Prof. David J. Engelsma
[Source: The Standard Bearer, vol. 72, no. 8
(January 15, 1996), pp. 173-177]
In an article in the August-September 1995 issue of The Banner of Truth magazine, “Calvin and the Free Offer,” the writer made the following reference to the Protestant Reformed Seminary:
Professors of the Protestant Reformed Seminary in the USA and their followers in the British Reformed Fellowship deny that God makes an indiscriminate offer of Christ to sinners. Adherents of the Westminster standards take the opposite view (p. 28)
The Banner of Truth, published in Edinburgh, Scotland, is a magazine of influence in Calvinistic circles, especially in the British Isles.
Damaging Reference to the PRC
The deliberate implication of this reference to the Protestant Reformed Seminary is that this Seminary and thus the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are in conflict with the Westminster standards regarding God’s free offer of life and salvation by Jesus Christ in the covenant of grace (see the Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.3). In reality, this is the charge that the PRC deny that the gospel is to be preached promiscuously and without distinction to all persons to whom God sends the gospel and that the PRC do not command all who hear the gospel to repent and believe.
This charge, if believed by Calvinists, particularly in the British Isles, would spoil the testimony of the PRC there and hinder their work.
Misunderstanding of the BRF
Inasmuch as the reference to the Protestant Reformed Seminary links the British Reformed Fellowship (BRF) with the Seminary, the charge also reflects adversely on the genuine Presbyterianism of the BRF.
I note in passing that the leaders of the BRF are not “followers” of the PRC or their professors. The leaders of the BRF are men of theological and spiritual conviction and standing in their own right. They agree with the doctrinal confession of the PRC in certain important respects. They may well differ in other respects. One thing they ardently desire: sound, creedal, Reformed churches in the British Isles. These are churches that preach the uncorrupted doctrines of grace without compromise; maintain the one covenant of God with believers and their children; and practice Presbyterian church government. There is not an abundance of such churches in the British Isles.
Those in the British Isles who love the faith of Westminster and Dordt ought not to be found undermining the efforts of the BRF. Rather, they ought to be praying earnestly that God will bless these efforts.
The PRC in America support the work of the BRF mainly by encouraging their seminary professors to speak at BRF-sponsored conferences every two years and by the speaking on behalf of the BRF that is done by the churches’ missionary in Northern Ireland.
A Letter to The Banner of Truth
In view of the misrepresentation of the position of the PRC in that magazine, I sent a letter to The Banner of Truth. The Banner of Truth published this letter in the December 1995 issue, as follows:
We respectfully ask that you publish the following
in a forthcoming issue of The Banner of Truth as our response to the
reference to us in the August-September 1995 issue of your magazine.
In the heading of his article, “Calvin and
the Free Offer” (The Banner of Truth, August-September 1995), John
Brentnall makes the following reference to us and our supposed view of the “offer
of Christ”:
Professors of the Protestant Reformed
Seminary in the USA and their followers in the British Reformed Fellowship deny
that God makes an indiscriminate offer of Christ to sinners. Adherents of the
Westminster standards take the opposite view (p. 28).
Mr. Brentnall and the readers of The
Banner of Truth should know that we believe that God in the preaching of
the gospel presents Jesus Christ as the only Saviour from sin to all who hear.
We hold that by the preacher God calls (in the sense of “summons,” or “commands”)
all to repent and believe, that is, to come to Christ. We maintain that as
Christ is presented to all and as all are summoned to believe, the gospel
announces the promise that everyone who does believe (by sovereign grace) will
be saved.
In this (original) sense of the term, “offer,”
we believe that Christ is “offered” in the gospel to all who hear. Indeed, this
is our heartfelt confession in one of our creeds, the Canons of Dordt: “It
is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein …
that those who are called … refuse to come” (III, IV / 8).
Contrary to the suggestion of Mr. Brentnall,
we do, therefore, agree with the statement of the Westminster Confession of
Faith, that the Lord, in the covenant of grace, “freely offereth unto
sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ” (7.3). The explanation of the
statement by A. A. Hodge is basically our understanding:
He (Christ) bids all men to lay hold of
these blessings by the instrumentality of faith, and He promises that if they
do so they shall certainly enjoy them (A Commentary on the Confession of
Faith, Philadelphia, 1869, p. 175).
There is nothing at all in Hodge’s
explanation of a sincere desire on Christ’s part that all be saved.
Our denial of a “well-meant offer of the gospel,”
as adopted synodically by the Christian Reformed Church in North America in
1924 and as widely advocated in Calvinistic circles today, is precisely the
denial that in the preaching of the gospel God desires, wishes, purposes,
or wills the salvation of all hearers. It is also precisely the denial
that in the preaching of the gospel God is gracious to all hearers,
whether in the sense that He has an attitude of favor to all or in the sense
that He actually works saving power in all.
We judge that the teaching of universal
love and a universal will to salvation, in the gospel, contradicts the
confessional Calvinistic doctrine of election and reprobation. The teaching of
universal grace, in the gospel, contradicts the confessional Calvinistic doctrine
of irresistible grace, or effectual calling.
As for Calvin’s position on the teaching that God in the gospel wishes to save and is gracious to all men, would Mr. Brentnall read and comment on the chapter, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Call,” in David J. Engelsma’s Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids: RFPA, repr. 1994).
Response by The Banner of Truth
To my letter, the Editorial Director, Iain H. Murray, appended his “editorial response”:
We agree with Professor Engelsma’s concern
for accurate biblical thinking about the free offer of the gospel. The critical
issue here, of course, is not the mere use of the term “offer,” but whether the
offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire that it should be received
by sinners. We share with A. A. Hodge (whom Professor Engelsma cites) the
conviction that our beseeching and pleading with men and women to receive the
gospel offer is an expression of God’s loving concern for the lost (cf. A. A.
Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 136). If, as Paul says, God makes his
appeals through his servants, then these appeals are not merely expressions of
Paul’s compassion but of God’s. Indeed, if Paul’s compassion, prayer, and loving
desire for the lost to repent and believe in Christ are not expressions of God’s
own attitude, they cannot be of God at all. And if that is so, Paul’s words in Romans
9:1-3 and 2
Corinthians 5:20 become an embarrassment to us. To deny this on the basis of
God’s eternal decree of reprobation (he has not chosen to save some, therefore
he can have no expressions of compassion and desire for them) does not, in our
view, harmonize with all of the biblical evidence.
Readers of the magazine will be interested to know that discussion of this most important question will be found in two seminal works soon to be published by the Trust: Iain Murray’s new book, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism and John Murray’s work on The Free Offer of the Gospel.
I appreciate the Rev. Murray’s editorial courtesy in publishing my letter in full.
Continuing the Discussion in the SB
In a private letter, the Rev. Murray has informed me that The Banner of Truth is not inclined to continue the discussion on its pages. It is evident, however, from the publishing plans of The Banner of Truth Trust mentioned at the end of the editorial response that there is no inclination to discontinue the controversy against the PRC in the British Isles and, indeed, worldwide. Therefore, I must comment in the Standard Bearer on Murray’s “editorial response.”
An “Important Question”
The PRC agree with Iain Murray that the issue of the “well-meant offer” is an “important question.” If the Protestant Reformed denial of the “well-meant offer” is the hyper-Calvinism that Mr. Murray makes it out to be, the PRC are guilty of a false doctrine that conflicts with biblical teaching of the universal love of God in Christ for sinners and that puts an end to promiscuous preaching of the gospel. Thus, the PRC badly cripple evangelism and missions, if they do not make missions impossible.
If, on the other hand, the rejection by the PRC of the “well-meant offer” is right, the Calvinism of The Banner of Truth, as many confessedly Calvinistic churches today, is fatally corrupted and compromised by the damnable lie of Arminianism—that bringing again of the Pelagian error “out of hell,” as the Reformed faith officially (and correctly) judges the Arminian heresy in the Canons of Dordt (II, Rejection of Errors / 3).
Stating the Issue Accurately
Murray states that the crux of the issue is “whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire that it should be received by sinners.”
This is not an accurate statement of the “critical issue.” Neither does this forthrightly address the position of the PRC on the preaching of the gospel as this position was precisely expressed in my letter.
I had written that the denial of the “well-meant offer of the gospel” by the PRC is “precisely the denial that in the preaching of the gospel God desires, wishes purposes, or wills the salvation of all hearers.”
Iain Murray, therefore, should have responded that “the critical issue here … is … whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire to save every sinner to whom the preaching of the gospel comes.”
I had written that the denial of the “well-meant offer” by the PRC is “also precisely the denial that in the preaching of the gospel God is gracious to all hearers, whether in the sense that He has an attitude of favor to all or in the sense that He actually works saving power in all.”
Murray should, therefore, have responded that “the critical issue here … is … whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of the desire of God to save every sinner to whom the gospel comes, because God loves all men without exception and is gracious to all.”
It is not helpful to the discussion of “this important question” that Murray responds as he does in the phrase, “… whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire that it should be received by sinners.” For the phrase is ambiguous. Does it mean that a sinner’s embracing Christ by faith when the gospel is preached pleases God, whereas a sinner’s rejection of Christ presented in the gospel displeases God? This, the PRC wholeheartedly maintain. If this is all that Murray and The Banner of Truth mean by the offer of the gospel, they have no quarrel with us.
However, “desire” is far too weak a word for what Murray then intends. God does not merely “desire” faith as the only right and acceptable response to the gospel. He demands it. Every sinner to whom the gospel comes is obliged to believe. Refusal will be punished with double stripes of damnation (John 3:18).
Or does the phrase that is supposed to express “the critical issue” mean that God has the desire of purpose that every sinner who comes under the gospel be saved and that God has this purpose because He loves every sinner?
What Murray Means
What follows in Iain Murray’s response makes clear that the latter is meant. The offer for Murray is the expression to every sinner without exception of God’s sincere desire to save him inasmuch as God loves him. The gospel for Murray is grace for all. Iain Murray and The Banner of Truth defend universal gospel grace. Whereas the grace of God in Christ in the decree of predestination may be particular, in the gospel it is universal. Whereas the Christ of the cross may be for the elect only, the Christus of the gospel is pro omnibus.
How Murray harmonizes this teaching with the Reformed creeds on the sovereignty of God, the oneness of His counsel, the particularity of the cross, and the irresistibility of grace is a problem for him and an enigma to me. Nor does he attempt to show this harmony in his response. Perhaps he will do this in his forthcoming Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. We will see.
A Question Intended to Promote the Discussion
For the furtherance of a serious discussion of the issue, in the hope that all who love the sovereignty of grace may come to be of one mind, I pose a different question for Iain Murray and The Banner of Truth. My question focuses on the implied argument in Murray’s line, “The critical issue … is … whether the offer of the gospel is an expression of God’s desire that it should be received by sinners.” The argument may be put thus:
1) God’s confrontation of a sinner with an imperative (command, or exhortation), obedience to which pleases God, implies God’s purposeful desire, in love for that sinner, that the sinner actually obey the imperative and be saved in so doing.
2) God does confront every sinner who hears the gospel with an imperative, “Believe in Christ presented in the gospel!,” obedience to which imperative pleases Him.
3) Therefore, God desires the salvation of every sinner who hears the gospel.
My question: When God confronted Pharaoh in Exodus 5:1 with the imperative, “Let my people go!,” did God desire, in love for Pharaoh, that Pharaoh actually let the people go, so that in the way of his obedience Pharaoh be saved?
The question can be put more succinctly. From an imperative, or command, by God to sinners, may we infer a sincere desire of the divine will that the sinner fulfil the imperative inasmuch as God loves the sinner and wishes his salvation?
May a doctrine of the extent of God’s grace in Jesus Christ be based on the fact that God has the gospel preached to all?
Would Iain Murray answer this question: Was the Word of God to Pharoah in Exodus 5-11 an expression of God’s desire that His Word should be received by the sinner Pharoah?
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment