23:37 I wanted…but you were not willing! God is utterly sovereign and
therefore fully capable of bringing to pass whatever He desires (cf. Is.
46:10)—including the salvation of whomever He chooses (Eph. 1:4, 5). Yet, He
sometimes expresses a wish for that which He does not sovereignly bring to pass
(cf. Gen. 6:6; Deut. 5:29; Ps. 81:13; Is. 48:18). Such expressions in no way
suggest a limitation on the sovereignty of God or imply any actual change in Him
(Num. 23:19). But these statements do reveal essential aspects of the divine
character: He is full of compassion, sincerely good to all, desirous of good,
not evil—and therefore not delighting in the destruction of the wicked (Ezek.
18:32; 33:11). While affirming God’s sovereignty, one must understand His pleas
for the repentance of the reprobate as well meant appeals—and His goodness
toward the wicked as a genuine mercy designed to provoke them to repentance
(Rom. 2:4). The emotion displayed by Christ here (and in all similar passages,
such as Luke 19:41) is obviously a deep, sincere passion. All Christ’s feelings
must be in perfect harmony with the divine will (cf. John 8:29)—and therefore
these lamentations should not be thought of as mere exhibitions of His humanity.
John MacArthur, ed., The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Bibles, 1997), 1437–38. “…I personally bear full responsibility for all the notes in The MacArthur Study Bible because they all have come from me and through me…” (ibid., xi).
It was never God’s ultimate plan and desire for His people to be punished but for them to return to Him in faithfulness and devotion. “How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,” Jesus lamented. He longed to draw Israel to Himself and protect her just as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings to protect them from a storm that would batter them or a hawk that would devour them. There was a beautiful intimacy and tenderness in Jesus’ words and no doubt in His voice as He mourned over His people. He had come “to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11).
David exulted, “How precious is Thy lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Thy wings” (Ps. 36:7). It was God’s great desire that all men, especially His beloved children Israel, would take refuge under His wings. At many times and in many forms Jesus had often given invitations such as, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28–29).
But you were unwilling, He said. He came to His people in truth and light and love and offered them the kingdom God had long promised, but they rejected the King and forfeited the kingdom. Instead of inheriting the blessing God proffered for their faith, they inherited the judgment He promised for their unbelief.
Nothing in Scripture is more certain than the truth that God is sovereign over all things; but God’s Word nowhere teaches determinism, as this verse makes clear. God was abundantly willing for Israel and all men to receive and follow His Son, but most of them were unwilling. They did not turn from Christ because of fate but solely because of their own unwillingness. When a person rejects Christ, it is never God’s desire or God’s fault but always his own.
John F. MacArthur Jr., Matthew, vol. 3 of MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 401.
I just saw the following video posted on Sam Shamoun's Facebook wall (the old video link is dead, but the following is the same):
My Response:
Contrary to what both Sproul and MacArthur say in this video, the problem is not with telling people that God loves them unconditionally. In fact, Sproul admits that God does love all men with a love of benevolence (and this sense of love is unconditional), or a love of good-will in the rest of what he says (even as he does in this article on God's "Abundant Love"). Just because an unregenerate audience may misunderstand the point, that doesn't make the proposition false that God loves all men unconditionally (as His creatures), or establish that we ought not to say so. For example, are we to avoid saying that Jesus was a man because some in the audience may think He was a mere man and not also a divine person? Of course not.
The problem is when preachers merely say that God loves all unconditionally without also telling them of God's wrath against sinners, and that they stand condemned. This is what Sproul and MacArthur should have said, instead of conveying the idea (in their overreaction) that it is bad or wrong to tell all sinners that He loves them unconditionally. It is however true that, as Sproul says, God only has a love of complacency or a filial love for believers, or the obedient, so that is a kind of conditional love that is not for all. This does not negate the other truth that God, in another sense, has an unconditional love for all.
All of the Reformers and Puritans taught that God loves all men with a love of benevolence. Some (e.g. John Davenant, an English delegate to the Synod of Dort) even say that it is "plain blasphemy" to deny it since it is so manifestly taught in scripture and seen in providence. What scripture plainly affirms is never wrong to teach, and Jesus plainly taught that the Father loves all men as His creatures, and thus shines His sun on them and gives them rain, etc. However, we want to teach the whole counsel of God as well so that we do not leave perishing sinners the wrong impression by that truth, with the result that they are not properly warned about God's anger against them as sinners.
Note the wisdom in the words of John Davenant:
The general love of God towards mankind is so clearly testified in Holy Scripture, and so demonstrated by the manifold effects of God’s goodness and mercy extended to every particular man in this world, that to doubt thereof were infidelity, and to deny it, plain blasphemy: yet for all this, if any man shall go about to magnify the common love of God extended promiscuously to all men, that thereby he obscured the special love and mercy of God prepared for all eternity, and bestowed in due time upon elect men, this may lead the ignorant and unlearned into a dangerous error: And therefore obliquely to oppose the eternal free and absolute decree of Predestination or Election under the color of disproving an absolute decree for any man’s Damnation, befits not any Divine who acknowledges the truth of that doctrine which the Scriptures have delivered, St. Augustine cleared, and the Church of England established in the xvii Article.
John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled “God’s love to Mankind,” (London: Printed for Iohn Partridge, 1641), 3.
Notice that Davenant does not think it is wrong to teach God's common love to people. On the contrary, he even says it is "plain blasphemy" to deny it. However, he warns against merely teaching that to the exclusion of God's special love for the elect.
Spurgeon was spot on when he said:
Preach earnestly the love of God in Christ Jesus, and magnify
the abounding mercy of the Lord; but always preach it in connection with
His justice. Do not extol the single attribute of love in the method
too generally followed, but regard love in the high theological sense,
in which, like a golden circle, it holds within itself all the divine
attributes: for God were not love if He were not just, and did not hate
every unholy thing. Never exalt one attribute at the expense of another.
Let boundless mercy be seen in calm consistency with stern justice and
unlimited sovereignty. The true character of God is fitted to awe,
impress, and humble the sinner: be careful not to misrepresent your
Lord.
C. H. Spurgeon, "On Conversion as Our Aim," in Second Series of Lectures to My Students (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1978), 184.
These are the kinds of cautious and qualified statements we need to hear by our leaders, not unqualified denials of God's love for everybody. God loves all men unconditionally in terms of His love of benevolence, but only the obedient with a love of complacency or delight. This is what the Reformed have taught in the past, and it accords with God's inspired word.
During the exchange, MacArthur said:
Preaching that God loves you unconditionally is the wrong message. The sinner needs to be terrified about his condition. He doesn't need to feel comfortable in the fact that he's turned out so well, as R. C. put it.
You cannot faithfully preach the gospel message to a lost soul without at least conveying to the sinner that God stands ready, willing and prepared to receive them through repentance and faith in the gospel call. That, among other things, inevitably conveys God's goodwill to that sinner, and thus God's unconditional love of benevolence to that sinner. It is most certainly not the "wrong message." Sure, to merely say that, or to merely convey that idea, is not sufficient. One must say more than that, but not less than that. The unregenerate sinner does need to be terrified about his condition, but he also needs to know that there is hope for him while he lives in this world, and that there is hope because God, in his unconditional benevolent love to that person, has made a way for him to be saved.
Evangelists in Jonathan Edwards' day, such as Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen, would distinguish between different kinds of sinners in their audiences. Frelinghuysen developed the skill of dividing "a congregation into various states and conditions of soul and then made personal applications in preaching to each group" (Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans [Grand Rapids: RHB, 2006], 761). For example, there is the drooping or despairing sinner who feels too filthy to be saved, and there is the self-confident or arrogant sinner who feels no need to be saved because he is not sufficiently convicted of his sinfulness. It is wise to stress different attributes of God to various kinds of lost people, but not to the exclusion of other attributes, as Spurgeon said above.
To the drooping sinner, it is wise to stress the great love and willingness of God to save him, even though he abides under God's wrath in his lost condition. To the self-confident sinner, it is wise to stress the holiness and wrath of God against sinners, and to show how far he has fallen from God's standard as set forth in the law, but not to the point of omitting the crucial truth of God's benevolent willingness to save that sinner. It's a matter of stressing one truth to a certain kind of person, but not omitting other crucial truths in the process. The cross of Christ simultaneously demonstrates both God's love and His wrath against sinners. We are to teach both at the same time as we call sinners to repentance and faith, but we may have to stress some attributes more than others, depending on the kind of person we are talking to. Preaching that God loves all people unconditionally is not the wrong message, but it may become the wrong message if other crucial, gospel truths are omitted. That, I think, is the wise thing to say.
One of the controversial points in the video is when Chan used the illustration of God begging sinners to accept his proposal (around min. 12:10–12:15 into the video).
The only time I have ever heard anyone say that God begs for anyone to do anything, is when I was in a 100% Arminian church. God doesn’t beg anyone to do anything, He commands all men everywhere to repent. [notice her false dichotomy]
Though Phil Johnson did not agree with all of White’s criticisms of Chan’s presentation of the gospel, he did side with White against Chan’s use of the illustration of God begging sinners to come to him. Phil said:
He [James White] is (rightly) concerned about people who run too far with the notion of imploring sinners to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5) and who imagine that this justifies the ridiculous imagery of God on his knees, begging sinners to have a relationship with Him. Remember: I already said I don’t like that aspect of the video, either.
I searched for sources on the Internet on the subject of God begging, and I quickly found that both Charles Spurgeon (one of Phil’s heroes of the faith) and Samuel Rutherford (a supralapsarian Westminster divine) used the illustration. James White, in his typical fashion, mocked me on his Dividing Line program for engaging in these searches. Since that time I have continued my searches into Puritan and Calvinistic literature on the subject. I discovered that even John MacArthur (Phil’s own pastor) used the illustration in an interview with Phil Johnson on “Answering the Key Questions About the Doctrine of Election” (Jul 17, 2006).The transcript reads as follows:
PHIL: Second Corinthians 5 gives us the duties ambassadors to plead with people to be reconciled with God.
JOHN: Yep, we are to beg them, be reconciled to God, as it says, though God were begging through you. That’s exactly the language there. As though God were begging through you, be reconciled to God, go into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature, make disciples of all the nations. We have the responsibility to take the gospel to the ends of the earth to every creature.
Notice that MacArthur not only believed that God is begging through us, but he believed that it is “exactly the [inspired] language there” in 2 Cor. 5:20. He said the same thing about that verse [i.e., “literally, ‘begging them’”] in his article on “Having an Eternally Right Relationship with God,” in Think Biblically!: Recovering a Christian Worldview, ed. John MacArthur (Good News Publishers, 2003), 108. So then, MacArthur is not merely saying that he believes God is begging sinners, but he believes the Apostle Paul himself uses that kind of language under the inspiration of the Spirit. If MacArthur is correct, then Phil Johnson has not only called MacArthur’s beliefs and imagery on this subject “ridiculous,” but he has also unwittingly implied that the Apostle Paul’s inspired language is “ridiculous” as well. In MacArthur’s sermon on God’s Last Invitation, Part 1 (Rev 22:13–17; 66-86 [Mar 5, 1995]), he referred to “The Lord’s final call,” as “the pleading, urging, invitation, begging people to come to Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of eternal life, before it is forever too late. This is God’s final plea.” Note the date; this idea is nothing new in MacArthur’s own theology.
In his commentary on 2 Cor 5:20, MacArthur wrote:
Because believers are His ambassadors, it is as though God, the Savior Father, were making an appeal to the lost through them. We beg unbelievers also on behalf of the Savior Son, Christ, to be reconciled to God. This begging of people to be reconciled makes it clear that the sinner is never delivered from wrath and judgment to blessing and reward without personal response to the truth of the gospel through the means He has provided—faith.
John F. MacArthur Jr., 2 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003), 207.
Not only has Phil contradicted MacArthur, but he has also, by implication, said that the imagery of the following men within the Augustinian tradition (who use the metaphor of God begging) is “ridiculous”:
Augustine (Early Church Father), Isaac Ambrose (Puritan), Thomas Brooks (Puritan), Daniel Burgess (Puritan), Jeremiah Burroughs (Westminster divine), Richard Baxter (Puritan), John Calvin (Reformer), Joseph Caryl (Westminster divine), Thomas Case (Puritan), Stephen Charnock (Puritan), John Collinges (Puritan), John Flavel (Puritan), Theophilus Gale (Puritan), William Gearing (Puritan), Andrew Gray (Puritan), William Gurnall (Puritan), Robert Harris (Westminster divine), Nathaniel Heywoood (Puritan), Johannes Hoornbeeck (Puritan), Thomas Larkham (Puritan), Hugh Latimer (Early English Reformer), Thomas Lye (Puritan), Thomas Manton (Puritan), John Murcot (Puritan), George Newton (Puritan), John Oldfield (Puritan), Anthony Palmer (Puritan), Edward Reynolds (Westminster divine), John Richardson (Puritan), Samuel Rutherford (Westminster divine), John Shower (Puritan), Richard Sibbes (Puritan), Sydrach Simpson (Westminster divine), William Strong (Westminster divine), George Swinnock (Puritan), Willem Teellinck (Puritan), John Trapp (Puritan), Ralph Venning (Puritan), Nathaniel Vincent (Puritan), Thomas Watson (Puritan), Daniel Williams (Puritan), Samuel Willard, Benjamin Wadsworth, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Solomon Stoddard, Samuel Davies, Ralph Erskine, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Chalmers, Walter Chantry, Erroll Hulse, John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, and Fred Zaspel.
I have documented the exact words of all of these men HERE (click) in context.
We would invite Phil to reconsider his position.
Update on 9-18-14:
In light of my historical sources on God (and Christ through His preachers) begging
in the Augustinian and Reformed tradition, consider these words by the hyper-Calvinist David
Engelsma:
An ‘offer-man’ [i.e., one who believes in the well-meant gospel offer], if he is consistent, must beg sinners, and this disgraceful practice
abounds today. It is revolting to anyone who has caught a glimpse of the
majesty of God, the excellent glory of the risen Jesus, and the
sovereignty of grace to hear the ‘offer-men’ begging recalcitrant
sinners please to accept Jesus and come to the front.
David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism & the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994), 86–87.
Years
ago, in 2007, when Phil Johnson and James White were objecting to
Francis Chan using “God begging” language in his “Just Stop and Think” evangelistic appeal, they were unknowingly siding with Engelsma on that
particular subject, and not with mainstream Puritan thought.
It is not enough to expound a thoroughly orthodox doctrine of reconciliation if we never beg people to come to Christ.
John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1986), 201.
Update on 2-3-2020:
MacArthur recently wrote:
Nevertheless, the gospel message includes an open invitation—a general call to faith—that is extended indiscriminately to all who come under the sound of the message. In fact, Paul uses much stronger words than call or invitation. He says it is “as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
The Greek word translated “pleading” is [from] parakaleo. It speaks of an exhortation, admonishment, or entreaty. The word translated “implore” (deomai) is stronger yet. It has the connotation of begging. It is a common word in Scripture, often used to describe passionate prayer. It is the same word used by the father of a demon-possessed boy in Luke 9:38, pleading with Jesus for help: “Teacher, I beg You to look at my son” (NASB).
That is the proper tone of the gospel’s invitation, what Paul refers to as “the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). This is how God commissions His ambassadors to preach: “We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (v. 20 NASB). It is not a dispassionate suggestion, or even a stern command. It is an earnest, urgent plea extended with God’s own authority, tenderly entreating the sinner to respond with repentant faith.
---page 86 begins here---
It is the duty of every believer to make this message known to the world. God “has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (v. 18). That is why it is crucial for Christians to understand the gospel correctly and be able to present it clearly and persuasively. God has commissioned us as His ambassadors not only to proclaim the fact “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them” (v. 19); but also to be persistent with the appeal to “be reconciled to God” (v. 20). In this capacity we are “ambassadors for Christ,” speaking “on Christ’s behalf” and “as though God were pleading through us.”
John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Paul: Embracing the Good News at the Heart of Paul’s Teachings (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 85–86.
God sincerely wishes that all men and women would turn to Him in saving faith; yet He chose only the elect "out of the world" (John 17:6) and passed over other sinners, leaving them in their depravity and wickedness (cf. Rom. 1:18-32). As a result, they are damned solely because of their sin and rejection of God. He is in no way to blame for such unbelief and is not happy that many people ultimately choose hell. However, God will receive glory even when unbelievers are damned (cf. Rom. 9:22-23).
How this great program of redemption and condemnation, with its apparent paradoxes and divine mysteries, unfolds in a way that is completely consistent with God's will can be answered only by Him. Believers who seek to be faithful witnesses as they embrace God's truth must do so by faith in His Word, trusting in such profound declarations as this:
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. -Rom. 11:33-36
Since the Lord "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Matt. 23:37), it is not our concern to know if someone is elect before praying for that person's salvation We may pray for anyone who is unsaved, knowing that such prayers are fully consistent with God's desire. After all, "The LORD is gracious and merciful; slow to anger and great in lovingkindness. The LORD is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works" (Ps. 145:8-9).
John F. MacArthur, Nothing But the Truth (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 1999), 43.
Of course, people who assert that God's love is exclusively for the elect will usually acknowledge that God nevertheless shows mercy, longsuffering, and benevolence to the unrighteous and unbelievers. But they will insist that this apparent benevolence has nothing whatsoever to do with love or any sort of sincere affection. According to them, God's acts of benevolence toward the non-elect have no other purpose than to increase their condemnation.
Such a view, it seems to me, imputes insincerity to God. It suggests that God's pleadings with the reprobate are artificial, and that His offers of mercy are mere pretense.
Often in scripture, God makes statements that reflect a yearning for the wicked to repent. In Psalm 81:13 He says, "Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!" And, again, in Ezekiel 18:32 He says, "'I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,' declares the Lord God. Therefore, repent and live.'"
Elsewhere, God freely and indiscriminately offers mercy to all who will come to Christ: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light" (Matt. 11:28-30). "And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes [whosoever will—KJV] take the water of life without cost" (Rev. 2:17).
God Himself says, "Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isa. 45:22). And, "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost" (Isa. 55:1). "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (v. 7).
There are some who flatly deny that such invitations constitute any sincere offer of mercy to the non-elect. As far as they are concerned, the very word offer smacks of Arminianism (a name for the doctrine that makes salvation hinge solely on a human decision). They deny that God would "offer" salvation to those whom He has not chosen. They deny that God's pleadings with the reprobate reflect any real desire on God's part to see the wicked turn from their sins. To them, suggesting that God could have such an unfulfilled "desire" is a direct attack on divine sovereignty. God is sovereign, they suggest, and He does whatever pleases Him. Whatever He desires, He does.
Let us be completely honest: this poses a difficulty. How can unfulfilled desire be compatible with a wholly sovereign God? For example, in Isaiah 46:10, God states, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure." He is, after all, utterly sovereign. It is not improper to suggest that any of His actual "desires" remain unfulfilled?
This issue was the source of an intense controversy among some Reformed and Presbyterian denominations about fifty years ago—sometimes referred to as the "free offer" controversy. One group denied that God loves the non-elect. They also denied the concept of common grace (God's non-saving goodness to mankind in general). And they denied that divine mercy and eternal life are offered indiscriminately to everyone who hears the gospel. The gospel offer is not free, they claimed, but is extended to the elect alone. That position is a form of hyper-Calvinism.
Scripture clearly proclaims God's absolute and utter sovereignty over all that happens. He declared the end of all things before time even began, so whatever comes to pass is in perfect accord with the divine plan.
What God has purposed, He will also do (Isa. 46:10-11; Num. 23:19). God is not at the mercy of contingencies. He is not subject to His creatures' choices. He "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11). Nothing occurs but that which is in accord with His purposes (cf. Acts 4:28). Nothing can thwart God's design, and nothing can occur apart from His sovereign decree (Isa. 43:13; Ps. 33:11). He does all His good pleasure: "Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps" (Ps. 135:6).
But that does not mean God derives pleasure from every aspect of what He has decreed. God explicitly says that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). He does not delight in evil (Isa. 65:12). He hates all expressions of wickedness and pride (Prov. 6:16-19). Since none of those things can occur apart from the decree of a sovereign God, we must conclude that there is a sense in which His decrees do not always reflect His desires; His purposes are not necessarily accomplished in accord with His preferences.
The language here is necessarily anthropopathic (ascribing human emotions to God). To speak of unfulfilled desires in the Godhead is to employ terms fit only for the human mind. Yet such expressions communicate some truth about God that cannot otherwise be expressed in human language. As noted in chapter 3, God's own Word uses anthropopathisms to convey truth about Him that cannot adequately be represented to us through any other means. To give but one example, consider Genesis 6:6: "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Yet we know that God does not change His mind (1 Sam. 15:29). He is immutable; "with [Him] there is no variation, or shifting shadow" (Jas. 1:17). So whatever Genesis 6:6 means, it cannot suggest any changeableness in God. The best we can do with such an anthropopathism is try to grasp the essence of the idea, then reject any implications we know would take us to ideas about God that are unbiblical.
That same principle applies when we are grappling with the question of God's expressed desire for the wicked to repent. If God's "desire" remains unfulfilled (and we know that in some cases, it does--Lk. 13:34), we cannot conclude that God is somehow less than sovereign. We know He is fully sovereign; we do not know why He does not turn the heart of every sinner to Himself. Nor should we speculate in this area. It remains a mystery the answer to which God has not seen fit to reveal. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God"; only "the things revealed belong to us" (Deut. 29:29). At some point, we must say with the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain it" (Ps. 139:6).
John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 107–110.
Commenting on this book by MacArthur, Armstrong wrote:
A biblical study which demonstrates that the Father’s heart is one of love for all people, especially for His own. A good corrective to the emphasis of newer hyper-Calvinism.
John Armstrong, “Annotated Bibliography,” Reformation and Revival 7:2 (Spring 1998): 146.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXTERNAL CALL
The external call to salvation as presented in the gospel is marked by several key characteristics. First, it is a general, or universal, call. That is, the good news of repentance and faith for the forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to all people without distinction. Whereas the internal call of regeneration is given only to the elect, the external call of the gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to elect and reprobate alike. Some desiring to exalt God’s absolute sovereignty contradict this teaching by insisting that since God intends to save only the elect, his preachers ought to proclaim the gospel to them alone. However, not only is that impossible (for we have no means by which to distinguish the elect from the rest of humanity), it is patently contrary to Scripture. God represents himself as earnestly desiring that the wicked should repent (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; cf. 2 Cor. 5:20), and in accordance with that desire, he exuberantly calls all people to himself: “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.… Incline your ear and come to me; hear, that your soul may live” (Isa. 55:1, 3). He entreats sinners to seek him, and is eager to have compassion on them and to forgive them (Isa. 55:6–7). Without discrimination he commands “all the ends of the earth” to turn to him and be saved (Isa. 45:22). The depth and breadth of divine compassion is also fully manifest in the One who is the exact representation of the Father’s nature. If it were the case that gospel preachers ought to limit the external call to the elect alone, surely we would find such an example in Jesus’s ministry, for, unlike us, he knew full well who the elect were. And yet our Lord made no such discriminations but preached the gospel even to those who rejected him (Matt. 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24), inviting everyone who was weary to find rest in him (Matt. 11:28–30). This universality is represented in the church’s Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19; cf. Luke 24:47) and to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15 NKJV). Thus it is no surprise to see it modeled in apostolic preaching, as Paul declared to the philosophers on Mars Hill that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Indeed, the universality of the gospel call cannot be denied.
A second characteristic of the external call is that it is a sincere, bona fide offer. Some object that because God intends only to save those to whom he has chosen to grant repentance and faith, the universal call of the gospel cannot be genuine on God’s part. This is nothing less than a blasphemous accusation from those who have exalted their own reasoning above God’s revelation. As has been demonstrated, God truly does call all to repentance, and he represents himself as sincerely desiring the repentance of the wicked. He asks, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked … and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezek. 18:23; cf. 18:32; 33:11). Can anyone doubt the sincerity of the God who says, “Oh, that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!” (Ps. 81:13)? Indeed, he says of Israel, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Rom. 10:21). While it may be difficult to understand how statements of compassion toward the nonelect can be reconciled with the doctrines of sovereign election and particular redemption, it is not an option to conclude that God does not mean what he says! As Berkhof comments,
The external calling is a calling in good faith, a calling that is seriously meant. It is not an invitation coupled with the hope that it will not be accepted. When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.90
The God who “has mercy on whomever he wills” and “hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18) is the God who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. To reason that the former is incompatible with the latter is not an option for the Bible-believing Christian. The offer of the salvation communicated in the external call of the gospel is conditioned on repentance and faith. For it to be a genuine, well-meant offer on God’s part, he simply has to be sincerely disposed to provide the promised blessings upon the satisfaction of the offer’s conditions.91 And this is precisely the case; if anyone repents and trusts in Christ, God will forgive and save him. However, such repentance and faith are impossible for the natural man (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Apart from regenerating grace, no man will ever repent and believe. Thus, in the case of the nonelect, the conditions of the offer will never be met. To suggest that God’s offer is insincere—indeed, that he feigns sincerity!—because he does not provide the necessary grace to overcome man’s depravity is to suppose that God is obligated to give grace to all. To such a notion the Lord himself responds, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?” (Matt. 20:15). The potter has the right over the clay “to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (Rom. 9:21). God is not obligated to give grace to any man, let alone all men. The deficiency in the gospel call lies in man’s depravity, not in any supposed parsimony in God’s grace. To suggest such a thing approaches the highest strains of blasphemy.
Finally, a third characteristic of the external call is that, in and of itself, it is not efficacious. Unlike the effectual call in which man is summoned irresistibly to spiritual life (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; cf. John 6:44, 65) and is of necessity justified and eventually glorified (Rom. 8:30), the external call can be resisted. Jesus makes this distinction in his conclusion to the parable of the wedding banquet: “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). That is, many are invited to partake in the feast of the blessings of eternal life, yet because the Father has only chosen some and not all, few are effectually called. Therefore, many who are invited reject the external call. Any instance in which the gospel is preached and rejected is evidence for the inherent inefficacy of the external call (e.g., John 3:18; 6:64; 12:37; Acts 7:51; 17:32). It is for this very reason that the external call is insufficient for salvation.
_______________
90. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 462.
91. Nicole reasons, “The essential prerequisite for a sincere offer [is] simply this: that if the terms of the offer be observed, that which is offered be actually granted.” Roger R. Nicole, “Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement,” JETS 38, no. 3 (1995): 403–12. [Note: Nicole’s reductionistic view of the ground of the sincerity of the offer is very problematic. Nicole is basically saying that the offer is sincere because all that come to Christ get what was offered, i.e., consequent to coming, they are granted what was offered. That is all that is required for it to be sincere. That ignores the fact that there must be certain antecedent truths that must pertain in order for God’s offer to be sincere. For example, God must desire that all who hear the gospel offer comply with it. Moreover, there must be a sufficient provision made for all who hear the offer in order for it to be sincere. Before the great King invited all to come to the wedding feast in the gospel (Matt. 22:4), he first stated, “Tell those who are invited, ‘See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready,’” etc. Prior or antecedent preparations were made for all, which they could even “see” for themselves, before the invitation went out to all.]
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 574–76.
To my fellow Calvinists, I’m going to be a bit more blunt (as is my right; I’ve just defended our distinctive views!). There is a distinction between esse and bene esse. There’s a difference between a doctrine being part of the essence of the gospel (its esse), and a doctrine being part of the well-being of the gospel (its bene esse). In light of this, I findthe popular Spurgeon quote to be unhelpful, that “Calvinism is the gospel.” I understand what Spurgeon was trying to say [see MacArthur’s contextual explanation below], but I think it can be both misleading and unhelpful, to the extent that I never use that quote myself. It’s just not worth it, for it usually generates more heat than light. Surely we don’t want to get someone to think that he has to believe in all the traditional points of Calvinism if he is going to believe the gospel, and yet that is exactly what that quote can convey if it is tossed around loosely. Most of the evangelical non-Calvinists I know may not believe in the five points of Calvinism, but they do believe in the five solas of the Reformation, and even if you think that is inconsistent, God never sent a man to hell for being inconsistent, but only for his sins.
Far better to simply give the arguments for Calvinism as best you can, and pray that the Lord blesses your efforts. So I would counsel my fellow Calvinists in the SBC not to say, “Arminianism denies the essence of the gospel,” but rather, “Calvinism promotes the well-being of the gospel, by bringing out for God’s people all the more clearly how grace is really grace.” Non-Calvinists may disagree even with this latter statement, but at least they’ll know what our motives are: to magnify the greatness of God’s grace, not to draw the circle of fellowship more narrowly than Christ himself has drawn it.
Greg Welty, “Election and Calling: A Biblical Theological Study,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen & Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville: B&H, 2008), 243.
John MacArthur recently explained what Spurgeon meant by saying “Calvinism is the gospel.” He wrote:
But what did Spurgeon mean when he wrote, “Calvinism is the gospel”? He was not suggesting, of course, that the gospel is a message about John Calvin. Nor was he saying there is no true believers except those who have mastered and embraced Calvinism as a system. Spurgeon himself had numerous Arminian friends whom he counted as dear brethren in Christ and spiritual allies in his battle against modernism. He could not have been suggesting that saving faith entails wholehearted embrace of the five points. In fact, later in that same piece, Spurgeon said this:
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer — I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views (Susannah Spurgeon and Joseph Harrald, The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon: Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, 4 vols. [London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1899], 1:176).
So why did he write, “Calvinism is the gospel”? Spurgeon was making a simple but profound point — namely, that the core of all gospel truth is the same principle that lies at the root of Calvinism. And it is this: Salvation is the Lord’s work, not the sinner’s.
Indeed, Spurgeon’s meaning is made crystal clear in the immediate context of those controversial three sentences. At the beginning of that same paragraph, he quotes Jonah 2:9 and comments on the truth of it:
“Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation” (Spurgeon and Harrold, Autobiography, 1:172).
That truth is the very essence of the gospel, and it is also the heart and the linchpin of Calvinist doctrine. It is why I am convinced that more than any other doctrinal study we might even undertake, a sound and faithful understanding of the doctrines of grace will instruct and help anyone who is seeking to articulate the gospel with clarity and accuracy.
John MacArthur, “Foreword,” in Curt Daniel’s The History and Theology of Calvinism (Darlington, Co Durham, UK: Evangelical Press, 2019), 20–21.
From Ligonier Ministries’ 1998 National Conference, Drs. John MacArthur Jr. and R.C. Sproul discuss their views on the Biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credo-baptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo(infant)-baptist position.
I've spoken with many people who didn’t know about this Sproul/MacArthur dialogue, so it deserves to be highlighted here.
Update on 5-11-10: A commentator has posted two links where one can hear and read both MacArthur’s and Sproul’s presentations for free. For MacArthur, see here (click). For Sproul, see here (click).
Update on 11-12-14: The exchange can be heard on YouTube here (or directly at the Ligonier site here):
MacArthur’s session in MP3 format: Here
Sproul’s session in MP3 format: Here
Update on 3-22-18:
See also the 1997 debate between Alister Begg and R. C. Sproul on baptism here (click).
The fact that God will send to eternal hell all sinners who persist in sin and unbelief proves His hatred toward them. On the other hand, the fact that God promises to forgive and bring into His eternal glory all who trust Christ as Savior—and even pleads with sinners to repent—proves His love toward them.
We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45, NASB). That passage and the verses in the immediate context refute Arthur Pink's claim that Jesus never told sinners God loved them. Here Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.
While we are all eager to ask why a loving God lets bad things happen to His children, surely we should also ask why a holy God lets good things happen to bad people. The answer is that God is merciful even to those who are not His own.
At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone. Limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30) His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, Oh house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.
A parallel in the human realm would be this: I love my neighbors. I am commanded by numerous Scriptures to love them as I love myself (e.g., Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39; Lk. 10:29-37). I also love my wife. That, too, is in accord with Scripture (Eph. 5:25-28; Col. 3:19). But clearly my love for my wife is superior, bot in excellence and in degree, to my love for my neighbor. I willingly brought my wife into my family to live with me for the rest of our lives. There's no reason to conclude that since I do not afford the same privilege to my neighbors, my love for them is not a real and genuine love. Likewise it is with God. He loves the elect in a special way reserved only for them. But that does not make His love for the rest of humanity any less real.
Furthermore, even in the human realm, love for one's spouse and love for one's neighbor still don't exhaust the different varieties of love we share. I also love my children with the utmost fervency; yet again I love them with a different quality of love than my love for my wife. And I love my Christian neighbors in a way that rises above my love for my non-Christian neighbors. Obviously genuine love comes in varying kinds and degrees. Why is it difficult for us to conceive that God Himself loves different people differently and with different effects?
God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Eph. 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.
But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live. He freely offers the water of life to all (Isa. 55:1; Rev. 22:17). Those truths are not at all incompatible with the truth of divine sovereignty.
Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." Calvin went on to add this:
[In John 3:16 the evangelist] has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.
Calvin's comments are both balanced and biblical. He points out that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. But he also recognizes that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.
These same truths have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.
We're seeing today an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan era. I'm very encouraged by this in most respects. A return to these historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.
John MacArthur, The Love of God: He Will Do Whatever It Takes to Make Us Holy (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996), 15–18. Elsewhere MacArthur even taught that Jesus loved Judas: “To the very end Jesus loved Judas, but he [Judas] would have none of what He [Jesus] offered him.” John MacArthur, Matthew 8–15, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1987), 177; “But the Lord’s pain was compounded many times over because He knew ahead of time that He would be betrayed and because the consequences were so serious. Yet He endured the pain, because He loved Judas and knew that His own betrayal was a necessary part of the redemptive plan.” John MacArthur, Drawing Near: Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 30
God’s universal love is revealed not only in common grace and His great compassion, but also in His admonition to repent. God is constantly warning the reprobate of their impending fate, and pleading with them to turn away from sin. Nothing demonstrates God’s love more than the various warnings throughout the pages of Scripture, urging sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
Anyone who knows anything about Scripture knows it is filled with warnings about the judgment to come, warnings about hell, and warnings about the severity of divine punishment. If God really did not love the reprobate, nothing would compel Him to warn them. He would be perfectly just to punish them for their sin and unbelief with no admonition whatsoever. But He does love and He does care and He does warn.
God evidently loves sinners enough to warn them. Sometimes the warnings of Scripture bear the marks of divine wrath. They sound severe. They reflect God’s hatred of sin. They warn of the irreversible condemnation that will befall sinners. They are unsettling, unpleasant, even terrifying.
But they are admonitions from a loving God who as we have seen weeps over the destruction of the wicked. They are necessary expressions from the heart of a compassionate Creator who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. They are further proof that God is love. The Gospel Offer
Finally, we see proof that God’s love extends to all in the gospel offer. We saw earlier that the gospel invitation is an offer of divine mercy. Now consider the unlimited breadth of the offer. No one is excluded from the gospel invitation. Salvation in Christ is freely and indiscriminately offered to all.
Jesus told a parable in Matthew 22:2–14 about a king who was having a marriage celebration for his son. He sent his servants to invite the wedding guests. Scripture says simply, “they were unwilling to come” (v. 3). The king sent his servants again, saying, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast” (v. 4). But even after that second invitation, the invited guests remained unwilling to come. In fact, Scripture says, “They paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them” (vv. 5–6). This was outrageous, inexcusable behavior! And the king judged them severely for it.
Then Scripture says he told his servants, “The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast” (v. 9). He opened the invitation to all comers. Jesus closes with this: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (v. 14).
The parable represents God’s dealing with the nation of Israel. They were the invited guests. But they rejected the Messiah. They spurned Him and mistreated Him and crucified Him. They wouldn’t come—as Jesus said to them:
You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. (Jn. 5:39–40)
The gospel invites many to come who are unwilling to come. Many are called who are not chosen. The invitation to come is given indiscriminately to all. Whosoever will may come—the invitation is not issued to the elect alone.
God’s love for mankind does not stop with a warning of the judgment to come. It also invites sinners to partake of divine mercy. It offers forgiveness and mercy. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28–29). And Jesus said, “The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (Jn. 6:37).
It should be evident from these verses that the gospel is a free offer of Christ and His salvation to all who hear. Those who deny the free offer therefore alter the nature of the gospel itself. And those who deny that God’s love extends to all humanity obscure some of the most blessed truth in all Scripture about God and His lovingkindness.
God’s love extends to the whole world. It covers all humanity. We see it in common grace. We see it in His compassion. We see it in His admonitions to the lost. And we see it in the free offer of the gospel to all.
I wasn't able to recall where I first downloaded this interview, but after I heard it, I knew I had to link to it eventually. I did a google search and sure enough, Keith Plummer stole my idea (unconsciously of course) and linked to the interview before me! ;-)
You will hear Dr. MacArthur strongly affirming God's desire to save all mankind (well-meant offer), even as he underlines God's eternal purpose to save the elect alone. If I recall, MacArthur even mentioned God begging or pleading with men through the gospel call.
I am an evangelical Christian with a B. A. in Biblical Studies from Criswell College. My basic doctrinal positions are Baptistic, moderately Calvinistic and historic premillennial. One of my preoccupations is researching and blogging primary sources that relate to my exploration into the revealed will of God as viewed in Calvinistic history.
