to himself whether they will or no; but he casts on their minds, hearts, and wills the cords of his grace and love, working in them powerfully, working on them kindly, to cause them to choose him . . . Drawing grace is manifested in, and drawing love proceeds from, the suffering of Christ on the cross.'[12]

This love is to be proclaimed in the gospel not to men as elect but to men as sinners.[13] That is why any message that would not include love to individuals until there is evidence of election turns the gospel upside down. It withholds the very truth most conducive to brings souls to rest in Christ. Without question, history teaches us that the evangelists most used of God have all been men for whom love has been the main theme.[14] Our sin must be discovered, says Richard Sibbes, 'to drive us out of ourselves', but then 'there must be a great deal of persuasion to still the accusing conscience of a sinner, to set it down, make it quiet, and persuade it of God's love'.[15]

Persuading men of God's love is the great calling of the Christian ministry. It is part of peaching 'to root out all the secret reserves of unbelief concerning God's unwillingness to give mercy, grace and pardon to sinners'.[16] It cannot be done without conviction in the preacher that this love is a wonderful reality, and that it is to be pressed on all his hearers.

Yet, it may be asked, if this love is not necessarily saving, should the distinction between 'general' and 'special' not be made clear to people when the gospel is being presented? The answer has to be no, for Scripture itself makes no such distinction in the presentation of the gospel to the lost. And the reason why it does not do so is plain: it is not a doctrine either of special love or of general love that is to be offered to sinners; it is rather Christ himself. More than that, it is not ultimately preachers who offer Christ to others; but Christ – divine love incarnate – speaks in the gospel and offers himself fully and freely to the most undeserving, if they will but receive him. 'Christ offers himself in mercy to the worst soul'[17], even, as Whitefield used to say, to 'the devil's castaways'."

11. Bunyan, Works, vol. 1, p. 286, 298. 'Men must see something in Jesus Christ, else they will not come to him' (p. 295). A fine example of preaching that pleads with men can be seen in the closing pages of Bunyan's Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, from which these quotes are taken.

12. Works, vol. 9, p. 592.

13. See ibid, vol. 6, p. 523. Owen is including both the universal and the particular when he says that the freeness of God's mercy does not interfere with the efficacy. 'Though he [God] proclaim pardon in the blood of Christ indefinitely, according to the fullness and excellency of it, yet he giveth out his quickening grace to enable men to receive it; for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. but this lies in the thing itself; the way is opened and prepared, and it is not because men cannot enter, but because they will not, that they do not enter.' p. 529.

14. Evidence for this statement is vast. I give some of it in my book, Pentecost Today? (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), pp. 90–9.

15. Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 2 (repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth 2000), pp. 186, 84.

16. Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 504.

17. Sibbes, vol. 2, p. 187. 'It is our office, thus to lay open and offer the riches of Christ.'

Iain H. Murray, "The Cross: The Pulpit of God's Love – Part 2," Banner of Truth 495 (December 2004), 16–17.

Dan's Karate, or Kah-rrah-tay?

For those of you who are familiar with Seinfeld, you may recall the pathetic episode in this sitcom when Kramer was involved in Karate classes. He eventually told Jerry and Elaine about it, and Kramer called it "Kah-rrah-tay" so that he sounded like he was deeply knowledgeable about it. Kramer even boasted about being "top in the class" in order to give inspiration and encouragement to Elaine to run the J. Peterman catalog. Jerry and Elaine eventually discovered that Kramer was top in his class because he was merely fighting little crumb crunching kids. Elaine's inspiration turned to disillusionment, and the J. Peterman company eventually produced the hilarious-looking urban sombrero.

Well, it seems that Kramer is not the only one involved in Kah-rrah-tay. Dan Philips on TeamPyro has reposted his "Karate exegesis [requested classic re-post]," wherein he discusses his view of "effective redemption" in order to show us how and why he is "top of his class." From the looks of it, he too is just fighting kids.

Dan seeks to illustrate his method of giving theological karate chops by showing how he might discuss...

"Purposeful Redemption — that is, the view that our sovereign Lord died so as actually to save particular people (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 1:15), not to save everyone in general but nobody in particular. (Or "Effective Redemption," in that we affirm that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners [1 Timothy 1:15], not merely make it possible for them to add the necessary critical ingredient to save themselves.)"

First of all observe his overly simplistic either/or dilemmas:

1a) Either the Lord died so as actually to save a particular people, or
2a) to save everybody in general but nobody in particular.

Apparently he is only concerned to contrast his view with his perception of Arminian teaching on the subject. Dan's own view is that Christ not only came to save the elect in particular, but that He also only died for their sins. This is strict particularism. From the rest of Dan's statements in his post, it would also seem that he is unwittingly suggesting that Christ actually saves the elect at the time of the cross.

He describes Arminianism as if they believe Christ came "to save everybody in general but nobody in particular." Their view would more fairly be described as saying that Christ came to save everbody equally (and nobody especially), and He therefore died for the sins of all men. Also, what is absent from Dan's simplistic either/or dilemma is the classic dualistic position held by many Calvinists; namely that Christ came to save all men according to God's revealed will [and He expressed this in sufficiently dying for the sins of all men], but Christ especially came to save his elect. This is another variety of particular redemption, as acknowledged by J. L. Dagg, that Dan leaves out of the picture.

Again, Dan suggests that either:

1b) Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, or
2b) Christ came into the world merely to make it possible for men to be saved if they just "add the necessary critical ingredient to save themselves."

For those who are not used to the language, "sinners" above is just code for "the elect." So, either Jesus came into the world to save the elect, or Christ came merely to make it possible for all men to be saved if they believe [presumably by a faith arising from their free will]. First, there's no hint in Dan's presentation that Christ came in to the world to save any of the non-elect in any sense, even though Dan has stated that he believes that elsewhere. And, given that Dan thinks that God is expressing a willingness to save all men via common grace, and common grace flows from the cross, why doesn't he think that Christ came into the world to save all those that receive common grace by virtue of his death? He omits these things.

Moreover, Dan uses the term "merely" to qualify the second option, that Christ "merely" came into the world to make it possible for all men to be saved. Why say "merely"? Does Dan also think that Christ came into the world to render all men saveable by his death? If so, how can he consistently believe this since Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect in his view? The rest are without a remedy, and thus utterly without the hope of being saved. Consequently, there's no need for the qualifying term "merely," since Dan cannot consistently say the non-elect are rendered saveable at all on his view.

Missing again is the classic dualistic position; namely that Christ came into the world to especially save his elect, but also to render all men saveable by an all-sufficient sacrifice that grounds the well-meant offer to all men, and leaves them without any excuse. The only barrier remaining to their salvation is their own moral inability, not the need of a sacrifice for their sins as well.

After these overly simplistic dichotomies, Dan brings up defeaters that his opponents might use against him, along with his own Kah-rrah-tay responses. The first is 1 John 2:2:

"Our friend pulls out 1 John 2:2 — "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world," and slaps it on the table with the air of a gambler laying down the winning card.

"'The whole world,'" our friend emphasizes meaningfully, perhaps tapping the verse in his Bible. "'Not for ours only.'"

Rather than produce a long defensive dissertation in response, Dan wants to turn things around and suggest that 1 John 2:2 is a problem for his opponents. Rightly expecting a puzzled look in response, Dan choppingly says "kiyai!," and then asks, "Your idea is that 'world' means every human being who ever was, or ever will be born, right?" (Nod.) "So, do you believe that every human being ever born will go to Heaven?"

Remember, his Kah-rrah-tay opponent is merely a theological kid, so hence the rash "Nod" to the question about the meaning of "world." "World" does not have to mean either every human being who ever was or will be, as opposed to all of the elect or some of the elect. It's as if Dan hasn't considered the possibility that the "world" is all living apostate humanity on earth, or some of these in some given place at some point in history. Observe the following chart [click the picture to enlarge]:



The proper view of what the "world" is biblically is not (A), (C1), or even the entire class of all the elect considered in the abstract. Rather, it is (C2), or all living apostate humanity on earth at any given point in time, which includes the unbelieving elect and non-elect. Some eventually come out of the world by the effectual grace of the Holy Spirit [i.e. the believing elect in C1] and eventually enter heavenly bliss (D1), while others remain in the world and eventually die in their unbelieving state (D2). Dan, again, sets up a simplistic picture of what his opponents believe on the term "world," as if they all think it is (A). Then, since they cannot biblically prove that the "world" is ever used of class (A), or all humanity that will ever exist, he can suggest that it may mean all of the elect as such or perhaps the believing elect in some contexts. He never pauses to consider if (C2) would make sense, as in John 3:16 or 1 John 5:19. It's as though Dan can't conceive of a consistent Calvinist saying what Ezekiel Culverwell said, i.e. "I profess I cannot find any one clear place where [the World] must of necessity be taken for the Elect only."

There are a number of factors driving Dan to think of the "world" as the elect in some instances. One of them is the double payment argument. This is why Dan asks his opponent who thinks of the "world" as more than the elect according to 1 John 2:2 the following question: "So, do you believe that every human being ever born will go to Heaven?" He thinks his opponent will have a "real problem" with 1 John 2:2 since it is said that Christ is [not 'could be,' etc.] the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Since propitiation "is a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God," all those for whom Christ propitiated cannot possibly run the risk of going to hell. Dan employs Owen's double payment argument and asks his Kah-rrah-tay opponent:

"So, if you're right about 'the whole world,' then John is saying that Christ has turned away the wrath of God for the sins of every human being ever born — you, me, Judas, the Beast, the False Prophet — everyone.

"On that understanding, how can anyone be under God's wrath, which Christ propitiated? How can anyone be in Hell? Why are they there? For what are they being judged and punished?"

Dan doesn't seem to realize that this is a double-edged sword. Wasn't Dan under God's wrath when he was in unbelief [Eph. 2:3], despite the fact that Christ died for his sins? Didn't Dan stand under the condemnation of God when in unbelief [John 3:18], despite the fact that he was one of the elect for whom Christ died? Was God making sham threats about perishing to unbelieving Dan in the gospel call, since Dan was never really in a damnable state? On Dan's system, it would seem, the elect are never damnable and the non-elect are never saveable. The elect are not receiving sincere threats and the non-elect are not receiving sincere offers, by implication. If Dan rejects this thinking or conclusion, then on what basis was he subject to God's wrath and standing condemned? Because of his unbelief? Well, didn't Christ die for that unbelief? We could say to Dan as he says to his opponent:

"On that understanding, how can any of the elect be under God's wrath, which Christ propitiated? How can any of them really be subject to damnation and therefore sincerely threatened with perishing? Why do the unbelieving elect stand condemned? For what are they being judged and punished?"

"For their unbelief," Dan may say.

"Oh, I see. Is unbelief a sin?" I ask innocently.

"From what I read, unbelief certainly is a sin." I can conclude sympathetically, "you have a real problem. On your view, either unbelief isn't a sin, in which case God is a liar; or none of the elect can be under God's wrath, in which case, again, God is a liar; or Christ really isn't a propitiation for all the sins of the elect— in which case, one more time, God is a liar. Do you think God is a liar?"

Dan would not accept the view that all of the elect are justified at the cross, or in eternity, but he has opened to door to that position in order to get the conclusion he wants, i.e. a strictly limited atonement based on the commercial causal categories involved in the double payment argument. If Christ can be the propitiation for the sins of all of the elect and yet they, when in unbelief, can stand condemned and be subjects of God's wrath, then why can't Christ also be the propitiatory sacrifice for more than the elect? Our Kah-rrah-tay exegete needs to consider the arguments of Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, John Davenant, Edward Polhill, Curt Daniel, among others, who are Calvinists that rejected the double payment argument. Carl Trueman doesn't even think it is a strong argument.

On 1 John 2:2, Charles Hodge rightly said:

"This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches." Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:558-559.

Along the same lines, R. L. Dabney said:

"In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, “whole world,” can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as “we,” in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins." R. L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2002), 525.

"Maybe now our friend might be willing to consider that the text is capable of a better construction." Either way, we would encourage Dan to study what other Calvinists have said on 1 John 2:2.

The simplistic either/or dilemmas, the faulty conceptions of the "world" and the employment of the double payment argument [and Owen's Trilemma that is built on it] may seem like "karate exegesis" to some, but it really results in Kah-rrah-tay eisegesis, and merely inspires others to create theological urban sombreros :-)



UPDATE: I linked to this post in the comment section of Dan's post on TeamPyro, but he deleted it. I was accused of using the comment section as a "link depot." One cannot win. If you engage at length in the comment section there, you're "trolling." If you leave a single link to some extensive response that's too long to leave in a comment section, then you're using the place as a "link depot." It's standard in the blogosphere to leave a link to a longer response, but he apparently "disagrees."

It's really about information control.