He spoke truly who said the only lesson history
teaches us is that man learns nothing from history.1 Unfortunately,
this observation is often just as applicable to the science of theology as to
any other realm of thoughtful, systematic, investigation. Yesterday’s
heterodoxy becomes today’s accepted norm, and the theology that once would have
caused any amount of opposition and revulsion is now often ingrained in the
hearts and minds of those who are otherwise most orthodox. As the wise man once
stated, “Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath
been already of old time, which was before us” (Eccles. 1:10).
This article is an attempt to pin down one such
doctrinal occurrence, first by drawing a brief historical sketch of an error
once condemned by the church of Jesus Christ, then by pointing out the main
dogmatic points around which this error was moulded, and finally by drawing
parallels between these points and certain theories and hypotheses that are
currently held almost as axiomatic by much of the modern Reformed and
Presbyterian community. An application of all this can be left to the work of
the Holy Spirit in the conscience of the individual reader.
The particular error around which this article is
written is that of so-called Amyrauldianism.2 This name is derived
from the Latin for the name of the man who was the most influential proponent
of the system—Moise Amyraut. Amyrauld,
(1596-1664) was in his time both pupil and professor of theology at the
Protestant Academy of Saumur in France. The name of this Protestant school is,
on account of the views of some of its professors, associated generally with
three main departures from the orthodox Reformed position: mediate imputation,
mediate regeneration, and hypothetical universalism. The name of Joshua
Placaeus (a fellow student of Amyraut under the influential teaching of the
Scottish theologian John Cameron) is most closely associated with the first of
these, and therefore will not really be the concern of this article. The name
of Amyrauld, however, is clearly identified with the other two, and these must
be considered in more depth.
Mediate
Regeneration
The first of these two doctrines, mediate
regeneration, is the more subtle and minor of the two and will be dealt with
first. This doctrine teaches that, in the saving work of regeneration on the
spiritually dead sinner, the Holy Spirit supernaturally illuminates only the
intellect but leaves the will untouched. Due to this living-giving work of the
Spirit on the mind it is supposed that the will should be able to follow the
light of such sound and practical judgment as is contained in the gospel
message. The practical outcome of this teaching is that it is possible for a
sinner to be intellectually convinced of the full truth of the gospel and even
to have a sound knowledge of his own sin, along with a fear of the dreadful and
necessary consequences of his sin, and still be able finally to reject the
salvation that is potentially his in the gospel. Instances of this, taken from
the Bible, are supposed to be found in men like Felix who trembled, and King
Saul who said, “I have sinned,” but who were never (fully) regenerated.
B. B. Warfield was well aware of the implication of
this teaching of Amyrauld when he wrote the following about it:
The teaching of these
is that God the Holy Spirit accords His suasive [morally persuasive] influences
to all alike, making no distinction; but that this universalistically conceived
grace of the Holy Spirit takes effect only according as it proves to be
actually congruous or incongruous to the state of the mind and heart of those
to whom it is equally given.3
In other words, Warfield here observes the teaching
of Amyrauld and his followers to be that there is a general or common grace
given to all men (both elect and reprobate alike) in the preaching of the
gospel that seeks to woo all sinners to come to Christ, but that this influence
exhibited can actually be resisted and not accepted by the sinner if his state
of will is not in harmony with the serious efforts of the Holy Spirit to save
him. And in case any reader should think that the author of this article is, by
his comment on universal grace, reading too much into Warfield, let it be said
in his defence that it is an easy matter to deduce from any relatively
objective source on Amyrauldianism that the idea of a general or common grace
of God is central to the whole scheme (see, for example, the entry on
Amyrauldianism in the New Dictionary of
Theology,4 which says of the Amyrauldian’s view of grace that
“grace is seen as universal in the provision of salvation but as particular in
the application of it”).
It is interesting at this point to notice that
Warfield has hit on an inconsistency in historic Amyrauldianism that is held by
many contemporary Calvinists, that is, that there exists a connection between a
common, universal, grace shown in providence to all (which, by definition, is
supposed to have nothing to do with salvation, but rather be concerned with the
temporal goodness of God to a cursed world), and the preaching of the gospel (which,
by definition, is the means of saving grace to God’s elect). To those who say,
therefore, that there is a gracious overture to all sinners in the gospel
offer, it might validly be asked: What sort of grace is this? If common, what
has it to do with the gospel of salvation at all? If saving, how can it be
resisted, and to what extent is it universal? This inconsistency finds its
origins in Amyrauldianism.
In contemporary Reformed Theology there has been
raised of late a similar question concerning the relationship between the Holy
Spirit and the saved reprobate that so vexed theologians during the Amyrauldian
controversy. This debate has been particularly centred on a reference that
appears in the Westminster Confession
(X, iv) and the Larger Catechism (A.
68). The reference is to “the common operations of the Spirit” which are
performed on the non-elect.
The issue is not whether the Spirit supernaturally
restrains sin in the unregenerate (though there are many other reasons why men
do not commit every sin imaginable, e.g., lack of time, lack of resources, fear
of the consequences, instinct to self-preservation). Rather, it is whether good
works can be done by the unregenerate because of these common operations that
are, supposedly, of a spiritual nature. These works would include seeking or
thirsting for Christ, understanding the true excellency of the Christian life,
or desiring to be free from both the power and consequences of sin. To put it
in simple terms, Is the one who thirsts for spiritual waters (Isaiah 55:1), who
labours and is heavy laden under the false yoke of sin (Matt. 11:28), a
regenerate person who has not yet come self-consciously to faith in Christ, or
an unregenerate person who is under the “common operations of the Spirit”? The answer
given to this question will show the extent to which the reader has been
unconsciously influenced by Amyrauldianism.
In fact, as the context to each one of the
references to an offer in the Westminster
Confession and Larger Catechism
(all which are concerned with the effectual call of the gospel which comes to
the elect in preaching) as well as the antecedent phrase, “called by the
ministry of the Word” which always precedes them, the Westminster divines saw
this “common operation” to be external rather than internal. This fits in very
well with what has always been the Calvinist interpretation of such verses as
Acts 7:51, in which the resistance made by these persons was not to a direct
working of the Spirit in them, but rather to the working of the Spirit in His
ministers—not any operation of grace, but the
external call of the Word. Furthermore, as Zech. 7:11-12 and other verses
clearly show, to refuse the Spirit of God is to reject the words spoken by His
ministers. This resistance is not a refusal to accept the offer, but simply a
refusal to hear the preaching of the Word of God. And it is this external and
objective proclamation of truth that the Holy Spirit uses in addressing and, by
irresistible grace, drawing His elect.
An answer to the question lies in a true
understanding of the nature of regeneration, which was obviously the main issue
at stake during the Amyrauldian debate. Before regeneration the sinner is
totally depraved—total depravity being the Reformed
doctrine that every man in every part is completely contaminated and dominated
by sin to the extent that he is unable to perform any spiritually good action
and so cannot in any way please God. In other words, he is completely
spiritually dead in the sense of being completely void both of all spiritual
life and of manifestation of that life in spiritual activities. But in
regeneration the sinner is given a new heart (Ezek. 36:26). In Scriptural
psychology the heart is the central organ of the soul and includes not only
feelings, desires, and emotions but also the intellect, will, and conscience.
Contrary to what the Amyrauldians taught, it would therefore be impossible for
the Spirit to enlighten one area of the heart (the intellect) without also
enlightening all (including the will), as the heart is one indissoluble, single
organic, whole. Also, contrary to what some unwitting modern disciples of
Amyrauld teach, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to quicken some parts of
the heart by a general operation (e.g., the desires) so that a sinner can truly
long for or seek Christ, and yet not also quicken the rest by a saving
operation, thereby enabling the sinner to come to Christ.
Hypothetical
Universalism
The second of the two doctrines is that of
Hypothetical Universalism, and is important not only theologically, but also
practically, as it affects the very contents of the preaching of the gospel.
“Hypothetical Universalism” is a confusing term, because it immediately seems
so obviously Arminian that no Reformed person would hold to it. But in fact, it
was the sincere intention of Amyrauld to condemn the Arminian universal
atonement scheme, while trying to soften some of the harsher aspects of double
predestination and the consistent particularism that it implies.
I myself realize the need, when attempting to
define hypothetical universalism, for as much historical objectivity as can be
mustered, for it would be easy to give a definition that would be loaded and
would support my thesis implicitly. Therefore I will opt for quoting from other
(well-known and respected) sources, thus finding a common denominator
acceptable to all.
Amyrauld taught that
the divine motive behind redemption was benevolence toward all men as the
result of which God sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. He
offers salvation to all men, upon condition5 that they believe in
Christ.6
He [Amyrauld] claimed
that God, moved by His love for all mankind, had appointed all human beings to
salvation provided they repent and believe.7
This scheme [of
hypothetical universalism] is perfectly illusory, in representing God as
decreeing to send Christ to provide a redemption to be offered to all, on
condition of faith, and this out of His general compassion.8
These three quotations will suffice, though the
number could easily be multiplied, to show the structure in which Amyrauld
worked, and the initial premises he accepted as true at the commencement of his
enquiries. Like all theologians, Amyrauld did not arrive at the doctrines of
mediate regeneration or hypothetical universalism in a vacuum of thought, but
came to them as conclusions after a process of reasoning. The premises he
accepted at the outset of this process can be deduced from these quotations,
and will be dealt with each in turn. These are: first, that God has a love to
all men; second, that there is a potential salvation for all men; third, that
this salvation is offered to all men; and fourth, that faith is a universal condition
for accepting this offered salvation.
First,
then, the love of God to all. When people say that there is a certain sense in
which God loves or shows lovingkindness to all men, what is usually missing is
a good biblical definition of what they mean by love. This criticism is
applicable to the whole “common grace” and “free-offer” debate. There is a lack
of consistent definition as to what exactly these terms mean to those who
defend them. The reason for this seems to lie in the fact that there is a great
diversity of thought as to what they actually do mean. For example, it is my
suspicion that most Reformed lay people mean by “common grace” merely the
general providence that God has over all His creatures, by which He gives them
good things they do not deserve. And by the phrase “free-offer,” they mean
simply that the gospel should be preached to all sinners promiscuously alike
and that all should be called to repent and believe with the promise that there
is salvation for those who do. However, those who defend these two theories in
lectures and in books tend to mean far more by them than this. And it is in
this extended and sophisticated sense that they are rejected by others.
The closest thing the Scriptures come to defining
love is in Colossians 3:14, where love is said to be the “bond of perfectness.”
This fits in well with the more technical theological idea that God’s love is a
perfection of God by which He delights in His own perfections and in men as far
as they reflect His perfect image. But since man lost the image of God at the
fall, God sees only His reflected image in those who have either been given it
or decreed to be given it, i.e., the elect. This biblical view that the image
of God consists only in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24
and Col. 3:10) must be stressed over against the Roman Catholic conception of
the image of God as consisting in the spirituality or the immortality of the
soul, the freedom of the will, and the rationality of the mind. And it must be
underlined that love is an actual attribute of God rather than an attitude or
sentiment. Because of this it is part of God Himself, as God is not essence and attributes, as though His attributes
were something outside of His real self that could be freely controlled. Rather
God is essence in attributes (hence
the teaching of I John 4:8, 16). God, then, is to be thought of as necessary
rather than free in the exercise of His attributes, and a change in the
exercise of a particular attribute implies therefore a corresponding change in
God Himself. It is therefore not valid to say that, because God is sovereign,
He can begin to love whom He wants, when He wants, and for how long He wants.
This makes God guilty of purely arbitrary indifference rather than rational
self-determination. Also, it should be noted that the doctrine of the
immutability of God regards not only His eternal Being (and therefore His
attributes) but also the purposeful exercise of His Being in the world of space
and time.
Negatively, the theory that God loves all men is,
of course, in plain contradiction to the teaching of the Scripture (e.g., Ps.
5:5, Ps. 11:5, Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13). Positively, the Scriptures confirm that
God loves only His people. An example of this can be seen in the doctrine of
election. Why are some chosen to life and some not? Simply because God only
loved some, and thus only chose some. Thus “foreknowledge” in Romans 8:29 is
equivalent to “forelove” and is the ground of our predestination to
glorification. This loving choice of God involves two elements—aetiology
(the study of original causes) and teleology (the study of purposeful ends).
The cause of our election and salvation is found in the love of God to us. But
this electing love also shapes our final destiny and end both as far as this
life is concerned (Eph. 2:10) and ultimately in that which is to come (Rom.
8:29). These two elements become applicable and important when we consider the
“problem of good.” In most radical modern forms of the common grace theory it
is argued that, because God in this life gives good and unmerited gifts to the
reprobate wicked, this means that He must have a temporary favour or love for
them. But the cause of God giving these things must be sought in the end or
purpose God has ordained for them, just as the reason God afflicts and brings
evil upon the righteous must be sought in His end purposes for them. In both
cases, the way in which God views these two different types of people cannot be
understood without specific reference to His final purposes concerning them.
Such passages as Proverbs 16:4 and more particular Psalm 73:17, 18, show
clearly that, since the end purpose of God towards the reprobate wicked is
wrath and destruction, the cause of Him giving them good things is to prepare
them for this end, and so cannot be an expression of love.
Secondly,
the whole issue of hypothetical universalism centres around God’s purposes with
regard not only to the non-elect, but around the question, “What did God want or will or desire the death
of Christ to achieve?” Universalists teach that Christ died for all, and that
all will then be saved. Arminians teach that Christ died for none in
particular, so making all potentially savable. Calvinists teach that Christ
died only for the elect, and that He completely secured their salvation “to the
uttermost.” Although Amyrauld proffered allegiance to the Calvinistic creed of
the Synod of Dordt (which was the original rebuttal of Arminianism), his
position is actually a mediate one between Calvinism and Arminianism. John Owen
summed up the theory as follows:
Christ died for all,
but (only) conditionally for some, if they do believe, or will do so (which He
knows they cannot do by themselves); and absolutely (or unconditionally) for
His own, even those on whom He purposeth to bestow faith and grace, so as
actually to be made possessors of the good things by Him purchased.9
The essence of the problem is this: whom does God
will or desire to be saved? Only His people? Or is there a sense in which God
wants or wills or desires the salvation of all men, either in His decrees, or
in the cross of Christ, or in the preaching of the gospel? Charles Hodge, in
his brilliant critique of the Amyrauldian scheme pinpoints this as the main
error of Amyrauld. And it must be noted that these three are related in such a
way that if one is made universal then they all must be universal. The
preaching of the gospel is not universal in that, while the sound of the
preaching goes to all (the call to faith), its promises of life and salvation
are particular and addressed to the elect. If these gracious promises are seen
as universal in the preaching of the gospel, it means that God actually possesses
salvation for all men to be able to offer it sincerely to all, thus implying a
universal atonement of Christ through which they were purchased for all.
It cannot however be
supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He
does not intend to effect; that He adopts means for an end which is never to be
attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and
power to secure His purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose power and
wisdom are infinite. If all men are not saved, God never purposed their
salvation, and never devised and put into operation the means designed to
accomplish that end.10
But can it be that, while God particularly purposes
the salvation only of the elect in His decree, yet He has a loving desire that
goes beyond His decree and is not satisfied by the effects of the decree? This
is what Amyrauld, the “Universal Calvinist” taught, and it is also what many
contemporary Calvinists believe. But what does Hodge have to say about this
matter with regard to Amyrauld?
The motive (so to
speak) of God in sending His Son is not, as the theory assumes, general
benevolence or that love of which all men equally are the objects, but that
particular mysterious, infinite love in which God, in giving His Son, gives
Himself and all conceivable and possible good.11
And, by inference, if God does not have benevolence
to the reprobate wicked in Christ,
and in Christ alone, where is to be found all conceivable and possible good, it
is logical to conclude that, since the non-elect are by definition outside Christ, God can have no love or favour to them at all.
There are contemporary Calvinists who hold, like
Amyrauld, that God has two contradictory wills or desires. According to this
theory, God in His decretive will desires the salvation of only the elect, but
in His preceptive will desires the salvation of all sinners. The most obvious
fallacy involved with this is the violence it does to God’s character in saying
that He is subject to divine schizophrenia (New Latin, “split mind”), and to
the character of God’s special revelation in saying that it does not give an
adequate or even true picture of “the way things really are” as God decrees
them. Furthermore, the fact that God wills the salvation of only some is
revealed in His preceptive will (or else we would not know about it), and that
we have a special revelation or preceptive will at all is due to the fact that
it is contained in God’s decretive will. The proper distinction is rather
between God’s will of decree (which
deals with the indicative—what we will do) and His will of command (which deals with the imperative—what we ought
to do). The use of grammatical terms at this point is deliberate. Those who
hold to two different and differing wills and desires in God usually violate a
simple law of logic in their exegesis by making indicative inferences from
imperative sentences.
These “two wills” must
be seen as different aspects of the same simple will and desire of God, and
both are equally concerned with the conversion of the elect and the hardening
of the reprobate (as with Pharaoh). From an exegetical perspective, those
verses usually quoted to support this double will are expressed in purely
Arminian terms, showing the true roots of Amyrauldianism.
Third, we come to the word “offer” and all that it entails. It is not my
desire here to go into the whole issue of the external call of the gospel and
its relation both to the eternal decrees of God and the cross of Christ.12
Rather I will limit my thoughts to a few comments. 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?” Two methods for answering this question can be put
forward. The first method is by examination of the etymology of the word
“offer,” that is, the way in which the word and its meaning have developed
historically. David Engelsma says in his book, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel:
It is of no consequence, therefore, that the term “offer” appears in
Calvin, in other Reformed theologians, and in such Reformed creeds as the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The
word “offer” has originally a sound meaning: “serious call,” “presentation of
Christ.”13
That C. H. Spurgeon also
saw the word “offer” in these terms can be deduced from his redefinition of the
86th answer of the Westminster
Shorter Catechism in “Spurgeon’s Catechism,” where, in answer 69, the
phrase, “as He is offered to us in the gospel,” is rendered “as He is set forth
in the gospel.”
The second method is
that of analysing the context in which the word “offer” appears in the works of
Reformed authors. William Cunningham will be taken as a typical example of one
such author who uses the word “offer” both often and freely. The question is
not only, “What did he mean by it?” But also, “What did he NOT mean by it?”
and, “What were his grounds for using it?” To the modern propagator of the
offer, and to his Amyrauldian forebears, it is held to be a gracious desire of
God to have all men saved, the ground of it being either in His universal love
and mercy for all, or even in the general sufficiency and universal
availability of the atonement of Christ for all. So then, for Cunningham, what
was the free offer of the gospel? He says:
[There is] no reason why Calvinists should hesitate to follow the course,
which Scripture so plainly sanctions and requires, of proclaiming the glad
tidings of salvation to all men indiscriminately, without any distinction or
exception, setting forth, without hesitation or qualification, the fullness and
freeness of the gospel offers and invitations [Note: now follows a definition of what exactly he means by this],—of
inviting, encouraging, and requiring every descendant of Adam with whom they
come into contact [Note: here showing
that the gospel message must be preached to all], to come to Christ and lay
hold of Him [Note: here showing that the
gospel message contains a universal command], with the assurance that those
who do come to Him He will in no wise reject [Note: here showing that the gospel message also contains a particular
promise of salvation addressed to the elect under various names, e.g., “those
who do come”].14
What is the ground or
warrant for making this offer? Is it the mercy and love of God to all sinners?
Is it God’s desire or will for all sinners’ salvation? Or is it the sufficient
death of Christ for all sinners? Cunningham says:
The sole ground or warrant for men’s act, in offering 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!15
Is there any limitation
to this offer of the gospel as far as God is concerned? Or in the preaching of
the gospel does God forget or bypass His decree and will and desire suddenly
that all should accept the offer and be saved?
Calvinists, while they admit that pardon and salvation are offered
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.16
Fourth, and finally, there is the issue of conditions in salvation. This is an
issue, in my opinion, over which both conflicting contemporary sides have to
some degree misunderstood each other. As shown before, the theological motif of
condition is important to the Amyrauldian scheme. However, the word is also
used in the Westminster Standards.
Did the two mean it in the same sense? It is proposed here that they did not.
So, what then does “condition” mean?
In logic, a conditional
proposition is an “if … then …” statement. Take, for example, the sentence, “If
you cut yourself, then you will bleed,” which says that the second part of the
sentence (the bleeding) will come about if the first part of the sentence has
been fulfilled (the cutting). This seems all very well, but the problem comes
when the conditional proposition is applied to theological issues, primarily
because of the element of causation between the first part of the sentence
(called the antecedent) and the
second part (called the consequent).
To apply this theologically, let us consider Acts 16:31, which basically says,
“If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then you will be saved and your
house.” This is a conditional proposition, and it is in this simple sense that
the Westminster divines meant it to
be taken, for example, in the 32nd Question of the Larger Catechism. Now the problem arises
when we seek consistently to apply this causal explanation to the verse, and
come to the erroneous conclusion that we are saved because we have believed,
rather than the Calvinistic conclusion that we believe because we have been
saved, as the Catechism itself goes
on to show (all Calvinists agree that Acts 16:31 does not mean, “If you
believe, then this act will cause you to be saved,” but rather, “If you
exercise the gift of faith, then you have the promise that God has saved you”).
It is because of this confusion that conditions in salvation have been validly
denied by some theologians who are zealous to maintain the status of faith as
an effect of salvation rather than cause. But in the system of Amyrauld,
faith was seen as man’s work in salvation insofar as he accepted the offer
freely and without which God was thus not able to save. All Calvinists agree as
to the falsehood of this.
To conclude (but not
apply), Amyrauldianism in its time was considered a dangerous error rather than
an outright heresy, but through the centuries has been kept alive in increasing
subtlety by moderate and universalistic Calvinists. It lives today primarily
through the modern radical interpretations of the theories of common grace and
the well-meant or free offer of the gospel. The present author holds that while
there is not much intrinsically wrong with the phrases themselves, properly
understood in their original uses, the definitions attached to them usually now
go far beyond what those who first propagated them meant by them. Some might
even consider it a better thing to drop these phrases altogether, as Luther
thought it better to drop the term “free-will,” though it is possible to give
them (and it) biblically sound definitions. Others might not. Whatever the
outcome, it is hoped that this article will cause some stirring of thought in
the minds of those whose views are condemned in it, and will serve to encourage
those who know their Bibles and history and regard the slippery-slope decline
in much of contemporary Reformed and Presbyterian thought to be directly
traceable back to the errors of Amyrauld.
*
* * *
* * *
* * *
*
----------------
FOOTNOTES:
1. G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), German Idealist
philosopher, appointed Professor at the University of Berlin in 1818, where he
became famous and influential, and is so right down to our modern times. He is
the originator of the “dialectic” system of reasoning, which has permeated the
modern world, teaching that two mutually simultaneous contradictories can be
both simultaneously true, and that we ought to hold the two contradictory
elements in tension together. This idea underlies Marxist Dialectic
Materialism, and Barthian Theology.
2. Amyrauldianism: otherwise known as “New Light,”
or “New Methodism,” or “Hypothetical Universalism” (Ed.).
3. B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, p. 94.
4. Publ. IVP, Leicester, 1988. Article by Roger
Nicole, an expert on Amyrauld.
5. If proof is needed that the whole idea of
conditions in salvation was of vital importance to the Amyrauldians see
Berkhof’s History of Christian Doctrines,
pages 153 and 190, where the motive of condition is shown to be central to both
the Amyrauldian’s view of the decree and of the atonement.
6. Cf. Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, pp. 67 and 68.
7. IVP, New
Dictionary of Theology, Leic., 1988 article cited, page 17.
8. R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, p. 235.
9. Cf. John Owen, “The Death of Death,” Works, Vol. X, page 222. This quote is
rather frightening when we consider how closely it parallels the views of some
contemporary Calvinists on the nature of the covenant of grace.
10. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
11. Ibid., p. 324.
12. This has already been done excellently by the
contemporary theologian, John H. Gerstner, in his book on Dispensationalism, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth
(Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991). The present author asks all
interested parties in the whole free-offer controversy to read pages 118-131 of
this book. A clearer and more decisive analysis could not be hoped for!
13. David Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Reformed Fre Publishing Association, 1st Edition, 1980), p. 81, and
in second, enlarged edition (1994), p. 140.
14. William Cunningham, D. D., The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 401.
15. Cunningham, Historical
Theology, Vol. II, p. 347.
16. Ibid.,
Vol. II, p. 396.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Reformed Journal (BRJ) is the publication of the British Reformed Fellowship, usually with contribution from members, and currently published biannually. It contains doctrinal articles aimed at the propagation of the Reformed faith throughout the British Isles, Europe and abroad.
If anyone would be interested in subscribing to this fine publication, CLICK HERE
If anyone would be interested in subscribing to this fine publication, CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment