Re: The Word “Offer” in Calvin’s Writings

 

P. De Boer

 

[Source: The Standard Bearer, vol. 13, no. 20 (Aug. 1, 1937), pp. 475-476]

Several years ago, I made a rather thorough study of the use of the word “offer” in the original Latin of Calvin’s Institutes. A comparison of all the instances in which the word “offere” is used brought me to the conclusion that Calvin did not use the word in connection with the preaching of the gospel as denoting a well-formulated theological conception as does “well-meaning offer of grace.” Calvin used the term very loosely. One persistently feels that Calvin never had the question of an offer of grace before him as we have had the past years in our battle for the purity of Reformed truth. Generally, the word “offer” is used synonymously with such words as are to be translated “present,” “exhibit,” “make known,” “set forth,” “proclaim.” Hence Calvin uses the word in connection with the Lord’s Supper and says “Christ who is offered therein,” which, plainly from synonymous words as “present” and “exhibit,” simply means that Christ is set forth, presented to view by these signs. The same thing is true when Calvin speaks of the offer of grace in connection with the preaching of the gospel. In the context he uses words meaning “set forth,” “exhibit,” “present,” as entirely synonymous. This is especially clear in the original. The sad thing about the English translation is that time and again the translators use the word “offer” where the original has another word that should, more correctly, be translated “set forth,” “exhibit” or some such word. However, there are a few instances—let me emphasize that they are rare—where Calvin seems to distinguish the words, where he not only means that the gospel is presented but also that it is offered for rejection or acceptance. Twice when this is done Calvin goes out of the way to say that this offer of grace does not imply the power on the part of man to accept it, that the natural man can only reject it. In no instance does he as much as leave the impression that man can of his own accord accept that which is offered, nor does he imply that God on His part earnestly wills the salvation of all to whom the gospel is so offered. The latter is definitely the intention of Point I of ’24 when it speaks of a grace of God shown not only to the elect but to all His creatures and offers as proof the well-meaning offer of salvation to all men. Calvin, whenever the word “offer” is used in distinction from such words as “present,” “exhibit,” etc., seems to think of man as possessing a will as well as a mind. The gospel not only comes to man’s mind enlightening him sufficiently to leave him without excuse, but also to his will demanding acceptance or rejection. In the latter case, then, the word “offer” is used. But bear in mind that Calvin insists that the natural man can only reject it and that he does not conceive of it as a well-meaning approach on God’s part striving to lead man unto salvation but instead several times reminds the readers that those that reject it were thereunto appointed. I for one cannot conceive of Calvin endorsing the first point of 1924 that maintains as a doctrine that God is gracious also to the reprobate and finds its proof in a certain well-meaning offer of grace. Calvin did not have the question before him as we have had it during the last decade or so, and so cannot be expected to make the distinctions we make. We are accused of departing from the path marked out by Calvin, that great gift of God to His church, but if we have departed, why is it that we exactly emphasize the depravity of man, the sovereign predestination of God, and other fundamentals of the Reformed heritage and not the Chr. Ref. church? How is it that our people on the whole defend these doctrines more than theirs? How is it that our people are less susceptible to be led astray by the Arminian tendencies of so-called fundamentalists of our land? How is it that our people on the whole defend the Reformed principles more than they of the Chr. Ref. Churches? Nay, not we, Christian Reformed brethren, but you are off the track of John Calvin, and on the side-track of semi-Arminianism, to say the least.