John Frame on the Fear of Hyper-Calvinism During the Clark/Van Til Controversy

By "the conditional" Van Til means a "well-meant offer of salvation to a generality of men, including elect and non-elect." The free offer of the gospel was also a matter of debate between Hoeksema and his opponents. It was also discussed in the Clark controversy; evidently Clark was reluctant, during his theological examination, to accept the terminology of a "sincere" general gospel offer, recognizing that the terminology had been used by Arminians to oppose the Calvinistic view of election. The complainants feared that he was hyper-Calvinistic, denying the legitimacy of a general gospel offer. In my estimation, the reply of the Answer was sufficient. But the General Assembly's Report included a very useful analysis entitled "The Free Offer of the Gospel," authored by John Murray with some assistance from Ned B. Stonehouse.

John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1995), 220–221.

Note: Clark clarified his reluctance to use the word “sincere” in “The Answer to a Complaint Against Several Actions and Decisions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Taken in a Special Meeting Held on July 7, 1944,” pp. 38–39. Clark clearly rejects that God is “sincere” in the sense of giving a well-meant offer to the non-elect, so as to “sincerely” desire their salvation, but he admits that God is “sincere” in everything he does (ibid., 38). It is claimed that “Dr. Clark’s refusal to use such words springs from his desire not to be charged with Arminianism” (ibid., 39). Contrary to what Frame says, the Answer is not sufficient. Clark did not accept that God sincerely desires the salvation of all men (which is, as John Murray said, the key issue in the free offer debate), but only that he sincerely commands all men to repent and believe, and so sincerely shows them what he requires, or what is their duty, not that he sincerely loves them or sincerely wills their compliance. As Kuschke said, “Here lies the question at issue in our church. Some say that in His universal offer God does reveal Himself as truly desiring the salvation of all, although for His own wise and holy reasons He does not decree to bestow salvation upon all. Others have been reluctant to use the word “desire”; they say that God commands all men to come, but they question whether He in any way wills or desires that all should come.” See Arthur W. Kuschke, “Further Study of the Doctrines Committee Report: The Free Offer of the Gospel, and the Effect of Regeneration on the Intellect,” The Presbyterian Guardian 17.8 (May 10, 1948): 125. Also, in the Answer, Clark astonishingly acts as though he is in agreement with R. L. Dabney on the will of God in the common call (ibid., 39), when clearly that is not the case.

Robert K. Churchill describes the 1946–47 debate in the OPC on the incomprehensibility of God (with Gordon Clark) as involving “the practical side of the problem,” i.e. “the sincere offer of the gospel to all men.” He asked, “But how could we offer the gospel sincerely to all men if God had not?” He said they were “fighting hyper-Calvinism, a battle every Reformed Christian must fight sooner or later.” See Robert K. Churchill, “What Hath God Wrought!,” The Presbyterian Guardian 39.4 (September 1970): 60. See also what Churchill says about Clark's interpretation of Matt. 23:37.