Dear forum members,
.
In our discussion of the history of common grace, we have come to the Westminster Assembly and the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the subject of the gracious, well-meant gospel offer.
On the question of common grace in general, the Westminster Confession of Faith (henceforth, WC) has nothing to say. We may limit ourselves, therefore, to the one question of whether Westminster teaches a gracious, well-meant gospel offer.
.
We must discuss two aspects of the question, both of which are treated in the WC. The two belong together. These two are: Is God gracious to all men in the preaching of the gospel, when He expresses His desire and intention to save all men? And, secondly, is the atonement of Christ a sacrifice for the elect only, or is it also, in some sense, a sacrifice for all men? The two belong together, for, if the gospel is a proclamation of God’s desire to save all men, and if therefore, salvation is freely and graciously offered to all men on the condition of faith, then a universal atonement must of necessity stand behind this general expression of God’s love for all. God cannot, without making a mockery of the gospel, offer to all men a salvation that Christ has not earned by His suffering and death on the cross. Nor can God love all men without there being a judicial basis for that love in the cross of Jesus Christ.
.
History has also shown that the two are inseparably connected. The Marrow Men, who emphatically taught a gracious gospel offer, were forced to hold to the position that “Christ is dead for all,” although they attempted by a verbal slight of hand to distinguish between a Christ who died for all and a Christ who is dead for all.
.
The Amyraldians, as we have seen, attempted to escape the inevitable connection between the two by speaking of a hypothetical universal atonement, which was to be distinguished from a particular atonement actually accomplished by Christ 2000 years ago when He died on Calvary.
.
The same issue was really the downfall of a strong Calvinism in Wales after the work of George Whitefield and the establishment of a Presbyterian Church there. Some wanted an approach to preaching that was warmer and more expressive of the desire of the church to bring sinners to repentance than what they considered to be the cold, dispassionate approach of Calvinism. In order to satisfy such clamoring for more compassionate preaching, these men introduced the idea of a gracious, well-meant gospel offer. But shortly after its general acceptance, the question of the extent of the atonement came up and the church was compelled. by the logic of its position, to introduce the general notion of a certain universality to the atonement. (See Hanko & Engelsma, The Five Points of Calvinism [The British Reformed Fellowship, 2008] p. 54).
.
The same was true of the history of the doctrine of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). In 1924 the CRC adopted a theory of common grace that included a gracious well-meant gospel offer. Although the Synod that adopted this theory did not address the question of the extent of the atonement, the church was forced to consider the question in the mid-‘60s. The Synod that made the final decision clearly approved of the extent of the atonement as being universal, although it was careful to limit the universality of the atonement so as to exclude efficacy. The universality of the atonement was said to be universal only in sufficiency, availability and as an expression of God’s intention. It is interesting that on the floor of the Synod, during the debate, opposition to a universal atonement, even in the limited sense of sufficiency, availability and intention, was expressed, but this opposition was quickly silenced by a reminder that, after all, the CRC had officially adopted the gracious offer of the gospel, and that, therefore, the atonement had to be universal.
.
This same relationship between the extent of the atonement and the approval of a gracious, well-meant gospel offer was a source of tension at the Westminster Assembly.
* * * *
One could characterize the Westminster Assembly as being divided into two camps with respect to the truths of Calvinism. (On the question of church polity, three camps were present: Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents.) Staunchly orthodox defenders of the system of Calvinism developed by John Calvin himself and made explicit at the Synod of Dordt were led by such men as Rutherford and Gillespie, while a “moderate” group of men defended a milder form of Calvinism. (“Moderate” is really a generous assessment of these so-called Calvinists, for in fact, they were Amyraldian in their thinking, and they defended a position on the Synod that was only a slight modification of the Amyraldian heresy.) The position of Amyraut was defended on the floor of the Assembly especially by Seaman, Vines, Marshall and Calamy.
.
We may say, without hesitation, that the orthodox view prevailed in the entire confession and the Amyraldian view was rejected..
* * * *
I am aware of the fact that many in the past and today claim to be within the teachings of the WC even though they hold to a gracious and well-meant gospel offer. Perhaps their defense is that the WC itself uses the term “offer” (as does the Canons of Dordt). Perhaps they are more honest and claim, as the Amyraldian Richard Baxter claimed, that there was room in the confession for his Amyraldian views. He wrote: “Chap III, sec. 6, and chap. VIII , sec 8 (of the WC, HH) which speak against universal redemption, I understand not of all redemption, and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man’s sin, and satisfying God’s justice, but of that special redemption proper to the elect, what was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interp
retation, I must herein dissent.” (Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith [Philadelphia, 1847] p. 71.)
.
In other words, Richard Baxter refused to sign the WC unless he was permitted to make a distinction between a special redemption that included the application of Christ’s benefits to the elect, and a more general redemption that was a “mere bearing the punishment of man’s sin, and satisfying God’s justice.” Baxter admitted that the latter was not taught in the WC, but that it was permissible to make the distinction because the WC did not condemn it. Baxter argued his case from the silence of the WC, not from its teachings. (We may note that Baxter later did sign the WC.) It would help matters considerably if present day defenders who hold to a gracious well-meant gospel offer and claim faithfulness to the WC would tell us whether their claim to be faithful to the WC is based on the mere use of the word “offer” in the confession, or whether they argue from silence, as Richard Baxter did; or, whether perhaps they have some other argument.)
.
We will discuss the actual teachings of the WC in our next installment.
.
With warmest regards,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
.
In our discussion of the history of common grace, we have come to the Westminster Assembly and the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the subject of the gracious, well-meant gospel offer.
On the question of common grace in general, the Westminster Confession of Faith (henceforth, WC) has nothing to say. We may limit ourselves, therefore, to the one question of whether Westminster teaches a gracious, well-meant gospel offer..
We must discuss two aspects of the question, both of which are treated in the WC. The two belong together. These two are: Is God gracious to all men in the preaching of the gospel, when He expresses His desire and intention to save all men? And, secondly, is the atonement of Christ a sacrifice for the elect only, or is it also, in some sense, a sacrifice for all men? The two belong together, for, if the gospel is a proclamation of God’s desire to save all men, and if therefore, salvation is freely and graciously offered to all men on the condition of faith, then a universal atonement must of necessity stand behind this general expression of God’s love for all. God cannot, without making a mockery of the gospel, offer to all men a salvation that Christ has not earned by His suffering and death on the cross. Nor can God love all men without there being a judicial basis for that love in the cross of Jesus Christ.
.
History has also shown that the two are inseparably connected. The Marrow Men, who emphatically taught a gracious gospel offer, were forced to hold to the position that “Christ is dead for all,” although they attempted by a verbal slight of hand to distinguish between a Christ who died for all and a Christ who is dead for all.
.
The Amyraldians, as we have seen, attempted to escape the inevitable connection between the two by speaking of a hypothetical universal atonement, which was to be distinguished from a particular atonement actually accomplished by Christ 2000 years ago when He died on Calvary.
.
The same issue was really the downfall of a strong Calvinism in Wales after the work of George Whitefield and the establishment of a Presbyterian Church there. Some wanted an approach to preaching that was warmer and more expressive of the desire of the church to bring sinners to repentance than what they considered to be the cold, dispassionate approach of Calvinism. In order to satisfy such clamoring for more compassionate preaching, these men introduced the idea of a gracious, well-meant gospel offer. But shortly after its general acceptance, the question of the extent of the atonement came up and the church was compelled. by the logic of its position, to introduce the general notion of a certain universality to the atonement. (See Hanko & Engelsma, The Five Points of Calvinism [The British Reformed Fellowship, 2008] p. 54).
.
The same was true of the history of the doctrine of a gracious and well-meant gospel offer in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). In 1924 the CRC adopted a theory of common grace that included a gracious well-meant gospel offer. Although the Synod that adopted this theory did not address the question of the extent of the atonement, the church was forced to consider the question in the mid-‘60s. The Synod that made the final decision clearly approved of the extent of the atonement as being universal, although it was careful to limit the universality of the atonement so as to exclude efficacy. The universality of the atonement was said to be universal only in sufficiency, availability and as an expression of God’s intention. It is interesting that on the floor of the Synod, during the debate, opposition to a universal atonement, even in the limited sense of sufficiency, availability and intention, was expressed, but this opposition was quickly silenced by a reminder that, after all, the CRC had officially adopted the gracious offer of the gospel, and that, therefore, the atonement had to be universal.
.
This same relationship between the extent of the atonement and the approval of a gracious, well-meant gospel offer was a source of tension at the Westminster Assembly.
* * * *
One could characterize the Westminster Assembly as being divided into two camps with respect to the truths of Calvinism. (On the question of church polity, three camps were present: Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents.) Staunchly orthodox defenders of the system of Calvinism developed by John Calvin himself and made explicit at the Synod of Dordt were led by such men as Rutherford and Gillespie, while a “moderate” group of men defended a milder form of Calvinism. (“Moderate” is really a generous assessment of these so-called Calvinists, for in fact, they were Amyraldian in their thinking, and they defended a position on the Synod that was only a slight modification of the Amyraldian heresy.) The position of Amyraut was defended on the floor of the Assembly especially by Seaman, Vines, Marshall and Calamy.
.
We may say, without hesitation, that the orthodox view prevailed in the entire confession and the Amyraldian view was rejected..
* * * *
I am aware of the fact that many in the past and today claim to be within the teachings of the WC even though they hold to a gracious and well-meant gospel offer. Perhaps their defense is that the WC itself uses the term “offer” (as does the Canons of Dordt). Perhaps they are more honest and claim, as the Amyraldian Richard Baxter claimed, that there was room in the confession for his Amyraldian views. He wrote: “Chap III, sec. 6, and chap. VIII , sec 8 (of the WC, HH) which speak against universal redemption, I understand not of all redemption, and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man’s sin, and satisfying God’s justice, but of that special redemption proper to the elect, what was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interp
retation, I must herein dissent.” (Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith [Philadelphia, 1847] p. 71.).
In other words, Richard Baxter refused to sign the WC unless he was permitted to make a distinction between a special redemption that included the application of Christ’s benefits to the elect, and a more general redemption that was a “mere bearing the punishment of man’s sin, and satisfying God’s justice.” Baxter admitted that the latter was not taught in the WC, but that it was permissible to make the distinction because the WC did not condemn it. Baxter argued his case from the silence of the WC, not from its teachings. (We may note that Baxter later did sign the WC.) It would help matters considerably if present day defenders who hold to a gracious well-meant gospel offer and claim faithfulness to the WC would tell us whether their claim to be faithful to the WC is based on the mere use of the word “offer” in the confession, or whether they argue from silence, as Richard Baxter did; or, whether perhaps they have some other argument.)
.
We will discuss the actual teachings of the WC in our next installment.
.
With warmest regards,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
No comments:
Post a Comment