The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Part 2

 

“. . . By 1936 the signers of the Auburn Affirmation showed that they had captured the church by reorganizing Princeton Seminary and placing one of the signers on its governing board, by electing one of their number Moderator of the General Assembly [of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America], and, what was decisive, by excommunicating those ministers who had insisted on maintaining the Westminster standards in practice.  Thus, ministers who rejected the Scripture and all it contains were given authority, while men who believed the Bible and all it contains were rejected as disturbers of the peace.  Since that day the Westminster Confession has been a dead letter in that denomination, and now the process to drop it officially has begun.” 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1^st Ed.  1965.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  P. viii.

 

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Part 2

 

I will now discuss the free offer of the Gospel or FOG.  This is closely related to another doctrine proposed by those who wish to water down the Bible and the best summary of the Bible ever produced, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The other doctrine is called the well-meant offer of the Gospel.  The doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel presupposes that the reprobate wicked can be persuaded to believe the Gospel and thus moved from the category of reprobation to the category of unconditional election.  The justification for this is that we here on earth do not know what God’s eternal decree has foreordained to happen.  Since we have no knowledge of God’s hidden or secret decree, it is therefore justified to completely ignore the doctrines of predestination, special providence, regeneration/effectual calling and to preach the Gospel as any Arminian would preach it.  (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Those who prosecute the doctrines of the free offer of the gospel, common grace, and pragmatism in evangelism and mission will tell us that we should never mention predestination or special providence when preaching because those are doctrines that immediately irritate unbelievers and stand as roadblocks to our evangelistic mission.  Unfortunately, the downgrade begins with ignoring certain parts of Scripture and focusing on more favorable portions of Scripture instead.  These semi-Calvinists want to focus on the common ground that Calvinists and Arminians have instead of the differences and the distinctions.

In my Pentecostal days, it was often claimed that Pentecostals alone preached the full Gospel message.  Of course, what they meant by this was the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, which they claim is normative for all times and places up until the parousia or the return of Christ.  The proposition comes from Acts 20:27  KJV.  “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27 NKJ)  Presupposing Pentecostal experiential theology, I suppose that could be one way to interpret that verse.  But Presbyterians focus on propositional revelation in the Scriptures, not experiential hermeneutics.  The Bible contains numerous propositions from which other propositions can be deduced.  These logical propositions can then be arranged into a system of propositional truths which is deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence:

WCF 1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:  . . .  (Westminster Confession of Faith.  Of the Holy Scripture.)

The Presbyterian who truly believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, including ministers and the laity, has an obligation to believe all of the Scriptures.  As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark once said, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.  2 Timothy 3:16. This means that not only are the evangelistic verses appropriate for doctrinal teaching, but also the less significant portions of Scriptures like the genealogies and how many pots and pans were in the temple that Solomon built.  Since the Westminster Confession is arranged in a descending order of theological importance, the most important doctrine of Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in chapter one.  Scripture alone is the written Word of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 10:35; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-19).  The second most important doctrine of the Bible, according to the Westminster divines, is the doctrine of God as Triune.  The most important attributes of deity are dealt with in chapter 2, Of God, and the Holy Trinity.  However, the third most important doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the most controversial one, yet the most avoided doctrine.  It is the doctrine of predestination:  chapter 3, Of God’s Eternal Decree.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark lays out the issue that is most disturbing to unbelievers and Arminians:

The Protestant Reformation, the greatest religious awakening since the days of the Apostles, was characterized by a zeal to understand God’s Word.  Not only were its obvious teachings emphasized, e.g., the sufficiency of Christ’s work for our salvation and the uselessness of purgatory and penance, but also its deeper doctrines, e.g., predestination, were carefully examined.

However, two or three centuries later, after the love many had waxed cold, and when unbelief came in like a flood, the discouraged and fragmented faithful became Fundamentalists and were content to defend a few vital doctrines.  Sometimes they even said that Christians ought not to go too deeply into the Scriptures.  It is presumptuous, useless, and worst of all, divisive.

Such an attitude is not commended in the Scriptures themselves, nor was it the practice of the Reformers and the Westminster divines.  The Bible says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, not just some.  And the Reformers did not draw back from the difficult passages on predestination, foreordination, and God’s eternal decrees.  [Emphasis is mine.]  Really, these passages are not difficult to understand, though many people find them difficult to believe.  But if they are God’s words, then we should study, believe, and preach them.

The Westminster Confession, summarizing the Bible, asserts in Chapter III that God from all eternity did ordain whatsoever comes to pass.  Obviously, if God is omnipotent, if nothing can thwart his will, and if he decided to make a world, then all his creatures and all their actions must be according to his plan.

This is easy to understand; but many people find it difficult to believe that God planned to have sin in the world.  Does Chapter III of the Confession mean that God commits sin?  And even in the case of a man’s doing something good, does it mean that God makes the man do the good act while the man willed to do something evil?  These questions have perplexed many minds, but the first question is, What does the Bible say?  If the Bible talks about foreordination, we have no right to avoid it and keep silent.   [Emphasis is mine.]

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?, pp. 36-37.

On one side of the issue are those who oppose the doctrine of the free offer.  The objection is that it is impossible to persuade a person who has been unconditionally reprobated prior to the creation of the world by God’s eternal decree.  The opponents of FOG do not object to the promiscuous preaching of the Gospel everywhere on earth to all who will hear the message.  That is often a false misrepresentation used to label opponents as “hyper-Calvinists” who do not believe in evangelism or foreign missions. 

On the other hand, the proponents of the FOG will then argue two things.  First, they argue that we cannot know God’s secret will in His archetypal mind.  We can only have an analogical and ectypal knowledge of God’s will revealed in Holy Scripture.  From this they further infer that it would be confusing to the congregation to speak the truth emphatically that no one can come to Christ without first being born again.  This would upset those in the congregation who are not fully on board with what the Bible says about unconditional election and reprobation.  This objection is a telling indictment on those who refuse to teach all that the Bible says.

One proponent of the doctrine of the free offer is Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California.  He objects to David Engelsma’s contention that the Latin word for offer, namely offero, means only to present or exhibit:

Both Klaas Schilder (1890-1952) and Herman Hoeksema and more recently David Engelsma and Randy Blacketer have argued that when Dort and our theologians said, “offero” they only meant, “to present” or “to demand.” There is weighty evidence to the contrary however. For example, Caspar Olevianus (1536–87) used this term and its cognates frequently to mean “to offer with intention that the offer should be fulfilled if the recipients meet the condition of trust in Christ.” In his massive 1579 commentary on Romans and in his final commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos (1585) he used it frequently this way (e.g. “oblatum beneficium”) just as Dort later used it.

 

When our theologians wished to say “present” or “exhibit” or “demand” they had other verbs (e.g. “exhibeo” or “mando”) with which to do it. They did not need “offero” to perform the same function. Rather, when our theologians spoke of the “evangellium oblatum,” i.e., “gospel offered” in preaching, they believed that it entailed a well and sincerely meant revealed divine intention that whoever believes should be saved. As we shall see below, the semantic range of “offero,” as it was used by the orthodox is closer to “invitation,” than “demand.”

R. Scott Clark.  The Heidelblog, “The Reformed Tradition On The Free Or Well-Meant Offer Of The Gospel,” December 29, 2013.

Scott Clark then proceeds to argue in an equivocal manner that Christ is offered on the cross for the sins of the whole world.  I say that he is arguing equivocally because here he substitutes the Latin term oblatae or oblation for the word offero.  Any Calvinist worth his salt will instantly recognize that nowhere does Scott Clark even mention the fact that Christ died on the cross as a propitiation for the sins of all the elect in all times and places from the beginning of the world to the end of the world.  So, the offer of the Gospel is not effectual to all who hear it, as even Scott Clark must acknowledge.  Yet, the oblation that Christ was offered on the cross for the all the sins of those who are unconditionally elect is an effectual oblation or sacrifice which propitiates God’s wrath against the elect, who by original sin and total depravity are sinners.  Only the elect are provided for efficaciously by the cross of Jesus Christ.  This makes me wonder why Clark even brings it up?  Does Scott Clark think that there is a possibility that the person who is eternally decreed to reprobation can be persuaded?  In other words, Clark is deliberately conflating the atonement with the general call of the Gospel.  One is effectual and efficacious and the other is not.

Apparently, Scott Clark is offended that the general call of the Gospel is a command to repent and to believe the Gospel.  It is the Arminians who spend the most of their time trying to convince reprobate persons that the Gospel is true.  But this is because Arminians do not believe in total depravity or total inability.  Instead, Arminians believe that common grace makes depravity less than total.  Common grace, according to the Arminians lessens the effects of original sin so that libertarian free will is restored such that even the worst sinner has enough liberty to choose between two equal choices:  salvation and damnation.  But is that what the Bible says?  The so-called “reformed” doctrine of common grace is meant to be a compromise between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the doctrines of the Remonstrance.  The “reformed” insist that there are two kinds of grace:  1.  Special or efficacious grace, and, 2. Common grace that is not salvific.  So why does Scott Clark pivot to an Arminian presentation of the Gospel instead of preaching the biblical view of election, regeneration, and effectual call?  Is for pragmatic purposes?

John Wesley referred to the Arminian view of common grace as “prevenient grace.”  However, even here Wesley is misusing the term prevenient in a way that is opposed to the way the term in used in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which he as an Anglican clergyman would be obligated to believe.  But that is information to be discussed more fully in the next article.

The major problem with R. Scott Clark is that his view is to downplay the clear biblical doctrines of predestination, special providence, effectual calling, total depravity and to find a middle ground between free will and predestinaion:

In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us.  [Emphasis is mine.]

R. Scott Clark, Ibid.

In other words, R. Scott Clark rejects propositional revelation and instead proposes that we accept all Scripture as paradoxical--even when Scripture is crystal clear that God alone decides who will be save and who will be lost.  For Scott Clark, the preaching of the general call of the Gospel must conform to the Arminian presentation of persuasion, begging the sinner to repent, and an outward appeal to libertarian free will.  Of course, Clark denied all that by citing The Canons of Dort, Rejection of Errors 2:6.  But this debate has nothing to do with merits or congruent grace.  The problem is that Clark talks out of both sides of his mouth.  Is election unconditional or is it conditioned on faith? 

That one is called by the preaching of the Gospel does not make one elect, because this call is common to elect and reprobates, on the condition of faith (sub conditione fidei).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

Just above, Clark contradicts himself:

Having ordained the means of grace, God is free is to confer faith or not through the external Gospel call. [Emphasis is mine.]  The moral culpability for unbelief lies in those who “carelessly do not receive the Word of life” (verbum vitae non admittunt securi). “Therefore,” Dort says, justifying faith is the “Dei donum,” not because “it is offered by God to man’s free will,” (a Deo hominis arbitrio offeratur) but because faith is “conferred,” (conferatur), “inspired,” (inspiretur) and “infused,” (infundatur).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

As you can clearly see, Scott Clark knows that his view is apparently contradictory or "paradoxical."  That's why he has to reject WCF 1:6 and propositional revelation in favor of a theology of paradox.  The Bible is not analogical revelation.  It is a logical and propositional revelation from God because God is Logic.  John 1:1. Man is responsible to obey God and the Gospel precisely because the moral law is written in man's heart in creation and because as God's image man is a rational creature.  (John 1:9; Genesis 1:27; Romans 2:14-15).  Mankind alone is created with rationality and holiness.  Animals, not being in God's image, cannot sin.

What is the apparent contradiction?  The apparent contradiction or paradox that Scott Clark favors is the idea that God "sincerely" desires or wills the salvation of the reprobate by giving them a well-meant offer of salvation.  But how could God both desire and will the salvation of those He has decreed to reprobation while withholding the grace of regeneration which He alone can bestow or confer?  We agree that God is the primary cause of their reprobation, and that the sinner is the secondary cause of his or her own unbelief, and, therefore, morally culpable for their own damnation.  The problem is that Scott Clark does not wish to acknowledge that sin is ultimately caused by God, and, by logical inference, so is the sin of unbelief.  We call that reprobation.  Scott Clark calls it paradox. 

Here ends Part 2 of my blog series on efficaciously the free offer, common grace, and pragmatic church growth.  I will post Part 3 in the near future.

You can read the previous post here:  Part 1.