The History of the Free Offer Chapter 7 Later Presbyterian Thought
|
A
completely worked out system of the theology of the free offer of the gospel did not
appear within Presbyterian Churches for many years; and when it did finally appear and was
officially adopted as dogma within the church, this was in only a part of Presbyterianism.
Many Presbyterian thinkers discussed the offer and even adopted the language of the offer,
but in important instances opposed the theology of the offer or were ambiguous in what
precisely they meant by it.
We
cannot discuss every Presbyterian thinker in these articles; we choose, therefore, to
discuss only some representative thinkers, of more recent times, who influenced modern
Presbyterian thought in no little way.
This
does not mean, however, that the subject of the free offer never came up in the official
discussions of Presbyterian Churches. An interesting example of such a case has recently
been discussed by Maurice Roberts in an article entitled, "Dr. John Kennedy - A
Memorial Sketch." This article appeared in the August-September, 1984 issue of The
Banner of Truth.
The
article discusses, among many other things, the role that Rev. John Kennedy played in the
union negotiations between the Free Church and the United Presbyterians in the middle of
the nineteenth century. (Dr. Kennedy lived from 1819-1884.) Two points of difference
especially were discussed in connection with these negotiations: the relation of the civil
magistrate to the church of Christ, and the extent of the atonement of Christ. In
connection with this latter, the subject of the offer was discussed. The article states:
The current in which much U. P.
thinking about the question of the extent of the atonement was running can be fairly
estimated from these quotations from some of their spokesmen:
(1) "It is impossible for any
man to preach the gospel who preaches a limited atonement."
(2) "The work of Christ has
provided salvation for all men indiscriminately."
(3) "The universal
offer of the Gospel has its basis in the general reference of the work of Christ."
(4) "Christ's death made all
men salvable."
(5) "The grace of God is
manifested to sinners indiscriminately in the provision and offer of the gospel."
The
gist of the U. P. Synod's attitude was summed up in these two propositions:
(1) That the love of God, as
expressed in the gift and death of the Son, was not love to the elect exclusively:
(2) That Christ died for all men,
according to a divine intention, as, in some sense, their substitute, and with a view to
procuring salvability, if not salvation, for them.
To these views not only did Dr. Kennedy object, but with him such outstanding
men as Robert Smith Candlish, Robert Haldane, and Dr. William Cunningham. They appealed to
a decision of the Secession Church's Associate Synod of 1804 that had stated:
Christ died for the elect, and for
them only. The death of Christ, possessing infinite merit, is, indeed, in itself
sufficient for the redemption of all mankind. But in respect of the Father's assignation,
and his own intention, He died only for the elect . . .. All for whom Christ
died shall be infallibly saved... We therefore condemn, and testify against the following
error that Christ died in some sense for all men.
It is
interesting to observe in this connection that Dr. Kennedy accused the U. P. Church of
Amyrauldianism; and, more interesting yet, he firmly believed that this Amyrauldianism was
present in the church because of the teachings of the Marrow men particularly with respect
to faith. He wrote in one of his pamphlets, as quoted in the article mentioned above:
I believe that, in the Marrow
definition of faith, there was the germ of all errors which have been developed in
Amyrauldianism, which is the fashion of the United Presbyterian theology.
That definition implied that the
sinner, before believing, had a certain right of property in the Gospel salvation, because
of a "deed of gift and grant" from God. This mistaken idea is the most marked
thing of all they retain of inherited theology. It is the search for a basis, for this
pre-believing right, that has carried them to the universal reference of the atonement,
and to their dreamings of universal grace.
Candlish
also wrote concerning this:
In Scottish theology, for example,
any departure from the strict view of the extent of the atonement is to be seriously
dreaded, because it almost uniformly indicates a lurking tendency to call in question the
sovereignty of divine grace altogether. Here it is invariably found to open a door for the
influx of the entire tide of the Pelagian theory of human ability, in the train of that
Arminian notion of the divine decrees which is apt to be its precursor.
It is
clear from this that Presbyterianism struggled time and again with these central issues.
It is also clear that the doctrines of the extent of the atonement and the free offer of
the gospel were inseparably linked. Where the free offer was taught, a universality of the
atonement inevitably went along with it. And as Candlish writes, this was always
interwoven with Pelagian and Arminian heresy. It is sad that Presbyterianism of' modern
times has failed to see this.
Undoubtedly
one of the greatest theologians in modern Presbyterianism was Charles Hodge, whose work in
Systematic Theology has had as much influence on present day Presbyterian thought
as any other work.63
In his
writing on the effectual calling, Hodge is not entirely clear on what precisely he means
by the offer. On the one hand, he seems, in the clearest possible way, to reject the
theology of the offer, especially the idea that it is God's intention, desire or purpose
to save all that hear the gospel. In all he has to say on the subject of the calling, he
never speaks of the concept of a free offer. Furthermore, he seems to limit the idea of
the offer of the gospel to the command of the gospel, especially when he states that the
unrestricted call of the gospel is not inconsistent with God's decree of predestination.64 But his opposition to an idea of the offer which
expresses a universal desire on God's part to save all comes out most clearly in his
repudiation of the position of Lutheranism. 65 He
correctly defines the Lutheran66
position as including a call of the gospel as an expression of God's desire
and intent to save all who hear, which is also the purpose and end God has in view. This
Lutheran notion lies at the very heart of the idea of the offer and has been accepted in
recent times by almost all who hold to an offer. But Hodge will have none of this. He
offers a lengthy refutation of this view and makes the following points: 1) God's
intentions must always come to pass. If this were not so, it would be inconsistent with
the divine being. 2) God's purpose cannot fail or be resisted. Hence, if it were God's
intention or purpose to save all, all would be saved. 3) The Lutheran view denies that the
ultimate reason for refusing the gospel is God's eternal and unchangeable purpose. The
Lutheran view, therefore, ultimately denies reprobation.
From
all this one would conclude that Hodge is an enemy of the whole notion of the free offer
and rejects it as heresy. But there are other elements in his treatment of the effectual
calling which make one wonder. Sometimes it seems as if Hodge decides that he wants some
kind of offer after all; at other times it seems as if he is really too unclear on the
matter to come to any definite conclusions. When, e.g., he discusses the external call of
the gospel, Hodge interprets this call to include a command, exhortation, invitation to
accept offered mercy and an exhibition of the reasons why men ought to come to Christ.
While it is true that this could conceivably be interpreted in such a way that it stands
in harmony with other statements condemning the theology of the offer, he puts such hopes
to rest when he interprets I Timothy
2:3,4 as meaning that God intends or purposes that all should be
Now,
while it is true that Hodge does not directly connect these ideas of common grace with the
free offer of the gospel, nevertheless, historically that has been the case. We noticed
this in some detail in our chapter on the Marrow controversy; and the same was true of
subsequent thought both in Presbyterian and Reformed continental theology. The connection
is this. It is not only by this general grace which is given to all who hear the gospel
that God shows His willingness and desire to save all; but it is also by this very common
grace that all receive the necessary spiritual strength to accept or reject the Christ
offered in the gospel. These two ideas belong so closely together that it is impossible to
separate them.
In the light of this, it is difficult to judge with certainty Hodge's thinking on this
matter. Perhaps the best we can say is that, while he emphatically repudiates the offer,
he nevertheless seems to want to retain some idea of it in some sense of the word. But to
harmonize these two aspects of his thought seems impossible.
What
is true of Charles Hodge, is also true of A. A. Hodge. We need not say very much about his
work, for he followed, for the most part C. Hodge, even on the matter of common grace. It
is, however, interesting to note that in his book on "The Atonement" he makes
the rather astounding and unwarranted statement that everyone believes in a
universal offer.69 In his "Outlines of Theology,"
70 he writes: "(The gospel) is addressed to the non-elect
equally with the elect, because it is equally their duty and interest to accept the
gospel, because the provisions of salvation are equally suited to their case, and
abundantly sufficient for all, and because God intends (underscoring ours, H.H.)
that its benefits shall actually accrue to everyone who accepts it."
The
idea of the free offer, however, comes to fuller expression in the writings of John
Murray. In a rather lengthy article in Murray's "Collected Writings,"71 Murray discusses, "The Atonement and the Free
Offer." As far as the idea of the offer itself is concerned, he speaks of the fact
that, "The universality of the demand for repentance implies a universal overture of
grace."72 This
"is the full and unrestricted offer of the gospel to all men."73 Yet this in itself is not very clear. Does Murray mean that
the universal overture of grace and the full and unrestricted offer of the gospel is
nothing else but the command to all to repent of sin and believe in Christ? It is not
clear.
There
are many questions that one could ask at this point. Is it not obvious that Murray means
more by an unrestricted offer than merely the command to repent and believe in Christ?
After all, there is no need for the redemptive work of Christ to serve as a basis for the
demand of the gospel to repent and believe. But another question which arises is: How is
it possible for the redeeming and atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross to merit
blessings for the non-elect, which blessings are non-saving? It would seem that the
sacrifice of Christ was actually non-redeeming and non-saving. Does it not follow then
that Christ died for His people, but not to save them? Or, are there two works of Christ
performed on the cross, one redeeming and saving, and another non-redeeming and
non-saving? The Arminians have answered this impossible question by asserting that the
death of Christ on the cross is only a sacrifice that makes salvation available to all.
And this is the usual end when the well-meant offer is taught and connected with the
atonement. And just as importantly, where in all Scripture is there one statement that so
much as suggests that Christ died to merit blessings for the non-elect, which in fact are
not actually saved? 75
But
as Murray develops this notion, it becomes clear that he means more by it. This redeeming
power of the cross which does not actually save, but which merits blessings for the
non-elect in turn implies a love of God for the non-elect. And this love of God for all is
the source of many blessings and is a love most highly expressed in "the entreaties,
overtures, and demands of the gospel proclamation. 76And
while his love offered in the gospel is indeed a saving love for all that.77
In
connection with the faith which the gospel demands, Murray makes a distinction between
belief of people that God loves them and faith as a commitment to Christ. In this
latter sense the gospel cannot declare indiscriminately that Christ died for every man.
Nevertheless, there is an indiscriminate warrant of faith that every sinner possesses.
This warrant is not any personal assurance that Christ has saved him, but it is a warrant
in the all-sufficiency of the Savior and the suitability of His atoning sacrifice.
It
ought to be evident that Murray is not very clear in all this. He emphatically insists on
an offer, but shies away from many of the implications of the offer. He tends somewhat towards the Marrow position when
he speaks of the warrant of faith, but does not seem to go as far as the Marrow men went.
He wants a universal overture of grace and an unrestricted offer to all, but never offers
a clear and precise definition of these terms. He teaches a universality in the atonement
rooted in a universal love of God for all, but also insists that we may never say that
Christ loves all or died for all -- at least in the saving sense of those
words. And what is meant by a non-saving love and a non-saving atonement we do not know.
He certainly, in this essay, never speaks of God's desire, intention, or purpose to save
all; he never mentions a distinction between the will of God's decree and God's perceptive
will -- two key doctrines in the theology of the offer; but his language
suggests strongly such a universal desire of God, and his views immediately bring to mind
the question whether he believes in a double will of God or whether he rejects that
notion.
It is
all confusing and unsatisfactory.
But if
his essay is confusing and unsatisfactory and leaves many questions unanswered, his views
are very clearly set forth in a pamphlet authored by him and Ned B. Stonehouse which has
become the official position of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
This
pamphlet, entitled, "The Free Offer of the Gospel" and published
separately as such, is in fact only a part of the decision of the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church on a broader issue. In the 1940's, a complaint was lodged against the licensure and
ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark by the Presbytery of Philadelphia with the General
Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Twelfth
We are
not concerned here with all the aspects of his case, nor with all the decisions that were
taken at that time.78
What is of concern to us is the fact that, among
other things, Dr. Clark was accused of denying the well-meant offer of salvation to the
reprobate. The committee included in its report and in defense of the doctrine of the
well-meant offer the following:
Such passages as Ezekiel
18:23 and 33:11 indicate that God not only delights in the repentance of the actually
penitent but also has that benevolence towards the wicked whereby He is pleased that they
should repent. God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches of
His goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent and
reprobate. To put this negatively, God does not take delight or pleasure in the death of
the wicked. On the contrary, His delight is in mercy. God desires that the reprobate
exercise that repentance which they will never exercise and desires for them the enjoyment
of good they will never enjoy. And not only so, He desires the exercise of that which they
are foreordained not to exercise and He desires for them the enjoyment of good they are
foreordained not to enjoy.
…The question was: how can
God make an offer of salvation to those that are foreordained to damnation? It does not
explain the mystery of co-existence of the full and free offer of salvation and
foreordination to damnation to make the obviously necessary distinction between the
outward and inward call. For even after full recognition is given to the truth that God
effectually calls only the elect the mystery of God's will in the offer of salvation to
the reprobate still remains.
The Committee has no zeal for the word "paradox". But the Committee believes that great mystery surrounds this matter. Even the reprobate are the objects of divine benevolence, compassion and loving kindness, not only in gifts of this present life such as rain and sunshine food and raiment, but also in the full and free overtures of God's grace in the gospel. …
This matter of the free offer was given to another committee which was instructed to report to the Fourteenth General Assembly. The Fourteenth General Assembly recommended the committee report to the churches, but never officially adopted it."
The whole concept of the free
offer is clearly set forth here without ambiguity and equivocation. The Orthodox
Presbyterian Church has therefore, officially adopted the following elements concerning
the free offer of the gospel. 1) In God's providence God reveals a general attitude of
mercy, benevolence and grace towards all men that is an expression of God's universal
love. 2) While this general benevolence and favor is especially revealed in
providence, it comes to special expression in the preaching of the gospel in which God
expressly states His desire to save all who hear the gospel. 3) Because God expresses an
ardent desire for things He has not decreed, this involves a distinction between the
decretive and perceptive will of God and a contradiction which cannot be harmonized, but
the resolution of which lies in the depths of God's own eternal thought.
It is interesting
that nothing was ever said in this connection concerning the relation between the free
offer of the gospel and the atonement of Christ. While later this was discussed by Murray
in the essay referred to earlier (the article quoted from his Collected Writings
was written after this decision was taken), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church never
officially entered into this question.
There
is probably an historical reason for this. Although we will have opportunity to discuss in
a future article the decisions of the Christian Reformed Church made concerning the free
offer in 1924, it is interesting to note that these decisions were indeed made over twenty
years before the decisions of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. No doubt, the whole
question of the free offer arose in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church because of the
influence in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Christian Reformed men who went to
Westminster Seminary to teach -- men such as C. Van Til, R. B. Kuiper and Ned
B. Stonehouse. They were the men who brought the free offer into the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church and were instrumental in getting the matter adopted by the General Assembly. This
is why the issue of the relation between the free offer and the atonement of Christ was
not specifically faced. It was not faced in the common grace controversy in the Christian
Reformed Church; and it was only after questions were repeatedly asked of the Christian
Reformed Church men concerning this relation, that this question finally attracted the
attention of theologians in both denominations. In the Christian Reformed Church this
received official attention in the Sixties when Prof. Harold Dekker, in defense of the
free offer of the gospel and common grace, insisted that the atonement of Christ has to be
general and for all, except in its efficacy. We need say nothing more about this matter
here, for we will have opportunity to discuss it at a later date.
This
doctrine of the well-meant offer has also received official sanction in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of North America (Covenanters) when it was made a part of their new Testimony.
In this document both common grace and the well-meant offer have received official and
creedal status. We quote from the addition to Chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession of
Faith on the effectual call:
Preaching the gospel consists in
the offer of salvation through Christ to sinners, accompanied with such an explanation of
the various parts of God's Word as may help to persuade men to receive Christ as Saviour,
and to live and walk in him. 2 Cor. 5:20;
Matt. 28:20;
Isa. 55:1-3.
The elect are effectually called
by means of the gospel offer. This offer is not a declaration to any sinner that his name
is in the Book of Life. It is founded upon God's command to offer Christ and all his
benefits to sinners. There is no inconsistency between the biblical doctrine of particular
redemption and the command to offer the gospel to all men. Deut. 29:29;
Mark 16:15;
Luke
24:46-47; 2 Tim. 2:19.
We reject the teaching that the gospel offer of salvation is freely and truly
offered only to the elect. We reject the teaching that particular redemption is to
be so understood and presented that Christ as ransom and propitiation is not preached or
offered to all men indiscriminately.
And the
doctrine itself, without always official decisions, has become all-pervasive within many
Presbyterian denominations. This does not mean that there are not men in these various
denominations who still oppose it; but the fact remains that it is not only a part of the
preaching and teaching, but that many of these churches have moved beyond it to out-right
Arminianism -- a heresy which is an inevitable result.
Return to Table of Contents
Go to Chapter Eight
Foot-Notes
63 The edition which I have used is the 1946 edition published by Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi. It is especially in Volume II, pp. 641ff., where
Hodge discusses the effectual calling, that his views on the offer are developed.
66 See Chapter
Two which deals with the
Lutheran Reformation, especially the references in that article to the Formula of
Concord.
67
It would be profitable for the defenders of the free
offer, who often appeal to the same texts to which Hodge refers, to read carefully Hodge's
analysis of these passages.
68 pp. 54ff.
69
pp. 371,372.
70
Hodder & Stoughton, New York, 1878, p. 446.
71Vol.
1, chapter IX, Banner of Truth, 1976, pp. 59ff.
72 p. 60.
74
p. 62.
75 It is
interesting to note in this connection that in the controversy in 1924 concerning common
grace and the well-meant offer, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church also spoke of
blessings which came to all men. Repeatedly the question was put to them: What is the
ground of these blessings? The Synod refused to answer it, undoubtedly because it feared
ascribing a certain universality to the cross of Christ. Only in the sixties did Prof.
Harold Dekker make this explicit by insisting that the doctrine of common grace
necessarily implied a certain universality in Christ's redemptive work.
77
p. 83.
78
Material on the entire "Clark Case" can be found in a
number of articles in Volume XXII of The Standard Bearer, written by Rev. H.
Hoeksema, who analyzed thoroughly the whole case including the idea of the well-meant
offer. These articles were later published by The Trinity Foundation.