Introduction
It
is now nineteen years since the event that marked the conclusion of my
opposition to the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel within the Reformed
Presbyterian Church (RPC) of Ireland. That event was the church’s annual
meeting of synod held in June 1996 at Bready, just a few miles south west of
the city of Londonderry, Northern Ireland. The synod received, considered and rejected
my protest against the free offer of the gospel. The significance of the synod
of 1996 was twofold: it officially committed the RPC of Ireland to the doctrine
of Arminian general grace—a grace of God for all men expressed in the preaching
of the gospel; it also marked the conclusion of my three-year struggle against
this doctrine within the church.
The
story of my struggle within the RPC for the truth of particular grace over
against the heresy of Arminian general grace (embodied in their doctrine of the
free offer) began one Sabbath morning in April 1993. Little did I know that the
sermon I was about to hear from my minister in Glenmanus RPC, Portrush, would
occasion a doctrinal controversy that would last some three years.
My
minister, Rev. Andrew Stewart, took as his text Isaiah 55:1–3a, which reads:
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to
the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy
wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that
which is not bread? And your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken
diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight
itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul
shall live.
In
his sermon, Andrew Stewart explained the text to mean that all men thirst for
God. Since all men thirst for God, the gracious call and accompanying gracious
promise of the text are for all men. The gracious promise of the text is
nothing less than salvation: “and your soul shall live” (55:3a). The sermon
embodied the false teaching of the free offer of the gospel—that God expresses
a sincere and well-meant desire to save all who hear the preaching. Although I
had known for some time that Stewart believed in common grace, I was still
shocked by the blatant Arminianism of his sermon. I well remember turning to my
mother as we drove home from church and saying, “That sermon was wrong; to say
that the unregenerate man can thirst for God is just wrong!” I knew it was my responsibility
before God to refute this false teaching and so, about a week later, I began to
write a response to Rev. Andrew Stewart.
What
follows in this article is both a commentary on the controversy and an
elaboration on some of the issues in an attempt to sift truth from error which,
in the form of the well-meant gospel offer, has all but carried the day in the
Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Error, which in our day of shallow theological
thinking (and, worse than that, a day characterized by an almost complete
absence of coherent, critical thinking), has been well-nigh uncritically
accepted by the membership of these churches. Accordingly, if this article
serves to strengthen the remaining opposition to the heresy of the well-meant
offer, it will have attained its purpose. Additionally, if it serves to lead to
some re-evaluation among those who espouse the well-meant offer and to its
repudiation on their behalf, I would be deeply gratified. Jesus calls attention
to the blessedness of the knowledge of the truth when speaking to those Jews
who believed in him: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free” (John 8:32).
No comments:
Post a Comment