CONTENTS
Introduction
The grounds of objection established.
The false confinement of desire, open
offer and its substance to the revealed
and preceptive will of God.
Objection # 2.
The destruction of the system of
Calvinism.
The Doctrine of Decrees.
The love of God profaned
The false representation that the
opinion rests in the difference between
Supra and Infra-lapsarianism.
The false notion that a desire to save all
in God arises out of the relationship of
all men to God as He is their Creator
and moral Governor.
The destruction of the five points of
Calvinism
Total depravity
Limited atonement
Unconditional election
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints
To build and to plant.
One further objection considered.
|
Preface
An Outline of the Principles Involved
Let it be first appreciated that sincere and good
men do grievously err concerning the truth, even men of great
talent, ability and learning, yet we do not malign them nor intend
disrespect in opposing them, nor ought we to shrink from the exposure
and shunning of their errors.
The Scripture has exhorted us that, "ye should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints" (Jude 3). Such is the warrant and purpose of
this exposure, which is to demonstrate the difference between
orthodox Calvinism, and that which is accurately termed modified
or moderated Calvinism. During the last one hundred and
fifty years it has also been called modern Calvinism, even
by some of its proponents.
Modified or moderated Calvinism as the term implies
seeks to modify the terms of the Calvinism of the Reformers and
Puritans, while at the same time attempting to maintain itself,
until exposed, within the ranks of those who subscribe to the
orthodox confessions of the Church, such as the Westminster Confession.
Of this the article of Professors Murray and Stonehouse is a classic
example. Its root principle is so plain that it is liable to be
overlooked in all the controversy and debate which arises from
it. It is simply the assertion that there are two desires and
wills in God. The following is a clear statement made by the Professors,
"We have found that God himself expresses an ardent desire
for the fulfilment of certain things which He has not decreed
in His inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there
is a will to the realisation of what He has not decretively willed,
a pleasure towards that which He has not been pleased to decree."
No one can deny, not even the Professors, what this is a clear
statement that there is a duplicity of desire and will in God.
In the same paragraph the Professors write, "We should not
entertain, however, any prejudice against the notion that God
desires or has pleasure in the accomplishment of what he does
not decretively will." By the device of running to a mystery,
they cling to the former and advance their doctrine on a duplicity
of desire and will in God.
Now we admit that there are many instances in which
the will of God because of our weakness appears to be manifold
(several). To us there is an apparent contradiction or paradox.
In this case it is that God preceptively makes a free offer to
all in the gospel, while according to His eternal purpose He has
not desired or decreed to save all. The Professors, by assuming
that an offer to all is an offer to save all, have unwarrantable
deepened the contradiction to say that God desires and wills to
save all, while He desires and wills to save only some. It is
to be noted that God has never offered to save all, for in His
providence the gospel has never been preached to all. Though systematic
theology deals with and recognises paradoxes in Scripture, it
does not build upon them. It is therefore an even greater folly
to build a doctrine on a paradox which is stretched beyond its
limits. The Calvinist must remain true in his preaching to the
doctrine of decrees on which his system is built. When he preaches
the doctrine of election, or according to any of its allied doctrine,
he does not preach that God desires ad wills to save all. The
ascribing of an actual desire and will to God in His precepts
does nothing but make them internal to the mind of god, and create
a duplicity in His desire, purpose, will and decree.
Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion
clearly refutes the idea of a duplicity of wills in God as a basis
for doctrine, so does John Owen whom we quote as follows,
"We must exactly distinguish between man's duty and
God's purpose, there being no connection between them. The purpose
and decree of God is not the rule of our duty; neither is the
performance of our duty in doing what we are commanded any declaration
of what is God's purpose to do, or His decree that it should be
done. Especially is this to be seen and considered in the duty
of the ministers of the gospel, in the dispensing of the word,
in exhortations, invitations, precepts, and threatenings, committed
unto them; all which are perpetual declarative's of our duty,
and do manifest the approbation of the thing exhorted and invited
to, with the truth of the connection between one thing and another,
but not of the counsel and purpose of God, in respect of individual
persons, in the ministry of the word ... They command and invite
all to repent and believe; but they do not know in particular
on whom God will bestow repentance unto salvation, nor in whom
He will effect the work of faith with power. And when they make
proffers and tenders in the name of God to all, they do not say
to all, "It is the purpose and intention of God that ye should
believe" (who gave them any such power?) but, that it is
His command, which makes it their duty to do what is required
of them; and they do not declare His mind, what Himself in particular
will do. The external offer is such as from which every man may
conclude his own duty; none, God's purpose, which yet may be known
upon the performance of his duty. Their objection, then, is vain,
who affirm that God hath given Christ for all to whom He offers
Christ in the preaching of the Gospel; for his offer in the preaching
of the gospel is not declarative to any in particular, neither
of what God hath done nor of what He will do in reference to him,
but of what he ought to do, if he would be approved of God and
obtain the good things promised," (Death of Death, Book 4,
Chapt. 1, para 3)."
In chapter 2 of the same book of that treatise, Owen
at length disproves absolutely that there is contained in the
sending of Christ into the world any notion whatever of a natural
affection and propensity in God for the good of the creature,
lost under sin, in general. Such good he ascribes three ends,
1) the salvation of the elect, 2) the greater condemnation of
the reprobate, and 3) the manifestation of His own glory by way
of mercy tempered with justice. Whence then this desire and will
in God to save all in the free offer of the gospel?
It is to be noted that into the preceptive will,
the Professors place both will and desire. This desire they assert
is not a seeming attitude of God, but contains a real attitude,
a real disposition of lovingkindness. In this lovingkindness there
is a true and high sense of benevolence in the heart of God. They
however avoid ascribing the nature of an absolute decree to this
so called preceptive will, because as they admit it would imply
an implicit contradiction. Nevertheless it is a will, with a heart
which contains, desire, lovingkindness and benevolence to every
fallen son of Adam. The attempt to avoid the nature of a decree
cannot with such content be carried, for the moment that the love
of God is inoperative, it becomes decretive. No one will claim
that the love of God is inoperative, because it caused Him to
send His Son into the world, and caused Him to make an offer of
salvation to all in the gospel.
Where there is a will and desire, lovingkindness
and benevolence which is translated into action, there is purpose
and decree. Wherever there is operation and action, there must
be purpose and decree. Operation and action without purpose and
decree belong only to those who have lost their reason.
The linking of the passion of desire in God with
the preceptive will is false, and complicates the issue. God does
not desire, long for or wish the accomplishment of anything, because
He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Calvin demonstrates
that where God does speak to us in the Scripture of Himself in
terms of human affections, He does so in order to accommodate
himself to our weakness. This in no way indicates a duplicity
of will and desire in God, so Calvin invites his objectors, "But
why do they not attend to the many passages in which God clothes
himself with human affections, and descends beneath His proper
majesty?" The advocates of an earnest desire and will in
God for the salvation of all do nothing to assist their case by
placing it in an external aspect, namely the preceptive or revealed
will. Immediately desire and will with lovingkindness and benevolence
are ascribed to it, so it becomes internal to the mind of God,
with the direct implication of purpose and decree.
Conversely, if the will of God proposed by the Professors
does not contain purpose and decree, it cannot be operative. If
it is not operative, it cannot contain a real attitude and disposition
of lovingkindness in which there is a true and high sense of benevolence.
If this be so, then the desire to save all, said to be contained
in this will, can have no reference whatever to the operation
and action of God, in making a free offer to all in the gospel.
The argument that there is no purpose or decree in a will which
earnestly desires to save all, is not only ludicrous, but redundant
to the argument.
Now if the advocates of this duplicity of desire
and will in God, hold also to a doctrine of decrees, the only
order of decrees suitable is that which places the decree of redemption
before the decree of election, which is according to the Amyraldian
system. Remember that in their system, on the one hand, God desires
and wills to save all, while on the other, He finally desires
and wills to save only some. Arminians are more consistent in
their attempt to rest one side of the paradox on man's free will.
Thus we see that this notion of duplicity in God is the root and
ground of Amyraldianism. The manner in which the doctrine of the
Professors' article necessarily follows the Amyraldian system
is demonstrated in the exposure hereafter.
No statement of doctrine which is not according to
principle can be held to be rational, (i.e., a thinking logical
statement). Now if we grant that all of the statements of the
Marrow-men are rational, we must conclude that for some of them
at least, the principle of duplicity underlay their system. This
is clearly shown in the following statement which Louis Berkhof
makes concerning them in his Systematic Theology, page
394. (Banner of Truth) Berkhof appears to admit the same thing
on page 462,
"The Marrow-men of Scotland were perfectly orthodox
in maintaining that Christ die for the purpose of saving only
the elect, though some of them used expressions which also pointed
to a more general reference of the atonement. They said that Christ
did not die for all men, but that He is dead, that is available
for all. God's giving love, which is universal, lead Him to make
a deed of gift and grant to all men; and this is the foundation
for the universal offer of salvation. His electing love, however,
which is special, results in the salvation of the elect only."
In the light of a duplicity of desire and will in
God, it would indeed be difficult to prevent the doctrine of these
Marrow-men running to Amyraldianism. It appears that they did
at least pave the way, for the Amyraldians who later arose from
their ranks.
It is the belief of the writer of this exposure,
that a notion of duplicity of desire and will in God must inevitably
lead to atheism. How else could men arise as they did in the Free
Church of Scotland, who embrace the rationalism and scepticism
which all but destroyed the Scottish Church in the latter part
of the last century.
To hold to this notion of duplicity in God, under
the conception that there is a will and desire in God for the
salvation of all in the free offer of the gospel, is to make all
doctrine and preaching to be double-minded in its revelation of
God. Everything that is taught and held is ever on shifting sand;
nothing can ever be clear cut or definite. One day, God is depicted
as having one desire and will, the next He is said to have another.
Many errors cannot be exposed or dealt with because they are either
akin to, or are but the other side of the same doctrine. "As
a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." The result of the
notion of duplicity can only produce men like to its own principle,
for a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Double-mindedness
is one of the great sins of our age. It would indeed be a terrible
thing if we allowed the notion herein exposed to overthrow the
very doctrines and standards which we hold dear. Such will be
the inevitable end if the warning intended here is not heeded.
John Owen sums up our argument against the doctrine
of the Professors on pages 209 and 210 of Banner of Truth printing
of his treatise The Death of Death. He asserts that there
is no natural affection, inclination, and propensity in God to
the good of the creature lost under sin in general, but that all
love on the part of God is an act of His will. It is therefore
purposeful and decretive. "So that, without impairing of
the infinite blessedness of the ever-blessed God, no natural affection
unto anything never to be accomplished can be ascribed unto Him,
such as this general love to all is supposed to be."
Introduction.
The application and fruit of the principles used
by Professors Murray and Stonehouse in their article, The
Free Offer of the Gospel.
Having outlined the principles involved in the preface,
there will necessarily be some recapitulation of argument in the
demonstration of their consequent fruit, as the exposure proceeds.
There is also the matter of the method of approach to the theological
standards of Calvinism.
Professor Murray in his booklet, The Covenant
of Grace, pages 4-5 speaks of a need in covenant theology
for, "Correction, modification and expansion. He says, "Theology
must always be undergoing reformation," and needs 'recasting'
from one generation or group of generations to another. It is
apparently on this basis that he introduces what is to him, a
reconstruction, when he expounds the unilateral (one sided) nature
of God's covenants. Robert Shaw in his Exposition of the Confession
of Faith, pages 89-92, demonstrates that the Westminster divines
held to this unilaterality, when they taught in connection with
the covenant of grace, that faith was a condition of order or
connection, an instrument of obtaining an interest in the salvation
offered in the gospel, and was in no sense a procuring cause or
condition of the covenant itself. While we admit that man must
ever endeavour to improve his exposition of Scripture, we object
to the notion that our theology needs reformation or recasting.
If such were allowed it would mean the overthrow of the standards
so thoroughly and ably stated by the Westminster divines. The
same restlessness with the old expressions of theology appear
to underlie the article which is the subject of this exposure.
It may be said that their opponents and supporters have one point
of agreement at least, and that is that the Professors by inability
or design have found that the free offer of the gospel cannot
be comprehended within the doctrine of decrees.
As has already been clearly indicated their doctrine
constitutes a moderation or modification of the system of Calvinism,
and appears to be an attempt to remove the offence which that
system has always presented to the natural mind. Their modification
is achieved by divorcing the revelation of God concerning the
free offer, both as to its substance and open offer, together
with an earnest desire and pleasure for the salvation of all,
said to be contained in it, from His decretive will. The preceptive
and revealed will is said to contain an earnest desire and pleasure
for the salvation of all, while the decretive will contains a
desire and purpose to save only some. This duplicity of desire
and will in God as has been demonstrated in the preface, demands
the Amyraldian order of decrees. It remains now to show the fruit
of this order, to which the doctrine of the Professors' must be
agreeable.
The following are the points of Amyraldianism as
enumerated by Charles Hodge in his systematic theology:
1. The motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence,
or love to men in general.
2. From this motive He sent His Son to make the
salvation of all men possible.
3. God in virtue of a universal hypothetical decree,
offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ.
4. All men have a natural ability to repent and
believe.
5. But as this natural ability was counteracted
by a moral inability God determined to give his efficacious grace
to a certain number of the human race, and thus secure their Salvation.
Note: 'Hypothetical' means,
founded on a supposition; conditional; assumed without proof for
the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof; conjectural, (Webster).
The desire and will proposed by the Professors is
much more substantial as to its content of purpose than this definition
of hypothetical would require. Their doctrine is therefore well
over the borders of Amyraldianism.
Three facts bind the doctrine of the Professors'
irrevocably to the first three points enumerated above.
1. An ardent desire and will in God said to be connected
with the free offer of the gospel, i.e., for the salvation of
all.
2. The duplicity of desire, purpose, will and decree
involved in such an assertion.
3. The Amyraldian order of decrees, the decree of
redemption before the decree of election is the only order possible
to apply to such a notion.
These factors are now self evident and leave the
doctrine of the Professors' inextricable involved in the Amyraldian
system. The fourth and fifth points of that system are to be applied
by direct inference and consequence by reason of their inconsistent
Calvinism as shown hereafter.
To modify any principle of Calvinism is to condition
the whole system. Now that we have discovered the principles of
their modification, we must hereafter interpret all that the Professors
write in the light of their principles. Likewise we must interpret
the doctrine and preaching of all those who support the same principles.
Ralph Wardlaw, an independent theologian who propagated similar
views in England and Scotland during the first half of the last
century wrote that there are "Calvinistic views under three
modifications: 1) Hyper-Calvinism; 2) Calvinism as more generally
held by the orthodox; 3) Moderate, or what may be designated modern
Calvinism, as held and ably elucidated by the late Andrew Fuller,
Dr. Edward Williams, and now embraced by a growing proportion
of Calvinistic ministers and professing Christians."
The grounds of objection established.
The Professors begin their article with the assertion
that, "the real point in dispute in connection with the free
offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God
desires the salvation of all men?" The purpose and substance
of their article demonstrates an answer to this question in the
affirmative. The Professors seek to convince their readers that
the basis on which God makes the free offer of the gospel, is
that He has an earnest desire for the salvation of all men. This
'desire', it is asserted contains "a real disposition of
lovingkindness" to all.
Such an assertion is at least startling to those
who are of Calvinistic persuasion, for it must immediately be
asked, among other things, how are we to maintain a difference
concerning the principles of our system with those of Arminian
persuasion.
How for example can we assert that God while He has
a disposition of lovingkindness to all, and desires to save all,
has not sent His Son into the world to die for all? And how can
we assert that though this desire and lovingkindness to all remains,
Christ in His great work of intercession does not intercede for
all? How can we tell thinking people that we worship a Sovereign
God who has a longing and desire which is opposed to His will
and purpose. These questions cannot be dismissed as a mystery,
else we are left with the situation that the difference between
Calvinism and Arminianism is also a mystery, and after all, both
Calvinism and Arminianism are merely aspects of the truth of God's
Word. In other words the difference between the two systems is
but truth in degree, and any line of demarcation is obliterated.
The doctrine of the Professors being a half way position, becomes
the true Calvinism in the eyes of most, because it easily satisfies
moderate-Calvinists and Arminians alike.
For many of us, the idea that God has a lovingkindness
toward all, and a desire to save all, was the greatest obstacle
to our embracing the Reformed faith. Had the Professors written
that the real point in dispute between Calvinists and Arminians
in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it
can be said that God desires the salvation of all men, we should
have agreed with them.
We therefore object to the article on the following
grounds:
1. That the said point in dispute is one within
the framework of the system of Calvinism.
2. That the answer given is destructive of the whole
system of Calvinism.
If such objections can be sustained in the light
of the Word of God, the principles of which are expressed in the
Calvinistic and Reformed system of faith, then we cannot allow
that the opinion in question is a matter of private interpretation,
without recognising it to be opposed to the doctrinal standards
of all the Reformed Churches.
The false confinement of desire, open offer and its substance
to the revealed and preceptive will of God.
Let us proceed to the proof of our first objection.
The Westminster divines have stated in The Practical Use of
Saving Knowledge, Warrants to Believe, that, "the Lord
maketh open offer of Christ and His grace by proclamation
of a free and gracious market of righteousness and salvation,
to be had through Christ to every soul without exception, that
truly desires to be saved from sin and wrath."
Because there is a market, there are goods to be
offered, and there is a manner of their disposal. Thus there is
a distinction to be observed between the 'open offer' and the
'substance' of the offer, which had the Professors taken into
account, they would never have advanced the proofs of their assertion,
and still called themselves Calvinists. It would appear that they
have concerned themselves only with the offer itself.
Now it is obvious that the desire of God in offering
the gospel cannot be divorced from its substance, namely Christ
and His grace,
If we say that a desire in God relates only to the
'open offer' of the gospel, and not to its substance, we divorce
the desire of God from that which makes it possible , namely the
merits and work of the Redeemer. In such a case the desire of
God, and the satisfaction of Christ can have no reference in the
offer to that which the work of redemption accomplished. It empties
of its meaning, the cry of the Saviour, "it is finished."
Desire and purpose can have nothing in common, nor could He have
seen the travail of His soul and been satisfied. Thus we can see
that it is an utter folly to refer the desire of God to the offer
to all, and not its substance. (It would be an offer without a
substance).
Howewer, if a desire to save all is related
to the substance of the gospel, namely Christ and His grace, we
are not Calvinists. In such instance we have the desire of God
identified with the work of a Redeemer designed in its purpose
to save all. If it does not, God has failed to provide a sufficient
Saviour, and His desires and purposes are frustrated. In other
words, such a notion is Arminian.
The Professors in the first paragraph of their article
have written, "the free offer of the gospel to all without
distinction ... respects, not the decretive will of God, but the
revealed will." They also assert in the same paragraph that
there is no ground for the supposition that the desire of God
to save all refers to the decretive will. They admit that such
a desire if related to the decretive will would mean a contradiction;
God desiring to save the reprobate, while at the same time damning
them.
At this point we may apply the 'coup de grace' to
the argument of the Profesors.
On their own argument, a) The offer to all, together
with the desire of God relates only to His revealed Will. But
we have shown, b) That the desire of God related only to the offer
to all, without respect to the substance of the offer to be an
utter folly. c) We have also shown that a desire to save all
related to the substance of the offer, belongs to the theology
of Arminianism.
The device of relating both a desire in God to save
all, and the open offer to all, to the revealed will only, does
nothing but isolate the substance of the offer from the secret
and decretive will of God, and is a theological absurdity.
The Professors are thus left in the following dilemma:
1) They must separate the open offer from its substance
which is a complete and utter folly, or,
2) They must relate both the open offer and its
substance, namely Christ and His grace, to the desire of God to
save all, in which case the Professors have gone over to the camp
of the Arminians.
The obvious contradiction arising out of the confinement
of desire, substance, and open offer to the revealed will, and
purpose, to the secret will, is not resolved by stating, "this
is indeed mysterious, and why He has not brought to pass, in the
exercise of His omnipotent power and grace, what is His ardent
pleasure lies hid in the sovereign counsel of His will."
It is rather not a mystery, but a theological fog created by the
Professors which clouds the real issue for their readers. In the
very next paragraph they state a contradiction of their own proposal,
"We should not entertain however any prejudice against the
notion that God desires or has pleasure in the accomplishment
of what He does not decretively will." It is indeed a strange
device brought into the framework of Calvinism that a proposition
is asserted, and then its contradiction admitted. The assertion
of our Confession concerning the infallible rule of interpretation
is cast aside. "The infallible rule of interpretation of
Scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is
a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which
is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other
places that speak more clearly, (W.C.F., 1:9).
We have now sustained our first objection, and can
assert that the proposition of the article in question that, "in
connection with the free offer of the gospel God desires the salvation
of all men", cannot be brought within the framework of the
Calvinistic system. While we must allow men liberty of opinion
and conscience, we cannot allow that such an opinion may be held
as a matter of private interpretation, without recognising it
to be opposed to the Westminster Standards.
Objection # 2.
The destruction of the system of Calvinism.
The Doctrine of Decrees.
In their second conclusion, page 14 herein, the Professors
write:
"We have found that God himself expresses an ardent
desire for the fulfilment of certain things which he has not decreed
in his inscrutable counsel to come to pass. This means that there
is a will to the realisation of what he has not decretively willed,
a pleasure towards that which he has not been pleased to decree."
Perhaps a more thorough denial of the doctrine of
the Westminster Confession, chapter 3 of "Of God's Eternal
Decree" and chapter 5 "Of Providence" could not
be written. It is however the logical end of a doctrine which
divorces the substance and open offer of the gospel from God's
decretive will, (whether in whole or in part) and confines them
in His revealed will together with an ardent desire and pleasure
toward the salvation of all.
If God ardently desires the salvation of all, and
has a pleasure towards that which he has not decretively willed,
and neither desire nor pleasure are realised concerning all, another
dilemma faces the Professors, if they do not admit to the Amyraldian
order of decrees:
1. Did God decree the salvation of some, and leave
the rest to their own free wills, thus turning decree, desire
and pleasure into injustice. Some needed to have a decree to save
them, the rest are damned for not exercising free will. Some are
saved because there was no foreseen good in them, and the rest
are damned because God foresaw that they possessed some good,
namely free will, or ...
2. Consistently therefore such assertions with regard
to the relationship of God's decree to His desire and pleasure
cannot have any reference to the salvation of any. The offer of
the gospel then must be to those who possess free will.
The article in question clearly affirms that in connection
with the free offer of the gospel God desires the salvation of
all men. God therefore must have designed a means suitable to
his desire and pleasure, i.e. the salvation of all.
Thus the second affirmation of Amyraldianism and
the governmental theory belongs properly by direct implication
to the doctrine of the Professors, i.e. God out of His lovingkindness
to all desiring the salvation of all, sent His Son into the world
to make the salvation of all men possible. If this is not so,
a desire for the salvation of all is an outright contradiction.
The third affirmation of a universal hypothetical
decree offering salvation to all men if they believe in Christ,
is necessary to the Professors doctrine if it is to retain any
semblance of Calvinism at all.
The fourth and fifth affirmations must follow by
direct inference and consequence.
With reference to the desire and pleasure of God
in the free offer of the gospel, the Scripture asserts, "Therefore
hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy (Romans 9:18), "Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things
that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will
do all my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:10).
We know that God brings to pass those things which
appear contrary to that which He would have men do in righteousness,
e.g.
"Herod and Pontius Pilot conspired 'to do whatever
they hand and counsel determined before to be done' (Acts 4:28).
And in truth if Christ were not crucified by the will of God,
where is our redemption? Still however, the will of God is not
at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence
of not willing what He wills, but while in himself the will is
one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because from the
feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though
after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same
thing." (Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, chapt.
18 para 3).
God in commanding all men everywhere to repent, and
maintaining demands upon them is thus consistent with his own
nature, whilst he is also able to make the wrath of man, by his
own ordination to praise him. This however gives no ground for
the notion that there is a will or pleasure in God toward that
which he has not been pleased to decree. The providence of God
is the governing of all his creatures and all the actions of men
though God cannot be charged with the sinfulness of those actions.
The notion therefore "that God desires or has
pleasure in the accomplishment of what he does not decretively
will" is a strange inversion of God's nature, and nothing
short of blasphemy.
This system has God grieved to fulfil that which
he has decreed, since he has decreed the death of the reprobate,
and at the same time it is said he loves them. It is psychologically
impossible and indeed would charge God with being an irrational
being, having his will and purpose opposed to longing and desire.
Tell this strange notion to a rational being and he will conclude
that God hates Himself. Thus we have this article thoroughly destroying
the doctrine of decrees.
The love of God profaned
The article identifies the grace whereby God does
good to all his creatures with His special and saving grace. This
does nothing but assert that there are natural affections in God.
In their proof the Professors use Matthew 5:44-48,
where we are enjoined to love our enemies in view of the fact
that God makes the sun to shine on the evil and the good and sends
rain on the just and unjust alike. This is adduced by the Professors
to mean that this goodness of God to all in temporal things is
indicative of a special and saving grace in God in which He earnestly
desires the salvation of all men. This is clearly shown in the
first conclusion of page 14 of the article, where we read:
"We have found that the grace of God bestowed in his
ordinary providence expresses the love of God, and that this love
of God is the source of the gifts bestowed upon and enjoyed by
the ungodly as well as the godly. We should expect that herein
is disclosed to us a principle that applies to all manifestations
of divine grace, namely, that the grace bestowed expresses the
lovingkindness in the heart of God and that the gifts bestowed
are in their respective variety tokens of a correspondent richness
or manifoldness in the divine lovingkindness of which they are
the expression."
Of this confusion of common grace and special grace
as being a natural affection in God, John Owen wrote the following:
"The since the entrance of sin, there is no apprehension
- I mean for sinners - of a goodness, love, and kindness in God,
as flowing from his natural properties, but upon an account of
the interposition of his sovereign will and pleasure. It is most
false which by some is said, - that special grace flows from that
which they call general grace and special mercy from general mercy.
There is a whole nest of mistakes in that conception" (Owen's
Works, Vol. IX, page 44).
And again:
"By 'love', all our adversaries agree that a natural
affection and propensity in God to the good of the creature, lost
under sin, in general, which moved him to take some way whereby
it might possible be remedied, is intended. We, on the contrary,
say that by love here is not meant an inclination or propensity
of his nature, but an act of his will (where we conceive his love
to be seated), and eternal purpose to do good to man, being the
most transcendent and eminent act of God's love to the creature"
(John Owen, Death of Death, page 209. Banner of Truth).
If the reader will take the trouble to read John
Owen on this subject he will find the conception of the article
soundly refuted, for it would leave us in the position that there
is no grace of God which is not a saving grace in its desire,
object and intent.
With the confusion of common and saving grace, the
Professors easily confuse the human and divine natures in Christ.
Concerning the lament of the Lord Jesus over Jerusalem
they write, "Jesus says he often wished the occurrence of
something which did not come to pass and therefore willed (or
wished) the occurrence of that which God had not secretly or decretively
willed (Matthew 23:37)." They then assert that this is
Christ exercising the office and prerogative which belong to Him
as the "God-man Messiah and Saviour" and state, "It
is surely, therefore a revelation to us of the divine will as
well as the human." Is this not a confusion of the acts of
the natures of Christ? In the hypostatic union of the two natures
in Christ it is essential that the acts of each nature belong
to that nature, and are not to be confused as an act of the other,
yet are always to be understood as acts of the one Person in whom
the two natures do dwell. (Refer John Owen in his The Glory of
Christ in the constitution of His Person).
If we accept the doctrine of the Professors, it simply
means that Christ is not eternally blessed in His divine nature.
If we assert that this is only a temporary state in the divine
nature of Christ, we make that nature changeable, and conclude
that God is not infinite in all His attributes. If Christ wept
and lamented in His divine nature it would mean that He was not
sufficient and happy in Himself, and that His happiness is dependent
upon the state of the creature.
The false representation that the opinion rests in the difference
between Supra and Infra-lapsarianism.
The difference between these two positions revolves
around the order of decrees, viz:
Supra-lapsarianism, God
decreed to save before He decreed to permit the fall.
Infra-lapsarianism, God
decreed to permit the fall before He decreed to save.
We are not concerned here with the relative merits
of these two views, rather we shall demonstrate that a desire
to save all in a free offer of the gospel is quite foreign to
both positions.
Augustine wrote,
"Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God.
For it was not after we were reconciled to Him by the blood of
His Son that He began to love us, but He loved us before the foundation
of the world ... Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must
not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the
Father then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled
to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin."
In other words, Christ did not die to make the Father
love us, rather Christ died because the Father loved us.
This however bears no proof to our opponents that
God loves all men in or out of Christ in time. Against such a
notion we reply:
1. We know not why God loved any at all.
2. There is nothing to indicate that God loved any
He did not choose, nor did He ever contemplate the salvation of
any outside of Christ, for He chose us in Him before the foundation
of the world.
3. There is no indication in the Scripture that
any whom God loved before the foundation of the world will perish.
4. The objection of our opponents is an innovation
which serves to divide a decree to no purpose.
5. The argument is in itself inconsistent with the
assertions of the Professors. If it relates to infra or supra-lapsarianism
then the free offer of the gospel and the desire contained in
it, respects the decretive will. This is denied in the first paragraph
of the article.
It is but the mercy of God that we are not consumed
already. We have demonstrated that the love of God toward fallen
creatures is an act of His will. Hence His love when extended
toward fallen creatures cannot be divorced from, but must be comprehended
within His decretive will.
Concerning the infra and supra-lapsarian views, there
is the following agreement:
1. Both assert that the love and mercy of God toward
fallen creatures is wholly a matter of His decretive will, (the
Professors deny this).
2. Both agree with Augustine that God did not love
His elect because Christ died for them, but rather loved them
and chose them in Christ. The death of Christ was not a satisfaction
of God's love, but a satisfaction of divine justice.
There is not a vestige of evidence to suggest that
a desire in God to save all arises out of the difference between
these two positions, but rather the evidence proves that such
a notion is foreign to both.
The false notion that a desire to save all in God arises out
of the relationship of all men to God as He is their Creator and
moral Governor.
Charles Hodge asserts that the universal and indiscriminate
call of the gospel necessarily follows from its nature:
"Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is
willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen
men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those
who are in the condition which the plan contemplates. It is in
this respect analogous to the moral law. That law is a revelation
of the duties binding all men in virtue of their relation to God
as their Creator and moral Governor. It promises the divine favour
to the obedient, and threatens wrath to the disobedient. It therefore
of necessity applies to all who sustain the relation of rational
and moral creatures to God. So also the gospel being a revelation
of the relation of fallen men to God as reconciling the world
unto Himself, comes to all belonging to the class of fallen men."
To assert that this is a basis for the notion that
there is in God a desire to save all, only leads into further
error. Athanasius in his treatise on the incarnation, along with
other early church fathers established a benevolence in God toward
a fallen mankind on the ground that God saw everything that He
had make and beheld it as very good. They concluded that God was
obliged to look down in pity, and seek a recovery, or otherwise
admit defeat to Satan. This view loses sight of the justice of
God, and the penalty forewarned and incurred as a result of sin.
The objection of our opponents is similarly false
when they assert that it was because man was created in the likeness
and image of God, and though he fell into sin, God therefore has
a desire to save all. Against this notion we reply:
1. Martin Luther wrote, "the sole preparation
for grace is God's eternal election and predestination."
The sole preparation for grace according to the doctrine of the
Professors is a desire in God to save all.
2. The notion like that of Athanasius, forgets the
justice of God and the suitableness of the penalty, the reward
of sin. God said in the beginning the soul that sinneth it shall
die, it is the nature of God that He is ever true to this pronouncement.
3. Our opponents must assert, that since the moral
image was lost at the fall, one of two falsities: a) that God
must love only the natural image, which is an absurdity, for the
state of morality cannot be divorced from personality, or b) that
God loving men out of Christ in time, must have natural affections
toward evil creatures. Such a notion is blasphemous because it
accuses God of possessing evil passions and desires.
4. The proposition does nothing but support the
false notion that there is something desirable to God in the reprobate,
and that men are saved by their own free wills, and ultimately
only lose the favour of God for not making a right decision. Like
modern evangelicalism it makes the issue, "not the sin question,
but the Jesus question."
The destruction of the five points of Calvinism
Just as clearly as the Professors destroy the doctrine
of decrees, confuse the human and divine natures in Christ, and
as clearly as our opponents attempt to attach their false opinion
to a distinction which does not exist in the order of decrees,
and to the relation of men to God as He is their Creator and moral
Governor, they also destroy the five points of Calvinism.
Total depravity
Since it is said that God has a lovingkindness toward
all men, there is ever something desireable to God in the fallen
creature. This places the proponents of the article in the dilemma
of Arminianism at this point. They must assert that God loves
the sinner and not his sins because he is not altogether fallen,
or they must assert that if man is altogether fallen, there is
unrighteousness with God in loving that which is evil, without
a satisfaction of His justice and holiness. Thus is the doctrine
of total depravity overthrown.
Limited atonement
A free offer which contains a genuine desire to save
all, must contain that motive, and by tis very nature requires
a universal atonement. An atonement which even its proponents
must admit does not achieve its end. The point is not covered
by an appeal to a sufficient for all aspect, which is immediately
turned into a universal atonement, if there is asserted a desire
and motive to save all. The decree to save cannot be divorced
from the desire which moved God in instituting the means.
Furthermore, if God has a lovingkindness toward all
men, as the article asserts, we are faced with the positions that
God must love men out of Christ, in time, or He must love them
in Christ. If God loves men in the dispensation of His grace,
out of Christ, then He does not love them in virtue of the Person
and work of a Redeemer.
That is a blasphemy not to be entertained. We acknowledge
the aspect that God in virtue of the death of Christ, has stayed
the day of His wrath, yet if we assert that God loves all men
in Christ, He must love them in virtue of Christ's death. God
by that revelation would be consistently bound to save all men.
Inconsistently, their salvation must depend on an act of their
own free wills. Thus the article succeeds in the overthrow of
the doctrine of limited atonement.
Unconditional election
The very assertion that God has a lovingkindness
to all in the free offer of the gospel denies the one and only
basis of God's love for fallen sinners, i.e. that He chose them
and loved them in Christ from before the foundation of the world.
It also asserts that there are other creatures whom God loves,
but whom He has ordained to hell. This suggests either of two
things, a) that there is a dualism to God's nature, a dark and
an evil side, the doctrine of the Manichees, or, b) that there
is a limit to God's foreknowledge and foreordination in that there
may be, since God earnestly desires the salvation of all, certain
who out of an ability of their own hearts, would repent and believe
under a free offer of the gospel, but who were not chosen in Christ.
Thus is the doctrine of election completely overthrown.
Irresistible grace
If God has an ardent desire and a will toward that
which He has not decretively willed, it follows that His grace
is not irresistible.
Perseverance of the saints
Where God's grace is not irresistible, it follows
that there can be no certain perseverance of the saints. Further
if one may perish whom the Scripture supposedly says God loves
and ardently desires his salvation, what assurance can any man
have who rests his soul on the grace, mercy and love of God. If
God's love for one may fail, who can be assured that it will not
fail for all.
To build and to plant.
"And it shall come to pass, that like as I have
watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw
down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them,
to build and to plant, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 31:28)
While we must not attempt to sow among thorns, and
it is our duty in doctrine to pluck up, to break down and destroy
that which is false, it is also our duty to build and to plant
with the truth of the Word of God. Let us therefore consider in
contrast, the truths of the everlasting gospel.
The motive if false has a means designed to its own
end. If the ground is false, so is the gospel which contains it.
Hence the false gospel herein exposed presents sentimental ideas
about God, in which He is viewed as the lover of the whole fallen
race of mankind, which He earnestly desires to save in a free
offer, which He knows cannot achieve its end. This is in spite
of the fact that in the providence of God the gospel has never
been preached to every creature. We have demonstrated that the
love of God toward fallen creatures is wholly an act of His will.
Hence, His love when extended toward fallen creatures is an execution
of His purpose, and therefore cannot be divorced, from, but is
comprehended within His decretive will. It is this basic truth
which the Professors deny, and which stands against all the modernist
unbelief which has infected many of the churches of our day.
Let us therefore cleave to the 'old paths' in which
it is not supposed that the unregenerate must be told that God
loves them, any more than they must be told that Christ died for
them. Such simply means that though many be called and few chosen,
many will perish who in life were told that God loved them, and
Christ died for them. Rather let us affirm that God is delighted
in repentance, and pleased only with them who out of a sight and
sense of their sins do unfeignedly believe the gospel.
The word gospel simply means, the good news.
The free offer of Christ in the gospel simply means that He is
the One in whom those weary and sick of their sins may find rest
unto their souls. Christ Himself is not the gospel, but is the
substance offered in it. Modern evangelicals have pushed to the
position, "let us not have doctrine but let us have Jesus."
The doctrine of the gospel is the counsel of God concerning it.
It is because the natural man discerneth not the things of the
Spirit of God, that this good news consists of two parts.
1. A demonstration to the sinner of the state and
wickedness of his heart, and
2. the remedy for that condition.
The need as well as the remedy must be proclaimed
at all times; due emphasis being laid as the situation demands.
The one can never be absent from the other in the heart and mind
of man, if the preaching of the gospel is to be to him, a means
of grace in his salvation. No man can be saved by the preaching
of the gospel, who does not obtain from it, an apprehension of
his guiltiness and desert**** dessert before God on the one hand,
and the all sufficiency of Christ to save on the other. In this
day when sentimental ideas of God have prevailed in most pulpits,
Calvinistic as well as Arminian, there is little conception of
the great God with whom we have to do. We need to remember that
there is a God who, "is sifting out the hearts of men before
His judgment seat." John the Baptist left his hearers in
no doubt as to the mission of the Saviour, when he spoke of Him
as the One, "Whose fan is in His hand, and he will thoroughly
purge His floor, and gather the wheat into the garner; but he
will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
An unfaithful ministry will ever tone down or hide these truths
from its people.
Where there is no need, there is no necessity for
a remedy. This is that which the Saviour affirmed when He said,
"I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"
(Matthew 9:13). If our ground for preaching the gospel is to tell
men that God loves them, and desires their salvation, they will
fail to learn that the offer of Christ in the gospel is an act
of the mercy and grace of God. The sinner in such instance will
not be presented with a God whose wrath is against sin and the
sinner. The love of God and not His fear is made the beginning
of wisdom.
In the Practical Use of Saving Knowledge annexed
to the Westminster Confession we are instructed:
"The chief general use of Christian doctrine is to
convince a man of sin and of righteousness and of judgement,
by two means, 1. partly by the law or covenant of works that he
may be humbled and become penitent, and 2. partly by the gospel
or covenant of grace, that he may become an unfeigned believer
in Jesus Christ."
Note: the function of the gospel as contained in
the heading of paragraph 4, "For the convincing a man of
sin, righteousness and judgement, by the gospel,"
for there are those who do not understand or admit this as a function
of the gospel.
Therefore, there is not grace or love of God displayed
in the gospel apart from the mercy of God. For the reprobate the
day of grace, while a benefit purchased by the death of Christ,
chiefly for the elects sake, is but a stay of God's hand, till
the day of His wrath. All this the Professors deny by their assertion
that the desire of God in the free offer respects not the decretive
will, but the revealed will.
Calvin in his Institutes (Vol. 2, Book 3,
chapt. 24, para 15) in reference to Ezekial 18:23, "Have
I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord
God, and not that he should return from his ways and live,"
disposes of any idea that there is a desire and pleasure in God
apart from His decretive will, when he writes: "the passage
is violently wrested, if the will of God which the prophet mentions
is opposed to His eternal counsel, by which He separated the elect
from the reprobate."
It is relevant to discourse here on the extent of
the compassion of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel.
At the outset we assert that the extent of the actual
compassion of God in the free offer of the gospel is no more revealed
in the Scripture than is His eternal election and predestination.
The wrath of God against the elect when not in a state of grace
is real, otherwise it could not be said that He hath laid upon
Him the iniquity of us all, or that He saw the travail of His
soul and was satisfied. On the other hand, the wrath of God against
the reprobate is real and without remission. In the day of grace
when God has stayed the day of His wrath chiefly for the elects
sake, He makes a gracious offer to all, which is ever qualified
in Scripture as manifestly calling all men to repentance or toward
them that repent. Since God has not given Christ to all, it cannot
be said that God has an actual compassion toward the reprobate
who are known to Him. The objection that we make a bare preceptive
will cannot be carried, for God ever annexes a blessing to it,
and even gives exhortation Furthermore, it is His preceptive will
which He has committed to His ministers as the word of reconciliation.
As they are God's ambassadors so they beseech all to whom they
preach, yet it is God alone who inwardly speaks and calls to those
to whom it is His intention to give Christ. Though there is an
offer of mercy to all in the gospel, it remains part of the revealed
will of God, that He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.
Calvinists therefore do not preach that God desires to save all,
any more than they hold it as part of their doctrine.
If there is to be a free offer of the gospel, let
it be made by the right use of means, as set forth by the Westminster
divines and briefly enumerated in numbers 1 and 2 above. Let there
be a free offer of Christ in the gospel yes, but let it be clearly
made known that the offer is to them that labour and are heavy
laden, as did the Saviour when He said, "Come unto me all
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"
(Matthew 11:28). Let our ministers make a free offer of the gospel
as did the prophet Isaiah (chapter 55) to them that hunger and
thirst, when he cried, "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."
Let not our opponents object that this is not a free and open
offer without discrimination, and that it would require us to
make open offer only to those who manifestly labour and are heavy
laden, or to those who hunger and thirst. Such was the error of
the Particular Baptists, who desiring a gospel suitable to their
ordinance and their idea of a pure church, that they did not make
the gospel offer to the manifestly unregenerate. Robert Shaw also
points out that it was the error of the Neonomians:
"This offer is not restricted, as Baxterians allege,
to sensible sinners, or those who are convinced of their sin,
and their need of a Saviour; for it is addressed to persons sunk
in total insensibility as to their own miseries and wants (Revelation
3:17, 18). This offer is made as really to those who eventually
reject it, as to those who eventually receive it; for if this
were not the case, the former class of gospel-hearers could not
be condemned for their unbelief" (John 3:18, 19).
Common sense demands that there must be an outward
call to the unregenerate and undiscerning men, in order for there
to be an inward call. It is God's ministers who must make a free
and open outward call to sinners without distinction, yet even
in that they must make their invitations to them that labour and
are heavy laden, and to them that hunger and thirst. It is the
Spirit's work to make the inward call, whereby He convinces us
of our sin and misery, enlightens our minds in the knowledge of
Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us
to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel. Thus
the outward call, and the free offer of Christ in the gospel is
make to all indiscriminately, and though this call consists in
an invitation to them that hunger and thirst, it is in the inward
calling of the Spirit, that the invitations and offer are applied
and made effective. In order to effectually call some, God is
just in outwardly calling all to whom the gospel is preached.
Thus we see that the notion that God desires the
salvation of all is quite unnecessary to a free offer of the gospel,
and is even destructive of and foreign to it. Let us therefore
have done with the notion of the Professors and return to the
old ways, for , "thus saith the Lord stand ye in the ways
and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and
walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah
6:16). Let us not be dismayed when men eminent in scholarship
and ability reply to us, "We will not walk therein."
One further objection considered.
It is objected that God loved men out of Christ before
He chose them.
Such a notion cannot be sustained to prove that God
loves men out of Christ in time. In the first place it is fraught
with the difficulties which attend the division or ordering of
decrees.
In the omniscience of God, there never was a time
when He did not know all things, and there never was a moment
in eternity when it was necessary for God to make order to His
thoughts or decrees. It is only because of our weakness that our
theology falls, or tends to fall into the infra or supra-lapsarian
positions. Some at different points in their theology appear to
belong to both. In actual fact there is not with God a plurality
or order of decrees, there is only one decree.
A thing foreknown is a thing foreordained. God knew
the end from the beginning, therefore sin was foreordained. We
do not assert that God simply foreordained that men should sin,
but rather that God foreordained that man should sin by his own
free act. Therefore, in the omniscience of God we must hold that
God contemplated men as sinners in loving and choosing them. That
God ever contemplated all men in perfection, when it was foreknown
and foreordained that all would become sinners is a matter of
pure speculation and conjecture. The Scripture simply asserts
that God chose a certain number out of all those who deserve to
perish. There are no grounds whatsoever for the notion that God
loved men out of Christ before He chose them, for in God's choice
of men it cannot be said that love preceded choice; the act of
love which contemplated men as sinners was in itself a choice.
Love and choice are but a single act of the will of God. If God
loves men at all, He loves them in Christ, for there can be no
division of love in the Trinity. The attributes of God are not
divisible, nor are the acts of His will. So that when God loved
Adam, even in His state of perfection, He loved Him in Christ.
Such is true of all the elect, for the Lord Jesus said of them,
"All mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified
in them." It is because the elect were Christ's that He gave
His life a ransom for them.
We do not assert that it was necessary for God to
love and choose men as sinners, we merely state that the Scripture
reveals that He did so in every case. If so, He will certainly
save all those upon whom He has set His love.
MODERN MODERATE CALVINISM
An Exposure of "The Free Offer of The Gospel" by Professor
Murray and Stonehouse as an Amyraldian Modification of the
Doctrine of Decrees.
