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

The Westminister Confession and the "well-meant gospel offer" (8)

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 interpretation, 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