Q. 1. “Herman Hoeksema, in denying common grace and the
well-meant offer, was a hyper-Calvinist, a rationalist, and unReformed.”
(1) Not according to the
Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo, 1924:
According
to the judgment of the broadest ecclesiastical tribunal that met at Kalamazoo
in 1924—the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches—who examined Herman
Hoeksema’s teachings and also the protests that were levelled against him from various
ministers throughout the denomination, in order to try him for “heresy.”
According to the judgment of synod, Herman Hoeksema was
“fundamentally Reformed according to our confessions, albeit with a tendency
towards onesidedness.” (Acts of Synod 1924, p. 147; English
translation). It was also stated by the advisory committee (cf. Acts 1924, p.
122) that it has always been “characteristic of supralapsarians to view
everything in light of God’s plan,” that “this has never been condemned by the
churches” and that “similar expressions [to those of Rev. Hoeksema in his
preaching and teaching] have, from time to time, been used” by some in the
past “without being disciplined by the church.”
Though the content of the protests against Herman
Hoeksema included such harsh and strong accusations—e.g. in denying common
grace and the well-meant offer, he was supposedly “guilty of public sin,” “denying
the very foundations of Calvinism” and was “worthy of deposition”—the Synod did
not discipline him, neither did they advise that he should be censured and
deposed.
For Hoeksema’s own account of 1924-25, see The Protestant Reformed Churches in America
(1947).
Individuals are certainly entitled to their own
opinions, but at the end of the day, a SYNOD of a reputable denomination
vindicated Herman Hoeksema from all such charges of “hyper-Calvinism” and
“rationalism” (which are indeed very serious charges that would place a
minister outside of the Reformed community). The protests that contained such
charges were examined and read by that body of men in 1924 and were rejected.
Article 31 of the Church Order of Dordt states:
... whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote (e.g. that such and
such a person is Reformed according to the confessions and is not a
hyper-Calvinist, not a heretic, or worthy of deposition etc.) shall be considered settled and binding
...
(2) Not according to David
Silversides:
In
a book defending the Free Offer, David Silversides writes:
... In more recent years, however, another
position has appeared which could be described as somewhere between orthodox Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, though
claiming to represent the former. This view is represented by the able
Dutch-American theologian Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965) and the denomination he
was partly instrumental in founding [aka, the Protestant Reformed Churches in
America – Ed.] ... Hoeksema's teaching ... has been embraced, in whole or in
part, by individuals in several denominations. Hoeksema held that God's love is
only ever shown to his elect. Hence, he maintained that, whilst the gospel is
to be preached to all and all are to be commanded to repent, there is no offer
of mercy in Christ expressive of God's love to all who hear. Some who hold to
this view, but profess commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith and
Catechisms, for example, define the use of the term ‘offer’ in these documents
in a manner consistent with their views [aka, meaning ‘to present, set forth,
proclaim,’ etc. – Ed.]. (Source: The Free
Offer: Biblical & Reformed [Marpet Press, 2005], pp. 10-11; emphasis
added)
Notice from this extract, we learn that,
(1)
Not even one of the chiefest defenders of common grace and the well-meant offer
would go as far as some brazenly have done so, to label Herman Hoeksema and the
PRCA “Hyper-Calvinist.” For according to his own words, Herman Hoeksema and the
PRCA are “SOMEWHERE BETWEEN” orthodox Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. In other
words, they are not “Hyper-Calvinist.” This is wonderful news; truly ground-breaking!
(2)
It is NOT “hyper-Calvinist” to hold that “God’s love is only ever shown to his
elect,” nor to hold that “there is no offer of mercy in Christ expressive of God’s
love to all who hear.”
(3) Silversides exonerates (acquits) Herman Hoeksema from the charge of
hyper-Calvinism when he concedes that he maintained that “the gospel is to be
preached to all and all are to be commanded to repent” (which to deny such is,
historically, hyper-Calvinism).
###################################
Q. 2. “The PRCA believe that justification is wholly in
eternity and not in time, and that the moment we believe is rather simply that
we come to ‘realise’ for the first time that we are ‘already’ justified.”
Ronald Hanko: “We believe that justification is something
that takes place in time, when we believe on Jesus Christ—and we
are justified only then. We believe
that God decreed the justification of
His people from eternity, but we wholeheartedly agree with the Westminster Standards which say that we
“are not actually justified” until we “believe.”
Herman
Hoeksema calls justification by faith “actual justification.” He did not believe that justification by faith
is just simply a matter of “learning that you’re justified” or “being assured”
that you’re justified. He believed (and he says this in the chapter on
Justification in his Reformed Dogmatics)
that faith is imputed to us as righteousness, and it is in that way we are
justified and made righteous before God.” (Source:
“Common Grace: Is it Biblical?”—a public debate between David Silversides and
Ronald Hanko [1995])
Synod of Ultrecht,
1905—Conclusions: ref. “Eternal Justification”: “… It is incorrect to say that our
confessions know only of a justification out of and through faith, seeing that
both the Word of God in Romans 4:25 and our Confession in Article 20
emphatically speak of an objective justification sealed in the resurrection of
Christ, which, in order precedes subjective justification; and further as
concerns the case itself all our churches heartily believe and confess that
Christ in the counsel of peace has given himself from eternity as surety for
his people, and has taken their guilt upon himself, even as he thereupon,
through his suffering and death on Calvary, gave himself a ransom for us and
reconciled us with God, while we were still enemies, but that it must be
maintained just as definitely, on the basis of the Word of God and of the
Confession, that we, personally,
become partakers of this benefit only by a true faith: reason why the synod earnestly warns against every
presentation of the matter which either denies the eternal surety of
Christ for his elect or the demand of
a true faith to become justified before God in the tribunal of the conscience.”—
Of this statement, Herman Hoeksema comments: “This, therefore, is what we mean by justification from eternity”
(Reformed Dogmatics [Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966], p. 502).
###################################
Q. 3. “The PRCA do not believe that the elect are ever under
the wrath of God.”
Ronald Hanko: “That simply is not true. If John Bunyan
“experienced the wrath of God” as he says, then I believe that he meant what he
said. I think that every one of God’s people experiences that same wrath of
God.
What
needs to be realised is that there is difference between “wrath” and “hatred.”
The two are often confused.
I
don’t believe that the elect are ever “hated” by God, but I certainly believe
they can be under the “judicial wrath” of God—and that they often are under the judicial wrath of God even after they are brought to salvation—that
they can experience the heavy hand of God against them in their sins—as David
did when he sinned with Bathsheba. He records his experience as the wrath of
God against his sins in Psalm 32. I have no problem with that.
There
is a difference, however, between wrath and hatred. I can be very “wrathful”
with my children, but that doesn’t mean I “hate” them—I certainly had better not hate them in being wrathful with
them. In fact, my “wrath” with them is an expression of my love for them—at least it should be, by the grace of God—I
certainly hope that it is.
God
certainly can be angry with His people, and when He comes to them to save them,
then He saves them from wrath, and
also from that deep sense of condemnation that’s part of the wrath of God, to
give them peace through His grace. But that does not mean that He “hates” them.
The “wrath” that is against them is not a wrath which is rooted in “hatred” for
them, but is a wrath which is rooted in His eternal and unchangeable “love” for
them. Even after they have been saved when He reveals His wrath, He reveals it
in order to turn them from their sins and to bring them back to Himself.
There
is a difference between wrath and hatred, and I by no means deny that the elect
can be under the “wrath” of God. Wrath and hatred are not the same.” (Source: Transcript from “Common Grace:
Is it Biblical?”—a debate between David Silversides and Ronald Hanko [1995])
###################################
Q. 4. “[Herman] Hoeksema never answered adequately the charge that on his
view the elect can never have been under the wrath of God and Christ need not
have died for them in history.” (Cornelius
Van Til, “Common Grace and the Gospel”)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965): “Now when God caused that Church in Adam
to fall into sin and death, did He do so in His love or in His hatred? In His
eternal love. And when that Church in Adam had fallen, did He hate or love that
Church? And did He deal with that Church, even immediately after the fall, in
His love or in His hate? In His love. For He had provided some better thing for
that Church than the first paradise. He had prepared for them a city. He loved
the elect in Adam before the fall, He loved them in the fall, He loved them
after the fall. And mark you well, this is not an abstraction, as if it were
thus only in God’s eternal counsel, but this eternal love was in every “moment”
of God’s dealings with His Church. You may object that they, nevertheless,
became “children of wrath, even as the others.” We have no objection to this. God’s holy wrath is kindled against all
sin, in the elect and in the reprobate. But do not forget, that if you
view this wrath of God against the elect’s sin on the background of God’s
eternal counsel, it is a wrath of love,
a wrath that is borne to the end in
their stead by Christ Jesus their Lord.”
(Source: The Standard
Bearer, vol. 19, [January 15, 1943], p. 174; emphasis added.)
###################################
Q. 5. “Herman Hoeksema was the only theologian in church history that taught
that God loves and takes delight only in Himself”
Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274): “For
in God there is happiness essentially; since His very Being is His operation,
whereby He enjoys no other than
Himself.” (Summa Theologica,
I-II, Q. 3, Art. 2, ad. 4; emphasis added.)
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711): “Love is an
essential attribute of God by which the Lord delights Himself in that which is
good, it being wellpleasing to Him, and uniting Himself to it consistent with
the nature of the object of His love. The love of God by definition is the
loving God Himself, for which reason John states that ‘God is love’ (1 John
4:8). When we view the love of God relative to its objects, however, several
distinctions need to be made. We call this love natural when it refers
to the manner in which God delights in
Himself as the supreme manifestation of goodness. “For the Father loveth the
Son” (John 5:20). We call this love volitional when it refers to
the manner in which God delights in His creatures. And thus this love is either
the love of benevolence or the love of His delight. (The Christian’s
Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke [1700; Grand
Rapids MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], 1:123, emphasis added.)
Herman
Bavinck (1854-1921): “All
things need him [God]; he needs nothing and nobody. He always aims at himself because he cannot rest in anything other
than himself. Inasmuch as he himself is the absolutely good and perfect
one, he may not love anything else
except with a view to himself. He may not and cannot be content with
less than absolute perfection. When he loves others, he loves himself in them: his own virtues,
works, and gifts. For the same reason he is also blessed in himself as the sum
of all goodness, of all perfection ... Love is most certainly identical with
God’s being. It is independent, eternal, and unchangeable, like God himself. It
has its origin in him and also, by way of his creatures, returns to him.” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, pp. 211,
216; emphasis added.)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965): “God is gracious as the Holy One, as the
one who is self-centered and is consecrated to himself, who seeks and finds
himself in love. God is attracted by himself, and he is graciously disposed to
himself. He is charmed by his own loveliness. He delights in his own infinite
beauty, for he is the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Son is the
Word, the express image of the Father’s substance; in him the Father expresses
all the beauty of his image. In the Spirit the Son returns to the Father, and
the Father contemplates himself in the loveliness of his infinite perfections.
Of the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, the triune God knows himself
and contemplates himself in his perfect gracefulness and charm with infinite
delight. He is graciously inclined to himself.” (Reformed Dogmatics
[RFPA], 2nd edition, volume 2, section on “God's Grace”)
###################################
Q. 6. “In Hoeksema’s theology, the elect are never seen by God as sinners …”
Herman
Hoeksema (1886-1965): “… Do the elect ever occur as sinners? My brief
answer would be: they do. Nevertheless, from eternity they occur as sinners in Christ Jesus, as the objects
of God’s free grace. But this brings us to the entire question of supra and
infra, which cannot be expected to discuss in this connection …” (Protestant Reformed Theological Journal,
vol. 2, no. 1 [Dec. 1968], p. 44.)
###################################
Q. 7. “The PRCA erroneously believe the gospel is only to be
offered to the elect”
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965) [1]:
“[Grace is never general, but always particular]. But this does not alter the
fact that the Lord God … causes men to be under the preaching of the gospel
without changing their heart through regenerating and illuminating grace. Also through this calling the responsibility
of man and his ethical character are maintained. God speaks to him through that
gospel. In that gospel He calls him to repentance, to conversion and faith. And
in a way that is very clear, and not to be denied, He presents to him the way
of sin as a way that displeases God and that makes the sinner the object of
God’s wrath … Moreover, in that gospel He opens for him that repents a way to
be reconciled to God and to return to the heart of the Father, and assures him
that he will never be cast out, and promises him eternal life … All this is
being preached in the gospel, and is preached without distinction to all that are under the gospel, also to the
reprobate” (Reformed Dogmatics
[Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966], pp. 470-471,
emphasis added).
[2]: “Our difference does not at all have to do
with the question whether the gospel,
according to the will of God, must
also be preached to all who are in our audience, reprobate as well as elect.
This is taken for granted on both sides. Note well, [the issue] is not whether
the gospel must be proclaimed by the preacher to all men who sit in his audience without distinction. Every
Reformed man believes this” (A Power of
God Unto Salvation, Or Grace No Offer, pp. 20, 27, emphasis added).
[3]: “We have nothing against a universal
‘demand’ of faith and conversion. About this there is no dispute … That the demand of conversion and faith
applies to all, even though all cannot fulfil it and even though it is
only almighty grace that enables one to fulfil it, we readily grant” (Ibid., p. 30, emphasis added).
[4]:
“10. But, granting the truth of all
this, is it not a fact, that the gospel is preached to many that are not elect
and are not saved?
Most certainly. It would be
quite impossible to preach the gospel to the elect only; neither is
this the will of God, for the Scriptures declare that many are called but few
are chosen.” (The Protestant Reformed
Churches in America [1947], p. 335)
###################################
Q. 8. “The PRC sought a breach with the CRC in 1924”
Herman
Hoeksema (1886-1965): “[The Protestant Reformed Churches] neither
desired nor sought the breach of 1924-25, but, on the contrary, did all they
conscientiously could do to prevent the breach.
The Christian Reformed Churches caused the separation. They adopted “Three Points” that are Pelagian
and Arminian in their real tendency, and they were determined to shut the
mouths of their faithful members, who raised their voice in protest against
that triple corruption of the Reformed truth that was officially coined as true
doctrine in 1924.” (The Protestant
Reformed Churches in America [1947], pp. 289-290)
###################################
Q. 9. “Herman Hoeksema taught election and reprobation as if
there is perfect symmetry between the two concepts” (G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965):
[1]
“[When] preaching on election and reprobation, we must not place them dualistically over against each other.
They are not on the same level
… Reprobation should always be presented as subordinate
to election, as serving the
latter according to God's counsel.” (Source: The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel; emphasis
added.)
[2] “Reprobation
is immediately connected with election, but cannot
be placed on a par with election. Reprobation follows election, and reprobation serves election … As the church follows this way, the
reprobate shell of the human organism serves
the church of Christ. In the shell of reprobation the elect kernel becomes
ripe. For that reason reprobation cannot
be put on the same line with election.” (Source: Reformed Dogmatics [RFPA, 2004], vol. 1, 477; emphasis added)
###################################
Q. 10. “The PRC deny that faith is a condition to salvation,
and they also condemned one of their ministers for preaching, ‘If you believe,
you will be saved; if you don’t believe you will be damned.’”
[One
who makes such a claim] badly and inexcusably misrepresents the position of the
Protestant Reformed Churches.
I
cannot understand how [anybody that makes this claim] can be so careless in [their]
recounting of history. I myself have said from the pulpit on numerous occasions
the very statement which [it is claimed] we do not believe. In fact, worse yet,
the very statement itself is almost a quotation from Scripture (Rom. 10:9), and
we are not so bereft of our senses that we would condemn someone for quoting
Scripture.
[The
one who makes such an outrageous claim is referring] to a controversy in our
churches in the early 1950s, in which controversy a minister was condemned and
ultimately suspended from office for teaching heresy. But that heresy was not:
“If you believe, you will be saved.” That heresy was: “God promises to every
one of you that if you believe, you will be saved.” That is quite different.
The statement teaches (and perhaps [the one making the false claim] agrees with
that teaching) that God’s promise comes as a promise to everyone who hears the
gospel, but that it is a conditional
promise, the fulfilment of which is dependent upon faith. It is a general and conditional promise which our churches have condemned as Arminian.
The
reason is clear to any thinking man. Does God actually promise salvation to a
reprobate man? If He does, God promises something which He never fulfils; and
the promise becomes a farce. I mock a man without legs if I promise him $1000
if he walks a mile.
If
it is said: “Yes, but faith is the condition,” then the burning question is: Is
faith a part of the promise (as the Westminster [Confession] teaches in 7.3), or is faith a condition to the promise? It is absurd that God
would say to a totally depraved sinner: “I promise you eternal life if I will
give you faith to believe.” A general promise to all makes faith the work of
man.
The
command to believe in Christ comes to
all; the promise is particular and unconditional to believers.
But
does not the Westminster Confession use
the term “condition”? Indeed it does. But [it] ought to [be pointed out] that
the term “condition” in the Westminster
Confession, and as it was used by
Presbyterian and Reformed divines for centuries, means “necessary means.” Faith
is the necessary and God-given means
of salvation. It is the means of salvation in order that the great salvation
God gives us in Christ may become our actual experience already in this life.
Faith is the necessary means, for faith is the bond that unites us to Christ
and makes us partakers of Christ and all His benefits.
If
the word “condition” is used in this sense, no one has any objection. But faith
as a condition to a general promise makes faith the work of man. It is another
question whether, in the light of today’s rampant Arminianism, we ought to use
the word “condition” at all. It is not found in Scripture, and it is not found
in the Three Forms of Unity, except
in the mouths of the Arminians. (Herman
C. Hanko, “An Answer to David Silversides” [2019], pp. 4-5)
###################################
Q. 11. “The PRC categorically deny that God makes any offer in
the gospel whatsoever.” (Phil Johnson)
“[We]
do not “categorically deny” that one may speak of any offer in the gospel
whatsoever. What we object to is The Free Offer of the Gospel. And that
is something else again.
We
do not deny that Christ is and can be offered in the gospel preaching in a
proper sense. In the gospel offer of which the Canons speak, Christ is
set forth before all as the one sacrifice for sin, God’s Savior from wrath.
Christ Jesus is trumpeted as the revelation of God as He graciously wills to
have mercy upon sinners. We are authorized to declare to every man in the
gospel, “Jehovah is a forgiving God. Turn ye unto Him and He will have mercy
upon you. Everyone who turns to Him seeking salvation and forgiveness in Christ
Jesus’ name shall find it. He has never turned one such seeking, sorrowing
sinner away yet, and I can assure you, He is not about to begin now. Repent and
believe, and thou too shalt be saved!” This is the true gospel offer. In these
terms Christ crucified and risen is to be set forth for the consideration of
all, of everyone without exception to whom the gospel comes. You can even throw
in a “Whosoever will, let him come!” We would not mind at all. Really! If
Scripture says it, say it, by all means—to all. You are free, yea, called to do
so.
One
wonders how much more “promiscuous” one must be to have a good reputation these
days! But this is not what is meant by the “offer” anymore these days. It has
been hijacked by the WMO of the gospel, giving men license to use language that
neither the apostles nor the fathers of Dordt used. This is why we tend to stay
away from the use of the word altogether—people hear the word “offer of the
gospel,” and think “free offer.”
The
free offer authorizes preachers to speak of the God who has in love elected
just some to salvation as yet also wanting and wishing for the salvation of
every sinner, yearning for their salvation with all His divine heart (cf. The
Banner of Truth, Aug.- Sept. 2005, p. 41). In the end, the free offer
authorizes men to say to every hearer in God’s name (be they Herod, be they
Judas Iscariot), “God loves you. Yes, Christ died for you!”
This
is the language of the WMO. It is sheer Arminianism. It is precisely this
language that occasioned the writing of the Canons of Dordt to begin
with, in defense of true Calvinism and the gospel. And yet, according to the
promoters of the free offer, such language is now to be considered the very
“marrow” of Calvinistic gospel preaching. Astounding!” (Rev. Kenneth
Koole, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 82, no. 4 [Nov. 15, 2005], pp. 77-78)
###################################
Q. 12. “Herman Hoeksema denied that there is any offer of
salvation to the reprobate …”
“[To claim that] Hoeksema’s position was that there
is ‘no offer of salvation to the reprobate’ is incorrect and misleading. What
Hoeksema denied (and the PRC with him) was that there is any **well-meant**
offer of salvation to the reprobate ...
[T]here is a difference between the two.
To be sure, these days we would prefer not to use
the word ‘offer’ at all. It has become so identified with the WMO that
invariably when used it is assumed one has in mind the ‘free offer’ with its
general love of God. Nonetheless, we are
talking about two different species here.
The WMO is defined by the content of what it declares, an all-inclusive,
general, divine love for all who are addressed, even to the point of declaring ‘Christ
has died for you!’ Whereas the
promiscuous **gospel offer** is a confessional matter, has different content,
and was maintained by Hoeksema,
Where statements can be found in Hoeksema in which
he takes issue with the notion that God ‘offers salvation to the reprobate,’
one may be sure he is using the word ‘offer’ as shorthand for the ‘well-meant
offer,’ and the context will make that plain.”
(Kenneth Koole, “The Standard Bearer,”
vol. 89, no. 17 [June 1, 2013], pp. 389-390)
###################################
Q. 13. “The whole Reformed/Scottish
Covenanter/Puritan/Westminster Confession witness refutes Hoeksema. It does not
have to be a contemporary refutation to be relevant, truth stands the test of
time .... The reformed conception of covenant is that covenant is the means by
which God saves; Hoeksema stringently denied this and said it can by no means
be the means but can only be the end itself. The whole reformed church says
that we are saved by way of covenant; Hoeksema explicitly denies this and
thereby places himself outside of the reformed, confessional stream of
orthodoxy on this point.”
First,
there is development of doctrine. According to the dismissal out of hand of the
covenant as a bond of fellowship which is salvation, Luther and the
Reformation’s doctrine of justification by faith rather than by faith and works
should have been rejected, because the church and its theologians had not
taught justification by faith alone for nearly one thousand years. We should
all be faithful members of the Roman church today.
Second,
the standard of the truth of the gospel is not tradition but Scripture alone.
Evidently, the one who made this charge does not believe this fundamental truth
of Christianity.
Third,
the Bible teaches that the covenant is salvation itself as the fellowship of
God with His people in Christ. Identifying the nature of the covenant and
describing it as salvation, the Bible often defines the covenant as God’s being
our God and we being His people. The evidence of this claim in detail is, among
other works, my book, Trinity and Covenant (https://cprc.co.uk/product/trinity-and-covenant/).
Fourth,
invariably those who understand the covenant as the way of salvation also
describe the covenant as a contract. This compels them to explain the covenant
as conditional. Salvation then depends upon our fulfilling the conditions of
the covenant/contract. This makes salvation by the covenant conditioned upon
our faith and obedience, which is the denial of gracious salvation. It is this
aspect of viewing the covenant as a means unto salvation which, more than any
other, has made the PR theologians re-examine the traditional conception of the
covenant as a contract.
Fifth,
it is not true that the Reformed tradition has viewed the covenant as a
contract leading to salvation without exception. I can find, and have found,
significant instances in the Reformed tradition of Reformed men viewing the
covenant as the bond of fellowship that is salvation itself. I refer, for
example, to H. De Cock and to H. Bavinck. There are also expressions in A.
Kuyper that go in this direction.
Sixth,
it is in general a serious weakness of the Scottish Presbyterian tradition that
the theologians viewed the covenant as a conditional contract upon which
salvation depended; that is, they taught that salvation depends upon our
fulfilling the conditions of faith and obedience. All contracts depend upon
both contracting parties. If they carry on the Presbyterian tradition in
viewing the covenant as a way to salvation, they violently depart from that
tradition by making salvation depend upon something that the sinner must do,
which is the denial of grace. This ought to make sound Presbyterian theologians
re-examine that tradition concerning that tradition, rather than blindly
carrying on the tradition.
(DJE, 07/09/2020)
###################################
Q. 14. “Herman Hoeksema’s theology is on a par with the
‘individualism’ of Liberal and Fundamentalist theology … It doesn’t take into
consideration that God deals with man as a whole …”
Full
response here:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2020/11/individualistic-as-opposed-to-being.html
###################################
Q. 15. “Herman Hoeksema denied the general offer of salvation
…”
“In
the first place, I have no objection to the word offer in the original sense of the Latin offerre. For in this sense it simply means to
present. And in this sense, it is used even in our Confessions. For in Canons
III, IV, 9 we read: ‘Quod multi per ministerium Evangelii
vocati, non veniunt et non convertuntur, hujus culpa non est in Evangelio, nec
in Christo per Evangelium oblato’—which
is translated in our English version of the Canons: ‘It is not the fault
of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein, that those who are called by the
ministry of the word, refuse to come, and be converted.’ Now the term oblato occurring in this passage is, as Daane
very well knows, the past participle of obferro or offerre, which simply means ‘to present.’ In that
sense I have no objection to the word offer. But the Rev. Daane does not present me
correctly when he writes that I simply deny the general offer of salvation, not
only to the elect but also the reprobate. My objection in this connection, as
Daane ought to know, is against the First Point in connection with the proof
from the Confessions that is offered to substantiate the First Point by the
Synod of 1924. And taking this into consideration, Daane ought to have written
not that I object to a general offer, but that I object to the view that God on
His part offers salvation well-meaningly to the reprobate. That is the point.” (Herman
Hoeksema, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 27, no. 17 [June 1, 1951], p. 391)
###################################
Q. 16. “The PRCA believe they are the purest denomination …”
Every
denomination believes themselves to be the purest. Otherwise they would have no
basis for their separate existence. The Baptists believe they are the purest.
The Anglicans believe they are the purest. The Presbyterians, the Lutherans,
the Pentecostals …
And
even within denominations there are splinter groups who believe that they are
the purest. The 1689 Federalists, the General Baptists, the Free Will Baptists,
the Reformed Baptists, etc., etc., Then
you have the “Free Church” vs. the Free Church “Continuing” (wow, really pure) .....
You have the Church of England and the “Church of England CONTINUING” (wow ....
amazing …)
###################################
Q. 17. “The PRCA hold to this weird idea that Christ’s voice
is only in the preaching of a man lawfully called to that office …”
EVERYBODY who has a clue about
preaching in church history holds this view! Its not a novelty. See the
following link:
https://cprc.co.uk/quotes/christspeakingpreaching/
###################################
Q. 18. “The PRCA considers all churches apart from
their denomination and their sister churches as ‘false churches’.”
David J. Engelsma: [1] “The Protestant Reformed Churches do not regard churches that
hold the well-meant gospel offer and common grace as false churches” (“Bound
To Join: Letters on Church Membership” [RFPA, 2010], p. 10)
[2]
“The Protestant Reformed Churches and their spokesmen have never dreamed of
teaching that only members of these churches are saved. The charge that we
teach this is a slander by those who cannot refute our defense of the gospel of
grace and who are angered by our criticism of their corruption of the gospel of
grace. Rather than address the issues, they revile the churches. It is the old
story of killing the messenger.
We
are far too busy working on behalf of our own membership’s salvation, including
working out our salvation in all areas of life in a wicked and hostile world,
to wile away our time idly questioning the salvation of the members of other
churches.
We
hope God has multitudes of his saved people outside the Protestant Reformed
Churches, in all the world. Wherever they are, they are, like us, justified by
faith alone—apart from all works of their own; they are, like us, totally
depraved sinners, who are saved by irresistible grace; they are, like us,
infallibly preserved unto everlasting glory; they are, like us, saved only on
the basis of the atoning death of Christ, which satisfied, then and there, at
Golgotha some two thousand years ago, for every one for whom he died; and they
are, like us, saved because God elected them unto grace and glory in the
eternal, unconditional decree. And wherever they are, they, like us, give to
God alone the glory of their salvation—not merely in the mouthing of a cliche,
but in the content of their confession and by a godly life.” (“Federal
Vision: Heresy at the Root” [RFPA, 2012], pp. 180-181)
###################################
Q. 19. “DJE stated that all who hold to the WMO
worship a false god … (Quote): ‘Is it presumptuous humbly to request of the
offer-god worshiped by professing Calvinists that he make up his mind ...?’
(‘Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel’ [2014], p. 109).”
It’s called “sarcasm” …
No comments:
Post a Comment