The History of the Free Offer Chapter 11 Analysis and Positive Statement
|
We have
now reached the end of our historical survey of the doctrine of the free offer. It remains
for us to point out the errors of the free offer and set forth the truth of Scripture
overagainst it.
A great
deal of confusion is present in the ecclesiastical world concerning this matter of the
free offer. There are those who insist that any denial of the free offer is in fact
hyper-Calvinism. This has become so common a notion that people who hear of anyone who
denies the free offer, instinctively and with a knee-jerking reaction, brand such a one as
a "hyper," who refuses to preach the gospel to all men, but insists that it can
be preached only to the elect.
There
are hyper-Calvinists in our day; and they do indeed take the position that it is proper
and right to limit the preaching to the elect only. Such are the Gospel Standard
people in England, e.g. And they are also to be found in this country.110
But a denial of the free offer does not automatically place one in the
hyper-Calvinist camp. We who deny that the preaching of the gospel is a well-meant
or free offer, emphatically assert both that the gospel is preached to all who hear and
must be preached to all who hear. In fact, this very truth is incorporated in the Canons of Dort, to which
Confession we whole-heartedly subscribe. Canons II, 5 emphatically
asserts:
Moreover, the promise of the
gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have
everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to
be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without
distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.
And in
III & IV, 9 the
Canons speak of those who reject the gospel which is preached to them:
It is not the fault of the gospel,
nor of Christ, offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers upon
them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the word, refuse to come,
and be converted: the fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of
their danger, reject the word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to
make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a
temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the
word by perplexing cares, and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. --This
our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower. Matt. 13.
This
truth is also clearly taught in Scripture. There is a powerful passage in Ezekiel
3:17-19 which places the blood of those who go lost upon the head of the preacher who
does not warn the wicked of his evil way, and only by warning the wicked can a preacher
escape the possibility of being responsible for his destruction.
Son of man, I have made thee a
watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them
warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him
not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the
same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet
if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
Indeed
how much clearer would a man want it than the very words of our Lord when He commanded His
Church: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mk.
16:15).
But
several things are to be noticed about this general proclamation of the gospel.
In the
first place, according to Canons II, 5, the gospel is the general proclamation of a
particular promise: the promise, according to this article is only to those who believe
and repent, i.e., the elect in whom God works faith and repentance. While it is indeed
publicly proclaimed, it is the public proclamation of a particular promise that God makes
only to His people and which is theirs in the way of faith and repentance.
In the
second place, when the Canons use the word "offer", as they do in III & IV, 9,
they
use it in the sense of "present, proclaim", which meaning is the meaning of the
Latin word offere as it was used in the original Canons. Christ is publicly and
promiscuously presented in the gospel and proclaimed as the One in Whom God worked the
great work of salvation. But such a proclamation and presentation of Christ in the gospel
is not a Christus pro omnibus, a Christ for all, but a Christ in Whom God wrought
salvation for those who believe in Him and repent of their sins. Thus He is publicly
presented as the One in Whom God wrought salvation for His people.
In
the third place, this is entirely in keeping with the character and nature of the gospel.
According to Scripture, in Romans 1:16,
the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. The gospel is
not a mere lecture on a theological subject. It is not a learned dissertation on some
given text. It is emphatically preaching. And preaching is the means that God is
pleased to use to call His people out of darkness into salvation in Christ. Preaching is
God's means, sovereignly and efficaciously, to bring salvation and heavenly glory to those
who belong to Christ.
To
make the preaching an offer robs the gospel of this great power. It reduces the gospel to
a mere expression on God's part to save all those who hear. When it reduces the gospel to
this kind of expression, it robs the gospel of its saving power. It makes the gospel nothing but some kind of
pleading, begging, seeking on God's part for the sinner to turn from his way and to accept
the salvation offered in Christ. God stands helplessly by, waiting to see what man will
do. God wants to save all. The gospel expresses His intention and desire, His earnest
longing to save all who hear. But God can do very little about it. He must wait to see
what man will do. If man accepts the gospel, then indeed salvation is granted him. But he
may very well reject it, and thus his reaction to the gospel stands outside God's power
and sovereign determination.
This
sort of notion about the gospel is thoroughly Arminian. It is Arminian because it denies
the truth of irresistible grace. It is Arminian because it ascribes to man the power to
accept the gospel; thus it denies man's utter depravity and inability to do any good. It
is Arminian because it makes salvation dependent upon the free will of man. And let it
never be forgotten: Ultimately these questions are questions of Who God is. Is the
sovereign God of heaven and earth, the Maker and Sustainer of all, the God Who gives us
our life and breath, Who upholds us every step of our earthly sojourn, a helpless god who
cannot save? Such a view of God is an idol, the creation of men's fevered and proud
imaginations. Such a view destroys the God of the Scriptures and reduces Him to a
pleading beggar. This is a terrible sin and brings down the wrath of God upon those who
make Him such a weak being that He is as putty in the hands of man.
It
is, of course, true that those who want to maintain the free offer of the gospel and still
go under the name of Calvinism or Reformed try to get around this terrible evil by
assuring us that the faith and repentance, which are necessary for us to receive Christ,
are gifts worked by God in the hearts of His people. They say: Christ is offered to all.
God wishes to save all. His intention and desire is to bring all to salvation. The gospel
expresses this truth forcibly. But actually and in fact, God works the faith necessary to
receive the gospel only in the hearts of the elect. So only they in fact are saved and
only they really receive the salvation offered.
But
this kind of evasion will never do. On the very surface of it, we have, in this
conception, a strange idea of God. Think of how this actually works. God wants desperately
to save a man; He expresses His desire and the deep longing of His soul to save the man;
He earnestly and longingly does everything He can to make that man accept Christ as His
Savior. But He does not give to that man the faith that is necessary for salvation. What
kind of a God is this? Can anyone imagine a God Who so deeply and passionately wants to
save a man, but withholds from him the one thing necessary to be
saved, namely faith? It is after all, within God's power to give faith. But He refrains.
What kind of a husband would I be if I earnestly longed for the health of my wife who is
dying from cancer, when I had in my power to restore her to health, but refused? I would
be branded by all men a monster and would probably be hailed before the courts of the land
indicted on a charge of negligent homicide at least. Yet so it is that men present God.
But
there is more. The gospel is the promise of salvation in Christ. The burning question is:
Does God promise, as a part of that salvation, faith and repentance? Or, to put it a
different way, are faith and repentance part of salvation and therefore part of the
promise? If they are, then through the gospel as the power of God unto salvation, all of
salvation is worked, including faith and repentance. But when one makes the promise of the
gospel dependent upon the conditions of faith and repentance, one separates faith and
repentance from salvation and makes them prerequisites to salvation. But if they are not a
part of salvation, then they are the work of man. One cannot have it both ways. Either
faith and repentance are part of the promise, worked sovereignly and irresistibly through
the gospel, or they are conditions to the promise, therefore
not a part of the promise, and thus the work of man.
It
is important to understand in this connection that a general and well-meant offer must
also be conditional. It must be conditional because every one who maintains it, freely
admits that not all to whom the gospel is proclaimed are actually saved. While God desires
the salvation of all, there are always those who reject the gospel. Thus, the free offer
is conditional, dependent upon faith and repentance. And thus faith and repentance are the
works of men. The free offer is inherently Arminian and a denial of all that has ever been
true of the Calvin Reformation.
It
is no wonder then that those who have held consistently to a free offer have inevitably
drifted into the Arminian camp. Here again one need only consult history. Wherever the
free offer has been maintained, Arminianism has raised its ugly head. This was true of the
Arminians who were condemned by the Synod of Dort, for they alone were the ones who
maintained a conditional salvation.111 This was true of the Amyrauldians,
whose influence extended to England, Europe and the Netherlands. This is true in the history of the
Reformed Churches also in this country. That such a conditional salvation has led to
Arminianism in the Christian Reformed Church is evident, e.g., from the failure of this
denomination to condemn a form of universal atonement as it appeared in the Sixties. We
can come to only one conclusion: the necessary conditionality of the free offer is
essentially Arminian and a denial of Calvinism.
It
might be well to spell this out a bit more in detail, because such a discussion will quite
naturally lead to another aspect of the idea of the free offer.
Anyone
acquainted with the so-called "five points of Calvinism" will know that they are
often remembered by the memory device: TULIP -- total
depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance
of the saints. The free offer leads to a denial of them all.
The
free offer leads to a denial of total depravity because salvation is made dependent upon
the will of man. The best illustration of this that we can offer is the position of
the Christian Reformed Church
in this matter. Already in the "Three Points of Common Grace" total
depravity was explicitly denied, for these three points112 teach
that because of a general operation of the Spirit in the hearts of all men, sin is so
restrained that the sinner is capable of doing good. This denial of total depravity has often been expressed in
Christian Reformed literature by a distinction that is made between total depravity and
absolute depravity. The latter is intended to refer to complete depravity so that the
sinner is incapable of doing any good and able to do only evil. The former, which the
Christian Reformed Church professes to believe, is interpreted to mean that the sinner is
depraved in all parts of his nature, though in every part are some remnants of good. By
this distinction the truth of total depravity is denied. Yet it is essential for the
doctrine of the free offer because the natural man must not only be able to do good, but
he must also be able to respond to the gospel offer. If I offer one thousand dollars to
ten corpses, people will think I am crazy. But Scripture defines the sinner as dead in
trespasses and sins. Only when this spiritual death is less than death can the free offer
make any sense.
The free offer of the gospel leads to a denial of particular atonement because a salvation that is intended for all must also be a salvation that is purchased for all. If God, through the gospel, offers salvation to all who hear along with the intent and expressed desire to save all, this salvation must be available. If it is not, the whole offer becomes a farce. If I offer one thousand dollars to each of ten people, if they will come to my house to pick it up, I had better have it somewhere in the house, or I am in trouble. If I do not have all the money that might be needed in the house, I am making a farce of the offer and really lying. If God offers salvation to all who hear and really earnestly desires their salvation, He had (I speak as a man) better have that salvation available. If He does not, the offer becomes a farce. God offers that which He does not have. This makes God a liar and the offer a fake. Hence, the only sense one can make out of the offer is to teach a salvation which was earned by Christ on the cross for everyone. Thus the cross of Christ and the redemption that He accomplished becomes universal in its extent. It is not surprising that Dekker argued in the Sixties within his denomination that because the love and grace of God were general, the atonement was also general.
The free offer leads to a denial of irresistible grace.
When the offer expresses only God's desire to save all and offers salvation to all, then
the grace of the preaching is not irresistible, but resistible. Men may choose to resist
it and refuse to accept the offer. God cannot accomplish that which He wills. His
intentions and desires are frustrated and His purpose is made of no effect because of
man's resistance.
Ultimately
the free offer also makes the perseverance of the saints a doubtful matter. It stands to
reason that if man can either accept or reject the gospel offer, he can at one time accept
it, at another time reject it, and yet again accept it. But because his salvation is
dependent upon what he does, his salvation hangs by the thin thread of his own free will.
Thus his final salvation is always in doubt. He can fall away from the faith, and he can,
while once having accepted Christ, still spurn Him in the future. It is undoubtedly this
general Arminian teaching that is the basis for revivals and recommitments to Christ
through the invitation.
But of
particular concern to us is the truth of unconditional predestination. While it is true
that the "U" of TULIP speaks only of unconditional election, reprobation has
also always been a part of the truth of predestination. The free offer denies both. The
free offer denies reprobation first of all because if God's sovereign purpose is not to
save some, including some who hear the gospel, God's purpose in offering them salvation is
nonsensical. On the one hand, God purposes not to save; on the other hand God purposes to
save. On the one hand it is God's will not to save; on the other hand it is God's will to
save. The result is that in those circles reprobation is finally denied.
This
is, in fact, what has happened in the Christian Reformed Church. The truth of reprobation
is hardly ever preached, if at all; and Harry Boer made a specific attack against this
doctrine in the late Seventies and early Eighties, when he asked the Synod of the
Christian Reformed Church to strike the doctrine of reprobation from the Canons. While
Synod refused to do this, it put its stamp of approval on a report of a committee
appointed to study the matter, which report contains a definition of reprobation which is
completely out of keeping with the historic definition of the doctrine and with the truth
as it is taught in the Canons. Synod, in effect, approved of a conditional reprobation,
the very view which the Arminians maintained and which our fathers at Dort repudiated.
But if
reprobation is denied, then also election falls by the way. They are two sides of one
coin, two parts of one truth.113
But the free offer cannot bear the truth of election for the same
reason that it militates against reprobation. On the one hand, God purposes to save only
His people chosen in Christ; on the other hand, He purposes to save all. One will is to
save some; another will is to save all. And because the two are so flatly contradictory,
they cannot both be maintained. So, the truth of sovereign election is sacrificed on the
altar of the free offer.
A
discussion of the relation between the idea of the free offer of the gospel and the
counsel and will of God leads us to a point which needs to be made. Those who hold to a
free offer and still want to retain some semblance of being Calvinistic and Reformed make
a distinction at this point between the will of God's decree and the will of His command;
or, as is sometimes said, between God's decretive will and His preceptive will. According
to this strange notion, God's decretive will purposes the salvation only of the elect,
while God's preceptive will purposes the salvation of all who hear the gospel. Thus God
has two wills that are in direct conflict.
The
conflict is so obvious that even the supporters of this view (and their number is legion)
find it a bit difficult to swallow. So in justification of this, they fall back on a sort
of last line of defense and plead "apparent contradiction." They piously assure
us (and it sounds truly pious) that God's ways are so much higher than our ways that we
cannot fathom them. What to us seems to be contradictory, to God is a perfect harmony. All
we can do is hold the two apparently contradictory propositions in proper tension.
We
cannot go into this matter of apparent contradiction in this article; but it ought to be
apparent to all that this sort of argumentation ultimately leads to theological
skepticism. If there is contradiction possible at such a critical juncture of the truth,
then there is contradiction possible at any juncture of the truth. Then man can be both
totally depraved and relatively good. Then grace is both resistible and irresistible. Then
God is both triune and not triune. Then justification is both by faith alone and also by
faith and works. Then the atonement of Christ is both efficacious and ineffectual. And so
one can go on. But this makes any knowledge of the truth impossible and mires one in the
slime of subjectivism and skepticism.
Nevertheless,
this doctrine of two wills in God is an invention. Any Reformer, including Calvin, who
reprobated the idea in the strongest possible terms, has never held it. It is sheer human
invention that masks an attempt to be both Arminian and Reformed at the same time.114 This does not
mean that the distinction itself is not valid. It is certainly true that Scripture
indicates to us that, within the one will of God, we may distinguish between the God's
will of decree and God's will of precept. The danger of evil enters when we set these two
over against each other in such a way that these two not only indicate two separate wills
of God, but two wills which are in conflict with each other. But the distinction must be
maintained because it has importance for our present subject.
We
indicated above that those who deny the free offer of the gospel nevertheless maintain
that the gospel is preached and must be preached to all creatures to whom God in His good
pleasure is pleased to send it. That is, the gospel is and must be preached to many more
than those whom it is God's purpose to save. We must now face the question of why this is
important.
In
the first place, we must be clear about the fact that throughout the history of the world
the gospel has by no means been brought to every person. This too, in a certain sense, is a problem that
can hardly be satisfactorily answered by the advocates of a well-meant offer. If God
expresses His desire to save all who hear the gospel, and this desire is serious,
well-meant, truly an expression of God's love and grace, it would seem only appropriate to
the nature of God to express this desire to all men and not only those to whom the gospel
comes. Yet the fact is that the gospel by no means comes to everyone. This was already
true in the Old Testament during which only a relatively few heard the gospel. Far and
away the majority of people who lived never received the gospel at all, for the gospel was
bound up in the types and shadows of Israel's ceremonial life and was, therefore, limited
to the nation of Israel which dwelt in Palestine. Only to them did the gospel of Christ
come. But the same is true of the New Dispensation. Although the Church, from the very
beginning of her history, was busy in obeying the command of Christ to go into the entire
world and preach the gospel, nevertheless, in the nature of the case this could not be
done immediately. And, in fact, even today we are told that there are remote tribes here
and there who still have never heard the gospel preached. This is because, in the final
analysis, God sends the gospel where He pleases. Our Canons are right when in II,
5 they
say that this promise, together with the command to repent and believe, must be preached and proclaimed
to all those to whom God in His good pleasure is pleased to send it. God determines where
His gospel is to be preached. And He does that today just as certainly as He did this when
the Holy Spirit forbad the gospel to be preached in Asia on Paul's second missionary
journey (Acts
16:6).
But
while this is true, we have not yet answered the question why it is important for the
gospel to be preached to more people than the elect. Some have answered that it is only a
kind of inevitable "fall-out" from the preaching. They point to the fact that it
is simply impossible for the gospel to be preached to the elect only. Human men, after
all, preach the gospel. They must preach to audiences of mixed people. They do not know
who in these audiences are elect and who are reprobate. They must of necessity preach to
all. Therefore, while it is really not important or necessary that the gospel come to more
than the elect, there is little or nothing any one can do about it, and it is
fundamentally unimportant, for the reprobate cannot believe the gospel anyway.
This is
a terribly wrong and evil caricature of the idea of preaching. Never must we take this
position, for it implies that God really cannot do anything about the fact that the gospel
is preached to all, although it would be preferable that things be different. It is also a
denial
of the Canons that tell us that the promise of the gospel "ought to be declared and
published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously" (II, 5). I.e.,
the gospel must be so preached. It is a divine must. It is God's will.
But we
must be careful that we do not go to the opposite extreme and say that this is true
because all men must have a chance to be saved. This is the kind of language that fits in
perfectly with the idea of the free offer; yet it is so commonly heard today that it seems
almost ingrained in the thinking of people. The idea is that God cannot justly send anyone
to hell unless he at least has the opportunity to hear the gospel and reject it -- or
accept it. But this simply is not true. The Scriptures plainly teach on the one hand that
all men are guilty in Adam apart from any guilt that they may accumulate because of their
own sins, and this guilt in Adam is itself sufficient to send every man to hell. This is
taught clearly, e.g., in Rom. 5:12-14:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the
world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come."
But on
the other hand, apart from that guilt, the wicked who never hear the gospel are confronted
daily with the obligation to love God and serve Him alone by the things in the creation,
which clearly testify of God's eternal power and Godhead ( Rom. 1: l8ff.)
It is true that no man can be saved apart from the gospel, but this does not alter the
fact that all men know, through the creation, that God alone is God and that He alone must
be served. That they cannot serve God is not due to anything but their own total depravity
for which they are themselves responsible in Adam.
It is
God's will that many more than the elect hear the gospel proclaimed. Why is this?
The
answer to this question is that God is pleased to have all who hear the gospel confronted
with Christ and with the specific command to repent from their sins and believe in Christ.
Not only the elect but also the reprobate who hear the gospel must be specifically and
concretely commanded to turn from their evil way and to believe in Christ. They, of
course, cannot do this apart from God's work of regeneration and conversion; but they must
nevertheless. This is why, throughout this series of articles we have always insisted that
the original meaning of the word "offer" is entirely Biblical. Christ is
presented in the gospel. He is presented to all who hear. He is presented and proclaimed
not only to the elect, but also to the reprobate. It is God's will that this be so. And
God so wills this because, it is through the presentation of Christ as the only One in
Whom is salvation that all men who hear the gospel are placed before the solemn obligation
to repent and believe. This is why Peter, in his great Pentecostal sermon, exactly
preached repentance and faith to all who heard him on that day (Acts 2:38).
But, in
the second place, we must carry this point a bit further. The question is still: why is it
God's purpose to confront all those who hear the gospel with the command to repent and
believe? Why must those whom God has purposed not to save be commanded to repent and
believe as well as those whom God does save?
Again,
the answer is not that these select people are given an opportunity to be saved, that for
some unspecified purpose, God gives them a chance that is not given to those who never
hear the gospel. This is again to introduce into the preaching of the gospel an Arminian
element that is completely antipathetic to the teaching of God's holy Word. God does not
give people a "chance" to be saved of whom He knows that they cannot and will
not believe.
The
answer to this question is first of all to be found in the fact that God always maintains
the demands of His law. God originally created man upright and capable of doing all things that God required
of him. Although man fell and by his fall brought upon himself total depravity so that he
can no longer keep the law in any respect, God does not and cannot change His demands.
This would be out of keeping with the holiness of God.
To make
this clear we can use a figure. Suppose that I contract with a carpenter to build a house
for me at a cost of $50,000. Suppose also that he informs me that he cannot proceed with
building until I advance him the total cost of the building. I may do this in order that
he can proceed with building. But it is also possible that he, rather than use that money
for building, leaves on a round-the-world trip in which he spends every dime I gave him.
Upon his return, I have the right to insist from him that he build my house. He may object
to my insistence and plead that he is unable because he no longer possesses the necessary
money. But this does not alter my demand in the least. I will tell him: "I gave you
all that was necessary to build my house. You squandered the money in your own pleasures.
That is not my fault; it is yours. Now build my house." I would have every right to
insist on this. This is not less true of God. God gave us, in Adam, all that we needed to
serve Him. The fact that we are incapable of doing this is not God's fault, but ours. He
must, according to His own holiness and justice, insist that I do this. And because of
sin, this demand of God to serve Him now involves the command to repent of my sin and
believe on Jesus Christ. For God to do anything less than this would be a denial of His
own justice and holiness.
It is
characteristic of the Arminians that they always identify obligation with ability. God may
obligate man to do that only that he is able to do. But this is very far from the truth.
Our Heidelberg Catechism states the matter succinctly: "Q. Does not God then
do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform? A.
Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the
devil, and his own willful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those
divine gifts" (IV, 8). So in the first place, the command to repent from sin and
believe in Christ is only rooted in God's original command to Adam and to all men to obey
Him. This command God continues to maintain.
But
there is more. In the second place, it is through the command of the gospel that comes to
all who hear that God accomplishes His purpose. We must look at this matter from two
different sides. On the side of man, his refusal to obey the command of the gospel places
him unmistakably in a position where he is justly sentenced to everlasting condemnation in
hell. Not as if he does not deserve hell already because of his sin in Adam and because of
his refusal to obey the testimony of God in the things that belong to the creation. But
the command comes ever so much clearer through the gospel. And it comes clearer through
the gospel because in the gospel God presents Christ as crucified to accomplish salvation.
To repent of sin and believe in Christ is the way of salvation. When man refuses to do
this, he shows how deep is his sin and how bitter his enmity. He demonstrates unmistakably
that he hates God and His Christ, that he will have no part of God's salvation, that he
despises all that is of God and His truth, that he prefers an eternity in hell to
repenting of his evil way which he loves. When, therefore, he is cast into hell for his
terrible sin, no one can say that this is not just. He receives what he wants and what he
has justly coming to him.
And if
it be objected once again that he is incapable of believing in Christ and turning from his
evil way, then the answer is once again: but who is to blame for that? Is not the sinner
himself to blame? His sin and depravity are not God's fault, but his own.
Or, if the question be asked: what difference does it make that the gospel comes to such a
man when he already shows his hatred by refusing to worship God after knowing him through
the things which God created? Why does God want him also to hear the gospel? The answer
is: sin must appear completely as sin. It must be evident that sin is really the terrible
power that it is. Perhaps it might be objected that, after all, the command to repent and
serve God is not clear enough in creation to understand precisely what God means. But in
the preaching of the gospel the command to repent and believe in Christ is so clearly set
forth that no mistake about it can any longer be made. And when the demand to repent
and believe in Christ is still rejected by the ungodly, it becomes unmistakably clear that
man is so wicked that he will disobey God's command no matter how clearly it comes to him.
Sin is so terrible that when Christ, God's own Son is sent for salvation, wicked man will
take Him in his filthy hands and nail him to a cross. And when that cross is preached as
God's way of salvation, man will trample underfoot the blood of the covenant and crucify
the Son of God afresh (See Heb. 6:4-6).
God does all that is necessary, apart from man's sin, to make salvation clear and
unmistakable. When Isaiah writes in chapter 5 of his prophecy what God has done with His
vineyard, he concludes with the words of God: "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done
more to my vineyard that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should
bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I
will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and
break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it
shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also
command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it" (vss. 3-6).
But we
must look at this matter also from God's point of view. This is necessary because, after
all, God always accomplishes His own sovereign purpose. Nothing is outside His will and
nothing takes place without His sovereign determination. That is, with respect to our
subject, the decree of reprobation must be accomplished. By means of the command of the
gospel that comes to all who hear, God accomplishes His purpose in reprobation. God has
determined from all eternity to save a people. But God has also determined from all
eternity to damn the wicked to eternal hell in the way of their sins.
This
requires just a bit of explanation. Reprobation cannot be separated from the sins of the
wicked. Yet, while we say this, we must be careful that we understand it. The sins of the
wicked are not the cause or condition of reprobation, so that God reprobates on account of
sin and unbelief. This is the position of the Arminians that is emphatically refuted by
the fathers of Dort in the Canons. It is a conditional reprobation that the
Scriptures abhor because it detracts from the absolute sovereignty of God. Nor must it be
asserted that the decree of reprobation is the cause of the sin of the wicked. This makes
God the Author of sin, something that the Canons brand as blasphemy. Rather we must insist
that reprobation is decreed and accomplished in the way of man's sin so that, while God is
sovereign in His decree, man goes to hell because he and he alone has sinned and must bear
the responsibility for sin.
We are
fully aware of the fact that this difficult question involves the whole relation between
God's sovereign counsel and man's sin for which he alone is responsible. And we are not at
all ashamed to admit that a mystery is present here that our feeble minds can never begin
to fathom. But Scripture is clear enough on the point that also sin lies within the scope
of God's decree and purpose. Yet God so decrees and works that man remains forever
responsible. 115
However
all this may be, what needs emphasis now is the fact that through the preaching of the
gospel, with the command to repent and believe, God accomplishes His sovereign purpose.
The gospel is intended by God, not only to save His elect, but also to harden the
reprobate. And it is exactly this command of the gospel that comes to all which
serves as God's means to harden in sin. Because the gospel presents Christ as the way of
salvation, and because all men everywhere are commanded to believe in Christ, the gospel
exactly works as God's power to damn the wicked in the way of their sin and impenitence.
Scripture clearly teaches this two-fold power of the gospel. Paul speaks of this in II Cor.
2:14-17: "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ,
and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God
a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we
are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who
is sufficient for these things? For we are
not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the
sight of God speak we in Christ." This is why Peter writes, in I Peter 2:8,
that Christ preached is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them
which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
And this is why John writes in 12:37-41: "But though he had done so many miracles
before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be
fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of
the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their
eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted,
and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of
him."
When
therefore, the gospel is preached generally and all who hear are placed before the command
to repent and believe, God accomplishes His sovereign purpose in their refusal to believe
and their terrible disobedience. It is important therefore that the gospel be preached to
all.
We must
at this point remind ourselves of the truth that this command of God that comes to all who
hear the gospel is serious. God is not playing games with men when He commands them to
repent and believe. God is not merely toying with their emotions and eternal estate. God
means exactly what He says. He is so serious about it that refusal ends in eternal death.
Our Canons also emphasize this in III & IV, 8. Unfortunately, the translation
of our English version is not correct on this score. This reads:
As many as are called by the
gospel, are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly declared in his
Word, what will be acceptable to him; namely, that all who are called, should comply with
the invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life, and rest, to as many as
shall come to him, and believe on him.
The
problem centers in the second sentence of this article, which, at least on the surface,
seems to suggest some kind of well-meant offer. However, the correct translation
of this sentence is: "For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what
is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him." You
will immediately notice the important difference. 116
The
point which the Canons are making is that God calls to repentance and faith
seriously and unfeignedly. He means exactly what He says.
But
this brings up another question that has sometimes troubled some. If when God seriously
and unfeignedly calls the reprobate to repent of sin and turn to Christ, is this not after
all an expression of God's will and desire to save all men? What is so different in this
from the well-meant offer?
The
difference is great and crucial. A bit earlier in this chapter we mentioned the fact that
it is not necessarily wrong in itself to make a distinction between God's decretive will
and God's preceptive will, God's will of decree and God's will of command -- as
long as these two aspects of God's will are not so placed in contradiction with each other
that they really become two separate wills. Bearing this in mind, it is
certainly correct and according to Scripture to say that God's will of command is that all
men obey Him, keep His commandments, walk in His way, love Him with all their hearts and
minds and souls and strength. And if they sin, as they always do, this will of God's
command surely means that men turn from their evil ways, repent of their sins and seek
their salvation only in Christ. But this command of God is His morally perfect will for
men. Surely, because God is supremely holy and without sin, because He loves only that
which is right and good and according to His own law, He delights only in the good and
hates all that is of evil. When therefore, He insists that all men serve Him alone as God,
repent of their sins and seek their salvation only in Jesus Christ, this is His good and
morally holy will. He can do nothing else, for He is the Holy One of Israel. It would
sully and stain His holiness for God to say: It is quite all right with Me if you continue
in your sins. In fact, it is quite my will for you to walk in sin, live lives of rebellion
against Me, and trample under foot My righteous ways. No man would ever say that this is
God's will. His will is as He is: holy, just, good, righteous and perfectly right.
This
command therefore, which comes to all men to repent of sin and turn to Christ is the
expression of God's holy and just will for the sinner. There is fundamentally (and I speak
in all reverence) nothing else that God can do but
to demand holiness of men. It is His morally holy will that men do what is right. And this
is in perfect harmony with the will of His decree because it is exactly through this morally holy will of His
command that God sovereignly executes His eternal will of reprobation. If His will were
anything less than morally holy, the decree of reprobation could never be executed through
it.
But
this is a far cry from the well-meant offer, for the well-meant offer teaches us that God
desires and intends the salvation of all who hear. It is His love and grace shown to them
that offers them Christ as their salvation. And it is His purpose and will to save such.
This is Arminian in every respect and a resurrection of the ancient heresy of
Amyrauldianism that destroys all the truth of the gospel.
There
is one more point to which we must still address ourselves. It is true that this point is
not directly related to the well-meant offer, but nevertheless stands closely connected to
it. I refer to the fact that the whole concept of the well-meant offer gives a decidedly
wrong idea of Scripture. Scripture is sometimes presented as if the whole of it is nothing
but such a well-meant offer. In proof of this a number of texts are quoted which are
supposed to prove that God sincerely desires the salvation of all, texts that prove
nothing of the kind. I refer to such texts as Is. 55:1-3, Mt. 11:28, Rev. 22:17,
etc. Perhaps it would be well to have at least these texts before us before we comment on
them.
Is. 55:1-3: Ho, every one that
thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread?
and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that
which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come
unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
even the sure mercies of David.
Mt. 11:28: Come unto me, all ye
that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Rev. 22:17:
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him
that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
As we
said, Scripture as a whole, and these texts in particular, are often presented as one
large offer of the gospel. Because the Scriptures are preeminently the revelation of
Christ, Christ in the whole of the Scriptures is said to be offered to all. And these
texts are often quoted as proof.
Yet
nothing could be more wrong.
The
address of these texts, even on their very surface, is very particular, limited to a
select group of people. Is. 55:1-3 is specifically addressed to those who are thirsty and
who have no money. Mt. 11:28 is specifically addressed to those who labor and are heavy
laden. Rev.
22:17 is specifically addressed to him that heareth, to him that is athirst, to
whosoever will.
Now it is possible, of course, so to interpret these texts so that they refer to every one
in the world, or at least to every one who hears the gospel. But this interpretation can
only be made from a totally Arminian viewpoint. That is, if every one thirsts, is without
money, is laboring and heavy laden, wills to come to Christ, then everyone is capable of
seeking salvation by himself. He has the power within himself to seek Christ, thirst for
Him, will to come to Him. Then the totally depraved sinner, apart from Christ's work of
salvation, is capable of doing good, exercising his own free will and coming to Christ by
his own power. But this Arminian conception puts all the responsibility of salvation upon
man, ascribes to him powers that he does not have, and makes God dependent upon the
sinner's choice and power.
When
the texts are specific in their address, they are such because they mean to be Christ's
Word only to specific people. But because no man can of himself thirst for Christ, come to
the water, be burdened by his sin and guilt, will to come, these spiritual virtues are
dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit. Only the Spirit can work these powers within a
man. But the Holy Spirit works these powers only in those who are God's elect, for whom
Christ died, and who are efficaciously called by the Spirit in their hearts. By virtue of
the Spirit's work, these people thirst for Christ, are heavy laden under the load of their
sins, will to come, etc.
We
may well ask the question why Christ works this way, i.e., first working in His people a
longing for salvation, and then calling them to Him.
The
answer to this question is first of all that God always deals with his people as rational
and moral creatures, and not as stocks and blocks. God does not take His people along the
pathway of this life to glory in the same way as a child pulls a mechanical toy or a
quacking mechanical duck along the floor. Or as one minister once expressed it, God's
people do not ride to heaven in the lower berth of a Pullman sleeper. God wants His people
to know and experience their salvation. He wants them to be conscious partakers of His
grace so that they may praise and bless His name for the salvation that He gives to them.
In
the second place, God's people, while in this world, are not yet perfect. They are indeed
regenerated and converted, but this work of salvation is only in principle. They are still
in the flesh, and in their flesh dwells no good thing. There is much sin in them that
strives for mastery in their life, pulls them in the direction of the things of this
world, and often causes them to fall deeply into sin. With this evil in their flesh, they
must constantly struggle; and when they fall into sin, they must repent of their sin and
turn again to Christ.
In the third place, it is only through repentance and sorrow for sin that they can come to
know their salvation in Christ. Without a deep consciousness of their sin and an
overwhelming awareness of their own unworthiness, they have no need of Christ, no
consciousness of their utter dependence upon Him, no sense of the truth that salvation is
to be found only in Him.
It is
in this way that God deals with them through the gospel. He addresses them in this life,
in their struggles and sins, in their need and trouble, in the consciousness of their sin
and helplessness. He addresses them in such a way that, through His call to them, He
brings them back to Himself, restores them to grace and favor, shows them His great love
and mercy, and gives them His full and free salvation so that they are conscious of it.
Thus
the elect in whom the Spirit works are the ones who thirst, for they, wallowing in their
sins, thirst again for God as a hart pants for water brooks. They are without money
because they know their own hopeless state, their utter inability to save themselves,
their total dependence upon God. They are laboring and heavy laden because the burden of
sin has become intolerable, too heavy to bear, too great to carry as they walk the pathway
of this life. They will to come because they have seen the total futility of life apart
from God and the hopelessness of the wicked world that so often attracts them to its
pleasures and lusts. But all these things are true of them because the Spirit of Christ
has put these characteristics in their hearts and lives.
Thus we
must remember that the Scriptures are, after all, a book addressed to God's people, not to
all men. The Scriptures are the infallibly inspired record of the revelation of Jehovah
God in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the God Who saves His people from their sins. And because Scripture is this, it is God's Word of
hope and promise to them. It is the light -- the
only light – that
shines in this dark
world of hopeless despair. It is God's great grace and mercy revealed in Christ to those
whom He has chosen to be His own inheritance. It is, if you will, Christ the Bridegroom's
love letter to His elect and chosen bride for whom He died and to whom He comes tenderly
and compassionately to save them.
But
Christ addresses His bride in her sins, her struggles, her troubles and afflictions.
Sometimes He encourages her; sometimes He sharply reprimands her; sometimes He comforts
tenderly and compassionately; sometimes He calls to her with all the sweetness of His
loving voice. But always His purpose is to lead her to Him and to bring her to the joy of
the salvation He has prepared for her.
Thus He
calls His people by their spiritual names.
In John 10 Jesus
speaks of this under the figure of a shepherd and his sheep. In that connection, Jesus
speaks of the fact that "the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by
name (literally, name by name)" (vs. 3); that
He is the Good Shepherd Who gives His life for the sheep, Who knows His sheep, and am
known of those who are His sheep (vss. 11, 14). These are the spiritual names, therefore,
of the people of God who belong to Christ. They are called by Scripture the ones who
thirst, who are laboring and heavy laden, who mourn, who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, etc.
And
Christ uses these spiritual names to address them in Scripture and in the preaching of the
Word because, when the preaching is, through the minister, addressed to Christ's people
under these names, the Spirit of Christ so works in the hearts of God's people that they
recognize themselves as hungering and thirsting, as laboring and heavy laden; and
recognizing themselves as such, they know that Christ is calling them, and they hear His
Word. Rejoicing, they come to Him Who is the fountain of all their life and the source of
all their strength. They hear the Word of the gospel: "Come unto me, all ye that
labor and are heavy laden; and I will give you rest." As Christ works in their hearts
in such a way that they see the heavy burden of sin which weighs upon them and crushes
them, and seeing this and knowing it, they hear Christ call to them and recognize it as
the call of their Lord: Come to me; I will give you rest. Joyfully and full of hope they
flee to Christ and receive the rest promised them.
We
stress again that this is the character of Scripture. It is not a book addressed, in its
fundamental nature, to all men, or even to all who hear the gospel. It is a love letter
addressed by Christ to His elect bride.
This
does not mean that when that Scripture is preached, and preached, as it must be,
promiscuously, that by it all men are not confronted with the obligation to repent of sin
and come to Christ. They surely are, for many are called, though few are chosen. And all
men stand solemnly before the command to obey God, walk in His ways, and keep His
commandments. We have noticed earlier how important this also is. But it must never be
forgotten that that very command to repent and believe is the command that Christ uses,
through His Spirit, to bring His own people to repentance and faith in Him. The power of
that Word of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16)
is, even when it comes in the form of a command, the very power by which repentance and
faith are worked in the elect. In other words, when the command of the gospel goes forth
to come to Christ, all who come under the preaching hears that command. This not only lies
in the nature of the preaching, but it is also God's purpose. But that one command, heard
by all, has a two-fold effect. As it places the reprobate before the obligations of God's
holy Word, it serves as the means to harden them in their unbelief. But that same command
is heard by the elect in whom Christ has begun His work of salvation and grace. And they,
hearing it, obey with willing hearts, made willing by God's gracious operations within
them. Both the willing and the doing are worked in them by God (Phil. 2:13).
To
reduce the preaching, therefore, to a well-meant offer is to rob the preaching (and the
Scriptures) of their beauty and power, of their comfort and hope as these Scriptures are
the only light we have in the midst of the world. How wonderful it is to have the very
voice of Christ our Savior speak to us. How wonderful it is to hear His voice addressed to
us, calling us name by name. How wonderful it is to hear His great mercy and love, His
grace and compassion addressed to us personally. He is full of pity towards us in our
sins, tender and compassionate even when we stray from Him, moved to tears at our
waywardness and foolishness. His love shines through when He rebukes, for it is for our
good. His patience with us knows no end, for we are all like sheep that have gone astray.
He lifts us up and carries us back to the fold though we deserve nothing of such great
grace. His encouragement to us in all the difficulties of life comes as cooling streams in
the parched wasteland of this world. His promise that He will be with us always and take
us finally into His Father's house of many mansions lightens our darkest moments. His
assurance that no man can pluck us out of His hand gives us courage and puts steel in our
spines when we face the hordes of our enemies who are so much stronger than we. Who,
understanding this, would want to reduce Scripture to a mere offer? It is incredible that
anyone, having tasted the good things of the gospel, can deal so disparagingly with that
most blessed of all books.
Finally,
there are a few classic texts that are quoted in support of the free offer; and we ought
to take a look at them. After all, in the final analysis, the whole question of the free
offer turns on the point of whether or not it is taught in Scripture. If it is, all else
falls by the wayside: we must bow before Scripture and receive it, whether we like it or
not.
As we
have mentioned earlier there is a kind of prima facie case that can be made against
this. Scripture is so full of passages which flatly and explicitly contradict and
reprobate any idea of the free offer that it would be extremely strange, to say the least,
if there were other passages which taught it. God's Scriptures are a unity, a harmonious
whole, and a single revelation of God in Christ. If these Scriptures indeed contradict
themselves, teach
exactly opposing ideas, we could not have any confidence in them at all and we would be
reduced to theological agnosticism.
Nevertheless,
our study can hardly be complete without taking a look at the most important texts that
have been quoted in support of the free offer.
The
first such passage is Ez. 33:11 (with a similar passage in 18:23). This passage reads:
"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil
ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
Now
it ought to be clear that no matter how this passage is really taken, there is no offer of
salvation in it. God, in fact, swears an oath as the living God that He has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked. His pleasure is to be found in the fact that the wicked turn from
his evil way. Even if God's reference to "the wicked" is interpreted to mean all
men, there is still no offer. There is indeed the command to turn from evil. And as we
have noticed before, God, in all sincerity, places before all men the command to repent
from sin and turn from their evil way. God's moral will is of such a kind that He has no pleasure in sin, but rather
demands holiness from men.
But the
fact is that this text is not addressed to all men without distinction. The text itself as
well as the context makes this very clear. The text itself is addressed to "the house
of Israel." And the words of the text are an answer to what the children of Israel
were deeply worried about: "If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we
pine away in them, how should we then live?" (vs. 10). In other words, the children
of Israel had departed from the ways of God's covenant and had made themselves worthy of
God's wrath and displeasure. In the agony of their sin, they wondered whether they would
ever be received back into favor. They knew they rightly deserved to die, and they were
deeply troubled by how they would again be restored to life. In fact, they wondered
whether indeed they ever would be restored to life. They know how undeserving of this they
were. What child of God, after falling deeply into sin and coming again to the
consciousness of how terrible his sin was before God has not asked the same question? He
wonders in the agony of his soul whether there is any way out of his sin to life; whether
God could ever receive him again. And if there is some way, what can this way be?
To this
God says: I have no pleasure in your death, but that you turn from your evil ways and
live. And God's gracious promise to such as turn from their ways and repent of their sin
is precisely that they will be restored to life once again.
Another
such text is Mt. 23:37 (see also Luke 13:34):
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them which are
sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
Here
too it is immediately evident that there is nothing even faintly resembling a well-meant
offer of the gospel. It is not even so very easy to understand exactly why the proponents
of the well-meant offer quote this text. Presumably, their argument goes something like
this. Jesus wanted to gather to Himself all the people of Jerusalem, but was prevented
from doing this by their stubborn rebellion. Hence, Jesus expresses here His divine desire
and intention to save all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but was foiled in this attempt by
the terrible unbelief of these stubborn Jews. If therefore, Jesus wanted to save all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, He surely offered them salvation.
If this
is the argument, it is immediately apparent that the offer as such is assumed. The text
itself says nothing about it. But apart from this, is it really true that Jesus expresses
here His divine intention and purpose to save all the inhabitants of Jerusalem? The answer
must be an emphatic No. The very language of the text refutes that notion. Jesus does not
say, "How often would I have gathered thee together . . . ;" He
says, "How often would I have gathered thy children together . . . ." This
is quite different. This means, in the first place, that by "Jerusalem" Jesus
does not mean the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but the city as the center of all Israel's
political and ecclesiastical life. In more than one place in Scripture this city is
pictured as a mother who brings forth children (cf. e.g., Gal. 4:24-27).
In the Old Dispensation Jerusalem was the Church of God. In Jesus' time it was the Church
that had become apostate and corrupt. It was the Church from the viewpoint of her temple
and sacrifices, her priesthood and ceremonies, her feast days and cleansings, but as all
these were polluted by the wicked Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus expresses in this text the
desire to save Jerusalem's children. But the Scribes and Pharisees fought bitterly against
this at every step of Jesus' way. They resisted His efforts to do this so fiercely that
they finally nailed Him to the cross. But does all this mean that Jerusalem's children
were never gathered by Jesus? Far from it. Jesus accomplished His purpose in spite of the
wickedness of Jerusalem's leaders. We have only to read of the thousands of Jerusalem's
children who were saved after Pentecost to understand that Jesus did what He purposed to
do. Here Jesus is emphasizing the terrible sin of Jerusalem, which is almost ripe for
destruction and which will presently be razed to the ground for all her sins. They not
only themselves rejected Christ, but they did all in their power to prevent their children
from coming to Christ. Therefore, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate"
(Mt. 23:38).
Finally
we call attention to II Peter 3:9: "The
Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is
long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance."
Again,
it is not so easy to see exactly how this text is supposed to teach the well-meant offer.
One would suppose that the argument goes along these lines. Since God is not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, God wants all men to be saved,
and therefore, God also offers His salvation to all men.
But
again, it ought to be noticed that the text itself says nothing about an offer. Even if
one interprets the words "any" and "all" as referring to all men,
there is, every one will be forced to admit, no mention whatsoever of an offer.
But
again, is it true that the words "any" and "all" refer to all men in
this passage? They most emphatically do not, and no amount of twisting or semantic
gymnastics can make them refer to all men.
Consider first of all the context. Peter is speaking of the fact that scoffers shall come in the last day denying the second coming of Christ (vs. 4). The basis for their argument is what modern evolutionism calls the "Uniformitarian Theory:" "All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Peter first proceeds to show that their basis is wrong: all things do not continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, for the ante-deluvian world was "standing out of the water and in the water" and was destroyed by water (vss. 5, 6). But "the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment . . ." (vs. 7).
Apparently, however, the Church of Peter's day, hard-pressed as it was by persecution, was somewhat inclined to be persuaded by these scoffers. And their tendency to allow the scoffers to influence their thinking was born out of their idea that the Lord did not come back immediately, when they expected any day His return. And so they thought that the Lord was "slack concerning his promise." Peter assures them that this is not the case. The people of God must remember that time as we know it does not govern the purpose and counsel of almighty God. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. Even if the Lord should delay the coming of Christ for one thousand years, this would be but as a day with Him. But emphatically the Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness. There is a good reason why Christ does not come back immediately. And that reason is simply this: there are many elect who must still be saved. If the Lord would come back too early (so to speak) there would be elect who would never be born and saved, for the return of Christ means the end of history, and thus also the end of marriage and the bringing forth of children. But God does not want any of His elect to perish, but wants them all to come to repentance. And so Christ will not come back until that has happened.
It is clear therefore, that the "any" and "all" of the text must refer to the elect and not to all men. But this is also clearly indicated in the text itself. The "any" and the "all" must be interpreted in the light of the "us-ward." God is long-suffering to us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance. This is so clearly the meaning of the text that it is difficult to see how any one could interpret it in any other way. Consider that the manifestation of God's long-suffering is exactly this that God wants all to come to repentance. Yet the text is emphatic about it that God's long-suffering is only towards us, not towards all men.
All this is further strengthened by the fact that in verse 15 of the same chapter the apostle writes: "And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation." God's long-suffering is salvation. The apostle does not say that God's long-suffering desires salvation, or wants salvation, or even intends to give salvation. This wonderful attribute of God is itself salvation. Now if the well-meant offer people want to make God's long-suffering an attribute of God shown to all men, then they will have to admit also that, because long-suffering is salvation, all those towards whom God is long-suffering are also saved. Not even the most ardent defenders of the well-meant offer would want to go that far. There is no other conclusion: God's long-suffering which is salvation is shown only to us-ward. The result is that Christ does not return until all those for whom He died, given to Him of the Father from all eternity, are born and brought to repentance. Then Christ will surely come again to destroy this old world, create a new heavens and a new earth, and give to His saints the everlasting inheritance of that glorious creation.
And so we come to the end of our study. There can be no doubt about it but that both history and Scripture stand opposed to the whole concept of the free offer. That it is so generally received in our day can only be indicative of the sad state of affairs in today's churches. Arminianism and Pelagianism have made devastating inroads. How sad it is that the truths of sovereign grace are no longer maintained and taught. How sad it is that God is robbed of His power and man is exalted to God's throne. There is a terrible price to pay for this, for all Arminianism is incipient Modernism. And those churches that have chosen the Arminian way have clearly shown the truth of this. For already Modernism has made its inroads. And Modernism denies the Christ, tramples under foot the blood of the covenant and makes all that is holy an unholy thing. Upon such a church rests terrible judgments.
It is our hope and prayer that all who love the truth of Scripture and the precious doctrines of sovereign grace may see the error of the free offer and reject it.
May God bless these efforts to His glory and the cause of His precious gospel in the midst of the world.
Foot-Notes
110
For a detailed discussion of this subject, see Engelsma, op.
cit., in which book the hyper-Calvinists are identified and their position analyzed.
112
Cf.
above for the text.
116
The
official Latin version reads here: Serio enim et
verissime ostendit Deus verbo suo, quid sibit gratum sit, nimirum, ut vocati ad se
veniant. And the official Dutch translation reads: "Want God betoont
ernstiglijk en waarachtigelijk
in zijn woord, wat Hem aangenaam is; namelijk, dat de geroepenen tot Hem komen."