Did the Westminster Assembly teach a gracious and well-meant offer? (9)

Dear Forum members,
.
In this installment, we return to the Westminster Assembly and the question whether the WC teaches a gracious and well-meant gospel offer.
.
The Westminster Assembly was not only an important convocation of the leading divines in the British Isles in the 17th century, but it also produced an extremely influential creed, called the Westminster Confession of Faith. The creed continues to have influence in Presbyterian churches throughout the world.
.
Many theologians in the Presbyterian tradition and sworn defenders of the teachings of the creed also claim to hold to the well-meant offer of the gospel, an aspect of common grace and the subject of our discussion in this brief historical survey. The question, therefore, becomes: Does the Westminster Confession (henceforth, WC) teach the well-meant and gracious offer of the gospel?
.
Some supporters of common grace have admitted that the doctrine of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer is not taught in the Confession, but that the wording of key articles can be so interpreted as to allow room for this teaching. Richard Baxter argued this point, although he was an Amyraldian and was unhappy with the WC for not explicitly including Amyraldian doctrines concerning the gracious and well-meant offer of the gospel and a certain universality of the atonement of Christ. Richard Baxter’s case rests on tenuous grounds. His argument is that the error would have to be specifically rejected if it is to be excluded from the WC, and that, therefore, the silence of the Confession allows for it to be taught. But the WC, unlike the Canons, does not deal with specific errors, which it takes the time to refute. The fact is, that the case for Amyraldian views was strenuously argued on the floor of the Assembly, and was rejected by the majority of the delegates. Philip Schaff writes: “The difference [in viewpoint between the delegates] is made more clear from the debates in the ‘Minutes.’ Several prominent members, as Calamy, Arrowsmith, Vines, Seaman, who took part in the preparation of the doctrinal standards, sympathized with the hypothetical universalism of the Saumur School (Cameron and Amyrauld) and with the moderate position of Davenant and the English delegates to the Synod of Dordt. They expressed this sympathy on the floor of the Assembly, as well as on other occasions. They believed in a special effective election and final perseverance of the elect (as a necessary means to a certain end), but they held at the same time that God sincerely intends to save all men; that Christ intended to die and actually died, for all men; and that the difference is not in the intention and offer on the part of God, but in the acceptance and appropriation on the part of men.” (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom [New York: Harper & Brothers, Sixth Edition] 770. Emphasis is Schaff’s.)
* * * *

One of the arguments offered as proof that the WC teaches a gracious and well-meant gospel offer is the creed’s own use of the word “offer.” As a matter of fact, I have been able to find only two places in the WC where the word “offer” appears as a description of the preaching. In one place we read: “Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant (the first covenant with Adam, HH), the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe” (Chapter 7, paragraph 3). The word for “offer” that is used here is in the Latin, offer from offere.
.
The second place where the word is also used is Chapter 10, paragraph 2, in the expression, “{Man] renewed by the Holy Spirit ... is enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” While the Latin version of the WC is not decisive (the creed was originally written in English) the Latin surely helps us understand what the translators considered the mind of the Assembly. The Latin version of this article has: “… gratiamque inibi oblatam et exhibitam amplexari,” for “and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it.” Oblatam can mean “offered,” but has the primary meaning of referring to something brought to the attention of another; while exhibitam is correctly translated by our English word “exhibit”. The Latin word offere is not used here in the Latin translation.
.
The word “offer” does appear in the Shorter Catechism in Q. & A. 86: “What is faith in Jesus Christ? Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered (offertur) to us in the gospel.”
.
It is my contention that these scattered uses of the word “offer” cannot refer to the gracious and well-meant gospel offer as it is taught today. My reasons are the following.
.
The Amyraldian position on the well-meant gospel offer was argued on the floor of the Assembly, but the Amyraldian position appears nowhere in the confession itself. It was rejected by the Assembly. The rejection of Amyraldianism means that the Amyraldian view of the well-meant gospel offer was also rejected.
.
Richard Baxter’s original reluctance to sign the WC would seem to indicate that this notable Amyraldian doubted whether the WC taught the well-meant gracious offer of the gospel. In fact, he would not sign the WC until he could be assured that, although the confession did not include the Amyraldian position, the wording of the confession left room for it.
.
Article 3 of chapter 7 uses language that precludes the interpretation sometime given to the word “offer”: In speaking of the covenant of grace the article goes on to say about this covenant: “wherein [God] freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” This wording sounds more like Canons 2.5 than a statement defending the proposition that God desires the salvation of all who hear the gospel, although it is even somewhat stronger. 7/3 of the WC does not say that faith is a condition to the reception of Christ offered to all in the gospel, but it says rather that the promise of the gospel includes also the promise to give faith to the elect (“to all those that are ordained unto life”) and that faith is worked by the Holy Spirit. Although faith is required for salvation, it is sovereignly given and given only to those who are God’s own elect. That is strong language.
.
This interpretation is strengthened by what I wrote some years ago in a paper entitled “A Comparison of the Westminster Confession and the Reformed Confessions“. “There is evidence that the meaning given to ‘offer’ by the Davenant men (also Amyraldians, HH) was not the meaning of many on the Assembly.” According to Warfield (B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work [Mack Publishing, 1972] 141.) Rutherford, a prominent member of the Assembly, seems to have used the term only in the sense of the preaching of the gospel. Warfield also claims (Ibid., 142) that Gillespie, another gifted divine, spoke of ‘offer’ in the sense of preaching or in the sense of command when he claimed, during the debate, that command does not always imply intention. That is, when God commands all men to repent of sin and believe in Christ, this does not necessarily imply that it is God’s intention to save those whom he commands. Shaw argues the same point and claims that the Assembly used the term ‘offer’ only in the sense of “present” (Shaw, p. 104).
.
Schaff inadvertently supports my conviction that the WC does not teach a well-meant gracious gospel offer when he suggests that the Westminster divines contradicted themselves when they taught, on the one hand, an offer of salvation, but insisted, on the other hand, that the atonement was limited to the elect (Schaff, vol. 1, 772). Schaff’s assumptions are 1) the well-meant gospel offer requires a universal atonement; 2) the word “offer” in the WC means the gracious and well-meant gospel offer. His first assumption is right. His second assumption is indeed nothing but an assumption. The fact is that the Westminster divines were far too astute theologically to support such an obvious contradiction. Further, the defenders of Amyraldianism on the Assembly argued especially for a universal atonement, and did so on the grounds of a gracious offer of the gospel, but were over-ruled by a majority of the assembly.

* * * *

Schaff is correct that the WC emphatically teaches a limited atonement. And a limited atonement is the death-knell to all teachings with regard to a gracious and well-meant gospel offer. While the truth of a particular redemption is woven into the warp and woof of the WC, it is specifically taught in III. 6 and VIII, 5, 6, 8. I see no need to quote them here, for it is universally acknowledged that the WC is emphatic in its teaching concerned the truth of particular redemption.
.
I consider these arguments convincing proof that the well-meant gospel offer is not taught in the Westminster Confession.
.
One more point needs to be made before we leave Westminster. The debate on the floor of the Assembly over the extent of the atonement was crucial for an understanding of the relation between the atonement and the well-meant gospel offer. The debate on the Assembly hinged on the question whether the intention of God with respect to the salvation of men rested on the sufficiency of the atonement or its efficacy. The Amyraldians argued that God’s intention rested on the sufficiency of the atonement, while the orthodox argued that God’s intention in the atonement was determined by its efficacy. That is, while all the divines on the Assembly were agreed that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all, and while this was expressly stated in Canons 2.3, 6, (of which creed the delegates were aware) though it is not in the WC, the Amyraldians argued that this universal sufficiency also implies that the intention of God is to save all men: intention is determined by sufficiency. The orthodox insisted, however, that God’s intention with respect to the extent of the atonement was limited by its efficacy: The cross was efficacious to save only the elect; this was God’s intention with the atonement; hence the extent of the atonement was determined by its efficacy. Nevertheless, this question became an issue in the debate in subsequent years, and is an issue we will discuss at a later point.
.
The orthodox view prevailed on the Assembly. The WC is solid in its rejection of a well-meant gospel offer.
.
With warm greetings in Christ,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko