Prof.
Homer C. Hoeksema
[Originally published in
the Standard Bearer, vol. 60, no.
13 (April 1, 1984), pp. 293-295]
Erroll
Hulse and his magazine, Reformation Today,
represent a type-of Baptist who claim to be Calvinistic and who sometimes call
themselves Reformed Baptist. We have always claimed that the names Reformed and Baptist are a contradiction in terms. And Mr. Hulse and his
colleagues are an illustration of this contradiction.
A
recent issue of Reformation Today (No.
76) confirms this contention. In the first place, there is a lengthy article by
Mr. Hulse himself on “The Love of God for All Mankind.” In this article, which promises
to be part of a new book by Mr. Hulse to replace his The Free Offer of the Gospel, the writer goes to extremes to which,
in my opinion, he has not gone before. For example, he now refers to the common
grace which was supposed to be the basis of the “free offer” as a “benevolent
love” of God for all men; and he explains a passage such as John 3:16 as
referring to this alleged benevolent love. All in all, his writings remind one
strongly of the position taken by Prof. Harold Dekker in the 1960s with respect
to a redemptive love of God for all men, though Hulse still wants to
distinguish two loves of God. Besides, in his lengthy article on this subject,
Hulse thoroughly confuses what in our own history we referred to as the “common
grace” aspect of the First Point of 1924 and the “general grace” aspect of it.
To offer a critique of Mr. Hulse’s article in this issue, however, would take up
more space than is available in this issue. Perhaps we shall give attention to
this subject later.
In the same issue of Reformation
Today there
is an article by a Dr. Bill Downing entitled “Some Practical Implications of
‘Limited Atonement.’ ” Mr. Hulse refers to this article in an editorial and
says, “There is no contradiction between the teaching of Bill Downing and the
article on the benevolent love of God.” He makes no effort to prove his
contention, however. And it seems to me that the advocates of this alleged
benevolent love of God and of its concomitant doctrine of the so-called “free
offer” have a very real problem in this connection, a problem to which we shall
point a bit later. It would almost seem as though Mr. Hulse sensed this problem
when he penned the statement quoted above.
Mr. Downing approaches the problem in his article,
though rather obliquely. In his article Mr. Downing is certainly less explicit
on the doctrine of definite atonement than are the Canons of Dordt. However, I will not criticize this. After
explaining the doctrine, distinguishing it from universalism and from
Arminianism, and presenting briefly its scriptural foundation, he writes as
follows:
We move
on to consider three areas of practical truth. The first of these we pose in
the form of a question: What relationship does the extent of the atonement have
to the free offer of the Gospel? We reply that a so-called ‘limited atonement’
brings no restriction to bear upon the free offer of the Gospel! None
whatsoever! This objection does not stem from Scripture or even scriptural
reasoning, but rather from an unscriptural message. It assumed on the
inconsistent universalist
scheme that our Lord died for all equally and without exception and therefore
part of the Gospel message must be, ‘Christ died for your sins.’ But the message
that our Lord died for all the sins of all men and that such a death must
motivate them to make their religious decision we simply do not find in the
Word of God! Never in Scripture is it stated—even in the inspired preaching of
the Apostles, which should be our measure and model for preaching—do we
discover such a declaration! Such preaching actually cheapens the precious
blood of our Lord! It makes His suffering and death of little value!! It puts the
centrality of the Gospel, which in reality is the power of God unto salvation,
in the realm of mere potential and impotency! Indeed, if carefully thought through,
such preaching must restrict the full, free declaration of our Lord’s work for
sinners! …
I
said earlier that Dr. Downing approaches the real problem obliquely in this
paragraph. It is evident that he does so from the viewpoint of a possible Arminian
argument, namely, that limited atonement constitutes a restriction
on the offer of the
gospel. Over against this, Dr. Downing insists that he does not want the
doctrine of universal atonement and that he does not want to preach a message
that Christ died for all the sins of all men, that this is not according to
Scripture and not according to the example of the preaching of the Apostles.
We
agree.
Nevertheless, Dr. Downing does not
approach the real problem that is involved here, nor does he seem to see that
very real problem. That problem is not one posed by the Arminian, but a problem
which any Reformed man must raise and must face with respect to the so-called
“free offer” in relation to the truth of particular atonement. The problem is this—and
I will put it very bluntly: how can God offer to all men that which He does not
have and which He Himself has not provided? For if the atonement of Christ is
particular, and it is; and if that particular atonement means that Christ, and that,
too, according to the sovereign purpose of God, has purchased for the elect,
and for them only, all the blessings of salvation; and that is precisely what it
means; then God has all the blessings of salvation only for the elect. How then
can God nevertheless offer salvation to all men?
Bear in mind that this is indeed the
question. The question is not: how can men, preachers, offer salvation to all?
But how can God, and that, too, well-meaningly
and in what Mr. Hulse calls “benevolent love,” offer salvation to all men when
He has salvation only for the elect?
Let no one say that this objection does
not stem from Scripture or from scriptural reasoning. There could be no more scriptural
question than this. For at bottom this is a question concerning God Himself. It
is a question concerning the veracity
of God who cannot lie!
And since God cannot and does not lie or
dissimulate in the preaching of the gospel, there are only two conceivable
solutions to this problem:
1) God can and does offer salvation to all
men because Christ by His death actually obtained
salvation for all men. This is the Arminian solution, to which the doctrine of
the offer inevitably leads.
2) God does not and cannot offer salvation
to all men, for the gospel is that Christ died and merited the blessings of
salvation for the elect, and for them only. This is the scriptural and
Reformed solution.
This is, of course, not by any means the
only problem which the proponents of the “free offer” must face. But it is a
significant one.
No comments:
Post a Comment