Q.
1. “What is the gospel, in a nutshell?”
The
word for “gospel” in the New Testament is a word from which we get the English
“evangelism,” or, “evangelical.” In the noun form, it means literally “glad
tidings,” or, “good news” and refers to the contents of the gospel. The
contents of the gospel are God’s eternal determination to save His elect people
in Christ. Or, if I may put it in the words of one of our confessions, the Canons of Dordt, it is the promise of
God to save all those who believe in Christ, and it is a command to all who
hear to forsake their sin and put their trust only in Christ for their
salvation (Canons 2.5). (Herman C. Hanko, “Common Grace
Considered” [2019 edition], pp. 377-378)
[The] holy Gospel is the glad tidings of God
concerning the Promise of God to the seed of the Promise, those chosen by God
as heirs of the Promise in the midst of this dark and comfortless, lost world (Herman Hoeksema, “The Gospel, Or, The
Most Recent Attack Against the Truth of Sovereign Grace,” p. 82)
The gospel is the glad tidings concerning the promise.
The whole of Scripture is the revelation of the promise and its realization.
With a promise it begins: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). This is the fundamental promise implying all
promises. While the rich implications of its contents and meaning are set forth
and unfolded, it is repeated to the patriarchs and prophets and to Israel,
Judah, and David. It is visibly proclaimed in the shadows and types of the old
dispensation—in temple and altar and sacrifice, in prophet and priest and king,
in the land of Canaan and Jerusalem and Mount Zion. It is fulfilled in Christ—in
his death, resurrection, and exaltation at the right hand of God—and in the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. It is the promise of
salvation—of the forgiveness of sins and everlasting righteousness and life, of
the adoption unto children of God and perfect justification, of the
resurrection from the dead and heavenly glory, of the land of Canaan for an
everlasting possession and the inheritance of the world, of the eternal kingdom
of Christ and the tabernacle of God with men, of the heavenly perfection of
Jerusalem and Mount Zion on which the Lord Jesus Christ shall reign forevermore
This promise is one and indivisible, meant for the
one seed of Abraham, for all the children of the promise, both of the old and
new dispensations, for the one people of God, the holy catholic church. Often
the Scriptures simply speak of the promise
in the singular, to denote its unity, while the plural promises is also employed to express the manifold riches of the one
salvation God prepares for those who love him. However, the promise is always
the same for all. There are not two sets of promises—one for Israel and the
other for the church, the one earthly and the other heavenly in character.
There is one promise for all. The saints of the old dispensation lived by faith
in the same promise as do the saints in the new dispensation. They saw the
promises afar off, for it was the time of shadows; we behold them as they are
centrally fulfilled in Christ. Together we still look forward to the final
realization, expecting one and the same revelation of Jesus Christ in the day
of His coming. (Herman Hoeksema,
“Reformed Dogmatics,” vol. 2, pp. 227-228)
The gospel is good news, announced to sinners by
heralds sent by Jesus Christ. The gospel is not a declaration of what man must
do. The gospel is not even a declaration of what God would like to do for man.
The gospel is a declaration of what God has done. (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on
Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q. 2. “What is gospel preaching?”
Gospel preaching is the promiscuous proclamation of
a particular promise, in which God promises—not merely offers—salvation to
whomsoever believes in Jesus Christ (see Canons II:5), and
that this promise—not a mere offer—must be preached to all without distinction
with the command to repent and believe. (Martyn
McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q. 3. “What is God’s purpose in having the gospel
preached?”
God’s purpose in the “offer” [i.e. the gospel call] is to
accomplish the salvation of the elect, and leave the reprobate without excuse
in their sin. The reprobate “stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto
also they were appointed” (I Pet. 2:8).
This is God’s sovereign appointment and purpose which is realized
through the preaching of the gospel. Thus the Sum of Saving Knowledge declares:
“By these outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable, so,
by the power of His Spirit, He applies unto the elect effectually all saving
graces purchased to them …” The biblical
offer is the means, therefore, through which God calls all men with an outward
call to faith and repentance, and through which outward call He executes His purpose
according to predestination, namely, to leave the reprobate as a responsible
creature without excuse for his despising Christ; while at the same time,
through those same means, but now graciously in the hands of the Spirit of
Christ, inwardly, irresistibly and effectually to call His elect to saving
faith and repentance unto life. (Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
When God sends the gospel forth into all the world,
presenting Christ crucified to all who hear the preaching and calling all who
hear to repent of their sins and believe on that Christ, His purpose is to save
the elect and the elect only. The love that sends forth the gospel, like the
love that sent forth Christ in the fullness of time, is the love of God for the
elect church. This love is sovereign love. As the call to repent and believe
goes out, God the Holy Spirit works that repentance and faith in the hearts of
the elect in the audience. He gives us what He calls for, and He gives it by
the calling. “Come!” He says, and that sovereignly gracious call draws us
irresistibly to Christ. (David J. Engelsma, “Hyper-Calvinism & the Call
of the Gospel” [RFPA, 1994], p. 24)
###############################
Q.
4. “Why can’t the gospel be said to be an offer
in the sense of a tender, a proffer, or a proposal?”
If salvation is an ‘offer,’ there must be left in
the sinner, to whom the offer is made, **the
power to accept** the offer. For to ‘offer’ any good thing to one whom we
know that he cannot accept it, is mere mockery. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Protestant Reformed Churches in America”
[1947], p. 302”)
In
the first place, this is already impossible because according to its content it
is a promise, and a promise is surely
fulfilled by Him who promises. But, in the second place, this cannot be because
there is literally nothing in the gospel, whether you consider it from its
objective or from its subjective side, which can be fulfilled by man. It is
from beginning to end, in its objective realization and in its subjective
application, the gospel of God. But
it is also a fact that nowhere do we read of such an offering of the gospel in
Holy Scripture. And this is not because Holy Scripture does not speak at all of
the proclamation of the gospel. On the contrary, Scripture speaks of this
often. But always Scripture employs a word which means to proclaim, to preach, to testify, to speak, never a word similar to offer.
Of the Saviour we read that He “preached” the gospel of the kingdom (Matt.
4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13). Paul “preached” the gospel among the heathen (Gal.
2:2; I Thess. 2:9); or he “speaks” the gospel to them (I Thess. 2:2); or he
“testifies” the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24). Frequently also a word
is used which really means to ‘proclaim glad tidings,’ as in I Corinthians
15:1, II Corinthians 11:7, Galatians 1:11, and Revelation 14:6. But always the
same idea is expressed: the gospel must simply be proclaimed. Of an offer we read nowhere. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Gospel, Or, The Most Recent Attack Against
the Truth of Sovereign Grace,” p. 91)
What is the gospel? The gospel is good news,
announced to sinners by heralds sent by Jesus Christ. The gospel is not a
declaration of what man must do. The gospel is not even a declaration of what
God would like to do for man. The gospel is a declaration of what God has done.
The gospel cannot be offered. What God has done
cannot be offered, as if one were trying to sell something. When I offer you
something, I give it with the expectation, hope and desire that you will
receive it. “Would you like a cup of tea?” “You are invited to my birthday
party.” These are offers—in the sense of a tender, a proffer or a proposal. But
the gospel is never an offer. God does not tender, proffer or propose something.
In the gospel call, God commands.
Therefore, the Bible does not use offer language but serious command language.
God never comes to sinners with an offer: “Would you like salvation. It is
available for you if you would like it, but if you would rather not, that is
fine too.” That is the way in which I offer a cup of tea to a guest in my home.
Nothing serious is at stake, if my guest declines my offer of tea.
A much better illustration is that of a summons to
a court room. The bailiff of the court comes with a document from the judge.
The document is not an offer: “You are cordially invited to attend my court
room. I would love it if you could attend, but if it is inconvenient to you,
there is no urgency to come.” The summons says, “Come!” And the bailiff has the
power of arrest, should you refuse to come, and you will go to
jail for contempt of court, if you fail to appear at the time appointed.
The classic passage on the gospel call as a command
is the “Parable of the Wedding Feast” in Matthew 22. (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on
Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q.
5. “What is the difference between an invitation/offer
and a call/command?”
[The] word kaleo [in Matthew 22] proves to us that the
gospel comes as a command to all who
hear, not as a gracious invitation. If I invite you to my birthday party, that
is a gracious invitation, which you are free to accept or reject without any
serious consequences. When God, the King in Matthew 22, calls men and women to
the wedding feast of His Son, Jesus Christ, He is greatly displeased when they
refuse. Moreover, we read that He destroys those who do not come (v. 7). That
cannot seriously be understood as a gracious invitation to them. (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q.
6. “What is the difference between a promise
and an offer?”
[A] promise differs from an offer precisely in all
these respects. An offer rests for the certainty of its fulfilment with two
parties: the one who offers and those to whom it is offered. A promise is as
certain as the faithfulness and veracity of him who promises. Applied to our
subject, this means that an offer of grace rests in God and man for its
certainty; and since a chain is never stronger than its weakest link, the offer
of grace is as certain as the faithfulness and veracity of man, sinful man, a
hopelessly lost and wicked world. In other words, all certainty is gone, except
the certainty that the cause of God is an altogether lost cause, the certainty
that the offer will never be accepted. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Gospel, Or, The Most Recent Attack Against the Truth of
Sovereign Grace,” p. 82)
[A] promise is an oral or written declaration
whereby the one who promises is bound to do something or to bestow something.
The gospel of the promise is, therefore, the glad tidings that God has bound
Himself to bestow upon the heirs of the promise eternal life and all things …
[An] offer is in the nature of the case general and indefinite; a promise is particular
and definite. If the gospel is an offer, then it is glad tidings to all men
without distinction; if the gospel is a promise, as Scripture teaches, then it
is the glad tidings of God to the heirs of the promise only. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Gospel, Or, The
Most Recent Attack Against the Truth of Sovereign Grace,” p. 83)
There
is a marked difference between an offer and a promise … a difference that
consists mainly in this: that the fulfilment of a promise depends upon the one who makes the promise, while the
realization of an offer depends upon
the acceptance of the one to whom the offer is made. If the latter is true of
the gospel, then the Remonstrants are right. But our fathers speak [in the
Reformed confessions] of the gospel, not as an offer, but as a promise.
God does not offer something but He does promise something. And when He
promises something He will also fulfil His promise.” (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 37)
###############################
Q.
7. “What is the difference between a command
and an offer?”
[There] is a considerable difference between a
command and an offer. I may offer a man fifty dollars if he will cut my lawn;
it is up to him whether he does it or not. But that is quite different than
saying to a man: “I order you to cut my lawn and you will be punished if you
refuse.” So God does not offer salvation to all men; but He does command all
men to repent of their sin and believe in Christ … He is God and has the right
to issue such a command. And man, creature that he is, must obey or be destroyed.
He does not say to a man: “I love you and want you to be saved; please believe
in Christ and I will save you;” no, He says to man: “Repent or go to hell.” (Herman Hanko, “Common Grace Considered,”
p. 16)
###############################
Q. 8. “What is the difference between a call and an offer?”
One might
illustrate the stark logical
distinction between these two terms thus:
1) A soldier is “offered” a commission to the rank of officer.
2) A soldier is “called” back to duty suddenly from halfway through his home leave.
In 1) the soldier
may safely decline. In 2) he’d better not decline, or else ...
In this, we see
that the nature of an “offer” is such that one
is given equal right without threat, let or hindrance to accept the offer or
reject it. Effectively, to offer someone something is to grant them free
personal choice as to acceptance or rejection of what is offered. It follows
too, as night follows day, that to introduce into this equation a threat of
severe punishment contingent on rejection of the offer, is effectively to tell
the subject that really he has no choice, and that your “offer” is not really an “offer,” it is a camouflaged ultimatum.
To conceive of the
gospel as an “offer” is intrinsically
to say that it is something that individuals may accept or reject without any
personal risk or peril. Hence underlying all this talk of a gospel “offer” is nothing more than naked Arminianism, based
on the notion of “free will” and “free choice.” And it carries something else ... in common
with its Arminian cousin. It carries intrinsic logical hypocrisy, in that what
it portrays as an “offer” is in point of
fact carrying a threat of eternal damnation in hell fire if the “offer” is rejected. In their very moment of “free offer” glory, Arminianism and its hybrid cousin,
modern Calvinism, hypocritically misrepresent both the notion of what an “offer” logically and necessarily entails, and
simultaneously, in substituting this for the scriptural and confessional
assertions that the gospel is a “call” they obscure the truth of the real gospel. For an “offer” effectively denies the sacred imperative
intrinsic to the gospel, that to reject Christ is to insult God, to trample
underfoot the sacred blood of the covenant and to incur a worse damnation in
hell than one would have deserved if one had never heard the gospel.
On hearing the
true biblical gospel, ***no man has any
choice at all.*** No man has the right to disobey the divine injunction: “[God] now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), and “this is his commandment, That we should
believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ” (I John 3:23). No
man can possibly have any right whatsoever to disobey such divine injunctions,
and where there are no rights, there can be no “choices,” and where there can be no choices there can be no “offers.” (H. L. Williams, “British Reformed
Journal” [‘The Free Offer Issue,’ part 6, pp. 27-28])
###############################
Q. 9. “If you agree that God can still command sinners and that His commands
remain genuine and serious in spite of their inability to obey, why cannot we
also say that God ‘well-meaningly offers
salvation’ to both elect and non-elect sinners? What is the difference
between God seriously ‘commanding’
them to do something, and God seriously ‘offering’
something to them?”
Whilst we have no problem with the idea that God
can and does rightfully apply His preceptive will [His commands] to all
sinners, elect and non-elect, the idea that likewise this would legitimise the
notion that He can apply an “offer” equally to all moves the logic from the
realm of moral right to friendly persuasion. And it would make such an offer a
mockery (H. L. Williams, “British Reformed
Journal,” issue 48 [Winter 2008], p. 24)
###############################
Q. 10. “Does not the word ‘offer’ appear in Calvin, in other Reformed
theologians, and in such Reformed creeds as the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster
Confession of Faith?”
A careful reading of many of the Puritan divines claimed
as support by the proponents of the “well-meant” offer reveals that they held
views that so militated against the idea of contradictory wills within God and
universal love and grace, that they can not be so claimed. Admittedly they used
the term “common grace” but this had a fundamentally different meaning then
from what it has now. It meant what we have described as the goodness of God
upon His creation as sovereign benevolent Creator. (Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
The word “offer” is used
in most of the Reformed creeds and has been used by Calvinists since the
Reformation itself. But the question is not, “Did they use it?” so much as,
“What did they mean by it?” (“British
Reformed Journal,” Issue
9 [Jan - Mar 1995], p. 25)
The term “offer” has an entirely different connotation today from its
original Latin definition. In the Canons,
the term “offer” simply means “to present” or “to set forth.” The idea is that
of Acts 13:46, where Paul and Barnabas addressed the Jews, and said, “It was
necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you,
and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”
To take the simple concept, well understood by the fathers at Dordt, and to add
the baggage associated with the idea of a well-meant offer is unwarranted. (Steven Key, “Protestant Reformed
Theological Journal,” vol. 37, number 2, p. 51)
Although our quarrel
with the offer is not a quibbling over words, the word offer should be dropped from the Reformed vocabulary.
Not a biblical term, it is so loaded with Arminian connotations today that it
is no longer serviceable. Instead of an offer of the gospel, we should
speak of the call of the gospel as the Scriptures
do. (David J. Engelsma, “Hyper-Calvinism
and the Call of the Gospel” [RFPA, 2014], p. 48)
It
is true … that sometimes among Reformed theologians the word “offer” was used
in this sense. And when it is used in this sense, we have no quarrel with the
idea that is proposed by it. Nevertheless, the idea must be distinguished from
what is commonly taught by those who maintain a free offer. The latter teach
that through the preaching God expresses His desire, willingness and intention
to save all that hear the gospel because it is His revealed will to save all—a
will that is rooted in some sense in an atonement which is for all. That
through the preaching of the gospel the command to repent of sin and believe
comes to all is an entirely different idea. (Herman
C. Hanko, “The History of the Free Offer,” Chp. 4)
[The]
term was used in an entirely different way from that use made of it today. It
was not used to express the idea of a desire or intention on God’s part to save
all who hear the gospel; it was rather used to emphasize the point that the
gospel is preached to many more than the elect, and that through the preaching,
Christ is widely proclaimed as the
One through Whom God has accomplished salvation; and all who hear are
confronted with the command to believe and repent. (Herman C. Hanko, “The History of the Free Offer,” Chp. 8)
---------------------------------------------
For more, see the following:
“The
16th/17th Century Meaning of ‘Offer’”
“The
Primary Meaning of Offero in
English-Latin Dictionaries”
###############################
Q.
11. “How does the ‘confessional’ (biblical) offer differ from the ‘well-meant’
offer?”
As
to its content, the confessional
offer includes both the clear setting forth of Christ crucified and God’s way
of salvation in Him. The offer
presupposes the setting forth of God’s exalted holiness and the law to convince
and convict men of sin and to show them their urgent need of Christ. It sets forth and displays Christ crucified
as the blessed and only Saviour in all His glory, beauty, suitability and
sufficiency for the chief of sinners. It
authoritatively declares the command and call of God to all men, without
exception, to repent and believe as the only way to life. It beseeches and with the cords of love and
grace, tenderly draws the labouring, heavy-laden sinner to Christ and salvation
in Him. It promises the Spirit to the elect to make them able and willing to
come, and it proclaims the particular
promise of God, that all who come will surely find mercy. In short, it must herald the good news of the
gospel to sinners—nothing more, and nothing less.
The
presentation of the gospel—the “offer”—in its totality does not constitute, or
even imply, a “well-meant” offer to all. The presentation of the gospel implies
no active delight, desire or longing within God toward the salvation of all in
the preaching. All that can be rightfully implied from the gospel offer is that
God is pleased to save repentant, believing sinners—nothing more. The
“well-meant” offer, however, cannot stand without first presupposing a
conditional will of God to the salvation of the reprobate, Christ being dead
for all, and general grace. These are, of course the most basic premises of
Arminianism. They, and the offer they
create, must be rejected. (Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
12. “To whom are gospel encouragement and the promise of eternal life restricted
to in the preaching? To all that hear? Or only to the elect?”
Only
to the elect. This is also the testimony of the following worthies:
John
Knox:
True it is that Isaiah
the prophet and Christ Jesus Himself with His apostles do call on all to come
to repentance; but that generally is restrained by their own words; to those
that thirst, that hunger, that mourn, that are laden with sin as before we have
taught. (The Works of John Knox, vol. 5, p. 404)
John
Owen:
Multitudes of these
invitations and calls are recorded in the Scripture, and they are all of them
filled up with those blessed encouragements which divine wisdom knows to be
suited to lost, convinced sinners, in
their present state and condition. (The
Glory of Christ, p. 229)
Samuel
Rutherford:
It is most untrue that
Christ belongeth to sinners as sinners for then Christ should belong to all
unbelievers, how obstinate soever, even to those that sin against the Holy
Ghost ... He belongeth only to believing
sinners. Those thus and thus qualified are to believe and come to Christ. It is
true all sinners are obliged to believe, but to believe after the order of free
grace, that is, that they be first self-lost and sick and then be saved by the
physician. (Trial and Triumph of Faith
[Edinburgh, 1845], pp. 128ff.
John
Flavel:
The order of the
Spirit’s work in bringing men to Christ, shows us to whom the invitation and
offers of grace in Christ are to be made; for none are convinced of
righteousness, that is, of the complete and perfect righteousness in Christ for
their justification until first they are convinced of sin; and consequently no
man comes to Christ by faith till convictions of sin have wakened and
distressed him, (John 16:8, 10). This being the order of the Spirit’s
operation, the same order must be observed in gospel offers and invitations. (The
Method of Grace [Grand Rapids, 1977], p. 205)
Flavel [especially] highlights a fundamentally important
truth. He is not saying that evidence of contrition of sin is a pre-requisite
to freely preaching Christ crucified
like the hyper-Calvinist. Rather, he is pointing out that the promise declared in the offer
belongs personally to contrite, believing sinners. When this order is
observed there is simply no place for a well-meant
offer. There is an order of operation of the Spirit in drawing sinners to
Christ, which order determines that there may be no universal conditional promise, as is necessary in the well-meant offer.
(Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
13. “But God promises to all who humble themselves and seek their salvation in
Christ the forgiveness of sins, and everlasting life …”
We agree heartily, but we add to this: then again the gospel is not general,
but particular, for only those to whom
God imparts grace to do this humble themselves, and God gives that grace
only to His elect. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 25)
###############################
Q.
14. “What about the general demand of faith and conversion (aka, ‘Repent! … Believe!”)? Is
that not God offering salvation to all?”
To
the reprobate unbeliever, the call, “Repent and believe!,” is not a well-meant
offer on the part of God, but a serious demand that does indeed open up to him
in his own consciousness the way of salvation, thus leaving him without excuse,
but that God intends shall harden him in his unbelief. With the “external call”
to the reprobate, God has no desire for his salvation, just as He has not
willed the death of Christ for him. God has mercy in the preaching on whom He
wills to have mercy; whom He wills He hardens (Romans 9:18). This is in accord
with limited atonement and with double predestination. (David J.
Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 84)
If I say to someone—say, my servant—what I want him to do, is that an “offer”? And if in Holy Scripture God comes to all
who are under the preaching with the demand that they shall humble themselves
and seek their salvation in Christ, is He ‘offering’ them something? Or does He
[rather] ‘demand’ something of them? You say, ‘Of course; that is no offer, but
a demand.’ (Herman Hoeksema, “A
Power of God Unto Salvation”)
###############################
Q.
15. “Does not God will that the gospel be preached to all men?”
The question is not whether God wills that the gospel be preached to all to
whom He sends it according to His good pleasure without distinction. No, the
question is purely: is that Gospel according to its content a well-meant and
general offer on God’s part? (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto
Salvation,” p. 25)
This controversy
is not about whether the gospel should be preached to all men and that all
should be called to repentance and faith and that the promise of the gospel
should be made known to all. All agree to the above, but debate is over the
will and desire of God in the call of the gospel. (Lau Chin Kwee, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 36,
no. 1 [Nov. 2002], p. 29)
###############################
Q.
16. “What is this so-called ‘warrant to believe’ that ‘free offer’ men often
about?”
“Some
theologians, notably among them the so-called ‘Marrow Men,’ unsatisfied with
God’s bare command, which is a sufficient reason to do anything, have sought to
find a warrant for the sinner to believe. [‘Free offer’ advocates argue]
from this warrant for the free offer of the gospel. However, [for the most
part, ‘free offer’ men do] not define what a warrant is. In legal terms, a
warrant is a legal document usually signed by a judge or magistrate that allows
someone to do something. For example, an arrest warrant authorizes the police
to arrest a suspect, while a search warrant gives permission to the police to
initiate a search of a suspect’s house or even his computer files. Without such
legal authorization, the police would not have the right to carry out the
arrest or the search. Supposedly, sinners need a warrant to believe in Jesus
Christ in the gospel—the command, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,’ is
not enough. The sinner needs a warrant to believe, argues [the ‘free offer’ advocate],
because he needs to be assured—before he comes to Jesus—that God desires
his salvation and that God will receive him.
[But]
God does not desire that reprobate sinners come to Christ, for He has not
decreed that they come. Instead of giving them the power to come, by working
faith in their hearts, or by drawing them (John 6:44), He leaves them in the
blindness and depravity of their flesh, and even hardens them in their
sins. Nevertheless, God still commands them
to come to Christ, which command is not a warrant. A warrant is not
necessary—God’s command is enough to obligate all sinners, whether elect or
reprobate, to believe in Christ.
…
What do the reprobate have a warrant to believe? Surely not that God loves them
(He does not); nor that Christ died for them (He did not); nor that God desires
their salvation (He does not). Notwithstanding, the reprobate are commanded to
turn from their sins in repentance, to believe in Jesus Christ, and to trust in
Him as the perfect, all-sufficient Savior who saves to the uttermost all those
who come to Him (Heb. 7:25).
The
Bible does not teach a ‘warrant’ to believe, but it does teach a command
to believe. That command to believe comes to everyone, elect or reprobate, who
hears the gospel.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April
2018], pp. 61-63)
“The
reprobate unbeliever does not have a warrant to believe in Jesus Christ. He
does not have the ability. But neither does he have the right. Faith in Jesus
Christ is a privilege, a right earned for the elect by the death of Jesus. ‘Warrant’
implies right. The reprobate hearer of the gospel has the duty to believe in
Jesus, but he lacks both the ability and the right.” (Prof. David J.
Engelsma, “A Response to Sinclair Ferguson's ‘The Whole Christ’”)
“[W]hat
exactly [is meant] by the notion of a ‘warrant’ of faith? Such language smacks
of an Arminian notion of sinners coming to God by mutual agreement or compact,
as if every sinner is given by God a kind of ‘voucher’ which entitles him or gives him the right to come to Christ if he so wish.
True, the idea of a warrant is pursued at some length in ‘The Sum of Saving
Knowledge,’ often appended to (though not part of) the Westminster Standards but that is no validation for the idea
whatsoever. It might be a salient testimony to what certain theologians at that time were believing and teaching on
this matter, but as to whether the whole notion of a ‘warrant’ is scriptural is
an area that needs careful examination. (Hugh
L. Williams, “The Free Offer: ‘Biblical’?? ‘Reformed’??—A Response to David
Silversides” [2019], p. 9)
“[We]
find the whole notion of a “warrant” to be defective, and inappropriate to the
reality of the situation sinners are in, for they are under the weight of a
terrible obligation rather than in possession of any warrant or entitlement. It
is evident, too, that [a] commitment to applying the promises of God to ‘all
sinners as such’ or ‘every sinner that hears’ is fundamental to the notion of a
sinner having a ‘warrant’ at all. Clearly, we would say, that all the promises
of God are invalid to the minds of unbelievers, who, as the apostle asserts,
being ‘natural men’ are unable to receive ‘the things of the Spirit of God,’
because they are foolishness to them, neither can they receive them, for they
are spiritually discerned (I Cor. 2:14). One asks, what of the so-called
warrants in such cases? Obligations,
yes, they all have as sons of the first Adam, but warrants?” (Hugh L.
Williams, “The Free Offer: ‘Biblical’?? ‘Reformed’??—A Response to David
Silversides” [2019], p. 9)
###############################
Q.
17. “What is the ground or warrant (i.e. foundation/justification) for preaching the gospel to all
men, if not a ‘mercy, grace and love of God to all sinners’ or a ‘desire or
will of God for all sinners’ salvation,’ or a ‘sufficient death of Christ for
all sinners’?”
The
sole ground or warrant for men’s act, in offering [i.e. setting forth] pardon
and salvation to their fellow men, is the
authority and command of God in His Word. We have no other warrant than
this; we need no other, and we should seek or desire none! (William Cunningham, “Historical Theology,” vol. II. p. 347,
emphasis added)
Calvinists,
while they admit that pardon and salvation are offered [i.e. set forth]
indiscriminately to all to whom the gospel is preached, and that all who can be
reached should be invited and urged to come to Christ and embrace Him, deny that this flows from, or indicates,
any desire or purpose on God’s part to save all men. (William Cunningham, “Historical
Theology,” vol. II. p. 396, emphasis added)
Some
have charged that without a love of God for all and a desire of God to save
all, there is no warrant, i.e., foundation or justification, for the call to
all men in the preaching. But they are mistaken. Nowhere does Scripture
indicate that the warrant for the call to all who hear the preaching is the
universal love of God. The church brings to everyone God’s call to repent and
believe on Christ crucified because
God has commanded her to do so. She knows that God will use that call
both as a savor of life and a savor of death (II Cor. 2:16). As she goes forth
into all the world sounding the call of the gospel to all to whom God sends
her, she does not say, “Behold, God loves you: Come to the marriage.” But she
says, “All things are ready: Come unto the marriage” (Matt. 22:4). From the
viewpoint of the ones who are called, the warrant of the call is that God has
perfected salvation in Jesus Christ (David
J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, no. 6 [Dec. 15th 1973], p. 135;
emphasis added)
###############################
Q.
18. “Cannot a basis or warrant to preach a ‘sincere and well-meant offer’ to
the reprobate be found in the ‘infinite
sufficiency’ of Christ’s atonement?”
The sincerity of a well-meant
offer to the reprobate not only relies upon the atonement of Christ, but
more particularly upon the extent
of that atonement. A Divine warrant for the well-meant
offer of Christ to all, therefore, requires that [a person] prove from
Scripture that the extent and nature of Christ’s atonement answers exactly to
the extent and nature of his well-meant
offer. That is, the redemption purchased by Christ, in all its efficacy, must be shown to extend at least
to every sinner who hears the well-meant
offer. It will not do [simply] to appeal to the infinite sufficiency of
Christ’s atonement; the question has to do with the efficiency and intention of God in the atonement. The
redemption provided in the substitutionary atonement of Christ is, after all,
what [some] would have us believe God is sincerely offering all who hear the gospel. Full and free redemption purchased by Christ for all who hear the gospel is, therefore, the only basis that will
support [such a] well-meant offer” (Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical
Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q. 19. “Do we not read in the New Testament that the word of God was
proclaimed also to those who went lost (e.g. Acts 13:46)?”
Yes, but the question is not whether the gospel must be preached to all who come under it; but the question
is whether that gospel is a well-meant and general offer of salvation. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto
Salvation,” p. 30)
This controversy
is not about whether the gospel should be preached to all men and that all
should be called to repentance and faith and that the promise of the gospel
should be made known to all. All agree to the above, but debate is over the
will and desire of God in the call of the gospel. (Lau Chin Kwee, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 36,
no. 1 [Nov. 2002], p. 29)
###############################
Q.
20. “But the preaching of the gospel can also serve as a protection from all
kinds of sins for those who are not saved by it, and to that extent are still
spared from a greater eternal punishment … The calling through the law and the
gospel restrains sin, decreases guilt, and checks the corruption and the misery
of mankind … Is that not common grace?”
That the preaching safeguards from all sort of sins is only true in the sense
that it causes sin to develop in a
different manner. In other words, it may safeguard from some forms of sin, only to cause the sin to
be revealed in another and worse, be it a more refined form. A very refined
professor in an unbelieving university probably does not bow before wood and
stone, but he tears the Scriptures to shreds and mocks the cross of Christ.
That is worse than gross idol worship. Otherwise, how is it possible that
someone’s judgment could ever be increased by the preaching of the gospel?
Scripture also gives us a different picture of the influence of the preaching
of the gospel upon those who perish. Matters become continually worse with them
and they gather unto themselves treasures of wrath. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation”)
One of the
“by-products” of “saving grace” operating amongst the elect is that a
restraining influence often reverberates right through to the ungodly. Under
such circumstances, sin, instead of parading itself brazenly, only “slinks”
along. But to call this effect “grace” is to make a logical jump the nature of
the premises will not afford. Suppression
of natural propensities would be a better description. Even the mafia
“watch their step” when the police are around. In a social climate deeply
affected by the Christian ethos, many of the godless ape the Christian ethic in
many ways out of various and complex motives, mainly because of perceived
self-advantage in so doing. (Hugh
Lindsay Williams, “A Response to David Silversides on the Free Offer” [2019],
pp. 86-87)
###############################
Q. 21. “All gospel preaching is in any case not merited and always
forfeited.”
If the preaching is not grace for the reprobate, but indeed a savour of death
unto death, and that according to God’s intent, as the Scriptures plainly
teach, then it is not proper to speak in this connection of gospel preaching as
undeserved and forfeited. In that
terminology is already implied that it is grace for the reprobate when he hears
the gospel. This is certainly not the case. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” pp. 69-70)
###############################
Q. 22. “Is the gospel of God’s grace in Christ to be offered to all
men?”
If one would be willing to change the word offer in the question
into preaching then I can readily answer in the affirmative.
The word offer does not fit in that context, for grace is
not offered, but given. Apart from that I would have no
objection to the proposition that the preaching must be a proclamation of God’s
grace in Christ. (Herman Hoeksema,
"A Power of God Unto Salvation," p. 76)
This controversy
is not about whether the gospel should be preached to all men and that all
should be called to repentance and faith and that the promise of the gospel
should be made known to all. All agree to the above, but debate is over the
will and desire of God in the call of the gospel. (Lau Chin Kwee, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 36,
no. 1 [Nov. 2002], p. 29)
###############################
Q. 23. “In the well-meant offer debate, in what exactly do you differ
with the opposing side on the subject of the preaching of the gospel?”
Our
difference centres around the question, what is the actual character of that
preaching, what must be its content, and what is God’s purpose with this preaching
both with the elect and the reprobate? And then our difference with [the
majority of the church-world] is this, that [they maintain] and we deny that
the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant offer of grace and salvation on the
part of God for all mankind. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 76)
###############################
Q. 24. “But the gospel must be preached “to every creature” (Mark 16:15)
and “all without distinction” (Canons of
Dordt, II:5), right?”
The question is not “To whom must the
gospel be preached?” To that question we all answer: To all to whom God in His good pleasure sends it, without
distinction … The question indeed is: What must be preached? May a
preacher say that God well-meaningly offers His grace to every one head for
head? May he say, that it is God’s intent to save all? (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto
Salvation,” p. 76, emphasis added)
This controversy
is not about whether the gospel should be preached to all men and that all
should be called to repentance and faith and that the promise of the gospel
should be made known to all. All agree to the above, but debate is over the
will and desire of God in the call of the gospel. (Lau Chin Kwee, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 36,
no. 1 [Nov. 2002], p. 29)
###############################
Q. 25. “God promises to save ‘all’ that are labouring and heavy laden,
‘all’ that thirst, and ‘all’ that come unto Him … Is that not a promise
for everyone and not only the elect?”
If I preach
in my congregation: “I promise ten dollars to all who have no work and are in
need, if they come to me,” then that is a general proclamation of a particular
promise. The proclamation is general, the promise is particular. It is a
particular offer. When God says: To all
those who labour and are heavy laden, who come to Me, I will give rest,
then that is indeed a general proclamation, but the promise is particular. When
God calls: O all ye that thirst come to the waters, then this
is proclaimed in general, but the promise concerns only the elect. When God
says: Turn ye unto Me, all ye ends of the earth, then it may be remarked in the
first place, that all the ends of the earth does not include every one head for
head; but in the second place, that God promises salvation to those who turn to Him, who repent, so that also
here you have a particular promise. And since it is God Himself who must work
the true labouring and thirst and repentance, it is as plain as day that all
these passages basically concern only the elect. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 76)
###############################
Q. 26. “Is not the relationship between the general offer of the gospel
and the doctrine of election and reprobation a ‘mystery’? Something
‘incomprehensible’ to our finite mind, and therefore cannot be understood or harmonised?”
[There] is no mystery whatever in the teaching that God causes His gospel to be
preached to all without distinction in order to save the elect and to harden
the others. The calling through the gospel makes the reprobate wicked
responsible, places the depravity of his sinful heart in the clearest light and
increases his judgment. That is God’s intent. The result answers
completely to God’s intent. And God carries out His counsel. He still
maintains man’s responsibility and the justice of God. What is so very
incomprehensible here? This is the clear teaching of the Scriptures …
No, the incomprehensible, the nonsense of the presentation is created
when you try to bind the Arminian
teaching of a general offer to the Reformed teaching of particular grace. Then you say:
God desires to save only the elect; Christ brought atonement only for them; God
can give His grace and work conversion only in them; but yet God offers His
grace well-meaningly, with the intent of saving them, to all mankind; and if this
grace is not accepted the result does not answer to the intent!
This is not a “mystery.” It is nonsense. It is so nonsensical, because
the latter is not true, while the former is true; the latter is not in harmony
with Scripture, the former is: the latter is not Reformed, the former is
thoroughly Reformed. You want to join the lie to the truth. Therefore you end
up with a so-called “mystery.” (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” pp. 76-77, emphasis added)
###############################
Q. 27. “The church must work in the world, just as a physician does in a
city or town where a serious epidemic has broken out. The doctor goes from
house to house and writes everywhere a prescription or gives an injection. He
does not know whether all the patients will recover. Presumably a certain
number will die, and the physician is convinced of that. If he is a Christian
physician, he knows that it is determined by God who will die and who will
recover, and all his means cannot change the will of God. But he does not
reckon with that for a single moment … That will become evident later. He needs
simply to apply the means.”
The example
of the doctor who goes about the town with his injection instrument to check a
severe epidemic has nothing to do with the issue. The preacher is not such a
doctor and he does not possess such injection instruments against the epidemic
of sin and death. (Herman Hoeksema, “A
Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 82)
###############################
Q. 28. “[In the offer of salvation, God] does not
say in that offer what He Himself will do, or whether or not He will give
faith. He has kept that for Himself and has not revealed it to us. He only
explains what He desires, what we must do, that we must humble ourselves and
seek our salvation alone in Christ.”
The latter is absolutely not true. In the proper
preaching of the gospel God declares exactly what He has done and what He does,
that He has chosen His people, has reconciled them to Himself in Christ, that
He draws them out of darkness into His marvellous light, gives them faith
whereby they are justified, sanctifies them, and preserves them, finally to
give them glory. God proclaims all this in the preaching of the gospel. He who
does not preach this, but, on the contrary, preaches what the individual must do, simply does not preach the gospel of
God. But it does lie in the very nature of the case that this grace is
no offer. You cannot offer
reconciliation, but you can preach
it. You cannot offer faith, you can call to faith. You cannot present
conversion as an offer, but you can demand it. In one word, grace is never
something to be offered, but is a gift of God’s Spirit. But it is simply not
true, that the gospel only proclaims what
we must do, and not what God does.
The very opposite is true. (Herman
Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation,” pp. 82-83, emphasis added)
###############################
Q. 29. “Is not the preaching of the gospel a blessing for mankind in
general in that it activates religion and morality, restrains sin, and checks
corruption and misery, and decreases guilt?”
This is certainly not in harmony with God’s Word, which teaches plainly that
the guilt of those who reject the gospel is increased and they in due time will
be beaten with double stripes. Nor is this in harmony with the history of
Israel, which makes a point to teach us that no nation is so wicked as the one
that in a historical sense abides under the covenant, and yet is rejected. Nor
is this in harmony with Christendom, which offers us the same spectacle as that
of Israel. Nor is it in harmony with our experience. Sin may take on another
form, may present itself to us in a more refined form, but never can we speak
of improvement or a restraint of sin through the preaching
of the gospel. (Herman Hoeksema, “A
Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 83)
This presentation of the influence of the gospel on
the reprobate ungodly is certainly not in harmony with the Reformed
confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism
teaches that by nature we daily increase our debt, that God is terribly
displeased with our original and actual sins, and that he will punish them in
his just judgment temporally and eternally. Nor is this presentation in harmony
with the teaching of the word of God. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Rock Whence We Are Hewn,” p. 380)
###############################
Q.
30. “One should not look for texts in God’s Word in which it is said to the
reprobate expressly and in so many words in the external calling: ‘this means
you too.’ God does not incriminate Himself and therefore does not repeatedly
defend His sincerity by assuring us: ‘Now I mean what I say.’”
Why should
we not look for texts in God’s Word in which God also says to the reprobate in
so many words that God also means them, loves them, seeks their good, wills
their salvation and well-meaningly offers that salvation? … God the Lord does
precisely that in various ways for His elect. He assures them of His unchangeable faithfulness and eternal love, of His
covenant which knows no wavering. He even swears by Himself. Why, if He indeed
well-meaningly offers salvation to all men, also to the reprobate, should He
not also be willing to give them the
assurance of His faithful love? The answer is simple enough: that faithful love
toward the reprobate simply does not exist. And as little as that faithful love
of God toward the reprobate exists, so little does God set it forth in the
presentation of the Gospel as though it does indeed exist. And therefore you
must not search Scripture for such passages which indeed proclaim such a
faithful love of God toward the reprobate. (Herman Hoeksema, “A Power of God Unto Salvation”)
###############################
Q.
31. “Is the gospel an invitation?”
“An invitation is a
polite, formal or friendly request to go somewhere or to do something. When we
make invitations to one another, we do so with the desire that the invitee
comes, but to refuse our invitation rarely, if ever, has serious consequences.
The Bible does not present the gospel as a friendly invitation from God to
sinners to do something. In the gospel, God calls (He does not
invite). A call is an authoritative address to a person summoning him to come,
which has consequences for the person if he does not come. A
judge, for example, calls a witness to appear in court—if he refuses to come,
the judge will compel him to come and penalize him for not coming.” (Rev.
Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 61)
“Is [the gospel] an invitation of Christ? Well,
only if you understand that an invitation from the King of kings comes as a command. An invitation to a
birthday party of a friend you may accept or reject. An invitation from the
Lord of heaven and earth is a command
that you had better obey—or lose your life!
It is, therefore, a command, without doubt. But it
is couched in a way that, in the Lord’s command to come to Him with the burden
of sin, He speaks tenderly and with infinite love, for He woos God’s elect to Him by sweet
words. He knows how great the burden of the sin of His people can be. He knows
how, crushed beneath their sin, they wonder whether God can possibly ever
receive them. He knows that they are so ashamed that to come to Christ seems a
boldness too great for an unworthy sinner.
The words are calculated to give us courage,
courage in Christ’s love for us, a love that is too great for us to comprehend.
The Lord does not say to you and me, ‘Come to Me—or else.’ His voice is not
harsh and threatening. He comes in His love for poor, chastised, frightened
sinners who know their sins make them unworthy even for Christ to take a quick
glance in their direction. ‘Come to Me ... I fulfilled the law for you who
cannot keep it. I will give you rest—rest in salvation by grace alone!’” (Herman C. Hanko, Covenant Reformed News,
vol. 14, no. 2 [June 2012], emphasis added)
[Some] might object to the word “invitation” … and
point out that, after all, an invitation is subject to the acceptance or
rejection of the one who receives it. While this is surely true among men, Christ’s “invitation”
is the “invitation” of the King,
which one rejects at the peril of his life. (Herman
C. Hanko, “The History of the Free offer,” chapter 8, footnote 93, emphasis
added)
[The] word kaleo [in Matthew 22] proves to us that the
gospel comes as a command to all who
hear, not as a gracious invitation. If I invite you to my birthday party, that
is a gracious invitation, which you are free to accept or reject without any
serious consequences. When God, the King in Matthew 22, calls men and women to
the wedding feast of His Son, Jesus Christ, He is greatly displeased when they
refuse. Moreover, we read that He destroys those who do not come (v. 7). That
cannot seriously be understood as a gracious invitation to them. (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q.
32. “Is not the idea that the promises of the
gospel are ‘limited to the elect only’ a form of hyper-Calvinism?”
This simply is not true. And it is not true because
this view is the traditional view of those theologians from the time of Calvin
on who have maintained the particular character of salvation and grace. If this
is hyper-Calvinism, all the fathers at Dordt were hyper-Calvinists! (Herman C. Hanko, “The History of the
Free Offer,” Chp. 6)
“In
Head II. 5 the Canons state: ‘the promise of the gospel is, that
whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting
life.’ The promise is to believers, not to all hearers … And since only the
elect are believers, it is tantamount to saying that the promise comes unconditionally
to the elect … What is to be published with the promise to all hearers,
continue the Canons, is ‘the command to repent and believe.’ All
are commanded to believe; believers are promised salvation. In addition,
in Heads III/IV. 9 the Canons state, ‘[God] moreover seriously promises
eternal life, and rest, to as many as shall come to Him, and believe on Him.’ Again, the promise is to all believers,
not to all hearers … The reprobate hear the promise—it is proclaimed in their
hearing, but the promise is not for them; it is for believers only, and no
reprobate ever becomes a believer.” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51,
no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 63-64)
“The gospel with the
gospel’s promises must be preached to everyone. However, the promise which is
preached to everyone (declared, proclaimed to everyone) is not for everyone.
God does not promise to save everyone. He promises to save believers only. We
do not say, ‘God promises to every one of you that, if you believe, you shall
be saved,’ but ‘God promises salvation to all believers. If you believe, you
shall be saved, but if you do not believe, you shall be damned.’ God’s promise
is particular: it pertains or it belongs only to the elect. That promise must
be preached far and wide to everyone. Herman Hoeksema called it ‘the
promiscuous proclamation of a particular promise.’” (Rev. Martyn McGeown, 04/11/2019)
###############################
Q. 33. “If you aren't desiring the salvation of
your hearers you have no business preaching.”
The issue between the well-meant offer, on the one
hand, and the doctrine of particular, efficacious grace in the call, on the
other hand, is not whether we
desire all to whom we preach or witness to come to Christ and be saved, but
whether God desires this ...
Fact is, that even the natural desire of the preacher and the church that all
in the congregation or on the mission field be saved by the work of the
preacher and church, in the way of repentance and faith, is consciously
subjected to the sovereign will of God in predestination. Paul conducted his
ministry “for the elect’s sakes,
that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal
glory” (II Tim. 2:10). (David J.
Engelsma, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 47, no. 2 [April
2014], p. 70, emphasis added)
[Pastors
are to] invite all their hearers promiscuously to repentance and faith as the
only way of salvation, and, supposing these, to salvation; and they ought to intend nothing else than
the gathering of the church or the salvation of the elect. (Francis Turretin, “Institutes of
Elenctic Theology,” 15.2.22, emphasis added)
Pastors
do not know who will benefit from their preaching. They certainly cannot
distinguish between the elect and the reprobate. In charity they may wish the
best for all; and they dare not judge any person to be reprobate. At the same
time, however, their intention is none other than that of the Lord: they intend
only the salvation of the elect, whoever they may be. (Raymond A. Blacketer, commenting on Francis Turretin’s, “Institutes
of Elenctic Theology,” 15.2.22, in “The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed”)
###############################
Q.
34. “How does the doctrine of limited atonement/particular redemption pose a
real problem for the teaching of the general, well-meant offer?”
[If]
Christ died and paid the price of redemption for the elect only, and for none
other, then God has no salvation to offer the reprobate. The benefits of the
cross were purchased only for the elect. How, then, can it be truthfully
said—not only by the human preacher, but by
God Himself—that He offers salvation to all and that He desires the
salvation of all? Such an offer cannot possibly be bonafide!
… [What]
kind of God does the offer-theology presuppose? A God who desires the salvation
of all, but who does not provide for their salvation? A God who is able
certainly to save whomsoever He desires to save, and who claims that He desires
the salvation of all and is filled with lovingkindness toward all, but who
nevertheless neither redeems, nor calls effectually, nor justifies, nor adopts,
nor sanctifies, nor preserves? Among men anyone who would thus conduct himself
would be called a cruel fraud and deceiver! And how much more is this true of
such a God! Yet this is the God of the offer-theology! (Homer C. Hoeksema, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 49, issue 21 [Sept.
1973])
He who would attempt to hold on to both
particular atonement and the free offer becomes guilty of making God out to be
a dreadful, mocking monster. God invites all men to be saved, genuinely wills
and desires their salvation, but does not have salvation for all? What is more,
He does not even make salvation possible
for all? He does not provide payment for all? What kind of God is it who thus
teases men, who thus toys with men’s souls? No one has ever made it clear how
the offer-theory can be harmonized with the veracity of God, nor with the
truthfulness of Him who is the way, and the truth, and the life. And that
preacher who proclaims a free offer in the name of God takes upon himself a
heavy responsibility, and will have to give account some day of his tampering
with the gospel of the Scriptures! (Homer C. Hoeksema, “The
Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, issue 6 [Dec. 1973])
###############################
Q.
35. “Is there, indeed, a connection between ‘common grace’ and ‘saving grace,’
in spite of the fact that the theory of ‘common grace’ has historically tried
to distinguish ‘common grace’ as having nothing to do with salvation?”
Yes.
And our reasons are as follows:
1.
Those … who are acquainted with the “first point” of 1924 will recall that the
doctrine of the well-meant offer was almost accidentally adopted as a proof for the theory of
“common grace” (a supposedly temporal and non-saving grace toward the reprobate).
The Synod of 1924, in its desperation to find proof for “common (non-saving)
grace” appealed to the theory of the general, well-meant offer of salvation,
and then tried to adduce scriptural and confessional proof for the latter
theory.
2.
In the “Dekker Case” in the Christian Reformed Church during the 1960s, this
same connection was claimed; and there were those who wanted to eliminate any
distinction between two different graces.
3. The theory of a non-saving grace of God is actually an impossible theory.
Logically it is impossible to entertain. How can God be favourably inclined toward a man, and at the same time be filled
with hatred against him, so that He
damns that man forever? Or, what kind of grace is it which lets a man go lost?
Because of this inherent contradiction, no one can long entertain the theory of
a common grace of God before he comes to the conclusion that God also wills and
desires the salvation of the reprobate. To be sure, he then still faces the
inherent contradiction between this desire to save the reprobate and the decree
of eternal reprobation. But that difficulty is solved, of course, by ignoring
or denying the latter. What is left, then, is rank universalism.
4. From another point of view, the theory of “common grace” and the theory of
the “free offer” are both intrinsically universalistic. They differ as respects
their ends, their results, their manifestations. But they have a common origin:
a universal favour of God. (Homer. C. Hoeksema, “The Standard
Bearer,” vol. 50, issue 7, [Jan. 1974])
###############################
Q.
36. “Did not Dr. Abraham Kuyper want to distinguish his ‘common grace” sharply
as having nothing to do with salvation? And when it came to the matter of
salvation, he insisted upon sovereign,
particular grace? He distinguished between ‘common grace’ and ‘general
grace.’”
Yes,
but it seems apparent that ultimately such an attempted distinction is doomed
to failure. “Common grace” and the Arminianism of the “free offer” have their
common ancestor in a universal favour
of God which includes the reprobate. (Homer.
C. Hoeksema, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, issue 7, [Jan. 1974])
###############################
Q.
37. “So you think that common grace necessarily leads into general grace?”
Grace
is grace. And if that grace, favour,
or lovingkindness is universal (common) in one respect, what real reason is
there to hold that it is not universal (general) with respect to the gospel as
well? In fact, if God is at all gracious to the reprobate, how can one possibly
avoid the idea that God also wants to save
the reprobate ungodly? And the history of doctrine has shown that the latter
position has been the inevitable development of the common grace position. This
was the case in the Christian Reformed Church in 1924 amid all the confusion of
that synod’s delegates. It has been the case in the Netherlands also; in fact,
as I have shown in writing about the Netherlands situation, today they even
speak of an “anonymous word of promise” that goes out to the non-Christian
world. You see, any kind of universalism with respect to God’s grace is an
extremely virulent poison! (Homer. C.
Hoeksema, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, issue 7, [Jan. 1974])
###############################
Q.
38. “Is God ‘serious’ when He calls or commands all men to repent and believe?”
[This] command or call is serious. God means
exactly what He says. He is not joking when He comes to all with this command.
He is not saying something in the gospel that is not really true. Quite the
opposite is the case. Man was originally created perfect and upright. When man
fell in Adam, he fell by his own sinful choice. His depravity which made it
impossible for him any longer to serve God becomes his lot in life because of
God’s just judgment upon the sinner. But God does not, on that account, require
any less of man than He did at the beginning. God is God. He remains just and holy and righteous in all His ways. He
does not now say: “Oh, you are such a poor sinner, no longer able to do what I
have commanded; I will no longer require of you that you serve me and flee from
your sins. It is perfectly all right if you do less than you were originally
required to do.” Oh, no! Then God would not be just and righteous. God still
insists that this man serve him. And man is confronted with that demand every
time the gospel comes to him. (Herman
C. Hanko, “The History of the Free Offer,” Chp. 3)
God is serious, in earnest, about this. God is not
indifferent to sin and unbelief. God does not say that He does not care whether
people believe or not. Will God send preachers but remain indifferent as to
whether sinners believe in Jesus? Will God remain unconcerned if sinners
despise His Son in unbelief? Of course not! God is so serious about this that
He threatens eternal damnation upon those who refuse to believe and to repent! (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###############################
Q. 39. “Doesn’t God’s ‘commands’ imply His desire
or intention?”
[His] command implies neither the intention of God
nor the ability of man. A command only teaches us what our duty is. (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to Phil
Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###############################
Q. 40. “But if God really is serious and means what
He says in the call to repent and believe, doesn’t that mean that God ‘desires’
the salvation of all who hear the gospel? If not, why not?”
[The fact that God is serious in His calling men to repent and believe] does not mean
that God earnestly desires the salvation of all hearers. It cannot mean that,
because God did not elect all to salvation (in fact, He reprobated many of
those who in time hear the gospel); Christ did not die for all men (in fact,
God has nothing to offer the reprobate who hear the gospel); and the Holy
Spirit does not work graciously in the hearts of all hearers to regenerate them
and work faith in them (in fact, the Spirit hardens many who hear the gospel).7 Since
the Triune God does nothing for the salvation of the reprobate—He neither
elects, nor redeems, nor regenerates them—how could He, then, in the preaching
of the gospel desire (even seriously, ardently and passionately desire) the
salvation of the same reprobate? …
… [It] is the Arminian—and not the Calvinist—who
defines serious (serio) as “a sincere and completely unhypocritical
intention and will to save all” who hear the gospel.** (see note below.)
** “The Opinions of the Remonstrants” in Peter Y.
De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed
Fellowship Inc., 1968), pp. 226-227.
(Martyn
McGeown, “An Answer to Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”)
###############################
Q. 41. “So, in order for God to ‘offer’ something
to the reprobate, a universal death of Christ is first needed in order for that
to be made possible? … that there must be a universal cross of Christ as a
basis for such an offer?”
[Yes]. John Piper, another modern “Calvinist,”
[also] understands this, which is why he argues that Christ died for all men in
some sense, in order to make it possible for God to make a bona fide “offer” of
salvation to all men, a scheme which has no basis in Scripture and which
certainly falls foul of the Canons of Dordt (especially II:8-9;
R:2-4). (Martyn McGeown, “An Answer to
Phil Johnson’s ‘Primer on Hyper-Calvinism’”)
###############################
Q. 42. “Could you name a few passages that plainly
deny that according to God’s intention the preaching of the gospel is grace to
all who hear?”
Isaiah 6:9-13
Mark 4:11-12
Matthew 11:25-26
John 12:39-40
Romans 11:7-10
II Corinthians 2:14-15
For an overview of each of the above texts, see the
following article:
“Six Texts” (Herman
Hoeksema)
###############################
Q.
43. “Can we say to the unregenerate, to the wicked, ‘All things are a curse to
you’?”
I
answer, most assuredly. I always preach that all things are a curse to them if
they do not repent. (Herman Hoeksema, “Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 2, no. 1, Dec. 1968)
###############################
Q.
44. “Why can’t it be said that the free offer of the gospel (the indiscriminate
preaching) is a temporary token of mercy
upon the reprobate?”
[An]
unfounded assumption [is made] here: that the preaching of the gospel is always
and everywhere a token of God’s favour to every hearer. But this is simply not
the case. Scripture is clear that it will be worse for those who hear and
reject the gospel than for those who never heard it. This is clear, for
example, from Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:20-24. The point is that the greater
the light we have, the greater our guilt and the sorer our punishment if we
reject it. Consequently, for the reprobate to hear the gospel and reject it,
and for them to receive many good gifts such as food, health and houses, and be
unthankful makes their punishment sorer. So, one must ask, how is it that
greater guilt and sorer punishment can be favour? Such is a strange favour
indeed! (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism
Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Offer of the
Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
45. “Can it not be said that God, in sending the gospel to some people, must be
showing these people favor since He gives them a chance to be saved, while to
many others the gospel has never even come once in all their lifetime?”
God
has His own purpose in sending the gospel to some and not to others. There is
no indication of grace in this activity of God, just as there is no indication
of grace when God sends rain or sunshine upon the wicked. The grace of God is
not in things. (“Protestant Reformed
Theological Journal,” vol. 35, no. 2, [April 2002], p.35)
###############################
Q.
46. “Why cannot ‘repentance’ and ‘faith’ be proclaimed as ‘conditions’ to
salvation?”
When repentance
and faith are demanded as prerequisites for salvation, they become something outside of the pale of salvation and
must be met by a man first before
God’s salvation will start operating in his life. What is demanded becomes
meritorious for salvation. (Lau Chin
Kwee, “Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,” vol. 36, no. 1 [Nov. 2002], p.
27)
Evangelical
repentance is the gift of free grace; faith is the gift of God. What is God’s,
as a gifjt to bestow, cannot be man’s duty to perform as a condition of
salvation. Those who are invited to look to Christ, to come to Him for
salvation, are very minutely described: they are the weary and heavy laden with
sin, the penitent, the hungry and thirsty soul, etc. These are the characters
invited to come and believe in Christ, and not all men (Matt. 11:28; Isa. 55:1;
Mark 2:17). (Christopher Ness, “An
Antidote Against Arminianism” [Huntington, West Virginia: Publishers of Baptist
Literature, 1982], pp. 72-73)
###############################
Q.
47. “Do not the Westminster Standards
and the Reformed confessions often speak of ‘faith’ as a ‘condition’?”
[The] Westminster
Confession of Faith and the Reformed tradition uses the term condition to express the idea of the necessary means through which God works
salvation. Faith as a condition was merited, is promised and bestowed by Christ
through His Spirit upon “those whom God hath predestinated unto life and those
only.”179 The Synod of Dort dealing with the Arminian heresy of
general love and grace, also repudiated the whole idea of faith as a condition
in the sense of a “pre-requisite”:
... the Synod rejects the errors of those ... who
teach that He chose out of all possible conditions
... the act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving ... as a condition of salvation …
... the Synod rejects
the errors of those ... who teach that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness,
godliness and perseverance are not fruits
of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions …180
Faith, within the Covenant of Grace, is not a condition
to be met by the sinner in order to be saved. It is a benefit which flows from Christ to the elect. It is not a
pre-requisite, but a free gift
bestowed upon the sinner as the divinely appointed means of union with Christ. It is in this light that faith is to be
viewed in relation to the call and promise of the gospel. God seriously and
sincerely calls all who hear the gospel to believe. He promises life to all who
believe. He “promises to give the Spirit to all those who are ordained unto
life to make them willing and able to believe.”181 He sovereignly
and graciously bestows the promised gift, effectually drawing the elect sinner
to Christ as He is presented in the gospel. There is no condition within the
Covenant of Grace that is not fulfilled in and bestowed by Christ as Mediator
of the grace of that covenant.
---------
NOTES:
180. Canons of Dordt, Head I,
Rejection of Errors Section, 3, 5.
181. Westminster
Confession, 7:3.
(Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q. 48. “You say that there’s a fundamental
difference in meaning between the ‘offer’ spoken of in ‘free/well-meant offer’
and the ‘offer’ spoken of in Calvin’s writings and the Westminster
Standards/Three Forms etc. Can you provide an illustration that demonstrates
the two different meanings of the word ‘offer’?”
Rev. Daniel Holstege (PRCA missionary in the
Philippines) gives us the following illustration to teach us the difference
between the two meanings:
Meaning
number one:
“Jeremiah, I offer you this Psalter. Would you like
it? It’s for you. You can take it if you want.”
Meaning number two:
“Jeremiah, This is a Psalter. Take this Psalter.
I’m calling you to take this Psalter.”
The difference is as follows:
The one is presenting and ‘calling.’ The other is presenting, but instead
saying “If you like it you can take it; if you don’t like it you don’t have to
take it. It’s up to you, and there’s really no big problem at all.”
One is a command/imperative. The other is more like an invitation to a birthday
party.
The gospel is a “call,” not a mere “invitation.”
---------------------------------------------
For more, see the following:
“The
16th/17th Century Meaning of ‘Offer’”
“The
Primary Meaning of Offero in
English-Latin Dictionaries”
###############################
Q.
49. “Does not a denial of the free offer hamper our preaching? Doesn’t it
hamstring missions and genuine evangelism?”
We
ought to make clear to others and we must be aware ourselves that our denial of
the free offer in no way hampers our preaching or hamstrings missions and
genuine evangelism. Men lay this charge against those who deny the free offer.
In a recent work on hyper-Calvinism, Peter Toon has written:
The combined influence of the Hyper-Calvinists
mentioned above was to produce in the churches connected with them, and amongst
those whom they influenced, a tendency only to maintain their churches but not
to expand them.11
Hulse
charges that “hyperism undoubtedly affects preaching and teaching and is very
dangerous because it can stultify and destroy the witness and life of a church”
(The Free Offer, p. 15). As churches,
and as preachers, we are able to preach to the unconverted. We proclaim Christ
crucified to them, presenting Christ in the preaching of His Word, always, of
course, as the righteousness of God. We pass upon them the judgment of the
gospel, that they are by nature guilty and totally depraved, children of wrath,
exposed to the damnation of hell except they repent. We call them, in the Name
of God, to repent and believe. As we command all men everywhere to repent, we
proclaim to all the promise that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall
not perish, but have everlasting life. This is Reformed preaching.12
This was the preaching and procedure of the apostles.
Let
those who intend to be Reformed, and truly Calvinistic, compare the notion of
the free offer with the teaching of the Canons
of Dordt. The Canons speak only
of God’s love for the elect in Christ, of a desire of God that the elect be
saved, and of a grace of God that is particular and sovereign. It knows
nothing, absolutely nothing, of a love of God for all, of a desire that all be
saved, or of a grace, whether in the preaching or elsewhere, that fails to
save. But does this imply a weakening of the preaching? Does this mean a
hindrance to a serious call by God and by the church to all to whom God sends
the gospel? Such has been the accusation of the Arminians from of old. But the Canons give the lie to this accusation,
most fully and most clearly. Those who hold to the free offer out of fear that otherwise
they lose the preaching must see this. And we ourselves must see this, so that
we never apply our denial of the offer wrongly. The Canons begin with the importance of “the joyful tidings” as the
means by which men are brought to faith” (I, 3). They stress that the preaching
must promiscuously proclaim the (particular) promise “together with the command
to repent and believe” (II, 5). They insist that the call of the gospel in the
preaching is “serious” (III/IV, 8). They conclude with an encomium to the
preaching: “And as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to
begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by
the hearing and reading of his word …” (V, 14).
----------
NOTES:
11.
Peter Toon, The Emergence of
Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity (London: The Olive Tree, 1967), p.
150.
12.
Cf. Canons, II:5.
(David J. Engelsma, “The
Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, no. 6 (Oct. 15, 1995), p. 136)
###############################
Q.
50. What does the call of the gospel express, inform or reveal specifically to
the reprobate that hear it if not
God’s ‘love’ for him or God’s ‘desire to save’ him?”
As
far as the reprobate unbeliever is concerned, the nature of the call is that it
is a demand that sets forth his duty.
It does not express God’s love for
him nor God’s desire to save him. It
certainly does not imply the ability of the one who is called to do what he is
commanded to do, any more than God’s demand to fallen men to keep His law
implies their ability to do so. But the call expresses the sinner’s responsibility. (David J. Engelsma, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 50, no. 6 (Oct. 15,
1995), p. 135)
###############################
Q. 51. “God must love, be gracious toward and pursue the reprobate with
salvation … Otherwise, how can he be genuinely held accountable for his
rejection of Christ?”
This is to deny God’s sovereign right to command the
whole duty of sinners. When God commands, the sinner is obligated to obey. (Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical
Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q. 52. “In the light of limited
atonement, how are the elect to be assured that redemption is for them personally unless the preacher
presents the gospel as a well-meant offer to all that hear?”
The
elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that
believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water
of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are
always the elect … [The reprobate] too, may be called by
different names, such as, the impenitent, the wicked, the unbelievers, etc. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Clark-Van Til Controversy,” pp. 47-48)
In the biblical
offer, Christ promises “rest” to the “weary and heavy laden” sinner, “water and
bread of life” to the spiritually “thirsty and hungry” and salvation to the man
who sees himself as sick and perishing in sin; never is God’s promise made
generally to those who are carnally secure and smugly self-righteous.184
This is so, because it is through the means of the outward call of the gospel
Christ effectually calls His sheep by name. They recognize their spiritual name and heed the Shepherd’s
call. The elect sinner hears himself described in his spiritual condition: a
heavy laden, weary, hungry, thirsty, poor, guilty sinner. Ah!, cries the
awakened sinner with wonder: He calls me!
Jesus is calling me! I will
flee to Him who so graciously calls me, the sinner, to rest and life. For I see
Him now as the altogether lovely one, the Saviour of God’s providing who is
able to save sinners like me. This is the overwhelming tender kindness of God’s
love (Jer. 31:3). It melts the heart, overcomes all resistance and draws the elect
sinner to Jesus Christ in wholehearted approbation of God’s way of salvation in
Him. The elect sinner sees Christ as the answer to his every need, his all
sufficient and blessed Saviour. (Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
53. “What must the preacher of the Gospel say of God’s intention with respect to the reprobate?”
[I]n the light of Scripture, he should say: God
seeks His own glory and justification in preparing the reprobate for their just
damnation even through the preaching of the Gospel. (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Clark-Van Til Controversy,” p. 48)
###############################
Q.
54. “What does true gospel call look
like?”
The Reformed preacher will labour earnestly to impress
upon every hearer through sound doctrine the perfect sufficiency, suitableness
and graciousness of Jesus Christ to save to the uttermost all who flee unto Him
by faith. He will call every sinner earnestly, patiently and with tears to repent
and believe. He will proclaim without hesitation God’s faithful promise that
there is in Christ full and free salvation for every sinner who comes. But, he will not make unfounded
assertions that go far beyond
his clear warrant of Scripture. He is therefore, both unfettered in his
preaching, and free from the
insincerity that is inherent in [the conception of the] well-meant offer. (Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
We proclaim Christ crucified to [the unconverted],
presenting Christ in the preaching of His Word, always, of course, as the
righteousness of God. We pass upon them the judgment of the gospel, that they
are by nature guilty and totally depraved, children of wrath, exposed to the
damnation of hell except they repent. We call them, in the Name of God, to
repent and believe. As we command all men everywhere to repent, we proclaim to
all the promise that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish,
but have everlasting life. This is Reformed preaching. This was the preaching
and procedure of the apostles. (David
J. Engelsma, “Our Protestant Reformed Position Regarding the Free Offer of the
Gospel”)
Biblical
mission proceeds as follows. The missionary sets forth Jesus as the Savior from
sin and death, in the context of exposing the audience as guilty, depraved
sinners, under the punitive wrath of God, in time and in eternity, if they do
not repent. He then calls, urgently, all in the audience to repent and believe
on Jesus Christ, promising in God’s name that every one who does repent and
believe will be forgiven and saved. All who do believe will know God’s loves
for him or her, which love has provided the Savior and also worked repentance
and faith. Knowledge of the love of God for one is always, and for any, a
reality only in the way of faith in Jesus Christ. The missionary warns that all
who remain unbelieving will perish everlastingly under the wrath of God.
This
was the apostolic method of preaching on the mission field. This leaves nothing
to be desired regarding the “addressability” of the gospel to all. This
harmonizes perfectly with the particular love of election and with the
particularity of the atonement. And this does not tell great and grace-denying
lies. When the gospel is preached in this way, as many as were ordained to
eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48). The rest will be sent away with the
warning that they are unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:46). (David J.
Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], p. 90)
###############################
Q.
55. “How should the promise of the
gospel be preached?”
The biblical
offer requires a close and personal applying of the promise of salvation and
life in such a way that it reaches out to the convicted sinner to encourage him
to come and rest upon Christ in true faith. To the penitent believer there is
indeed the assurance that it is God’s desire and delight to give Christ and all
the blessings of the Covenant of Grace in Him. The faithful preacher of the
gospel proclaims the truth of God’s will, delight and faithful promise to
receive all penitent,
believing sinners. In the offer of the gospel the love of Christ reaches out in
the promise to tenderly encourage and sweetly draw the convicted sinner into His life and rest. This aspect of the
preaching in which God draws the convicted sinner unto Christ with bowels of
love and tenderness is a vital aspect of the truth of the gospel call. The
cords of God’s love are personal and particular and exceeding sweet to the burdened sinner. In the preaching this must be evident. (Christoper J. Connors, “The Biblical
Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
56. “Can’t it be said to a mixed audience, ‘God promises every one of you that
if you believe, you will be saved’?”
No, because (1) such a sentiment is Arminian, and (2) it presupposes that
“every one of you” have it in their power to believe, if they so will.
For
God to proffer such a promise to the non-elect, would not be an offer, it would
be a mockery, for, if God did not give the gift of faith, how could the hearer believe? To make a promise like
that to all hearers is like promising a thousand dollars to every legless man
if only they would walk a mile. Worse, it would imply hypocrisy in God, for God
knows the inability of the hearers, and knows that only He can restore the
faculty of faith necessary for them to believe. (Or, in the words of the
example above, God has the power to bestow legs to a legless man, and if He
decrees not to do so, then His “offer” to such a cripple is a mockery, and by
no means ‘grace’) (Hugh Lindsay Williams, “The Free Offer: ‘Biblical’?
‘Reformed’? ... A Response to David Silversides”)
###############################
Q.
57. “How does it imply that God is insincere in the well-meant offer towards
the reprobate?”
[T]here are clear evidences of insincerity in the “well-meant”
offer … [No] basis [can be shown] in either God’s decree of election—His
intention to give—nor [is there a] basis in Christ’s substitutionary and
limited atonement—the content of
God’s offer and promise. Without a basis in the blood of Christ there can be no
sincerity. (Christopher J. Connors,
“The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
We do not for a moment question the sincerity of God in
the offer of the gospel when the “offer” is rightly understood. Rather, we
insist that the “well-meant” offer … cannot be sincere, because it has no basis
in the blood of Christ, apart from which there is no salvation to offer.
The sincerity of a “well-meant” offer to the reprobate not only relies upon the atonement of
Christ, but more particularly upon the extent
of that atonement. A divine warrant for the “well-meant” offer of Christ to
all, therefore, requires [proof] from Scripture that the extent and nature of
Christ’s atonement answers exactly to the extent and nature of [the so-called]
“well-meant” offer. That is, the redemption purchased by Christ, in all its
efficacy, must be shown to extend at
least to every sinner who hears the “well-meant” offer. It will not do … to
[merely] appeal to the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s atonement; the question
has to do with the efficiency and
intention of God in the atonement. The redemption provided in the
substitutionary atonement of Christ is, after all, what [the theory of the
well-meant offer] would have us believe God is sincerely offering all who hear
the gospel. Full and free redemption purchased by Christ for all who hear the gospel is, therefore, the only basis that will
support [the so-called] “well-meant” offer. (Christopher
J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
58. “Can it not be said that God’s
ground for the well-meant offer of
the gospel is ‘essentially mysterious’?”
[This is to say that either] the basis of the universal
“well-meant” offer is a contradiction that faith believes, or, [that] there is
no basis but [one] refuses to acknowledge it. Either way this response is not
to be accepted or allowed to slip quietly past, hidden in a cloud of rhetoric. [One]
must show some basis in
Christ's atonement for the well-meant
offer. (Christopher J. Connors, “The
Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
###############################
Q.
59. “Isn’t the gospel much more than a bare presentation or proclamation
of facts? Doesn’t that view lack the
kind of passion required in preaching that we see in the New Testament?”
“[We
agree] that the preaching of the gospel is much more than the mere presentation
of the facts of Christ crucified and risen—the gospel demands a response, as [Prof.
David J.] Engelsma explains:
The message proclaimed in the gospel is not
something that may ever merely be received for information, nor does it ever
leave anyone with the impression that God is satisfied with that. The message
of the gospel is the message of God’s Son in our flesh, crucified and risen for
the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The gospel must be believed, and the
Christ presented in the gospel must be believed on—today. Nothing else will do. Therefore, the gospel calls those who
hear the good news … For the sake of the elect, God has the church call all who
hear the preaching; lest it call a reprobate, hyper-Calvinism tends to call no
one. [David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (RFPA,
2013), pp. 23-24]
The
gospel demands a response from the elect and reprobate alike. Whether the
hearers are able to respond positively to the gospel is secondary: God requires
a response and will judge the hearers on their response. But an offer is not
required to create passion in the preacher.
The preacher must be passionate, for he brings the greatest message that
the world can ever hear, and he brings it with the authority of Almighty God,
whose gospel it is. The gospel is
urgent, whether an unbeliever hears it for the first time, or a child of God in
the pew hears it for the one-hundredth time.
… [The Protestant Reformed Churches
and their sister churches] call men to look to God for salvation only through
faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel. We call our members—including our
covenant children—to faith in Jesus Christ preached in the gospel. We preach
this gospel call on the mission field to the unconverted. We do so with passion
and urgency out of love for perishing souls and for the glory of God … But for
that we do not need the ‘free offer’ of the gospel.” (Rev. Martyn
McGeown, PRTJ, vol. 51, no. 2 [April 2018], pp. 65-67)
###############################
Q.
60. “Where does ‘pleading’ and ‘persuading’ fit into Protestant Reformed
theology (II Cor. 5:11, 20)?”
“I
believe that this question has reference to the preaching of the gospel—whether
such pleading and persuading ought to have a place in the preaching. Many believe that because we deny that the
gospel is an offer of grace we do not believe in such pleading and persuading
and cannot do justice to passages such as II Corinthians 5:11 and 20, where
Paul says concerning his own preaching, ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the
Lord we persuade men,’ and, ‘Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though
God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to
God.’
Do
we believe, then, in ‘persuading’ men in the preaching of the gospel? Most
certainly we do! Gospel preaching ought
to be as persuasive as it can be. It
ought to be persuasive in its content—that is, its content ought to be
well-reasoned and well-ordered. This is,
in fact, what the word ‘persuade’ emphasizes when it is used in a passage like
II Corinthians 5:11.
Do
we believe in ‘beseeching’ and ‘praying’ sinners to be reconciled to God? Without a doubt! Gospel preaching ought to be persuasive also
in its fervency. It is gospel
preaching. The minister of the gospel
must show that the message he brings means something to him. Preaching which is matter-of-fact and in
which the preacher gives no indication of any personal interest in the message
or in the hearers is not true gospel preaching.
The manner in which the gospel is preached, therefore, ought to show
that it is good news. And the
urgency of the gospel message ought to be plain, also, that it is a message which
cannot be ignored. When the minister
beseeches his hearers, that is exactly what he is doing.
It
must be clear, however, that preaching with fervency, urgency and
persuasiveness does not require that the gospel be turned into an offer of
salvation. The basis for such fervency
and persuasiveness is not a love of God for all men, nor a desire of God that
all men be saved, nor an atonement which is in some sense for everyone who
hears. The fervency of the gospel does
not consist in its being an offer of salvation to every hearer. In fact, an offer is much less urgent than a
command or call and only the preacher who believes he is bringing such a
command or call from God can really do justice to the urgency of the message.
Nor
does Scripture present the matter as though the fervency and persuasiveness of
the message rests in its being an offer of salvation. In II Corinthians 5:20, the passage which
speaks most clearly of persuading and entreating, the motive is the ‘terror of
the Lord,’ not a general grace or mercy of God to all.
Do
we believe in pleading and persuading?
Yes, we do! but not in the way of turning the gospel into an offer and
begging sinners to accept it. That is
neither God-glorifying, nor edifying, since the response of the sinner depends
not on his decision, but on the sovereign grace of God.” (Rev. Ronald
Hanko, “Covenant Reformed Fellowship News,” vol. 1, no. 11)
No comments:
Post a Comment